“It doesn’t demoralize us in any way,” [military spokesman Kurt] Riggs said. “All (the vandals) are doing is, to an extreme extent, exercising their right to free speech, which is guaranteed by the Constitution and is protected by the men and women of the Navy and other armed services every day.”

Since when is damage and destruction of property NOT YOUR OWN a legitimate form of "free speech"?

If you want to buy a US flag and burn it, I'll wince but defend your right to express yourself. If you want to picket a recruiting station, I'll stand up for you. But damage to property or injury to persons is not free speech. Or is it? Did the definitions change again while I had my back turned? I can understand why some revolutionaries might assert free speech rights in this incident. But I don't get why a military representative would casually confuse free speech and common vandalism. People are already confused enough, why add to it?