I stated the campus security tends to be the one's who have to take care of unruly protests, since based on my prior explanation, the speakers themselves very rarely call for that because it would be silencing free speech, regardless of how peaceful it is or typically not. If you think it's ok to talk over someone else to the point that their free speech is significantly hindered, then there is no point in having a right to free speech, and there sure isn't a point to pushing for equality. If that was the case, then people shouldn't care about things like when the Prez wants to ban members of the media, because if all the Prez is going to do is interrupt and talk over the press, then why bother allowing them to speak? Maybe the Prez should ignore the speech of all the media members he doesn't like. Why give them all a platform, an equal one at that?

I pointed out how the silencing of individuals on campuses would push other schools to just forget about allowing those types of speakers on theirs, largely to simply avoid conflict and headaches. Therefore, by continuing to allow students to shut down free speech, it makes the problem worse. By putting repercussions into place for allowing that to happen, the idea is for the schools to enforce peaceful protest that doesn't inhibit free speech, helping to resolve the problem. I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this will solve the problem in it's entirety. How many orders or bills solve an entire problem all at once? Not many.

While it was definitely necessary due to the riots the left promotes in some universities not allowing people to speak, it wont solve tje problem. Nothing can stop the left in shuting down other peoples opinions. They will protest anyway, not allow the speaker to arrive at the designated place, will keep harrassing people with different opinions and will not face the consequences. In the end nothing will change.

I think it is possible and here's why. I've been to meetings at colleges before. I've heard the conversations they had and participated in them myself. I can tell you for a fact that whenever they feel their money is in danger, they react. Here's the only problem I see and this actually relates to a meeting I was at in 2015. I believe it was in 2011 when Obama had expanded the legal definition for Title IX. For those of you who don't know, Title IX was an amended law of the US Civil Rights act and has been around since 1972. Its original purpose was to prevent sex discrimination at any federal funded institution. It was simple enough and fair. In 2011, Obama had expanded the definition to the point where it became a confusing and bloated. Instead of simply enforcing Title IX, entire committees had to be formed just to try and figure out wether Title IX was being violated. This is when we saw that huge jump in sexual harassment and rape allegations. This is also when we saw the huge spike in fake crimes being reported at universities.

In the meeting I was at in 2015, it involved me and a few other students who were officers in a student-run art organization. Our faculty advisor was there as well. We had an incident where another student's suggestive artwork was taken down from the student run gallery by one of the higher ups at the college without consulting any of the officers or faculty advisor. This was all done because somebody complained about it. We had written a letter asking the college to enforce it's own free speech policy and not to remove any more artwork from the gallery. That is what triggered the meeting. At the meeting, the Title IX enforcer (I can't remember if that was the exact name of her title) informed us that the offensive artwork in question MAY have violated Title IX laws. Even they weren't entirely sure but didn't want to take any chances. The administration at the college felt that because they were located in a very conservative county where crude artwork may not be appreciated but also had many leftist students who were overly offended by anything and everything, they felt their bottom line was in danger and the result from all this was to move the entire student gallery to a different part of the building where it would be less noticeable and was accessible only opening a door. Outside the door would be a warning notice. This also resulted in two teachers having to have their offices relocated to make room for the new gallery. Keep in mind, this gallery had been in existence since 2005 and maybe had only a small number of complaints and those complaints went nowhere since the shows were changed on a weekly basis. 

The real challenge is how do universities enforce free speech without violating Title IX, especially since merely since it is now possible for someone to be sexually harassed by a painting. Personally, I would love to see Title IX be stripped back to it's 1972 form. If that can't happen, then colleges and universities will need to hire a free speech enforcer and that free speech enforcer will have to coordinate with the title IX enforcer.

I didn't make anything up. Have you seen what Antifa has been doing in places like Portland? They block traffic, forcing cars to go where they tell them. If the drivers don't comply, they start attacking the cars. local shops don't have pro-Antifa or anti-Trump signs hanging up, their windows get smashed. Then there are the countless fights that they have started. This is all an act of authoritarianism, not defense. There is a reason wear masks and will run away if their masks are removed. This is because they know they're going to engage in illegal activity and would rather not be seen. This is also the reason the state of New Jersey actually classifies Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and why they've been on a Department of Homeland Security watch list since 2016.

These are actually acts of anarchists,  and new jersey correctly classify them as anarchists Extremists.  Anarchists want a society without a hierarchy while Authoritarianism advocate for a strong hierarchy society.

Both are completely wrong I would say and when they advocates there views with violence they should be prosecuted and thrown in jail but it would be incorrect to claim violence acts by anarchists are acts of authoritarianism.

you know what's funny? i've seen him make that argument before, he obviously doesn't realise it applies to other things too

first off the idea you could ever have a society without hierarchy is the most fucking stupid thing i have ever heard on the internet 

you will have people who will always be valued more because they are more skillful, attractive, intelligent etc etc etc than other people in society, that is never going to stop even if the "anti-fascists" get their way and enslave everyone under communism

but anyway, they want a society without hierarchy... so they go around acting as authorities to other people?

you don't see how stupid that is?

are you kidding me?

 you think these are the actions of people who are anti-authority:

Authoritarianism is the initiation of force. That's all it is. When you commit an act of violence onto another individual in a non-defensive way, you are attempting to be the dominate force over that individual. Even if you're someone who claims not to believe in a society based on hierarchy, you are practicing hierarchy when you do that. So when Antifa attacks people in a non-defensive manner, smashes someone's windows or vandalizes their car, they do it to put fear into the people they're going after. Being fearful of Antifa places that person or persons in a position of weakness whereas Antifa gains a position of dominance as we have seen in places like Portland. So yeah, the people who claim to be Antifa and do these awful things are authoritarians wether they want to accept that or not.

An executive order doesn't address any of that.  If someone assault someone speaking their mind, we have a criminal court already lined up to prosecute them for it.  If people protest about something that cause harm, damage or any of those things we have courts to prosecute them.  An executive order is not going to stop protest or any of those things since they are already covered by law.

Colleges already have policy on free speech and if its doesn't fall within line with the constitution then just like we see today, they can be taken to court and sued.  Nothing changes with this EO because there is nothing behind it.  There is no guideline of what this EO does because the President and his administration couldn't be arsed with doing their work first before throwing this out into the wild.

Unfortunate news for some students. Now they'll get their undesired spaces for violence to happen