I think the determination of "interferes with others" has been re-defined to something that means if someone thinks for some reason that someone might even get offended and I don't want to deal with the circumstances of that I will just disallow the person from the constitutional rights because I don't want to have to deal with someone that is unhappy because of something someone else said or did. That is definitely curtailing free speech. Yes, you have a right to peaceful protest, but not in the middle of the road impeding traffic. However, that isn't the speech that is the problem, it is the blocking of traffic. In the case of the dress, speech was stopped because those in charge decided they didn't want to deal with any possible fallout in the off chance that it happened. No one has the right to not be offended.
Mark Twain once said: “I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English - it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don't let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don't mean utterly, but kill most of them - then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart. An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get” but then again Dan Quayle had this to say: “Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.” I think we all see the fun you have and like Judge Judy I have come to see your value and worth. But now I condense as I read your stuff and pretty much agree with most of it. I would love to sit in one of your classes or even take the class. I think I could learn some good things. If you ever come to Fla I am willing to buy you a "beer" and shoot the @%#$ as we say down here in the south. Oh yeah, FREE SPEECH and DOWN WITH THE MAN (as we said in the late 60s)
