The short answer is that the Supreme Court has held that restricting protests to particular places on campus is a reasonable "time, place, and manner" restricti

The short answer is that the Supreme Court has held that restricting protests to particular places on campus is a reasonable "time, place, and manner" restriction, so long as the regulation leaves open some reasonable place for protests and does not discriminate on the basis of the protesters' message. (This is based on the dubious, but now legally established, principle that "protesting" is a mode of speech and not also a message. Some on the court would have held -- right, I think -- that a law that discriminates against protestors inherently discriminates between speakers' viewpoints.) The wikipedia page is reasonably informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incidents_and_court_proceedings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incide... (Though is leaves out Frisby v. Schultz, the case that held that laws regulating protests can be content neutral, among many other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisby_v._Schultz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisby_v._Schultz) Note also that it is not particularly relevant that an organization receives public funds. On the one hand, any school (or other organization) operated by a state is also subject to the federal constitution including the First Amendment (of course, this does not cover private schools). And on the other hand, I think your logic stretches too far: I reserve the right to kick you out of my dinner party because I don't like what you're saying. I receive "federal funds" in the form of various tax breaks. If I do actually kick you out, have I violated the First Amendment? I hope not. The usual rule is that only the government itself (at any level -- or its agents, under certain circumstances) can violate the First Amendment (and almost all of the other amendments, with the notable exception of the 13th). I think it's probably better this way.