The 'within reason' qualifier was simply an acknowledgement to what I tend to agree are sensible limits to free speech as exemplified by Wendell Holmes Jr's 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre'.
The original and best canard that is always invoked by those that wish to suppress the "free" in "free speech"
That may well be so. Except in this instance, as you can not but understand by now, I wasn't was I? Whether the original misunderstanding was genuine or not, by now you're just being obtuse, riding that horse high, and proclaiming to the world how you know better than everybody else what free speech means.
OK, so we've discovered I have a different theoretical opinion than you on the limitations (or lack thereof) of free speech. But given your insistence that it does not apply in a theatre because it is private, how on earth does can you genuinely believe it has any bearing on my choice to ignore - and to declare that I ignore - something you wrote that - as I saw it - was not in line with the spirit of what I was intending by instigating this particular thread?
I think I'll hand you the award of thread de-railer and leave it at that.