thanks for the reply. I now see where the inferential gap is. > You're claiming that it's some kind of call to action against "unfettered free speech" (which w

thanks for the reply. I now see where the inferential gap is. > You're claiming that it's some kind of call to action against "unfettered free speech" (which we already don't have in the US anyways). Present an actual argument instead of taking a quote (properly attributed but sans context) and jump to conclusions that aren't in it. I was attributing the context to the quote. I hadn't really considered that people were unaware of the context, because I had read the quote in context. Context being an editorial titled "Why America needs a hate speech law" > TL;DR: You are terrible at argumentation. Thanks for the reply.