> The US constitution guarantees our inborn rights to freedom of expression, as long our exercise of those rights does not infringe upon the the rights of others.

That's great, if we're talking about legal rights. But there's no way of having a right which won't in some way offend or disturb other people by its practice. The right of smokers to smoke is in conflict with our right to be from smoke. The right of public assembly is in conflict with someone else's right to be free from hecklers. The rights to freedom of expression are in conflict with those who might find such expression distasteful, harmful, or offensive.

Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham said it best: "The only freedom that counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the hallmark of liberty."

Our rights to freedom of speech, assembly, worship and association are recognized by the government. What other people see as their rights to be free from religion, and to not have their emotional rights violated is not.

I don't believe in a "sensitive person's veto"-that one person who is offended by a display or production can cancel the whole thing, and has the right to avoid it. I guess as you said-they could afford to lighten up.

Mark"Rant mode™ off"N