You have a right to speak without government interference, not a right to be heard. You are not being censored, you are competing with other voices in the marketplace of ideas for an audience. If the ideas you express engender a virulent response that drowns out your voice, then you ought to explore precisely why people are reacting so negatively and adjust your position to resolve such conflict rather than running to the teacher and crying 'foul.' That is a weak response that says you are more interested in sowing division rather than bridging barriers. Pro Life ideas do not have a right to an audience or a platform within a public space. No idea does.
That's like saying that a society respects gay rights as long as there aren't any laws on the books criminalizing sodomy - even if homosexuals are socially ostracized in every area, constantly degraded as "faggots", and condemned to hell by the local preachers. That doesn't seem right to me. The whole idea of gay rights is that it should actually be possible for a functioning member of society to be openly gay, rather than having to live their whole life in the closet. Likewise the whole "no platform" distinction, while clever, misses the point of the right to free speech. The idea of free speech is that you should be able to express your ideas in the public sphere and have them judged on their merits - even if a bunch of overgrown toddlers find them offensive or politically incorrect or problematic or whatever they say nowadays. Allowing a mob to harass an invited speaker out of their podium at a university campus is not in the spirit of free speech. Doesn't matter whether the mob consists of SJWs or alt-right Twitter eggs.
Not at all actually. You are conflating public acceptance with Federal and State acceptance and there is a big difference. To a large extent, what you refer to in your example is 'hate speech,' which unfortunately is pretty strongly protected when it occurs outside of a business or social service, see Whitney v. California. As long as you aren't inciting crime, violence, violating obscenity laws, or making a true threat, your speech is largely protected (which you largely seem to largely concede later on in your paragraph. The idea of free speech comes from the First Amendment, 'Congress shall make no law...' This means that as an American you have a right to say and believe anything you want without being penalized by the government. Basically you can't be killed or imprisoned for expressing a political opinion, religious belief, or for reporting on the news. You also have a right to peaceably assemble. Nowhere does it state that you have a right to be heard. Nowhere does it state that a populace has an obligation to listen to the merits of your speech. You have just as much free speech rights as your fellow citizens. If you go to a public area to express your free speech rights but get drowned out by someone else expressing their free speech rights, you don't get to shut down someone else's rights because you want to be heard. The entire subtext of this censorship idea is that somehow Pro Life free speech is more important and more valuable and should take precedence over everyone else's free speech and that simply is not the case. You can criticize this as you did in your above example for not forcing people to adhere to basic standards of decency and respect, and I would agree with you there. Free speech laws do not promote or encourage a respectful exchange of ideas. I suspect this is because our founding fathers recognized that the marketplace of ideas is a messy and not always pleasant place. In a public space, no one is obligated to agree to Pro Life terms of debate and it is a mistake to assume otherwise. In the examples mentioned in this post, the Pro Life message is not being censored, it is only being prevented from reaching a broader audience and having the kind of dialogue Pro Life advocates would prefer to have. The Pro Life message is still readily available one on one, through handouts, campus groups, message boards, etc.
I was referring to the spirit of the law. The harassment that campus snowflakes regularly practice (the heckler's veto) might not violate their victims' First Amendment rights, but that doesn't mean that it's in the spirit of free speech (much the same as calling someone a faggot doesn't actually violate anyone's legal rights, but it's not in the spirit of gay rights). A university absolutely can allow a mob to silence a pro-life event. But given that the free exchange of ideas is what a university is supposed to be for, it would be perfectly reasonable to in turn decide that continued taxpayer funding for said university is no longer warranted. I never argued that anyone has an obligation to listen to my views. If someone does not wish to hear a pro-life speaker or interact with a pro-life display, they can simply choose not to attend or to avert their gaze.
Our founders recognized that free speech was both messy, contentious, and uncomfortable. The spirit of the law does not enforce civility and polite debate. This was not the case when the nation was founded and is certainly not the case now. Secondly, Universities are not free, so the idea that there has ever been a 'free exchange of ideas' is laughable. You are not free to exchange ideas or learn from them unless you pay the price of entry, a price many people can not pay. Certainly every idea is not represented either. In fact, very little is actually taught that is not supported by the political and social hegemony, that's why the available standardized and accredited courses are influenced by the Department of Education.
If someone does not wish to hear a pro-life speaker or interact with a pro-life display, they can simply choose not to attend or to avert their gaze. They can also loudly protest in a way that drowns out your free speech. Anti-social ideas that 'threaten' a social group or demographic tend to encourage this kind of speech and far worse. Universities have no obligation to offer or provide a platform for contentious ideas that threaten or corrode social stability for the simple reason that they lack the resources to contain such speech safely.
This was not the case when the nation was founded and is certainly not the case now. Somehow, I don't think this is what the founders had in mind when they founded the country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o Secondly, Universities are not free, so the idea that there has ever been a 'free exchange of ideas' is laughable. You are not free to exchange ideas or learn from them unless you pay the price of entry, a price many people can not pay. You're equivocating on "free". Free speech means that you can say what you want in the public sphere, not that it never costs money to spread your message. Certainly every idea is not represented either. In fact, very little is actually taught that is not supported by the political and social hegemony, that's why the available standardized and accredited courses are influenced by the Department of Education. That's why students are allowed to form campus groups, which in turn can invite guest speakers that don't necessarily talk about what's in the curriculum. Unless you think Donald Trump and Betsy Devos should dictate which ideas are acceptable to be discussed in a university setting. They can also loudly protest in a way that drowns out your free speech. Anti-social ideas that 'threaten' a social group or demographic tend to encourage this kind of speech and far worse. I see. So they're asking for harassment, threats, and violence because you disagree with their ideas. Glad that's clear. Universities have no obligation to offer or provide a platform for contentious ideas that threaten or corrode social stability for the simple reason that they lack the resources to contain such speech safely. That logic could justify any form of terrorism. As long as enough people threaten violence, they get what they want.
You're equivocating on "free No I'm not. You asserted that Universities were meant for the free exchange of ideas. You are the one disingenuously moving the goalposts.
That's why students are allowed to form campus groups... I don't disagree.
So they're asking for harassment, threats, and violence because you disagree with their ideas. No, anti-social ideas engender an anti-social response since they amount to a perceived threat against the lives and livelihoods of the targeted group.
That logic could justify any form of terrorism. No. That logic justifies a University not approving a speaker in deference to the safety of its student body, not terrorism. Don't get hysterical. All Universities do not have the same resources or access to State resources.
No I'm not. You asserted that Universities were meant for the free exchange of ideas. You are the one disingenuously moving the goalposts. No, there's more than one definition for "free". "Not costing or charging anything" is #10 on this list. In the context of "free speech", that's never what the "free" part is referring to. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld No, anti-social ideas engender an anti-social response since they amount to a perceived threat against the lives and livelihoods of the targeted group. They're only "anti-social" and "threatening" because you don't agree with them. According to critics of the LGBT movement, LGBT rights threaten the lives and livelihood of non-LGBT individuals (see: the debate over bathrooms and "religious freedom" measures). Yet hopefully you would not tolerate harassment, threats, and violence toward pro-LGBT campus speakers. No. That logic justifies a University not approving a speaker in deference to the safety of its student body, not terrorism. Don't get hysterical. That's literally letting people get what they want by threatening violence, the very definition of terrorism.
In the context of "free speech", that's never what the "free" part is referring to. That wasn't the context of your comment. Free speech guaranteed by the constitution and 'the free exchange of ideas' offered by a University are not the same thing.
They're only "anti-social" and "threatening" because you don't agree with them. Lots of ideas and policies good and bad are anti-social. This just means that social cohesion is threatened. Pro Life policies are anti-social and threatening by definition because people (right or wrong) feel threatened. If people feel threatened, polite discourse is usually difficult. This is common sense, it is difficult to politely argue with a man over his right to rape you if you are a woman. The argument represents a fundamental existential conflict and imminent threat for which 'peace' or 'compromise' is impossible.
That's literally letting people get what they want by threatening violence, the very definition of terrorism. What you have is a conflict between the desire to allow free speech and the importance of public safety. If it bothers you that Universities value public safety, then I suggest you advocate for altering Private and Public University policies to explicitly deny any obligation to protect student safety and/or furnish every University with enough local and State police to ensure public safety for these events. Neither of these things is likely to garner much support though because they both cause a lot more problems then they solve. The current solution is imperfect and does give extreme right and left wing groups some limited power to control what speakers are invited to speak by Public and Private Universities, but this is a far cry from terrorism. These students are not breaking the law, only contributing to a situation the University is ill equipped to deal with. If they were breaking the law, there would necessarily be legal consequences. Any time a University confirms one speaker, it must necessarily deny another. It is impossible for any university to provide an absolute free exchange of every conceivable idea. Therefore, it cannot be a violation of free speech for a University to choose speakers to fill limited time slots.
Any time a University confirms one speaker, it must necessarily deny another. It is impossible for any university to provide an absolute free exchange of every conceivable idea. Therefore, it cannot be a violation of free speech for a University to choose speakers to fill limited time slots. They have campus group policies and usually operate under a "first come, first serve" basis. That's more fair than discriminating on the basis of viewpoint or allowing the heckler's veto to do it for you.
That wasn't the context of your comment. I was responding to your assertion that universities aren't about free exchange of ideas because they charge an admission fee (which is a barrier for many people). That is an equivocation on the word "free". Starting up a television media network to promote your political ideas also has a very high cost (only the richest members of society are able to do it), but it doesn't follow from there that there's no right to free speech. Pro Life policies are anti-social and threatening by definition because people (right or wrong) feel threatened. If people feel threatened, polite discourse is usually difficult. This is common sense, it is difficult to politely argue with a man over his right to rape you if you are a woman. The argument represents a fundamental existential conflict and imminent threat for which 'peace' or 'compromise' is impossible. And a women might feel threatened by the prospect of her 12 year-old daughter getting flashed by an individual with an erect penis inside a public locker room (especially if she's personally been the victim of sexual assault). Yet critics of transgender bathrooms seem to have been able to avoid harassing, threatening, and using violence against pro-LGBT speakers. The current solution is imperfect and does give extreme right and left wing groups some limited power to control what speakers are invited to speak by Public and Private Universities, but this is a far cry from terrorism. These students are not breaking the law, only contributing to a situation the University is ill equipped to deal with. If they were breaking the law, there would necessarily be legal consequences. In a lot of cases, there aren't any credible threats to public safety and the crybabies simply need to be put in their place (arresting disruptive individuals as necessary). And last I checked throwing Molotov cocktails, pepper spraying people that look like "Nazis" (whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays), and throwing bottles of urine at police officers are violent actions and all are against the law. If you're willing to give these people what they want, then you are literally submitting to terrorists. There is no way around it. A violent riot should be met with whatever force is necessary. As Ronald Reagan said, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement."
You seem to be confused. The free speech guaranteed by the constitution is the freedom from government interference. It's no guarantee from private or public censorship or retribution. That free speech guarantee (from government interference) applies equally on campus, on the street, and at a job. Outside of government interference, free speech rights differ depending on location. There is no guarantee of 'free speech' on a public or private campus. A University can and will expel you if you express ideas or take actions that violate Campus policy. You are not free to express any or every idea. Moreover since access to 'these free ideas' and the 'ability to contribute free ideas' is not free, it necessarily follows that some ideas and viewpoints will not gain admission, acceptance, or an audience. Since a University does not guarantee that every idea will be equally represented. It follows, that a failure to provide a platform or audience for a specific idea is not a violation of policy or of stated values. Especially since this is no guarantee that the speaker won't be invited at another time. As such, this can only be considered a deferment, not censorship. Further, 'giving in to hecklers' is not a compromise of Campus values since the University made no guarantee that every idea would be equally represented. You keep bringing up this phrase 'free exchange of ideas' but you would do better to find campus policy that states such, rather than rely on unverifiable supposition if you want a more nuanced discussion.
Yet critics of transgender bathrooms seem to have been able to avoid harassing, threatening, and using violence against pro-LGBT speakers. Which would be why the policy is less anti-social. The threat is vague without a definitive target and the risk is almost identical to the risk of the previous policy.
And last I checked... None of this is particularly germane to the conversation we are having. It would be better to remain on the topic of 'free speech' on campus.
Which would be why the policy is less anti-social. The threat is vague without a definitive target and the risk is almost identical to the risk of the previous policy. It's more threatening than Anita Sarkeesian's ideas (which largely consist of complaining about video games), yet she was targeted much more viciously. So I don't really think the level of harassment a speaker gets is a good benchmark for how "anti-social" his or her ideas are. Not to mention that the blame should go toward the person doing the harassment, not the person being harassed. None of this is particularly germane to the conversation we are having. It would be better to remain on the topic of 'free speech' on campus. You're the one that brought up the topic of public safety, not me.
Actually, the First Amendment can cover censorship (speech codes) at public universities. See Doe v. University of Michigan. Moreover since access to 'these free ideas' and the 'ability to contribute free ideas' is not free, it necessarily follows that some ideas and viewpoints will not gain admission, acceptance, or an audience. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it a sound argument. It doesn't follow from "universities have cost barriers" that "universities aren't about free exchange of ideas (so mob censorship is acceptable)". Especially since this is no guarantee that the speaker won't be invited at another time. As such, this can only be considered a deferment, not censorship. Censorship is still censorship, even if you're only going to do it once. Further, 'giving in to hecklers' is not a compromise of Campus values since the University made no guarantee that every idea would be equally represented. Harassment, threats, and violence generally go against campus values. You keep bringing up this phrase 'free exchange of ideas' but you would do better to find campus policy that states such, rather than rely on unverifiable supposition if you want a more nuanced discussion. Free exchange of ideas is what sets universities apart from other kinds of institutions (ie trade schools). That is common knowledge.
Doe v. University of Michigan ruled that Michigan's hate speech code was too broad. All Universities make value judgements on what knowledge and skills deserve priority or should be considered 'essential components' in a formal education. Curating and prioritizing the type and content of knowledge to be provided a platform by the University is no different than deciding which speakers to invite. There is a big difference between restricting the content and type of speech allowed on campus and the type of knowledge and ideas a University chooses to present to students. Your legal example falls into the former category. The free exchange of ideas does not mean equal time for all sides or exposing students to every possible idea. It is better conceptualized as a component of academic integrity. The free exchange of ideas is meant to equip students with the knowledge and skills required to evaluate, compare, and choose among disparate viewpoints.
censorship is still censorship Then everything a University does is 'censorship.'
harassment, threats, and violence generally go against campus values. I agree, I expect Universities to expel students who violate code of conduct rules.
No idea does.
The idea of free speech comes from the First Amendment, 'Congress shall make no law...' This means that as an American you have a right to say and believe anything you want without being penalized by the government. Basically you can't be killed or imprisoned for expressing a political opinion, religious belief, or for reporting on the news. You also have a right to peaceably assemble. Nowhere does it state that you have a right to be heard. Nowhere does it state that a populace has an obligation to listen to the merits of your speech. You have just as much free speech rights as your fellow citizens. If you go to a public area to express your free speech rights but get drowned out by someone else expressing their free speech rights, you don't get to shut down someone else's rights because you want to be heard. The entire subtext of this censorship idea is that somehow Pro Life free speech is more important and more valuable and should take precedence over everyone else's free speech and that simply is not the case.
You can criticize this as you did in your above example for not forcing people to adhere to basic standards of decency and respect, and I would agree with you there. Free speech laws do not promote or encourage a respectful exchange of ideas. I suspect this is because our founding fathers recognized that the marketplace of ideas is a messy and not always pleasant place.
In a public space, no one is obligated to agree to Pro Life terms of debate and it is a mistake to assume otherwise. In the examples mentioned in this post, the Pro Life message is not being censored, it is only being prevented from reaching a broader audience and having the kind of dialogue Pro Life advocates would prefer to have. The Pro Life message is still readily available one on one, through handouts, campus groups, message boards, etc.
I never argued that anyone has an obligation to listen to my views. If someone does not wish to hear a pro-life speaker or interact with a pro-life display, they can simply choose not to attend or to avert their gaze.
Secondly, Universities are not free, so the idea that there has ever been a 'free exchange of ideas' is laughable. You are not free to exchange ideas or learn from them unless you pay the price of entry, a price many people can not pay. Certainly every idea is not represented either. In fact, very little is actually taught that is not supported by the political and social hegemony, that's why the available standardized and accredited courses are influenced by the Department of Education. If someone does not wish to hear a pro-life speaker or interact with a pro-life display, they can simply choose not to attend or to avert their gaze.
They can also loudly protest in a way that drowns out your free speech. Anti-social ideas that 'threaten' a social group or demographic tend to encourage this kind of speech and far worse. Universities have no obligation to offer or provide a platform for contentious ideas that threaten or corrode social stability for the simple reason that they lack the resources to contain such speech safely.
Somehow, I don't think this is what the founders had in mind when they founded the country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y69tkCbeC5o
Secondly, Universities are not free, so the idea that there has
ever been a 'free exchange of ideas' is laughable. You are not free to
exchange ideas or learn from them unless you pay the price of entry, a
price many people can not pay.
You're equivocating on "free". Free speech means that you can say what you want in the public sphere, not that it never costs money to spread your message.
Certainly every idea is not represented either. In fact, very little is
actually taught that is not supported by the political and social
hegemony, that's why the available standardized and accredited courses
are influenced by the Department of Education.
That's why students are allowed to form campus groups, which in turn can invite guest speakers that don't necessarily talk about what's in the curriculum. Unless you think Donald Trump and Betsy Devos should dictate which ideas are acceptable to be discussed in a university setting.
They can also loudly protest in a way that drowns out your free speech.
Anti-social ideas that 'threaten' a social group or demographic tend to
encourage this kind of speech and far worse.
I see. So they're asking for harassment, threats, and violence because you disagree with their ideas. Glad that's clear.
Universities have no obligation to offer or provide a platform for
contentious ideas that threaten or corrode social stability for the
simple reason that they lack the resources to contain such speech
safely.
That logic could justify any form of terrorism. As long as enough people threaten violence, they get what they want.
No I'm not. You asserted that Universities were meant for the free exchange of ideas. You are the one disingenuously moving the goalposts. That's why students are allowed to form campus groups...
I don't disagree. So they're asking for harassment, threats, and violence because you disagree with their ideas.
No, anti-social ideas engender an anti-social response since they amount to a perceived threat against the lives and livelihoods of the targeted group. That logic could justify any form of terrorism.
No. That logic justifies a University not approving a speaker in deference to the safety of its student body, not terrorism. Don't get hysterical. All Universities do not have the same resources or access to State resources.
exchange of ideas. You are the one disingenuously moving the goalposts.
No, there's more than one definition for "free". "Not costing or charging anything" is #10 on this list. In the context of "free speech", that's never what the "free" part is referring to.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
No, anti-social ideas engender an anti-social response since they
amount to a perceived threat against the lives and livelihoods of the
targeted group.
They're only "anti-social" and "threatening" because you don't agree with them. According to critics of the LGBT movement, LGBT rights threaten the lives and livelihood of non-LGBT individuals (see: the debate over bathrooms and "religious freedom" measures). Yet hopefully you would not tolerate harassment, threats, and violence toward pro-LGBT campus speakers.
No. That logic justifies a University not approving a speaker in
deference to the safety of its student body, not terrorism. Don't get
hysterical.
That's literally letting people get what they want by threatening violence, the very definition of terrorism.
That wasn't the context of your comment. Free speech guaranteed by the constitution and 'the free exchange of ideas' offered by a University are not the same thing. They're only "anti-social" and "threatening" because you don't agree with them.
Lots of ideas and policies good and bad are anti-social. This just means that social cohesion is threatened.
Pro Life policies are anti-social and threatening by definition because people (right or wrong) feel threatened. If people feel threatened, polite discourse is usually difficult. This is common sense, it is difficult to politely argue with a man over his right to rape you if you are a woman. The argument represents a fundamental existential conflict and imminent threat for which 'peace' or 'compromise' is impossible. That's literally letting people get what they want by threatening violence, the very definition of terrorism.
What you have is a conflict between the desire to allow free speech and the importance of public safety. If it bothers you that Universities value public safety, then I suggest you advocate for altering Private and Public University policies to explicitly deny any obligation to protect student safety and/or furnish every University with enough local and State police to ensure public safety for these events. Neither of these things is likely to garner much support though because they both cause a lot more problems then they solve.
The current solution is imperfect and does give extreme right and left wing groups some limited power to control what speakers are invited to speak by Public and Private Universities, but this is a far cry from terrorism. These students are not breaking the law, only contributing to a situation the University is ill equipped to deal with. If they were breaking the law, there would necessarily be legal consequences.
Any time a University confirms one speaker, it must necessarily deny another. It is impossible for any university to provide an absolute free exchange of every conceivable idea. Therefore, it cannot be a violation of free speech for a University to choose speakers to fill limited time slots.
another. It is impossible for any university to provide an absolute
free exchange of every conceivable idea. Therefore, it cannot be a
violation of free speech for a University to choose speakers to fill
limited time slots.
They have campus group policies and usually operate under a "first come, first serve" basis. That's more fair than discriminating on the basis of viewpoint or allowing the heckler's veto to do it for you.
I was responding to your assertion that universities aren't about free exchange of ideas because they charge an admission fee (which is a barrier for many people). That is an equivocation on the word "free". Starting up a television media network to promote your political ideas also has a very high cost (only the richest members of society are able to do it), but it doesn't follow from there that there's no right to free speech.
Pro Life policies are anti-social and threatening by definition because
people (right or wrong) feel threatened. If people feel threatened,
polite discourse is usually difficult. This is common sense, it is
difficult to politely argue with a man over his right to rape you if you
are a woman. The argument represents a fundamental existential
conflict and imminent threat for which 'peace' or 'compromise' is
impossible.
And a women might feel threatened by the prospect of her 12 year-old daughter getting flashed by an individual with an erect penis inside a public locker room (especially if she's personally been the victim of sexual assault). Yet critics of transgender bathrooms seem to have been able to avoid harassing, threatening, and using violence against pro-LGBT speakers.
The current solution is imperfect and does give extreme right and
left wing groups some limited power to control what speakers are invited
to speak by Public and Private Universities, but this is a far cry from
terrorism. These students are not breaking the law, only contributing
to a situation the University is ill equipped to deal with. If they
were breaking the law, there would necessarily be legal consequences.
In a lot of cases, there aren't any credible threats to public safety and the crybabies simply need to be put in their place (arresting disruptive individuals as necessary). And last I checked throwing Molotov cocktails, pepper spraying people that look like "Nazis" (whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays), and throwing bottles of urine at police officers are violent actions and all are against the law. If you're willing to give these people what they want, then you are literally submitting to terrorists. There is no way around it. A violent riot should be met with whatever force is necessary. As Ronald Reagan said, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement."
Outside of government interference, free speech rights differ depending on location. There is no guarantee of 'free speech' on a public or private campus. A University can and will expel you if you express ideas or take actions that violate Campus policy. You are not free to express any or every idea. Moreover since access to 'these free ideas' and the 'ability to contribute free ideas' is not free, it necessarily follows that some ideas and viewpoints will not gain admission, acceptance, or an audience.
Since a University does not guarantee that every idea will be equally represented. It follows, that a failure to provide a platform or audience for a specific idea is not a violation of policy or of stated values. Especially since this is no guarantee that the speaker won't be invited at another time. As such, this can only be considered a deferment, not censorship. Further, 'giving in to hecklers' is not a compromise of Campus values since the University made no guarantee that every idea would be equally represented.
You keep bringing up this phrase 'free exchange of ideas' but you would do better to find campus policy that states such, rather than rely on unverifiable supposition if you want a more nuanced discussion. Yet critics of transgender bathrooms seem to have been able to avoid harassing, threatening, and using violence against pro-LGBT speakers.
Which would be why the policy is less anti-social. The threat is vague without a definitive target and the risk is almost identical to the risk of the previous policy. And last I checked...
None of this is particularly germane to the conversation we are having. It would be better to remain on the topic of 'free speech' on campus.
It's more threatening than Anita Sarkeesian's ideas (which largely consist of complaining about video games), yet she was targeted much more viciously. So I don't really think the level of harassment a speaker gets is a good benchmark for how "anti-social" his or her ideas are. Not to mention that the blame should go toward the person doing the harassment, not the person being harassed.
None of this is particularly germane to the conversation we are having. It would be better to remain on the topic of 'free speech' on campus.
You're the one that brought up the topic of public safety, not me.
Moreover since access to 'these free ideas' and the 'ability to contribute free ideas' is not free, it necessarily follows that some ideas and viewpoints will not gain admission, acceptance, or an audience.
Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it a sound argument. It doesn't follow from "universities have cost barriers" that "universities aren't about free exchange of ideas (so mob censorship is acceptable)".
Especially since this is no guarantee that the speaker won't be invited at another time. As such, this can only be considered a deferment, not censorship.
Censorship is still censorship, even if you're only going to do it once.
Further, 'giving in to hecklers' is not a compromise of Campus values since the University made no guarantee that every idea would be equally represented.
Harassment, threats, and violence generally go against campus values.
You keep bringing up this phrase 'free exchange of ideas' but you would do better to find campus policy that states such, rather than rely on unverifiable supposition if you want a more nuanced discussion.
Free exchange of ideas is what sets universities apart from other kinds of institutions (ie trade schools). That is common knowledge.
All Universities make value judgements on what knowledge and skills deserve priority or should be considered 'essential components' in a formal education. Curating and prioritizing the type and content of knowledge to be provided a platform by the University is no different than deciding which speakers to invite. There is a big difference between restricting the content and type of speech allowed on campus and the type of knowledge and ideas a University chooses to present to students. Your legal example falls into the former category.
The free exchange of ideas does not mean equal time for all sides or exposing students to every possible idea. It is better conceptualized as a component of academic integrity. The free exchange of ideas is meant to equip students with the knowledge and skills required to evaluate, compare, and choose among disparate viewpoints. censorship is still censorship
Then everything a University does is 'censorship.' harassment, threats, and violence generally go against campus values.
I agree, I expect Universities to expel students who violate code of conduct rules.