>such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. Yes, but it still seems an infringement on the First as it, in effect, requires people to also "say"

>such a policy would be additive rather than subtractive. Yes, but it still seems an infringement on the First as it, in effect, requires people to also "say" things that they don't want to say, even if only by referencing the words of others. Also, if a person found the opposing viewpoint morally repugnant to the point where referencing it would be objectionable then he may opt to stifle his own speech in order to avoid such a reference. Free speech, of course, provides no requirement for noble motives of engaging opposing ideas, etc. as this guy proposes.