> Some people think free speech is a pretty good idea. And it doesn't really mean much if you only defend speech that you agree with. I hate this argument when

> Some people think free speech is a pretty good idea. And it doesn't really mean much if you only defend speech that you agree with. I hate this argument when applied like this. There is no universe whatsoever where images of this nature constitute speech. Even when taken as the abstract principle and not the law. The images don't convey any message or idea. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. Free speech doesn't protect mouth sounds or information transfer in abstract, it protects expressions of opinion and ideas. Now, if you went to a protest for legalization and made a sign with the images or made a display at an art gallery then you have a case that it's part of your free expression. There is an argument for making free speech protections overbroad purposefully because we don't think government can be trusted to evaluate the nuance in good faith but this isn't one of those "well it's arguable as to whether it constitutes speech." Not being speech doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed, just that the reason it's allowed isn't free speech.