What would be a good response?

[Sprocket Hole]

I get this thrown at me a lot,

Stuff along the lines of:

"People die so you can have your freedom of speech!"
"Soldiers die so you have the freedom to say things like that!"

Here in America, National Chauvinism is pretty bad, and I usually get this crap when I say something anti-authoritarian

I mean I know it's total simple minded horse shit, but I can never gather the words to counter it.

Then again, can any of you think of a war America was involved with that defended our freedom was the main concern of authorities and officials?

This also makes it difficult to gain support in opposing the ROTC

[Demogorgon]

If you are saying it in the context of opposing present conflict, ask how present conflicts have anything to do with your freedom of speech.

However you can't really argue with people who say this as it is just blind emotivism designed to circumvent logic and shut down discussion. It is the literal equivalent of saying "I am right just because". Sometimes it is just better to ignore idiots like that, hard though it is.

[Niccolò Rossi]

"People die so you can have your freedom of speech!"
"Soldiers die so you have the freedom to say things like that!"

[...]

I mean I know it's total simple minded horse shit, but I can never gather the words to counter it.

A quote you may find interesting in discussing this question was made by Amadeo Bordiga shortly after the close of WWII (Leo quotes it in his signature):

"In the name of a greater civilization, we curse those who for the sake of their ambitious dreams, brought about the massacre of so many young lives. No matter how brutal the crime, you will always get glorification of its heroism and tradition from the eunuchs of bourgeois culture."
The deaths of millions of workers in uniform, particularly in the case of WWI and WWII are often brandished about as in your quote as something to be celebrated on the basis of heroism, courage and the "[insert nation here] spirit". The reality of these wars is far from this caricature. The innumerable armed conflicts of the 20th Century were not waged for abstract principles of "freedom", "democracy", "justice", but for the interests of the ruling class in carving up and securing geo-political domination of existing markets, or as other would suggest, in the destruction and devaluation of capital so as to pave the way for the expansion of production.

Of course in saying this we aught not disregard the casualties of war, rather we aught to recognise them, but not in the self-contradictory and shameless manner of the bourgeoisie, but in a consistent and proletarian fashion, decrying these conflicts and their results as some of the greatest tragedies of humanity and of the working class has ever witnessed.

[Anti Freedom]

Bring up all of the soldiers who died meaninglessly, and say that you oppose the existence of the latter strongly, which is why you hold your views.

In any case, people who work like that are usually just a--holes who aren't worth the effort.

[welshboy]

Um if soldiers died for you to have your freedom of speech then are these morons not pissing on their graves by trying to stop you using that freedom?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I use this one. They don't protect my way of life, I protect theres. Even small nations can't be effectively invaded or controlled, thus making most invasions more costly then they are worth. The United States is strong enough and well armed enough that even without our military, no one would really be able to invade us effectively. In this case, either way we would be safe from military invasion. However, I pay more than half of my taxes to support people who have an urge and lack of education/economic possibilities to go kill other people.