Throughout history, societies have wrestled with a crucial choice: When we hear a speaker that the state feels is threatening, do we shut him down, squelch him instantly, and if necessary, brutally, or do we allow him to continue, and by doing so run risks of promoting instability and even, revolution?

Americas answer has been mixed. Officially, we enjoy freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. But this is a right that is not absolute.

During wartime, political speech has been curtailed. World War I brought some seminal cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that are still used as authority to restrict what one Justice called, shouting fire in a crowded theater.

But, the sole voice of dissent, which by necessity must be loud, dramatic, and extreme, to garner attention, can be the only sane one to be heard when the drums of war are beating loudly and incessantly.

We dont like to listen to contrary opinion when were pumped up to drop bombs, yet this is exactly what were fighting to preserve: our way of life, and that includes our right to be contrary, to say no, when the rest of society seems to be shouting, yes!

If we dont like an opinion, we should be free to argue against it, to persuade the other party that he is mistaken, and we should do this persistently, tirelessly, vigorously, but peacefully.

The idea is simple, if we can keep the dialogue going long enough, well finally see the others interests, and he, ours, and well be able to find common ground.

Wouldnt this have been a preferable course than that which we in America rushed into, in most of the conflicts since World War II?