I did say that, but I also explained when a freedom should be allowed and when it should not. The only time we should ever deny a freedom is if it causes harm to someone else. This premise was originally proposed by Thomas Jefferson, who said this:

Flag burning does not cause injury to anyone else. It is one person using his property as he sees fit. He may be expressing his hatred of the nation and the military, he may be burning it for heat, he may be performing a scentific experiment on the fabric the flag is made of, or he may just feel like burning it. It's his business, not yours and not mine.

As I said, not all freedoms should be allowed, but we should only not allow them if they are harmful to someone else.

If a man puts poison into my food, and I eat the food thinking it is safe, the man who put the poison in my food is still at fault for engaging in a freedom that might harm me because of my ignorance. You describe a similar situation, where it is not okay for someone to abuse the ignorance of a 14-year-old. The 14-year-old might not approve of sex after being more knowledgable.

However, there is at least some case to be made against my stance, for in denying the freedom to have sex with a minor, I might sometimes be denying a freedom which is harmless. In my defence, many people do not think having sex with a minor is ever harmless, so I'll have to wait for someone who claims otherwise to debate me on this one.

So my questions still remain: First, how can you call yourself a supporter freedom when you believe burning the flag should be banned? I think that someone who opposes flag burning has decided only freedoms he deems proper will be allowed. He doesn't think people should be truly free; he thinks that people should only be allowed to do the things that he approves of. In the same fashion, a king might grant people freedoms that he deems fit for his own nation. In a free nation, however, even annoying people are allowed freedom. People should be allowed to choose their own lives without being forced to live as someone else thinks they should, so long as they aren't denying anyone else's freedom in the process. So I ask again: how can you call yourself a supporter freedom when you believe burning the flag should be banned?

Second, I will only ban a freedom if it harms someone else, if it interferes with someone else's freedom. Flag burning does not harm anyone else, so you must disagree with me. When do you believe a freedom should be banned?