>Well, if someone says or implies that these students shouldn't be legally allowed to say the things they say, that's an issue with free-speech consequences. It's really quite patently obvious.
HAS somebody said or implied that? I certainly didn't notice it in the article; it seems like what you're saying here is "Well, if somebody makes it an issue about free speech, then it's obviously about free speech", which I'm not going to argue with but is also not really the point.
HAS somebody said or implied that? I certainly didn't notice it in the article; it seems like what you're saying here is "Well, if somebody makes it an issue about free speech, then it's obviously about free speech", which I'm not going to argue with but is also not really the point.