Slop.

Well, and I am in no way saying that they are equivalent in any way, I am just expressing how that statement becomes problematic, what if someone is fully and honestly a pedophile? Should they then be free to express themselves however they want?

As well, centering things around ideas of 'authenticity' have extreme issues. After all, what does it mean to be 'authentic' in a day and age where the social expectation is to sell out?

Ultimately, like many of these things, these kinds of statements are better centered around ideas of consent of the individual. This issue being, of course, that the state is a supposedly, according to the Constitution, consensual entity.

However this is also the issue around framing things as collectivist v.s. individualist. Dialectical materialists believe that this is a false dichotomy. The individual does not, and cannot, exist without the collective. Indeed, the individual only exists as a relationship with the collective. Without distinct individuals, there is no collective, simply a larger individual, and there has yet to be a person born who is not born into a family, even if it is stripped away, and they are then defined around the lack of social relations.

Moreover, as has been shown time and again, what is good for the collective is good for the individuals within that collective. When people are materially more secure, they are more free to express themselves without fear of total deprivation, and, truely the only way towards that future for the great mass of humanity is through the collective action of labor. The alternative is simply a bourgeois freedom, where only those who have money and power are the only ones actually free to express themselves, with all others expected to then submit themselves to the will of that individual, to the detriment of both their individuality and that of the collective.