Dear Editor:

Anti-war protesters have been praised, even by those who disagree with their message, as heroes of free speech. But these protests are not a benevolent manifestation of the freedom of speech. They are an attempt by a small gang of protesters to "express themselves" by forcibly imposing themselves on others.

Freedom of speech is the right to communicate ideas, information, and values. Freedom of speech protects debate and dispute. It does not protect coercion, nor does one person's freedom of speech authorize him to force others to listen. No one has the right to violate rights.

Yet that is precisely what the anti-war demonstrators have done. Seeking to impose their anti-war tirades on a public that does not agree with them, protesters blocked rush hour traffic in cities across the nation. They blockaded office buildings, smashed the windows of police cars, and squirted red paint on Republican Party headquarters. In San Francisco alone, the cost of the first day's protests was estimated at half a million dollars.

They spread their message, not through persuasion, but by coercion: be it the "non-violent" coercion of a sit-in, or the outright violence of smashed windows.

The banner of free speech is reserved for those who respect the rights of others and offer arguments addressed to our minds. It does not protect the mindless rabble who clog the streets of our cities proclaiming a fraudulent "right" to smash windows for the cause of peace.

Robert Garmong