I don't understand your comment. Regardless of where you stand on the topic, I don't think it's controversial that compelled recitation of the pledge is debated in public and argued about in the courts as a first amendment freedom of speech issue.

(after reading your comment below I think I get it. It's one of the infringements of freedom of speech that you're willing to tolerate because it's merely "creepy?" If so, that's illustrative of the larger point I was trying to make about people treating freedom of speech hypocritically.)

Maybe you should reread the comment below?

It doesn't mention "creepy", and says something quite different from what you got from it.

Right, "creepy" is the word you used above.

You're welcome to entertain an eccentric definition of "freedom of speech" that doesn't include one of the major freedom of speech issues of our time. It's just very odd.

At least now you're mocking my actual opinion.

That's probably all the progress we'll make here :)

:)

The pledge itself is creepy but isn't a free speech issue. Compelled recitation of the pledge by agents of the state, like schools, at least to me, is.

"Free speech" to me means you can say whatever the hell you want.

Occasionally being compelled to say something is also bad, but a separate issue to me.