First, a question and a comment. Question: do you oppose indecency laws? Comments: Your distinction between private and public acts and the prohibitions that follow seems specious. Suppose one wished to argue as a matter of public discourse that sex should be as public as eating — that there should be sextaurants as well as restaurants and sex in public parks, etc. I think that discussion would be fine but should be limited to theaters, universities, art galleries, private publications, at least at first. Why? Because public sex not only offends deeply held moral convictions widely held by the community about what should be private; it also aims to disrupt those community standards. Doesn't Koran burning, I hear you say, meet those criteria? No (see my article defending blasphemy, "Righteous Blasphemy"). Why? Because religion is not only private, not only moral, has proven itself a vehicle for significant physical harm, and is deeply political. Blasphemy does not make public (expose, display) what the devout and the general community deeply hold on moral grounds should be private. It engages what the devout have already made public. Blasphemy is not per se indecent. Sperm walks are.