Accompanying the return of centuries-old ideologies long considered dead and buried, educated intellectuals and debaters are coming to defend these nonconformist beliefs. Individuals such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, Charles Murray and Ann Coulter are some examples of intellectual dissent by questioning the well-established norms approved by today's majority, e.g. social equality, etc. Although they are considered disruptive social outcasts by a large segment of the population, and no matter how distasteful their positions on social issues may be, they retain the same civil rights as everyone else, as long as their opinions do not conflict with other constitutional principles or cause harm to others. Public universities should not be able to ban controversial speakers on the grounds that they are public forums, available and accessible to anyone invited to speak; controversial speakers are protected by the First Amendment, under certain conditions; and finally, courts have ruled that students also have a constitutional right to hear guest speakers on college campuses, consistent with the First Amendment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay First, a public university can be defined as “a university that is primarily publicly funded through a national or subnational government. In the United States, these universities are publicly funded. As such, they are public spaces whose rules and guidelines lie with the state legislature, and thus there are fewer rules governing public universities than their private counterparts. A public forum “is open to any expression protected by the First Amendment.” In Friedrich Nietzche's Thus Spake Zarathustra, the main character proclaims his infamous "God is dead" speech in the marketplace, a common public forum of the time, and is greeted with hatred by the faithful: "believers in the true faith hate you. and I call you a danger to the multitude. (Nietzche) Unfortunately, this statement was not well received by the public and has been considered an extremely controversial statement until today. In the United States, public universities are designated as limited public forums, meaning they are open to anyone in the public who wishes to share their views, with minimal restrictions consistent with free speech. From there, the few rules that govern public universities do not prohibit anyone from participating in a public event organized by the school, such as a debate, lecture, conference, etc., provided that they do not threaten or encourage violence against any individual or individual. band. If an individual follows the rules and does not threaten or encourage violence, they are legally allowed to speak at public universities. Therefore, prohibiting individuals who follow the rules from sharing their ideas in a public forum is illegal. Second, public speakers are individuals who deliver speeches in front of a live audience. They are legally allowed to organize seminars, lectures, lectures, speeches, etc. in any public space. Public universities are public spaces. Therefore, public speakers are allowed to address public universities. Amendment I of theUnited States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or restrict freedom of expression or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “Restricting free speech” means preventing individuals from expressing their opinions or ideas, which the government is now allowed to do. Francis Bacon's Four Idols mentions how the "idols of the market are the most troublesome of all...now the words, being commonly formulated and applied according to the capacity of the vulgar, follow the lines of division which are most evident in the vulgar understanding. (Bacon) Essentially, Bacon posits that the marketplace, a public forum, is a terrible place for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, with words being used against itself to divide those bad ideas. Controversial speakers are shunned because they are seen as propagators of these bad ideas, but the value judgments of these ideas have nothing to do with the fact that these speakers have the right to express them, just like anyone else. else. Public universities, as public spaces, no longer have the right to prevent some from expressing themselves, and others from not relying on value judgments, because this would amount to hindering their constitutional right to freedom of expression, a crime in itself. Controversial speakers, like all speakers, are covered by free speech; however, certain conditions are well documented in the Constitution. Hate speech, incitement to violence, support for terrorism, defamation, and threats are some of the categories that are not covered by this principle of free speech and are prosecutable offenses in a U.S. court. Finally, from the perspective of students attending these public universities, they have the equivalent constitutional right to hear these speakers, no matter how controversial their thoughts or ideas may be. Likewise, Plato’s “Apology” of Socrates sheds light on this question. When Socrates was tried and executed for “impiety” due to his unpopular ideas: “As a result of this investigation, Athenian men, I have acquired great unpopularity, of a kind of harshness and heavy burden. » (Plato). Controversial speakers occupy the same position as Socrates, although they may differ in their worldview. The young people, in this case, are the students who attend these universities, who have as much right to hear what these speakers have to say as they have the right to say it. Widespread protests and public outrage over these public figures speaking at these institutions are on the verge of a near-violent end result, but that doesn't change the fact that the speakers and students who wish to participate in these events have as much right to do so as others. . The purpose of these public forums is to generate debate and disagreement in an orderly and socially acceptable manner. Rather, the opposition demonstrates its reluctance to listen to others and refute them point by point, preferring instead to be sheltered from discussing real-world issues with people with divergent views. Perhaps those who share this point of view. that controversial speakers should effectively be banned from speaking at public universities might view a public university's status as a limited public forum, implying that the final decision be left to those at the upper echelon of administration of a university; that these controversial speakers are violating Amendment I of the Constitution..