I've never met someone so dead-set on misinterpreting their own sources. It's kinda shocking! > This letter from the dean of Stanford Law School Okay, now go

I've never met someone so dead-set on misinterpreting their own sources. It's kinda shocking! > This letter from the dean of Stanford Law School Okay, now go back through and read it again. > the First Amendment is designed to protect speech from government restriction, and therefore is not directly applicable to Stanford as a private institution This entire letter is based on interpretations of California state law and school policy, which is a fairytale as far as federal jurisdiction is concerned. And they even concede that those interpretations are subject to further scrutiny: > Thus, while the California Supreme Court in In re Kay protected protestors speaking out against an elected official at “a large, public celebration held outdoors in a public park,” the Court noted that “the nature of a meeting necessarily plays a major role,” and that “customs and usages” are central to the analysis. So, as you have so vehemently tried to disprove, there is no federal precedent that limits the lawful protest of public speech. Please don't misconstrue my arguments in the future if you want to have a productive debate.