Un-American vs. inappropriate

Via LGF, the New York Times editorializes that the goals of activist group Take Back The Memorial are "un-American".

Take Back The Memorial, whose site I've linked to via a small graphic in the right-hand sidebar here for some time now, opposes the construction of facilities at Ground Zero like the International Freedom Center's proposed Freedom Center, and a new outpost of the SoHo-based Drawing Center art gallery. The language in its "Campaign America" resolution that drew criticism from the Times reads:

RESOLVED, that the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation should fulfill its mission by ensuring no facilities that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions, or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events occupy space on the sacred site at Ground Zero; and that the World Trade Center Memorial must honor the mission of creating a dignified and respectful memorial which focuses exclusively on the victims, heroes and events of September 11, 2001, and February 26, 1993.

Banning controversial speech all together would certainly be un-American, but as I've argued before, that doesn't mean we must build a special shrine to institutionalize such speech at the site of a solemn memorial. Keeping America-bashing away from the gravesite of victims of the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history would be no less appropriate, and no less necessary, than keeping hecklers away from a funeral.

The Times titled its editorial "A Sense of Proportion at Ground Zero". Ironically, that's exactly what its snide accusation lacks.

FOLLOW-UP:
More from Joe Malchow. And Take Back the Memorial responds to the Times editorial.