The problem really is the hypocritical way many universities interpret free speech.
Liberal students shouting down a conservative speaker? Student right to free speech.
Conservative students shouting down a liberal speaker? Students violating speaker’s right to free speech.
Liberal firebrand coming to campus to stir up trouble? Free speech.
Conservative firebrand coming to campus to stir up trouble? Ban the speaker.
Those who oppose the OP’s premise:
Would you rather see the speaker boycotted, and speaking to an empty auditorium?
I note that this comes straight from the Mao/Stalin/Hitler school of free speech: all citizens are free to speak in any way that leaves their listeners “better informed”. (What exactly constitutes better information will of course be decided by the powers that be.)
It should be blindingly, staggeringly, stunningly obvious that any concept of “freedom of speech” that forbids uncomfortable, erroneous or offensive speech is in fact the dead opposite of that.
No, I’d rather they be allowed to speak and then rebutted, perhaps with pointed questions as has been suggested or perhaps, even better, with a counter speaker given the next week. What good would boycotting the speaker be? How would you ensure an empty auditorium, since obviously there are some people who will want to go see the speaker give their lecture?
The OP is ridiculous since it leads to a completely slippery slope. If group A is going to bring in a speaker and group B is going to boo, heckle and threaten the speaker what do you suppose group A is going to do next time group B brings someone in? And where does that stop? Maybe either group disagrees with group C, so that happens to them next? In the end, the one who wins is whoever can get the most thuggish or large group on their side to stifle the other sides arguments. Instead of attacking the argument and debunking it, now there is a perception of validity to the group being suppressed…I mean, why would they be suppressed if their argument can simply be debunked?
Yes, no one should be obligated to attend the speech.
Yes, I have boycotted every speech by a campus speaker since I left college. That is my right, however I do not have the right to prevent others who do not wish to boycott speakers from hearing them. No one has that right.
The problem is that university administrators are complicit in intimidation of speakers. For instance, when students attempted to block Charles Murray from speaking by screaming, chanting, beating on doors, pulling fire alarms, and assaulting a professor, the administration responding by putting the students responsible on probation for six months.
Why stop at invited speakers?
What’s against disrupting classes by professors that teach the wrong ideas and material.
Why not punch a professor?
How very odd - I so often see the exact reverse interpretation from conservative sources.
It depends - will Donald Trump pay my legal bills?
There are some speakers I believe to be unworthy of my valuable time. Wakefield is one example. If Charles Manson were paroled tomorrow, he’d be another. My attendance would give an air of legitimacy to their talk.
Point 1: So what, the OP is referring to colleges specifically.
Point 2: Public universities are bound by the 1st Amendment. Private universities, institutions, businesses and individuals (whether liberal or conservative) are not.
Point 3: I cite UC Berkeley’s banning of Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter as examples. What are your examples of similar conservative public university bannings of liberal speakers?
The leftists don’t merely want to not attend or hear the lectures. They don’t want to let anyone else attend or hear the lectures either.
It’s reminiscent of the attitude towards heresy in the Middle Ages. It’s not just that they’re wrong - the very existence of evil thoughts contaminates the society, and is a temptation to the weak of faith to trespass from the One Received Truth.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh…as an individual I totally agree. I wouldn’t go to see an anti-vax rant by Wakefield. I thought you meant you’d boycott it by preventing anyone from going. I’m a big fan of voting with my attention or pocketbook…less so of doing what the OP seems to feel is ok.
I am deeply troubled by my fellow leftists defending these strategies. It buys into the virulent strain of anti-intellectualism in modern America to say that people with odious views must not be heard.
They should be heard. They should be debated. If their views are really that bad (and they are!), they should be demolished with reason.
Be better than the anti-intellectuals.
You do realize we’re not talking about people getting up in the public square on a soapbox, or starting a blog, or even hosting a talk show on nationally syndicated television, right? These people are speaking at a university. A place of higher learning. Can you tell me what the fuck Ann Coulter is doing at a university?
So when is the Ken Ham - Richard Dawkins debate planned? 
Ann Coulter was invited by a student group , not by the university itself.
As was Milo Yianopolous. As was Rabbi Meir Kahane.
Many universities permit registered student organizations to use university facilities at little or no cost to host special events, activities, speakers or the like.
My approach would be to promote an alternative event. “Would you rather hear a crackpot speak, or drink beer? Keg party at …”
So BridgeUSA knew that inviting Ann Coulter would be confrontational … and who paid for Ann Coulter’s speaking fees, I don’t think she roams the country speaking for free …
Why would someone pay to have an atheist speak at Baylor?
If the college hired Wakefield as a lecturer to present a course on the Dangers of Vaccination, the right course for students would be to protest to the Administration on the grounds that the school is legitimizing dangerous pseudoscience.
If the campus Antivax Loon Club invited him to speak, by all means wave protest signs and banners outside the venue, and get into the audience to ask him embarrassing questions* after his talk (if he refuses to take them and scurries away, make sure that fact is provided to campus and outside news organizations). Shouting him down or threatening him with violence would be counterproductive.
*Mine would be: "Mr. Wakefield, you’ve gone from being a respectable academic gastroenterologist (before the Lancet paper appeared), to lately appearing as a hired act on a cruise excursion for conspiracy theorists. How do you deal with being a laughingstock in the scientific community?
I’m not the right person to ask. Wondering who is? Ham and Dawkins, that’s who.
Look, I know the issue. Ham is, like Milo and Coulter, a certified lying asshole. I get it. He doesn’t debate honestly.
Refusing to dignify him with a debating partner, or with an audience, is 100% fine. Furthermore, that can be effective in certain circumstances.
But refusing to let others hear him, others who are interested in hearing him? That’s neither okay nor effective. Our country fuckin loves it some martyrs, and when you prevent people from hearing Ken Ham, he changes from a lying asshole to a martyr. What’s more, plenty of the lying assholes (Milo and Coulter, I’m looking at you) depend for their living on being turned into martyrs. If you didn’t shout them down, they’d pay someone to do it and still turn a tidy profit off the conservative outrage.
Don’t play their game.
When Bernie Sanders gave a speech at Liberty University (a conservative evangelical college,) he didn’t get the Ann Coulter/Milo Yiannopolous UC-Berkley treatment.