 The recent student demonstrations at colleges, campuses, against models, and novelists, which was here, and others should be understood as an attempt to ensure that conditions of free speech for a greater group of people rather than censorship. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good. Do you think models should have been allowed to come to campuses? Yes. You do. And what should the school have done with regard to the protests against them, which broke windows and cost the school $100,000 in debt? Do you realize that the $100,000 that the school spends eventually comes down to your pockets because it's going to result in an increase in your costs and tuition? So are you prepared to spend that money so that models get to speak? Yes. I definitely think that you need to protect the speaker by maintaining the crowd and by making sure it doesn't become a virus. I think that because a lot of students on this campus or even not students on this campus are scared to hear what he had to say and to the one he already had to say. And based off of past precedent, I think that by protesting or rioting or whatnot that they can stop him from speaking. And I think that no matter what he's saying, he has the right to say it. If his speech or a Nazi speech or somebody else's speech makes you as an individual feel threatened, upset, victimized, the object of violence either from your neighbors or the government, isn't that a violation of the trust that the university has implicitly told you? Come here and we will give you the opportunity to learn and protect you from this kind of stuff. Well, but that's not the point of the university. I mean, it's just not being that you have a university consensus or claims that you can get out of it. I'm asking, that's the question. That's the question. Well, no, I mean, it's not possible because I mean, in the university, I mean, there have been cases, it was Pate Fitch versus University of Missouri. And then the other case involving the college Republicans at SFSU, it's like, this is university. I mean, I'm the one you're choosing to be here. It's not like secondary education, this is higher education, this is non-cultural. I think the point of the university is to engage with an idea, like from a critical standpoint, and have a discussion and have a productive debate. But certain views of an obviously racist degree like that have no intellectual merit in not being engaged with, like, in a college classroom. Just to say that a Muslim does not have any purpose here is so ruinous to someone's sense of self-worth that it doesn't belong in terms of just, like, a university. And I'm my loss. I'm my loss. And I get invited to speak. And I come up on the stage and I'm speaking. I'm spent and I get invited. I get up on the stage and speak. And hundreds of students are screaming and yelling so that I cannot communicate, or cursing at me or the people who are as they've done and how they can't. And the government sits there and says, well, you know, speak, you speak, you speak. You're really allowing a heckler's veto. And the question is, is I have a first and then right to speak. I have a first and then right to express an opinion. The government, through its inaction, is not allowing it to exercise that right. What is the right power of the government? One could argue, and I get the argument that as long as it's just words, it's a competition of words, it's just we're not going to be. I get the argument. My question is, is that what you want the government to do or not? That's the question. That's not the answer. In the sense that it's kind of Congress don't make no law. And so, I mean, yeah, I mean, it's too late. The state has to just sort of, you know, hand it off. Like, what the heck would veto bill? I think the government needs to step in because it's not just verbal speech. It's not just like a conversation. It's going to incite violence. We know it's going to do that. And the government's job is to stop the speech, not stop the violence. Yes, because I think the speech and the government and the violence are immediately related. My speakers are horrible, and what they have to say is oftentimes too incite, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to say it. And also, I think that, like, the idea that the government should be allowed to draw the line on what content you can say cannot say, can't be made. And because it can't be made, you cannot sigh on the side that's, like, you know, overly cautious.