I have only had experience with this authoritarian government

Well, you haven’t had much, then, because Trump is no more or less authoritarian in his policies than Obama was. The rhetoric is more authoritarian, the policies less so.

You are talking about student protesters, yes?

No. In the case of a Coulter at Berkeley, she was brought in to speak by an authorized student organization. All student organizations have the same right to bring in speakers, and the University commits to provide them a space to speak and appropriate “support” (which generally means the minimum level of security provided by local law).

What the university did in these situations is say either “we can’t guarantee the security of the venue” or “we can secure the venue, but you (the student club) has to pay the additional charge”. So, in theory, the sponsoring Club has the same rights as any other, but in practice, cannot afford to bring in their speakers.

You are saying student protesters are using the same tactics as imams in the Middle East who write edicts depriving people of their rights, supported with the full force of the institutions they lead? I want to make sure I understand the analogy you are making here.

The comparison is simple. If you can’t get the authorities to silence the people you want to deny speech to, you threaten the speakers and you threaten the authorities who won’t do what you want them to do.

You are saying pissed off students at Berkeley are the same as them?

If there’s threats going on, then the comparison is valid.

“This is not the United States unless access to public platforms are available to all under the same rules, and the authorities defend that access.”

And that is not liberty as I understand it, because you haven’t given any examples of a “public platform”.

IT BETTER BE AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT. A public platform is one that is supported by public monies/government. Pretty simple, that. If a public platform, one that;s paid for all or in part by public monies, is denied to anyone, that’s a 1st amendment violation.

But there is no right for anyone to speak to college students on a stage at a university.

You could not be more wrong. Now, you’re going to get a story you didn’t want.

I was heavily involved in Student Government in my public university. Part of that involvement involved me approving speaker applications for organizations approved by the Student Government.

That’s a key point here. Coulter and Shapiro don’t just show up and demand to speak; they are INVITED by organizations which the university has APPROVED to exist on campus. Let’s not forget that.

The university made it very clear to me that I had NO RIGHT to deny ANY speaker invited by an approved organization as long as the paperwork was in order, which basically meant that they had properly scheduled the venue and agreed to pay (next key point here) for the security guards, which basically meant whatever number of off-duty cops the city required for each number of attendees expected.

And if I turned anyone down that had an application in order, the university’s legal ass could be grass.

Heady times, those. It was the 70;s, and I had a controversial group on campus called the “Black Liberation Front”, who liked to invite Malcolm X adherents who believed in separation of the races and other black nationalistic notions. It was unpopular, but we of course had to grant the application. By law, and by the 1st Amendment.

So, yes, I understand the process here. The Young Republicans (who are usually the inviters of a Coulter or a Shapiro) are a recognized student on-campus organization. They, like any other group, are working off the same list of requirements they need to bring a speaker in. There can be no bias in that list of requirements, or face the Courts.

So, yes, the University, being publically funded, MUST grant that space; it is, technically, a privilege, but it is a privileged which the Uni grants to all organizations, and MUST be granted equally to all, or face the Courts.

The Unis have tried to subvert this in a couple of ways. Some have tried to disenfranchise any organization who would ever invite a Coulter, but they got slapped by the Courts so quickly that they don;t try that one anymore. So, what they’re doing now is going to another area, which is to say that they need FAR MORE SECURITY than the organization can afford.

Now, it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch for you to realize that that’s the 1st Amendment equivalent of a poll tax. :-). “Oh, you can bring in your speaker, but unless you have 50K to bring in THAT PARTICULAR speaker…..’.

They;re losing those legal arguments as well.

When you talk about access to other people’s property as if it is a right, I think that’s a really strange illustration of the difference in how we see speech and property rights.

Well, you were completely wrong regarding your assumptions of what I was thinking regarding property rights, and now you’ve been educated on what it means to actually ADMINISTER the 1st Amendment in practice at a public unversity.

So, you’ve gotten a teachable moment. Nice for you.