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.
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.