And reality is there would be a forceful argument that it is not liability producing at all although what that argument might be is not clear to me--I wish Stanford would respond to the proposition that they have just committed a clean clear violation; why do they not have prima facia liability?
The real bottom line is that like liberals everywhere, they are open minded advocates for free speech only so long as the open mind does not include God and the speech is not pro free enterprise pro constitution pro liberty.