Well, obviously the disagreement in this whole space seems to be around what “harming or threatening anyone else” means.

Some people, for instance, would find (making up a hypothetical) it “harming” if a large strong person spent spare time drawing incredibly graphic representations of smaller weaker coworkers being sexually assaulted by him. Others believe that no harm has been caused.

Hopefully, in that situation you can see both sides of the argument. Now you can weaken that to whether referring to Muslims as people who should be deported is similarly a point where people can disagree.

For my part, I believe in the freedom and liberty. No one has the right to have their stuff bought by someone. Temple doesn’t have the right to have students go to them. If they feel like they have to fire people in order to appeal to people, they should be permitted to. If they feel like they would rather lose customers than professors, that’s fine too.

Unlike California, which believes that political opinion should be a protected class, I prefer the federal system.