Since the Hamas terror attacks two months ago, much of the conversation in America has focused on certain campus protests and illiberal behavior spurred by the event. There’s been a great deal of talk about cancel culture, First Amendment rights, counter speech, etc. And while some of it’s been edifying, it’s also felt like a distraction, a secondary issue that’s elbowed its way to the front of the line. So I haven’t focused on much of the coverage until today.

Today’s link caught my eye because it’s a terrific primer on speech and behavior protected by the Constitution. It also delves, quite interestingly, into the legality of the consequences for that free speech. For example, several student protesters have lost job offers based on statements they’ve made. The author has his own opinions on whether that was the right course for their former future employers to take, but he has no doubt the entities were within their rights to take it.

Another reason I chose this column is its ending. Once the author makes his point, the reader is encouraged to read a separate piece in Time which takes an opposing view. That piece is equally worthwhile and incisive. And taken together, the two columns offer compelling proof that while opposite sides may differ on the details of an issue, they often agree on the substance. That is no small thing, no matter how ancillary the matter.