Your statement has a nice ring to it only because it takes advantage of the very confusing English word "free". In the "free speech" context, it's free as in li

Your statement has a nice ring to it only because it takes advantage of the very confusing English word "free". In the "free speech" context, it's free as in liberty. In the "universal, free education" context, it's free as in beer; the implication being government funded and managed (and mandatory, implied by "universal"). So while your statement seems to be all about freedom, it's really about predicating one freedom on the restriction of another. Here's how I would rephrase your statement: "It's a mistake for the government to let people speak freely before they have been educated by the government." Which I think is significantly less compelling.