His planned talk was intended to incite violence against so-called
   "undocumented" students, as stated on his own website. Hate Speech
   isn't protected by any constitutional provision or amendment and it's a
   federal crime to cross state lines to incite violence. Go fish for some
   other bullshit rationale "Libertarian".

   Rr

   On 02/02/2017 03:14 PM, jim bell wrote:

   From: Joshua Case [1]<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. mailto:jwcase@gmail.com