> both of those views seem to me like they are valid approaches to "free speech Except they're not. One vision is quite literally very controlled speech. It ma

> both of those views seem to me like they are valid approaches to "free speech Except they're not. One vision is quite literally very controlled speech. It may be appropriately called 'civil speech' or 'appropriate speech' but it is not free speech. You cannot take a thing, call another thing that thing, and then attempt to claim the first thing is actually the second thing. The first view you espoused does not preclude the second view from being discussed within its framework, whereas the second one does preclude the first. This very salient difference means that even by your metrics the first is superior. The 1619 project should be allowed, it should just be mocked for being completely made up, and the newspaper that published it should be relegated to the garbage bin of history for printing something do devoid of reality. That doesn't mean it should be canceled.