I don't see where this ordered-liberty-hating Salon deputy politics editor has a leg to stand on

Sofia Tesfaye at Salon makes a recent protest at the University of Arizona the focal point from which to examine the interface between First Amendment rights and laws against harrassment.

. . . the president of the University of Arizona is defending his school’s decision to seek criminal charges against three students who protested the presence of Border Patrol agents on campus. No violence took place during the March 19 demonstration, the school concluded that the students broke Arizona law when they publicly “harassed” the agents, a Class 1 misdemeanor that could result in up to six months of jail time.

“From the letter of the law, I think the chief obviously deliberated about this, in a very tough situation, and decided that the actions of the students did disrupt the presentation that was being made,” university president Robert Robbins told the Arizona Republic after the charges were made public on Thursday.

20-year-old Denisse Moreno Melchor, 22-year-old Mariel Alexandra Bustamante and 27-year-old Marianna Ariel Coles-Curtis were finally charged this week after video of their demonstration was widely shared by conservative outlets . . .

 . . . Arizona officials instead charged the students with interfering with the peaceful conduct of an educational institution and threatening and intimidating the agents.

Let's look at the legal code in question:

13-2921. Harassment; classification; definitionA. A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass or with knowledge that the person is harassing another person, the person:
1. Anonymously or otherwise contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses.
2. Continues to follow another person in or about a public place for no legitimate purpose after being asked to desist.
3. Repeatedly commits an act or acts that harass another person.
4. Surveils or causes another person to surveil a person for no legitimate purpose.
5. On more than one occasion makes a false report to a law enforcement, credit or social service agency.
6. Interferes with the delivery of any public or regulated utility to a person.
B. A person commits harassment against a public officer or employee if the person, with intent to harass, files a nonconsensual lien against any public officer or employee that is not accompanied by an order or a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the filing of the lien or is not issued by a governmental entity or political subdivision or agency pursuant to its statutory authority, a validly licensed utility or water delivery company, a mechanics' lien claimant or an entity created under covenants, conditions, restrictions or declarations affecting real property.
C. Harassment under subsection A is a class 1 misdemeanor. Harassment under subsection B is a class 5 felony.
D. This section does not apply to an otherwise lawful demonstration, assembly or picketing.
E. For the purposes of this section, "harassment" means conduct that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person. 

Number 2 seems most pertinent here.

I suppose a leftist like Tesfaye would respond with "Ah, but there was a legitimate purpose. The point was to draw public attention to the moral darkness of the Border Patrol."

Well, consider this scenario, Ms. Tesfaye. Yes, it's entirely hypothetical and indeed a bit far-fetched, but what if it had been a cello recital going on in that room and the mob in the hallway was united by its intense hatred for cello music?

In short, you can't just go disrupting previously announced public events in spaces that have been arranged for, and in which people interested are already seated and paying attention to what is being presented. If First Amendment rights were to go that far, we'd have absolute chaos in a very short time.

But we probably shouldn't come down too hard on the flimsiness of Tesfaye's argument. You see, a bit later, she exposes the full extent of her intellectual vacuity with a buzzword that speaks volumes about what she's really up to:

As future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's infamous 1972 memo dictated, propagating this lie is a centerpiece of the right-wing strategy to dismantle civil institutions to allow for corporate dominance. While college Republicans and elite liberals alike bemoan the rise of “social justice warriors” and “safe spaces,” modern conservatism has now become a sort of "protected class" on college campuses and dissenting voices have been criminalized. 

"Corporate dominance," whatever the hell that is, has nothing to do with it. You just can't go around disrupting public events that are in process.

And now she's going to try to turn the tables and claim that it's conservatives who are asserting protected-class status on campuses.

Doesn't wash, toots. The list of harassment incidents and indeed violence against right-of-center speakers is too long for your nonsense to have any validity.