Hear Hear! I believe freedom of expression should include actions that express such as burning the flag. If the burning flag causes fire damage to other property, then fine, bring actions for arson, but flag burning itself ought to be protected.
It's much like my theory on child pornography. I get a lot of looks for this, and people think I myself am a paedophile or a child pornographer. I assure you, I am neither, it disgusts me and I think both forms of scum should be burnt at the stake, but it's that very attitude that freedome of expression is designed to dampen. They should be allowed to EXPRESS their pornography. As such possession of it alone should never constitute a crime. Possession of gay pornography used to be criminal, it isn't anymore, the same should apply here.
What should happen, however, before I get irate parents slaughter me, is that those who MAKE child pornography should be held liable under child abuse laws since in order to make it, a child would have had to have been abused. "Pseudo-child-porn" as it's called, where adult images are made to look like they're children not adults, would this be legal, despite sickening to our personal tastes and sense of decency, because no child was harmed. As sickening as it is, paedophiles have a right to expression as much as racists and all other extremist groups.
Wow that was a long comment. I just really agreed with the viewpoint!
Thanks, Jesus, for your comment. Interesting parallel you draw - pornography is such a loaded subject, one that requires more than reference in a simple comment to a post.
However, I suppose going after those who buy or have child porn is much like law enforcment going after the johns with respect to prostitution - they're trying to decrease demand in order to decrease supply. It's such an emotional subject civil discourse on the subject is often times impossible.
Commenting by HaloScan
