The Wellesley News, the student newspaper of Wellesley College for Women, has issued a ringing

defense of banning speech.

I wish I were kidding.

But during a debate on whether to ban feminist speaker Laura Kipness from the campus, the

student journalist published an editorial saying that liberty, free thought, and open debate

are not for Wellesley girls.

The students say that banning speech they disagree with is not a violation of the principles

of free speech because if the speech were supposed to be free, they would agree with it and

it wouldn't be banned.

But if it's banned, they don't agree with it, so it isn't free.

Or something.

The students call speech they disagree with hate speech because they hate it.

They hate it because they disagree with it and that makes it hateful.

Everything they disagree with is hateful because otherwise they would have to listen

to it which they would hate.

So the principles of free speech demand that they ban speech they shouldn't be free because

it's banned.

Free speech can be banned without violating free speech because if it were free speech,

it would be called free instead of hate and then they wouldn't hate it and it wouldn't

be banned because it would be free and they would agree with it.

That's how you can tell speech that shouldn't be banned if Wellesley college girls agree

with it.

...