The current use of the phrase 'free-speech zone' might be an ironic play on what was being talked about in that link, but it's not the same thing - it's not really even the same subject. If you've experienced this kind of censorship from a politician using similar tactics, I'm surprised you're so willing to apologize for it. I would have been pissed. There's nothing new about what the administration is doing, I guess I just find the pervasiveness and gall of it fairly novel (I want to say, 'in this day and age' but I guess if so many Americans are willing to hand over their freedom to disagree, maybe this day and age ain't what I thought they were).

And again, please refrain from trying to school us on the Sole True Definition of Free Speech. I know the interpretations, and their origins - I just disagree. The only caveats of the 1st amendment specify the few instances of what we ought not to say - there's absolutely nothing in it to dictate what we SHOULD be saying. 'Common courtesy' and 'common sense' are con men's phrases; meaningless cyphers used to justify all sorts of horrific thought and action. If a responsibility ever were to come attached to the freedom of speech, it should simply be that we always speak freely. That would be MY first tenet. I think it's good to know, too.

My freedoms are not pretense. They were granted to me by my creator and they are unalienable. All laws are a product of, and subject to, these freedoms, not the other way around.

Rosa Parks wasn't looking to change the law either. Her feet just hurt.