As I said previously, https://blogs.ubc.ca/surveyors/2015/06/27/on-freedom-of-speech/, the speech is properly thought of as an organ of the body. However, what sort of organ is it? What is its function? Aristotle clarifies this in On Interpretation, where he states that “spoken sounds are symbols of affections in the soul, and written marks symbols of spoken sounds” (16a3). And we must be careful to consider that speech (or writing) is, again as Aristotle says that speech “is a quantity…for it is measured in long and short syllables.” And so when there is a restriction on speech, it is really a restriction on the soul’s affections, because they cannot find expression through the speech, which is the speech’s function, to express symbols of affections in the soul, at least, according to Aristotle that seems reasonable.

And so, simply from this, we see that the normal sense that prevails in modern University culture, namely, that a one-sided analysis of the “right” of people who object to speech is all that matters, we must take up the discussion from the point of view of those souls to be shut down under such a policy. And a trivial dismissal cannot be made, for, as we see in https://blogs.ubc.ca/surveyors/2016/07/25/freedom-of-speech-part-ii/, an injury to the speech is worth as much as a wounded belly or broken thigh. The responsibility that people have not to infringe the speech of others is quite ancient. And freedom of speech means, under certain circumstances, a duty to listen. Speech and listening are reciprocal, in a sense. It is only through both speaking and listening that people can fully develop their souls, which, as the drivers of the speech, must be kept in practice. If people stop speaking, then it stands to reason that they will fall out of practice.