if you've been following my writing for any length of time, you already know that i think that the contemporary debate on free speech in the united states is incoherent, and i'm not on either side of the debate.

i've already posted this in many places, but i'll summarize my perspective here.

i do not think that a posh for-profit speaker can claim "freedom of speech" to silence a crowd that is opposing it. rather, it is the crowd that is exercising the freedom of speech in drowning out the posh speaker. so, the crowd has speech rights, here, not the speaker.

but, the issue has been framed in a way that is legally, philosophically and rationally bankrupt, in attempting to argue that the protestors are infringing on the for-profit speaker's right to speak - something that exists nowhere in any law at all.

insofar as the constitution of either the united states or canada is relevant, it has nothing to say about the rights of for profit speakers to speak at universities. what it has to say is that the government cannot interfere to control the outcome. what that means is that the only group that is guilty of breaking the constitution is the police.

i haven't had the occasion to involve myself in these debates, up to this point, but what these students should be doing is launching constitutional grievances against the relevant police forces. but, they're so horribly ignorant that they don't even understand what they're actually doing, or what is actually being done to them.

i will gleefully make you look stupid if you try and paint me on one side of this debate that is incoherent through and through, and that i am viciously in opposition to both sides on. so, don't bother.