State schools like UCLA cannot restrict speech in the same way that private organizations could, because they are part of the government. The cinema analogy is therefore spurious.

▲

davrosthedalek 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Honest question on this: It is clear that first amendment protects the rights of protesters from persecution by the government. But does that mean that the government would need to endure protests in any federal building at any time?

If not, I think you could make a case that UCLA could kick protesters out, for example if they take over a building. In contrast to a private university, they probably couldn't act on what the protesters do outside of the university. But I do think that they must have some regulatory power on campus.

	▲	hackyhacky 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> But does that mean that the government would need to endure protests in any federal building at any time? No. It means that the university cannot censor protests based on their content. They can certainly require protesters to get a permit, to stay within certain areas, to act within usual behavior parameters. > If not, I think you could make a case that UCLA could kick protesters out, for example if they take over a building. Of course. But that's not the claim made by the administration.

▲

throwaway290 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh right. I forgot not all unis are private in the US. Then it makes more sende...