Since the rules (the laws) cover the usage by people of what you call
   "communistically shared space", then it appears that Milo Y (and the
   people who want to listen to what he has to say) have a right to the
   benefit of such laws, too.  Property and a location which is offered to
   one person, has to be offered to all, at least not discriminating on
   the basis on the content of that speech.    See "time, place, and
   manner".
   [1]http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993
   To deny Milo Y that same space, simply on the basis of the content of
   that speech, violates the Constitution.
   [2]×
   (BUTTON) (BUTTON)
                 Jim Bell
     __________________________________________________________________

   From: Joshua Case <jwcase@gmail.com>
   To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com>
   Cc: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>
   Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:26 PM
   Subject: Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant
   Have to know I'm doing the proper kind of thinking if libertarian and
   antifa people are taking exception with my thoughts. Razor finds me
   idiotic because I think violence as a matter policy is the same as the
   crap he wants to fight, but what good is a rayz3r that does no cutting?
   Jim thinks I'm taking away Milo's liberty unfairly because I think it
   reasonable to deny him use of the communistically shared space he finds
   so precious.
   On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:14 PM, jim bell <[3]jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

   From: Joshua Case <[4]jwcase@gmail.com>
   More to the point he was seeking right to assembly, it wasn't his
   speech that was suppressed. His views are well know, his sentiment
   registers broadly. He was denied assembly. Seems reasonable.
   Your comment is confusing and vague.  I assume you were talking about
   Milo Yiannopolis (sp?).
   University of California (including the Berkeley site) is presumably
   public property.  The 1st Amendment likely applies, at least as
   strongly there as elsewhere.  If you are saying it "seems reasonable"
   for him being "denied assembly", is there any other public property
   where you WOULDN'T agree that it would be "reasonable" for him being
   "denied assembly"?  I think it's long-established that government
   officials generally cannot deny people the right to speak on public
   property (at a time and in a manner that anyone else would be allowed
   to speak).
   Somebody will probably argue that "public officials", per se, didn't
   attempt to obstruct Milo Y's right to be there, and speak.  Well, no,
   the rioters did that.  But I think that for the government to allow
   rioters to do things that would be illegal for government people to do,
   in itself would be a Constitutional problem.  After all, the 14th
   Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws", and some of those
   laws deal with the right to "assemble" on "public property".  Failure
   to use government police for to  enforce Milo Y's right to assemble and
   speak would amount to a violation of his 14th Amendment rights.
               Jim Bell

References

   1. http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993
   2. file:///var/lib/mailman/archives/private/cypherpunks/attachments/20170202/8950f55b/attachment-tmp.html
   3. mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com
   4. mailto:jwcase@gmail.com