1. Universities shouldn't be paying people to speak there anyway.
This is irrelevant to the topic of free speech.
It also makes no sense, a university pays countless people to help impart ideas and instruction to students, why would they listen to your personal desire for them not to?
2. Universities do have the right to choose who they get at their campuses. I may not like the concept, but it's an ongoing situation nonetheless.
Irrelevant. Of course they can censor speakers, that's AGAINST free speech, by definition!!
And you are OK with them choosing who is at the campus, but then you want to interfere with their right to pay them for it?!?
3. These people should be experts in their fields or people who represents movements students are passionate about, not political hacks who have no place being on college campuses. I think students get enough of that from their peers.
Censorship is censorship, you can claim they aren't free to speak for any reason you want to, still a violation of free speech.
Remember, the speaker was invited by students.
Also remember the reason he was denied was because of claims that in other schools, the STUDENTS who wanted to censor him, acted out violently/disruptive to the point the school didn't feel it needed the hassle. You are wrong in every meaningful way.
Experts in their field, this isn't expert testimonial in a court, good grief man. And who judges if they are an expert...you? You are struggling with the concept of freedom of speech, a pillar of a free society...the idea that you'd be capable of determining what's right for me, or anyone other than yourself, is absurd.
