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.
comment is confusing and vague. I assume you were
talking about Milo Yiannopolis (sp?).
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).
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.