I don't get it. Couldn't the authors simply not retract when confronted with opposition? It sounds like there is a contingent arguing that authors should be pr

I don't get it. Couldn't the authors simply not retract when confronted with opposition? It sounds like there is a contingent arguing that authors should be protected from any consequences of their free speech and as we all know, free speech is about being able to say something - a right which the authors still retain.