See more of the story

The debate about the repugnant protests at military funerals does not deserve to be a debate at all ("A new test for boundaries of free speech," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 7). The First Amendment -- and for that matter the entire Bill of Rights -- was intended to protect people from government infringement, but it was not intended to be a weapon to be used to infringe on the rights of others. In legal parlance, it is said to be a shield and not a sword. If 300 people gather to hear a public speaker, nobody has a "free speech" right to disrupt the presentation and interfere with the rights of assembly and speech of others. Similarly, neo-Nazis may have a right to speak or assemble, but they don't have the right to speak or assemble when their actions are specifically designed to interfere with others' First Amendment rights. The left claims that limiting such disruptive speech will quell the public debate. To the contrary, it will allow such debate to occur in a civilized manner and lead to actual debate instead of the tyranny of the most obnoxious, which currently exists. ROBERT GUST, Bloomington