if those scientists were to raise money from private donors would they find themselves in jail, or their property confiscated to where they couldnt continue research? that is the definition of "freedom of speech".

if you accept money from the government, you must also accept the fact that that money is political. complaining that losing a barely earned privilege is a loss of freedom of speech is a fucking slap in the face of people who have actually fought hard for freedom of speech.

Government funding didn’t use to be political. Humanities existed and got funding even during republican presidents.

It has been made political relatively recently. That’s one of my issues.

No, that is not the definition of "freedom of speech".

Please also read the first amendment.

Also, I know this isn’t the definition of free speech per se. Hence the nod at citizens united which made a farce of the whole concept.

btw i have a phd in the hard sciences so i know what im talking about when i say grants are "barely earned privileges". they do not, in general, go to the most qualified or talented scientists, hence the word "grantsmanship" to refer to the skills required to obtain a grant that are not the pure scientific skill