On his right to free speech, I think 100% of participants on this thread agree.
In principle, yes. In practice, that freedom is always tempered.
Does that extend to him being absolved of the responsibility for the things he says?
No, it doesn't, and I think more than anything this has to do with his tone, and the way in which he has demonized people. It isn't that these potential intersections of rights can't be talked about, but him wildly misinterpreting the law and stating his intention to break it, and making accusations of left wing authoritarianism, and a backlash all run counter to his responsibilities as a teacher.
... for those who interpret the letters from the university as nothing but persecution, and stamping on his free speech.
I'm trying not to be disrespectful because I was apparently warned to, but seriously, FUCK tone policing. Saying that the problem is his tone is like saying that there is no problem.
Who is he demonizing? The Black Liberation Collective? They're a bunch of morons.
Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying that he's wildly misinterpreting the law, but if that's the case, how is he stating an intention to break it? If it's NOT against the law to refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns then he's not misinterpreting it now is he??? Christ on a fucking cracker!