>
The issue was that the Florida law extended to universities, which receive public funding but are privately incorporated. Besides, even if it isn’t a direct “First Amendment” issue, prohibiting professors from saying anything that might make someone feel discomfort because of their race is a HUGE abridgement of speech and academic inquiry.
Besides which, it’s definitely overreaching for the state to force all of its employees to pledge not to support a boycott of Israel in their private life.
Besides which, the Democrats aren’t doing anything to abridge the First Amendment, as far as I can see. >

No, public universities are part of the state. They’re not private anything. >

Here's the full court decision explaining why the state is not allowed to institute such a broad restriction of speech against public universities. Read it for yourself if you want.
Explain this to me:
If Republicans want to restrict what professors can teach, and Democrats do not, how does that make the Republicans the MORE free-speech party? >


If Republicans want to restrict what professors can teach, and Democrats do not, how does that make the Republicans the MORE free-speech party?

Really? Would you be fine if people taught that homosexuality is a huge sin to kids? That trans isn't a real thing and just a mental illness? >

You seem fundamentally confused about what free speech is. But also, 

he Republicans are clearly more comfortable limiting. (Also, there’s no congruent effort to ban kids from Hooters and other titty bars.

Waitresses at hooters literally wear tank tops and shorts. I don’t think children are allowed in “titty bars.” 

or that you’ll be fined for teaching anything that makes people feel “discomfort”, how free is your speech really?

Because the public school system is an extension of the government. The state has standards to teach, standards for what kids need to do to graduate, etc. they have always made the rules. They are the employer in this scenario. >

Hooters has a kids menu, and I’d argue that an establishment whose entire business model is to show of their waitresses tits and ass is more inherently sexual than the simple act of cross-dressing.
You still haven’t disputed my contention that the right is not more pro-free speech than the Left.
I’d argue that if the state really wants to protect speech, they shouldn’t fire employees who refuse to take an ideological oath, nor fire employees who refuse to purchase products created in Israel. 
Even if they are “the employer”, would you feel comfortable with schools firing every Republican, or requiring that everyone of their “employees” sign an oath pledging allegiance to the Clintons or to socialism or something? >


Hooters has a kids menu, and I’d argue that an establishment whose entire business model is to show of their waitresses tits and ass is more inherently sexual than the simple act of cross-dressing.

Which is why the issue people have isn’t that kids see a man dressed as a woman ala Mrs Doubtfire, it’s that this isn’t what’s happening at drag shows. 
And again, Hooters waitresses wear tank tops and shorts. 
But again, you’re fundamentally confused about free speech. As a right, it means that you cannot be criminally punished for speech. Fired form your job is not a violation of free speech. Not to mention, anyone is free not to take a job because they don’t like the stipulations. >


And again, Hooters waitresses wear tank tops and shorts.

Everyone in drag shows where children are present are clothed. State regulations on strip clubs and public indecent exposure prohibit nudity unless they receive specific licenses and don't allow minors.
Again, I think it's more abusive to take a child to a place where an authority figure teaches them that they will go to hell if they don't conform to a certain set of beliefs. Way more people have killed themselves and been killed because of religion than because of drag shows.
The key difference between you and me is that I don't want the state limiting what free expression parents may choose to let their child see. You do. I'm the free speech warrior here.
​

But again, you’re fundamentally confused about free speech. As a right, it means that you cannot be criminally punished for speech.

This is not exactly true. The First Amendment also prohibits the state from creating civil punishments for the free exercise of speech, and the courts have found that the state can't limit the speech of public employees without a justifiable state interest.
​

Fired form your job is not a violation of free speech

EXACTLY!!! (Unless you're employed by the state, in some instances). So how are the Democrats limiting free speech, while the Republicans are "Free Speech Warriors"?