From the latest edition of The Economist comes these astonishing sentences in a story on the recent controversy at the University of Missouri.

"The backlash against the changes at Mizzou is likely to continue, led by self-styled defenders of the First Amendment (which protects free speech). Yet the First Amendment does not give people a free pass to go round saying hateful things, points out Mr. Henson."

The Mr. Henson referred to is Chuck Henson, the university's "new interim vice-president for inclusion, diversity and equity," and he and the editors of the Economist are in need of a tutorial on the First Amendment. As instapundit.com proprietor Glenn Reynolds points out — and note that the use of the verb "points out" indicates that the author is in agreement with the person quoted — the First Amendment does give people a free pass to go round saying things that other people may consider hateful. Anyone in doubt about this ought to consult UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh's definitive blogpost, complete with citations of Supreme Court case law, on why "there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment." The University of Missouri, as a state institution, cannot restrict the First Amendment rights of students (who, with only a few exceptions, are adults 18 or older).

The Economist's writers and editors are mostly citizens of the United Kingdom, which doesn't have a First Amendment, but as members of the press — and employees of a publication which has more readers in the United States than in Britain — they ought to be aware of American First Amendment law. It's pretty astonishing and dismaying that with the use of the verb "points out" they indicate a complacent acceptance of the notion that speech repugnant to some people may be prohibited and with the phrase "self-styled defenders of the First Amendment" they suggest disapproval of those seeking to uphold the right of free speech. It's particularly odd since the web version links to another Economist article decrying the new Polish government's "purging the country's public media."

Why is it acceptable for a state university to prohibit free speech while it is unacceptable, or at least disreputable, for a government to shape the content of government-subsidized media? Does The Economist believe that freedom of speech only applies to ideas it approves of?