Authoritarianism is the initiation of force. 

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.

1. Maybe if I was a member of the Esoteric Order of Dagon.  But I'm not.

2. His accomplices within his regime and the sycophants prostrating themselves in hopes of earning his favor.

The right of free speech as guaranteed by the constitution refers to restrictions to the Government's ability to write laws which would hinder speech. It does not refer to people interrupting each other, or otherwise talking over each other. There is no right to not being interrupted, and those interruptions are also speech. You could argue that it is impolite for a private citizen to shout over someone else, but you could not argue that it was unconstitutional.

For those same reasons, speaking about the freedom of the press in the context of the President is not a sound comparison because the President is acting as an agent of the Government, not as a private citizen. And similarly, the freedom of the press does not provide the press with unhindered access to private citizens.

Again, an order protecting free speech on campuses would not address this issue, because free speech is not the same as the provision of a platform, and in order to "protect" someone's free speech in the manner you wish, they would have to combat other speech.

Sure I could. If every time you left your home, you had someone follow you, and they carried a megaphone and talked over you every time you tried to speak in public, or private if possible, then surely there would be a case, especially if speaking in public was tied to your career. Now the police should take care of this before it get's to that point, but we have to assume they aren't, which is why an order is needed. Why do you think at political speaking events, especially during elections, protesters yelling and screaming in the crowd, interrupting the speaker, are immediately escorted out? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue? Why aren't those events shut down?

My example itself was sound. The Prez doesn't have to let any press in the WH, they just do because it's become the norm, and the WH revoked a media personnel pass somewhat recently, for good reason, yet the media and left went crazy because they believed his speech was being silenced. Why? Is the WH not allowed to decide who they do and don't want to offer a platform to?

I disagree, again, but what do you purpose then?

How about an order that forced campuses to allow equal access to their platform? Maybe based on the types of individuals they themselves allow on campus? So if they bring in left wing speakers, they then are forced to bring in or allow an equal amount of opposing political speakers? That way if someone wants to speak about balloons, the campus doesn't have to because they don't see the benefit of that. This way all offered topics/categories are given equal access and if the schools don't like that, then don't bring in any speakers on campus.

I believe the megaphone man would primarily be breaking Stalking laws, not free speech laws, so that doesn't really apply here. Again, freedom of speech as described in the constitution does not restrict individual access, it restricts governmental access.

As for why people are removed during certain events, an event can choose to remove someone for being disruptive, however, that removal is not designed to protect the speaker's constitutional right to free speech (I feel like I should clarify here that I am not arguing that colleges are doing anything illegal by removing disruptive protestors).

As for the CNN example, that question did not come down to equal access and I really see no reason to get another large debate which I don't feel is even relevant to this conversation.

Finally, what do I propose:

Well, I don't really think there is a problem. Certainly not a constitutional problem. I think that the White House should butt out and stop overstepping. I believe that your proposition would possibly be unconstitutional (as I've explained numerous times). Any problems within any particularly University should be handled as the University sees fit.

a) Correct, and if the police, don't or won't do their jobs, then what do you do?

b) So you've changed your mind on this?

c) If the WH has the right to whether the press are aloud in or not, then what was wrong with not allowing certain individuals?

d) If the rest of the entire world, one way or another, ended up with tyrannical leaders, who did everything possible to shut down speech and communication only by individuals seen to be on the left, would that be ok, or should America do something about it?

a) ...Do you think this is a conversation about stalking?

b) No.

c) The issue was not with equal access, it was with revoking a pass without cause.

d) If it isn't in the USA, it isn't covered by the Constitution, so I'm not sure why this should matter.

a) Well you said I couldn't do it so.

b) Then why did you point our earlier that you thought, that I thought, that silencing the protesters was ok, which you seemed appalled by?

d) What about foreign policy? What about the protection of America and it's rights? If there's a worldwide worrisome virus spreading and has yet to reach America... it just sits around and waits?

This alone sums up pretty much everything, and is the reason our conversation won't go anywhere productive.

c) "The issue was not with equal access, it was with revoking a pass without cause."

Revoking a pass they never had a right to in the first place. Each individual was being allotted a certain number of questions and the 'journalist' went beyond that, even after being told to pass the mic and yet continued to argue and then actively put his hands on a woman to keep the mic for himself so he could continue arguing. Challenging the Prez by arguing with him, when it's his job to just ask questions and take down the response. Which may mean asking multiple questions to get to the bottom of it if one doesn't suffice, if multiple questions are being taken that is. And no, I don't believe he aggressively karate chopped her, but he did physically push her arms away to keep the mic.

"In a statement, CNN defended its reporter. “The White House announced tonight that it has revoked the press pass of CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta,” said the company in a statement. “It was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today’s press conference."

"The move will be seen as clear interference with the way White House Correspondents’ Association members cover the administration. The White House Correspondents’ Association issued a statement condemning what it called the Trump administration’s “decision to use US Secret Service security credentials as a tool to punish a reporter with whom it has a difficult relationship”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/07/cnn-jim-acosta-reporter-credentials-revoked

The problem was the excessive aggressive speech, physical act, and not following the rules in general. The pass being revoked was a byproduct.

Free speech is being suppressed on campuses in many ways, and an executive order was the byproduct.

If Jim and the protesters would follow the rules and act like reasonable human beings, the byproducts wouldn't be necessary.

"his accomplices within his rigime" does also include his voters to you?