I read it, and it is full of bullshit.

"As I witnessed at an event at Kenyon College in September, when confronted with such arguments the response from gray-bearded free-speech fundamentalists like myself is to continue to preach to the converted about the First Amendment, but with an undercurrent of solidaristic despair about “kids these days” and their failure to understand the fundamentals of liberal democracy."

Perhaps some of the bullshit spewed by this particular bullshit artist adversely affected (deceived) kids.

The freedom to speak is never secure, so claiming that a document secured freedom to speak (or breath) is probably the most fundamental form of bullshit spewed by idiots like this one.

"The 1689 English Bill of Rights secured “the freedom of speech and debates in Parliament,” and so applied to members of Parliament only, and only when they were present in the chamber."

The freedom to speak is opposite both the capacity for criminals to censor and the capacity for criminals to deceive.

If the following words were censored the following words would not be available for quoting, and if the following words were read by someone who has been deceived, then the following words would not be acknowledge as true words, which is a factual message, an accurate report of the facts that matter in the case:

(MAGNA CARTA.) Care, Henry, ed. English Liberties, Or The Free-Born Subject’s Inheritance: Containing Magna Charta . . . The Habeas Corpus Act, And Several Other Statutes
Boston: Printed by J. Franklin, for N. Buttolph, B. Eliot, and D. Henchman, 1721

Notes on Magna Carta

"Farther, though it be said here, that the king hath given and granted these liberties, yet it must not be understood that they were meer emanations of Royal favour, or new bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a right unto before; for as lord Coke in divers places asserts, and as is well known to every gentleman professing the law, this charter is, for the most part, only declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws and liberties of England. Not any new freedom is hereby granted, but a restitution of such as the subject lawfully had before, and to free them from the usurpations and incroachments of every power whatever. It is worthy observation, that this charter often mentions sua jura, their rights, and libertates suas, their liberties, which shews they were before intitled to and possessed them, and that those rights and liberties were by this charter not granted as before unknown, but confirmed, and that in the stile of liberties and privileges long before well known.”

If it is true that the natural right to speak (to report the facts that matter in any case) is above dictates dictated by dictators who then enforce their dictates by any means, including criminal means, such as fraud, extortion, and aggressively violent acts perpetrated with malice aforethought, such as terror, assault, torture, murder, and mass murder, then how are KIDS able to know that fact that matters if those who WILL tell that truth are prevented from doing so by either case: 1. Censorship (kill the messenger), 2, Deception (fill the KIDS minds with bullshit like the bullshit spewed by this bullshit artist)?

The right (natural right) to speak the truth IS the equal footing born into every individual human being to gain access to the law of the land, due process of law, common law, to report the inculpatory evidence that proves beyond doubt that criminals in government have abused their power and are in fact criminals.

That is the function of the natural right of speaking, reporting, making known, the accurate facts that matter in any case where criminals are injuring innocent people, and this function is especially vital for the defense of every individual when the criminals are in government. That is because the government is in place to defend the people from the criminals, and if the criminals take over government, then the people have to first acknowledge that fact that matters, and then the people must institute government again, to then overpower the criminal (counterfeit) government.

That first amendment function is exemplified in the document titled a Declaration of Independence.

Had the censors managed to censor a Declaration of Independence, which they in fact did, you would not know what was said in a Declaration of Independence. You would not know also the facts that account guilt upon those who willfully censored a Declaration of Independence.

If the censors, who include the deceivers, succeeded in censoring the facts that matter in the actual "freedom of speech' function, you would probably not know about a Solemn Notices of Mixed War, nor would you know about a Commercial or Military Lien Right. You would not know about a Notice of Liability, nor would you know your inherent, inherited, natural right of commanding all civil and legal jurisdiction as a free born citizen in liberty, to defend yourself and all your neighbors against every threat foreign or domestic, as you have as much access legally and lawfully to due process as any one else has in fact, a documented fact.

So...go ahead and allow this type of garbage in and what will be likely to come out is more garbage.

Abigail Adams to John Adams Braintree, Mass., March 31, 1776
"I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us. . . . "