@HarvestMoon1: I understand that the activity must rise to a certain level. My point is that defining the “level of interference described in the policy” is left to the CMC administrators. The policy uses loose enough language that the level can be an extremely wide range. Nothing says CMC can’t reason as follows: protests cause a substantial risk of escalating to the point that we need to cancel speakers; speakers are a regular activity; protests therefore impede that regular activity; therefore protests violate the policy and are not permitted.
My point is not that CMC has used this policy to shut down speakers (although switching from live to live-stream, I would say, is pretty much the same as shut down). My point is that they can.
@HRSMom: My point is that the CMC policy is sufficiently loose to permit wide-scale censorship that turns on who the particular administrator is. As an aside I noted that I didn’t think this would survive a vagueness challenge if it were a state school policy.