I support this but it's extremely sad that it's gotta come to an executive order which can be changed by any future presidents to defend even the most basics of a fundamental right on a publicly funded campus and it's been too long since too many public colleges have been festering in their own toxic liberal echo chambers so it's high time that things are to be set right ... 

Any public institution should be allowed to provide platforms for 'blasphemous' speech unless their against free speech in principle. What is defined to be 'hate' speech is ambiguous so speech should be unconditional regardless. If they want funding then they can seek private sources of income instead ... 

Well yeah, people who don't look to the past are going to be ignorant. Obama, Clinton, Bush all tried to do something about boarder control. But they handled it differntly from trump which I did appreciate. Don't treat all of them like their villains.

The difference of Obama from Trump is that Trump himself is a hypocrite, while Obama..eh not so much. Constituents come in all shapes, sizes, educaiton backgrounds, mental capacities, etc. so I'm not necessarily worried about them, it's the head I'm more worried about in terms of exhibiting hypocritical tendencies on more than several occasions. 

But yeah, I think everyone should be held accountable not to incite violence on either side, but that doesn't stop it [violence] from happening. I think if anything ti just adds more fuel to the fire. It should be that we all have free speech anywhere, but things that are obscene shouldn't be allowed.

Fine. If a university offers money to anita sarkesian to speak thats fine. If ben shapiro wants to speak and the university dosent give him any money thats fine to. The university even has the right to refuse the use of its auditorium if it has one and ben shapiro has no grounds to complain. But if ben shapiro wants to come in and just go to the plaza and stand on a chair and people just gather around, the university can do nothing to stop him as he is able to speak in a public square. If the university wants to stop ben shapiro to even do that, thats fine to, they just have to not receive any money from the goverment. So they can make it dificult if they want, thats what I meant by not rolling out the red carpet. But its up to the speaker to decide if they want to come without any help by the university at his own cost.

Na I get it. Orange man bad. I thought you said you where a centrist? Me as a centrist I hold everyone accountable to their actions. If trump does a bad thing, i will not excuse obama, clinton or bush cuz they did not as bad. I dont belong to any party. I will criticize ideas not the person presenting them. 

Alright, I'm pretty sure everything you just suggested is covered under the First Amendment for all public schools and I don't believe that anyone has been prevented from doing this. I know that there were yearly anti-abortion advocates/protestors at my Uni every year which weren't approved by the Uni (because it wasn't required) and there were plenty of religions who went around and tried to recruit people. What is largely being proposed here isn't change, it is the status quo, and it is the same status quo that others such as Eric are complaining about (despite the fact that you seem to agree with Eric).

I'm sure there are probably some issues with speakers who try to force the campuses to let them speak, but the much bigger issue is that campuses seem to heavily favor far left speakers when purposely bringing people in to talk for events. What's happening are the groups of students who want at least some opposing viewpoints, are petitioning to have libertarian or conservative speakers, etc, and are being turned down or are being allowed but students holding more extremist viewpoints are doing what they can to stop those speakers. Those extremists seem to get away with it as well, and aren't being punished by the schools. What tends to happen is after a few attempts, the speakers will stop bothering to try and hold an event there because it's just too much of a hassle and a waste of their time, so the extremists get that they wanted, which of course, leads to even bigger bubbles and more extremism.

I don't think the university should have to let just anyone speak necessarily, but if a large enough audience wishes for a speaker to hold an event, I don't see why the university should reject it. If the university has to pay for some of it if not all, they should have some say, and need to find a balance. If the university has a large number of students who would like a certain course offered, should the university reject it simply because they don't offer it now, or because it isn't as relevant right now? Wouldn't you agree there are even classes that universities offer that are mostly just filler that don't serve much a useful purpose? Why do they offer them then? Mostly because it makes them money, money made from those students. So is university just a cash grab, or is it an experience as well?

I can't help but see the irony in the fact that some politicians talk about offering free schooling, yet those schools don't genuinely enforce a right like free speech.

But Universities are allowed to choose who they wish to provide a platform to. There is no requirement for equal coverage. In fact, an argument could be made that instating such a requirement would in itself be restricting freedom of expression. This is because, as previously stated, the right to speak is not the same as the right to a platform (the right a platform is not constitutionally protected) and compelling someone to speak (or compelling an institution to provide a platform of speech) is infringing on that individual or institutions right to determine who it wishes to provide a platform to. As such, you are not arguing in favor of freedom of speech but instead arguing against it and in favor of mandated expression.

Are they being forced to listen to the speech? How on earth is it disrupting them. Or are they like Jehovah witness going straight to your dorm for a one to one speech? As far as I know they could just, not attend or something crazy like that. 

Ive already adresed that about milo. He was banned and he snuk in. that little video you posted, the real thing lasted less than 20 min before security escorted him out.

You just answerd your own strawman in diferent pagraphs. Having both events is not an issue. Like I said before but you keep ignoring. The university can make it as dificult as they want. If ben shapiro wants to go for free and the plaza and the majority has their prefered speaker at the stage, then whats the problem? its costing nothing to the university. No student has to hear him. He can get his own security as he did once before And the other speaker can be as confy as they want even at a diferent date if nesesary. Im sure ben would not object delaying his speech a week or 2.

Nope. I dint say they where anything. They when live on tv and online and declared themselves antifa, black lives matter and what ever other groups there are. I cant say I know them all. But unlike you that are calling everyone who was at the unite the right a nazi. And here I am saying that there where nazis at that event. But where they all nazis? I bet you think so. Event after the interviews of people saying that they are not associated with the nazis.

Germany can express themselfs freely? Is it me or is a chinese tourist doing a joke nazi salute at a memorial in germany and going to jail for it, not freedom. Unlike you I believe that forcing someone to behave a certain way will make the person want to reject that way even more. Im not gona say I know what the best method is, but I can tell you now that force is not the way.

Well thats the most clear proof that this conversation will lead to nowhere but ill adress it anyways. Just because trump dosent like what they say? Im not a trump fan by any means, nor do I like defending him. But to say that after the 2 straight years of fake news and dog piling they media has being doing, Im just here picturing you puting your fingers in your ears and yelling when somebody talks. Theese jurnalist have been nothing but childish. Im with trump on this one as I do believe they are the ones spliting this country by constaly lying. Even with cases like the covintong kids that was proven to be false they still had the balls to keep pushing the fake news. then after they just ignore it and never apologise or even retract it and you believe thats professionalism? As far as saturday night live I have no idea what thats about so I wont coment.

lol, that's not what I said at all... I do hold everyone accountable, I didn't excuse anyone. I don't think you read my post lol. Your rebuttal on hypocrisy did not conform to my views on hypocrisy at all. You referred to Obama's constituents and followers as hypocrites, which they probably are, but I referred to Trump himself as a hypocrite. I criticize actions as they do indeed speak louder than words. 

I handle things factually, previous presidents did handle boarder control differently from Trump, one that I personally agreed with. If you translate that and pointing out that Trump is much more of a hypocrite than Obama, and translate that to someone not being a centrist...my friend I don't think you are a centrist. Centrists are open to other interpretations, they don't label people quickly...so uh...yeah. That's pretty awkward. 

I do think boarder control is something that America should have, how it's done is a totally different story and I don't agree with how Trump is trying to handle it.

First things first. Freedom doesn't mean complete freedom. It simply means as free as everyone allows everyone else to be, which isn't totally free.

Second, if you have a boss, or someone who pays your way, your indebted to them to some degree. If you receive money from the Gov, and they say you must do everything you can within reason to allow free speech, and your not, your going to pay for that. Actions, or lack thereof, must also have consequences.

For a school to say we only allow lefty speakers on campus, isn't much different than the transportation system saying we only allow whites to sit at the front of the bus. People of color were still allowed to ride, just at the back. So do you agree with that or should people be able to sit wherever they please as long as they aren't physically causing harm to you?

I should also point out, if you watch some of the vids on YouTube of Shapiro or Ruben etc, speaking at the campuses when they can, there are quite a few lefties who are there who come up and ask questions later during Q and A. Some are curious, some want to get a point across, and some want to destroy them. It's not just the center and right who go to these events.