On the main, there is a now closed questions, "Why would somebody want to shut down a speaking event? [on hold]." The question is overly broad, and likely to generate answers that are primarily opinion based; that it is closed is appropriate.
One of the answers there mischaracterizes the situation by falsely establishing the context that "people like Richard Spencer are not allowed to speak at all universities." The answer builds on the false premise, explain the actions to shut down speaking events with:
The reason some do not want them to speak is that they may be a (physical) threat to a certain part of the population, specifically to Black people, Jews, etc. While the speakers may or may not be violent themselves, Nazis and other far-right speakers attract similarly minded people who will be a threat.
This line of reasoning either negates the efforts to shut down events held by speakers that aren't Nazis or far-right, or practices intellectually dishonesty by assuming that every event that was shut down was hosting a Nazi or far right speaker.
In response, I posed multiple challenging critiques, asking the answer to qualify the statements in light of Ben Shapiro being shut down for being a Nazi, the efforts to silence Brett Weinstein as a racist, and the work against Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Now there all gone. Why?