Campbell's second argument is just as bad. The fact that a paper is free does not imply that it has no objective economic value. Products with no economic value do not last very long, and yet many of these free papers persist far longer than one would expect for economically worthless entities. How would Campbell resolve this paradox?

The fact is that free papers generate economic value by selling ads to advertisers. These advertisers value (and thus pay money for) the public exposure which the newspaper gives to their products and services.

Thus advertisers have an interest in seeing the free papers they advertise in circulated as widely as possible. Hence it is only when the papers are confiscated and kept from the public that they lose their economic value.

Opponents of the proposed law who argue that taking free papers is a form of free expression make a valid, but limited point. When could taking free papers in protest express something that should be protected by the First Amendment? This condition would be met only when taking the paper adds a symbolic value to the protest which would be absent if the paper is not taken.

So, for example, taking one paper and burning it would certainly add symbolic value to a protest of the paper's content, in the same way that burning a flag might add symbolic value to a protest.

Thus the bill that Maryland is considering goes a little too far. The bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a $500 fine or 60 days of imprisonment, to take "one or more newspapers with the intent to destroy the newspapers or prevent other individuals from reading the newspapers."

To ensure that protesters can still make use of the material against which they are protesting, the line on free paper confiscation must be drawn a little more leniently, allowing protesters to take or destroy at least one paper.

But with each additional paper that protesters destroy, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that the "marginal protest value" of the destroyed newspapers outweighs the threat posed to free speech.

In an open and free society, censorship must be fought, whether it comes from the government or from individuals.

Book-burning and suppression of speech are artifacts of a less civilized world. There is no reason for America to undo the progress it has made in striving to attain its principles of liberty.