I do not find anywhere in the article where it indicates: “the college administration had no problem with video taping on campus until Mr. Lennox came along.”
When notified he was taping and notified of objections to it, the administration notified him of the requirements for such taping and that Lennox had no obtained them.
If those requirements (permissions) were the rules all students were required to follow and were equally enforced in the past, then equal due-process for permissible rule making for an activity courts have long granted that such venues have, did not violate any right of Lennox.
They did not say he could not speak to people, including Peters, as part of his personal advocacy on any issue. They said he could not film/video-tape members of the campus community without certain permissions.
Thank you for pointing that out. If you are familiar with this case, you would know that there was no "in the past."