Last year Berkeley got $370M in federal funding and $108M in state funding.
Freedom of speech and freedom of association are key rights in a democracy, and they apply everywhere. I get to talk, but you get to walk away. I get to say what I want, but you are not compelled to help circulate my views. I have the right to say what I think; you have right to say that makes me an asshole.
In this age, nobody in the US is "effectively" censored. At basically no cost, anybody can set up a web server and share their views across the globe. Today, everybody's a publisher, but nobody has to listen.
Nobody caring what I have to say isn't censorship for me; it's freedom for everybody else.
Except the argument here is person X doesn't get to talk.
The argument is Berkeley can stop people talking they politically don't like (Or any other reason) because as a business they have every right to discriminate on political views.
And sure that's legally true perhaps, we all understand that, but it's not right and against the idea of the first amendment.
To argue it's ok for universities to censor speakers is a very scary point of view, and this is what you are doing by bringing in the straw person 'it's legally allowed'
I was addressing your notion about businesses, "this legal loophole, businesses can do what they want". And I presumed you were actually talking about businesses, because a) you mentioned Twitter, a business, and b) UC Berkeley is not a business.
> sure that's legally true perhaps [...] it's not right and against the idea of the first amendment
No. No, no, no. The idea of the First Amendment is not that you are owed a platform. It's just that the government cannot stop you from saying what you want in public or with your own platform. It starts out with "Congress shall make no law" for a reason.
That is not the idea of the First Amendment. It is your idea of the First Amendment. It's a common one, but that doesn't make it the right one, or the only one.
No one is talking about taking Twitter or Berkeley etc to court, we get it, they would win (Assuming Berkeley doesn't get public funding though?)
What we are taking about is big business who control speech effectively censoring the population.
This goes against the spirit of the First Amendment and the Left are the first to be outraged when right wing news media doesn't give them a voice.
They then use this legal loophole, businesses can do what they want, argument when it suits them.