The New York Times, a former newspaper, has released a 56,000-word editorial,

a pro-opposing free speech in cases where people speak freely.

The editorial was written by Times editor-in-chief Blithering Prevarication III,

who scrawled it on his silken napkin at the restaurant La Bernadette,

between an appetizer of seared yellowtail hammachi, accompanied by a pickled cucumber and mango salad,

sprinkled with lemon tendori olive oil, which was absolutely stunning,

and a main course of warm piquito crab on a bed of shaved heirloom cauliflower,

with just a hint of mustard cream sauce, which frankly was a bit overdone.

The editorial said, quote,

For too long, America has given the right to speak freely to those who speak freely.

This endangers our government by allowing speech that is simply not acceptable in any of the places

where the right sort of people gather. This was all well and good in the battle days before Black

people invented science, but now there are certain ideas that are absolutely settled,

like the fact that a child's life doesn't begin until you're certain you can get the right

decorator for the nursery, or the gender is not a restrictive matter of male and female,

but an exhilarating confetti blast of imaginative possibilities,

or that climate change is endangering the earth.

You can't just have such absolute truths undermined by the opinions of ordinary people,

some of whom don't even live on the coast.

Free speech should be speech that sets us free, whereas hate speech should not be free

because it's full of hate and hate is bad, as everyone who's anyone knows.

For instance, it's fine if you can book a qualified drag queen to do erotic dances for kindergarten

...