It is important to understand that
universities may in fact feel that other issues than freedom of
expression must determine whether or not they provide the venue
for people to express themselves politically or artistically.
Rightly or wrongly, there is also the question of
"appropriateness" of message or the style and language by which
it is expressed. Courts have held that certain restrictions on
expression can be made, based on "time, place, manner"
consideration: thus radio programs with "dirty words" can be
relegated to late-night hours, and adult book stores can be
restricted to non-residential areas. On campuses,
prominent displays of four-letter words, racially inflammatory
statements, or attempts to pray for people to convert to a faith
may interfere with what is considered an atmosphere of study and
respectful discourse. Especially if other venues than college
campuses are available to people who want to use these forms of
persuasion, a university may deny use of its facilities. This is
one reason, and an understandable if controversial one, why
school officials require that permission be formally applied for.

Sadly, as the examples below show, sometimes campus space for
artists and speakers is denied for other reasons than that of
creating a suitable atmosphere for study. The real reason is that
the community, the alumni, or parents, may be offended by the
artwork or the speaker. Restrictions on "time, place, and manner"
are not supposed to be used to restrict "content," that is, to
interfere with one's ability to express ideas.

See the incidents regarding graffiti and other postings at U of
Oklahoma and Bates College, the campus radio broadcasts of Heavy
Metal music at Siena College, the forced resignation of disk
jockeys at the U. of South Carolina, and exotic dancers at San
Diego State U., below [provide anchors]