Accompanying the return of secular ideologies long thought dead and buried are the intellectuals and educated debaters who come to the defense of these nonconformist beliefs. Individuals such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, Charles Murray, and Ann Coulter are some examples of intellectual dissent through challenging today's established and majority-endorsed norms, such as social equality, etc. Although considered by a large public to be a disruptive social pariah part of the population, and regardless of how unpalatable their positions on social issues may be, they retain the same civil rights as everyone else, as long as their views do not conflict with other constitutional principles or cause harm to others. Public universities should not be able to ban controversial speakers on the basis that public universities are public forums, available and accessible to anyone invited to speak; controversial speakers are protected by the First Amendment, with certain conditions attached; and finally, courts have ruled that students also have a constitutional right to hear visiting speakers on college campuses under the First Amendment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First, a public university can be defined as “a university financed predominantly by public means through a national or subnational government.” In the United States, such universities are funded by the state. As such, they are public spaces whose rules and guidelines are up to the state legislature, and thus there are fewer rules governing public universities than their private counterparts. A public forum “is open to all expression protected by the First Amendment.” In Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzche, the titular character proclaims his infamous “God is dead” speech in the marketplace, a common public forum at the time, and is met with contempt by the faithful: “believers in the true faith hate you and you they call a danger to the multitude." (Nietzche) Unfortunately it was not well received by the public and to this day it was considered an extremely controversial statement. 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 opinions, with minimal restrictions in accordance with free speech. From there, the few rules that govern public universities do not prohibit anyone from attending any public events hosted by the school, such as debates, conferences, speeches etc. as long as they do not threaten or promote violence against any specific individual or group. If an individual follows the rules and does not threaten or promote violence, then he or she is legally allowed to speak at public universities. Therefore, banning people who follow the rules from sharing their ideas in a public forum is illegal. Second, public speakers are individuals who give speeches in front of a live audience. They are legally allowed to hold seminars, lectures, lectures, speeches etc. in any public space. Public universities are public spaces. As a result, public speakers can turn to public universities. Amendment I of the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or restrict freedom of speech 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” meansprevent individuals from expressing their opinions or ideas, which the government can now do. Francis Bacon's The Four Idols mentions how "the idols of the market-place are the most troublesome of all... now the words, being commonly framed and applied accordingly to the capacity of the vulgar, follow those lines of division which are most obvious to the vulgar understanding.(Bacon) Essentially, Bacon postulates that the marketplace, a public forum, constitutes a terrible place with respect to the free exchange of ideas and opinions, with words used against itself for causes of division in these bad ideas rejected because they are seen as propagators of these bad ideas, but the value judgments of these ideas are irrelevant to the fact that these speakers have the right to say them, as everyone else does. Public universities, as public forums, now onward they will not be able to prevent some from speaking and others from not relying on value judgments, as that would be to impede their constitutional right to free speech, a crime in and of itself. Controversial speakers, like all speakers, are covered by free speech; however, some conditions are well documented in the Constitution. Hate speech, incitement to violence, sponsorship of terrorism, defamation and threats are some of the categories that are not covered by this principle of free speech and are prosecutable crimes in an American 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. Likewise, Plato's “Apology” of Socrates sheds light on this issue. When Socrates was tried and executed for “impiety” because of his unpopular ideas: “As a result of this investigation, men of Athens, I have acquired much unpopularity, of a kind that is difficult to bear and represents a heavy burden.” (Plato). Controversial speakers occupy the same position as Socrates, even though they may differ with respect to their worldview. 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 the speakers have to say it. The widespread protests and public outrage against these public figures speaking at these institutions is approaching an almost violent end result does not change the fact that both speakers and students who wish to participate in these events have the same right to do it for others. . The purpose of these public forums is to invite debate and disagreement in an orderly and socially acceptable manner. If nothing else, the opposition is demonstrating its reluctance to listen to others and refute them point by point, instead showing that it prefers to be protected from discussing real-world issues with people who have different points of view. Perhaps those who hold the view that controversial speakers are effectively banned from speaking at public universities might view the status of a public university as a limited public forum such that the final decision is left to those who found at the top of a university's administration; that these controversial speakers violate Amendment I of the United States Constitution; and that students should be protected from such hate speech for fear that they may be negatively affected by it. A limited public forum is a public space reserved for expressive activity, with some limitations regarding the topic or type of speaker allowed. However, it is not possible to completely ban speakers from holding..