The only basis of censorship is time and place, not the speech or expression itself.
What I mean is you have the right to say things, you don't have the right to come into my office and disrupt my work. This is commonly defined in private versus public arenas. You cannot keep people from attending an event you dislike, but you can picket and protest a distance from the entrance.
We also have time restrictions so someone cannot monopolize a space with their speech. May have a town square that you request a time slot for your speech as to not conflict with another person who has reserved the square.
One I think is complex is speech in open areas you have to traverse. My example is when I attended university there were political groups that used these areas for specific causes. Now, there was no way for many students to avoid these displays and speeches, you had to walk past them to get to class. One particular display was from a religious group that depicted aborted fetuses in large photographs. It was disturbing, and some females students stated that seeing such images and hearing anti-abortion speech brought up really horrible memories of their own abortion and caused them to have panic attacks and mental anguish. They asked that the display be moved and not be so loud and visible every day due to this. The university denied this seemingly taking a principled stance. A year later a display was put out that was very critical of Israel and had some stereotypical displays of Jewish people. Once again people complained about this and called it anti-Semitic and hate speech. This time the University did move the display to an interior area and put warning signs up for people entering the display area.
Which is better and which is the right way is actually hard for me to answer here. I get the artist or protester, I get the reaction, and honestly I see some merit in both ways the University handled it. The line between one's rights and another's can be difficult to define.
