Sounds like you are agreeing with GP? I believe GP was claiming that the court's position is there is a right to free speech, but not an ability to defend one's

Sounds like you are agreeing with GP? I believe GP was claiming that the court's position is there is a right to free speech, but not an ability to defend one's right to free speech in court (at least in this case), which renders the right to free speech meaningless, so the court's position is contradictory.