I am sorry that you think writing to me is a waste of your time. I don't think that replying to you would waste mine.
Most of the people who send me negative comments are not those who disagree with me, but those who do not understand my actions or thoughts. I appreciate the chance to explain my thoughts to those people. Usually, however, people like that are not able to be swayed. Even with that in mind, I still try.
Let's begin by examining your parallels. I think that they are false analogies, but the important thing is that you realize this, not me.
>In the name of freedom of expression if you can do every goddamned
>thing that comes to your mind, then go ahead...
>Create a home page for assorted rapists, mass-murderers, child-abusers...
I don't support the actions of rapists or mass-murderers. The main difference here is that rape and murder are clearly illegal acts, and rightly so. The actions of the rapists and murderers has a profoundly negative impact on the victims. People who commit these acts rarely do so in the name of free speech. These actions are also not explictly protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has not (to my knowledge) defended child abuse or murder as an act protected by the First Amendment.
What I am doing is simply protesting the potential change to the U.S. Constitution which would give Congress the power to usurp the Supreme Court's decision on the Constitutional protection of flag burning as freedom of expression.
If the Constitution stated that Congress shall make no laws abriging the freedom to rape, murder, or abuse children, things would probably be quite a bit different here. Luckily, our Founding Fathers had more sense than that.
Most people who understand my actions agree with them. Most of the mail I get supports me. Much of it has become so redundant that I don't post a lot of my supportive mail on the comments page. I am actually hoping for a well-grounded intellectual debate against my point of view. I would like the Congressmen who support this proposed amendment to be able to see a cross-section of their constituent's view on the subject, before jumping onto a patriotic bandwagon and passing legislation that is not carefully thought out.
You didn't fully explain why you think that my actions cross over the boundaries of what one is "allowed to do within the confines of Society." I assume by this you agree with the actions of those who would strip us of the (still Constitutionally protected) right. I would welcome an opportunity to review your arguements in favor of this legislation and rebutt them.
One final note: the value of an arguement is substantially weakened
by the inclusion of such phrases as
>I am wasting my precious time mailing to a fourth grade lout like
>you; here's my point :
>types like you have a wide range of things to choose from, I think.
>think of that, if you really bother to.
>so-called liberals, but in reality perverted fetishists
You say that your correspondance was disdain-mail, not hate-mail, yet you insult me and my intelligence. While I am not offended by this (I have actually come to expect it from people opposed to my viewpoint) it lessens the impact of your arguement.
It is not my wish that this reply will change your mind on the subject of flag burning. I only hope that you will see my side of the issue and more clearly explain yours.
Thank you for your time. I hope it has not been wasted. I look forward to hearing from you.
What really made me use offensive expressions in my mail was that you seemed to think, and still possibly so, that this flag-burning thing is a symbol of your freedom of expression : it IS NOT. There are a thousand truly precious things which would represeent freedom of expression in it's most pristine form - you really have'nt given a thought to that; just this one issue.
Anyway, let's close this discussion here - and pardon me for using bad language, I really got charged yesterday when I saw that thing on your page.