In his essay, Tully Borland discusses what he takes to be the importance of language. He says:
Let us recall that language is a precious gift … Though sometimes used for evil, it is also a source of good. Thus, as with other goods, we should want as few restrictions upon it as possible.
Borland is trying to set the default here. He's trying to say that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to restrict language, rather than on the person who wants unrestricted speech. Would Hyska disagree? Why or why not? And if not, then what would she want to add to Borland's point?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Demonstrate understanding of the views of both authors
Offer a reasonable interpretation of Borland's point such that it's plausible that Hyska would disagree, explaining why, or offer a reasonable interpretation of Borland's point such that it's plausible that Hyska would not disagree, again explaining why

In His Essay, Tully Borland Discusses What He Takes to Be