You know, you&#x27;re right, those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1992:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;R_v_Zundel" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;R_v_Zundel</a><p>Nevertheless, my example certainly applied before 1992, and yes, it served as a signal. Public policy has changed, the Supreme Court decided that something else had greater weight. That doesn&#x27;t invalidate the fact that it is still a signaling mechanism.<p>&gt;  I&#x27;ve long been proud that we have been willing to refute bad arguments rather than just imprisoning those who make them.<p>That&#x27;s your opinion, which you&#x27;ve carefully crafted to sound &quot;obviously meritorious,&quot; and you&#x27;re entitled to it, but the &quot;we&quot; you speak of is far from universal, and the way in which you put it is not one I accept.