That would be nice, but this one isn't really confusing at all. I understand your fellow travelers have abandoned this thread, but maybe you could pm one and ask why you're wrong here.
I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. I think part of the problem, though, is that First Amendment rhetoric tends to get so muddled and weird. It's completely true, to the point of not having to be said, that a private party doesn't have any obligation under the First Amendment to let you stay on their property and say things they don't want you to say. Absolutely true. The ejection of such parties is in no way an erosion of free speech.
But the argument is quite frequently made that protests erode the right to free speech by trying to shut it down. This, again, is untrue enough as to not need explanation.
Both of these arguments rely on the spirit of the idea of free speech, not the letter of the First Amendment. It's just a matter of which side of a particular issue an interlocutor finds himself as to whether he argues that protest or disallowing protest is a force eroding the principle of free speech.
