Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Free Beacon)   Handing out copies of the U.S. Constitution to fellow students at the University of Hawaii? The '60s are over man, you better get your ass over to the Free Speech zone   (freebeacon.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, University of Hawaii, U.S. Constitution, Hawaii, free speech zone, fellow students, Young Americans for Liberty, First Amendment  
•       •       •

4999 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2014 at 5:08 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



258 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-26 02:05:41 PM  
Meh, I don't care what the Jehovah's witnesses believe on their own time, but get annoyed as all he'll when they come knocking on my door.
I've read the constitution before, would rather just get to class now, mkay?
 
2014-04-26 03:05:03 PM  
Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.
 
2014-04-26 03:17:05 PM  

Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.


You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?
 
2014-04-26 03:43:56 PM  
It ain't exactly Rosa Parks being told to move the back of the bus.  But it is pretty silly.

I'm not particularly happy what this group deems restrictive speech codes, but you might find it interesting.   A site to look up and see if your school or alma mater has speech codes.
 
2014-04-26 04:00:44 PM  

Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.


Those awful conservatives and the message they're trying to get out.

www.tucsonsentinel.com

pic related

How dare someone think they can hand this out in public.
 
2014-04-26 04:00:55 PM  

Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?


Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?
 
2014-04-26 04:09:03 PM  

Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?


I was asking Dinki. He seems to have flexible opinions on this stuff based on things like that. Also, there were other incidents mentioned in the article. Personally, I think "free speech zones" are anathema to the First Amendment, but we have a country full of people with delicate sensibilities who are so open minded that anything that diverts from their open minded views is offensive.
 
2014-04-26 04:11:17 PM  

Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.


upload.wikimedia.org

Oh, look, some uppity black that think the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone else's.

Here's the thing, you boot-licking ass-twat: when government-set rules are unconstitutional, they, by definition, do NOT apply to anyone.
 
2014-04-26 04:15:16 PM  

Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?


Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.
 
2014-04-26 04:16:58 PM  

Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?


Did you RTFA? They were also restricted to a "free speech zone" when they tried to protest. Either one is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech.
 
2014-04-26 04:17:46 PM  

Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.


My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!
 
2014-04-26 04:27:30 PM  

Nabb1: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!


They knew the rules regarding distribution of their flyers and deliberately broke them. No one was preventing them from disseminating info at their table.
 
2014-04-26 04:27:49 PM  

Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.


Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Hawaii and Alaska included.
 
2014-04-26 04:32:47 PM  

Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.


They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.
 
2014-04-26 04:35:18 PM  

Lorelle: Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.

They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.


I'm not a conservative, and they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.
 
2014-04-26 04:37:01 PM  

Lorelle: Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.

They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.


That bothers me less than this idea of "free speech zones" if you want to protest.  Which for this particular instance at this school is explained in a bit more detail here.
 
2014-04-26 04:38:23 PM  

Nabb1: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!


The rules were in place for a reason.  If I had to guess
, I'd assume that student groups were restricted to proselytizing from the tables only to maintain some semblance of order. If one group starts to 'work the crowd' then others get it into their heads to do the same thing, and suddenly things are much more chaotic.


So, they could hand out their flyers at the table like everyone else, or leave.  If you can't abide by the rules don't play the game.
 
2014-04-26 04:41:58 PM  

Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.


So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?
 
2014-04-26 04:46:33 PM  

Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?


We're not talking about that though, are we?  That's now what happened.  And since when is the Constitution propaganda?  And so what if they were handing out propaganda?

/nice reductio ad absurdum
 
2014-04-26 04:46:41 PM  

Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?


I think you're being a little unfair there.  But the point stands:  Where is the line drawn?

And I also wish we knew if they were just handing out copies of the Constitution.  Or if in addition to that they were trying to recruit for the organization (they're Libertarians).  If it was more than handing out copies, then I think they should be following the rules like the other groups.
 
2014-04-26 04:48:58 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If one group starts to 'work the crowd' then others get it into their heads to do the same thing, and suddenly things are much more chaotic.


Democracy is chaotic.


So, they could hand out their flyers at the table like everyone else, or leave.  If you can't abide by the rules don't play the game.

If you can't deal with people handing out copies of the Constitution, or anything else, then leave.
 
2014-04-26 04:50:43 PM  

Fark It:I'm not a conservative, and they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

As I previously wrote, they were allowed to hand out literature at their table. No one prevented them from doing so.

TuteTibiImperes: The rules were in place for a reason.  If I had to guess
, I'd assume that student groups were restricted to proselytizing from the tables only to maintain some semblance of order. If one group starts to 'work the crowd' then others get it into their heads to do the same thing, and suddenly things are much more chaotic.


Exactly.
 
2014-04-26 04:51:17 PM  

Fark It: And since when is the Constitution propaganda?


I didn't say it was, that's wasn't my point. You said anyone can hand out anything anywhere and I was illustrating that there might be boundaries to that and that doesn't make it some travesty against the 1st amendment.
 
2014-04-26 04:56:18 PM  

Fark It: Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?

We're not talking about that though, are we?  That's now what happened.  And since when is the Constitution propaganda?  And so what if they were handing out propaganda?

/nice reductio ad absurdum


If free speech is the issue it shouldn't matter what's handed out. The Communist Manifesto should be just as protected as the US Constitution.

Also, the point he makes is valid.  An area was set up for student groups to hand out literature, these students left that area.  The issue wasn't their message, it was the physical location of where and means by which they were spreading it.
 
2014-04-26 04:56:45 PM  

Mugato: Fark It: And since when is the Constitution propaganda?

I didn't say it was, that's wasn't my point. You said anyone can hand out anything anywhere and I was illustrating that there might be boundaries to that and that doesn't make it some travesty against the 1st amendment.


And I didn't say that they have the right to disrupt lectures by handing out propaganda, but you took my statement and ran with it, reducing it to the point of absurdity.  Barring students from disrupting class lectures and interfering with learning does not go against the 1st Amendment.  Barring people from getting up and handing out flyers in public areas does go against the 1st Amendment.
 
2014-04-26 04:59:06 PM  
The lesson here is that if you invent asinine things like "Free Speech Zones," don't be surprised when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
2014-04-26 04:59:09 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Fark It: Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?

We're not talking about that though, are we?  That's now what happened.  And since when is the Constitution propaganda?  And so what if they were handing out propaganda?

/nice reductio ad absurdum

If free speech is the issue it shouldn't matter what's handed out. The Communist Manifesto should be just as protected as the US Constitution.

Also, the point he makes is valid.  An area was set up for student groups to hand out literature, these students left that area.  The issue wasn't their message, it was the physical location of where and means by which they were spreading it.


Thank you for clarifying your stance on free speech zones.
 
2014-04-26 05:12:57 PM  
Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.
 
2014-04-26 05:16:50 PM  

MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.


I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.
 
2014-04-26 05:17:10 PM  
Even thinking about "Free Speech Zones" makes me want to lodge a formal protest at the "Punch A College Administrator In The Face Zone".
 
2014-04-26 05:18:23 PM  
I am guessing you people were the same people who were there telling the protesters at the RNC to take their little 200 square feet free speech zone 4 blocks away and like it, because it's the rules, RIGHT?????

(Free speech zones: a great idea when it's applied to people you don't agree with.)
 
2014-04-26 05:19:23 PM  

ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.


I read the part where they were at an event (that one presumes they had to register for) and they decided that the rules that applied to every one else shouldn't apply to them.

And  'Liberty' in the title of the organization has gotten to be like 'Patriot', if you see what I'm saying, and I think you do.
 
2014-04-26 05:20:01 PM  
What's the big deal here? It's not like they weren't allowing them to spread their message or censoring them. If they didn't want to follow the rules they should have chosen another location.
 
2014-04-26 05:20:32 PM  
Beat it, dirty hippies.
 
2014-04-26 05:21:08 PM  

aerojockey: I am guessing you people were the same people who were there telling the protesters at the RNC to take their little 200 square feet free speech zone 4 blocks away and like it, because it's the rules, RIGHT?????

(Free speech zones: a great idea when it's applied to people you don't agree with.)


Free speech zones are never a good idea, but it says a lot about somebody when they change their opinion on them based on the political views (or perceived political views) of the people subject to those "free speech zones."
 
2014-04-26 05:22:43 PM  

Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?


And porno.
 
2014-04-26 05:23:45 PM  

Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.


The hate runs deep in you.
 
2014-04-26 05:25:19 PM  

ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.


Young Americans for Liberty. Sounds like a conservative group to me ('liberty' and 'patriot' are the go-to words that conservatives love to use in their organization names).

These whiny conservatives need to get their asses behind the table like everyone else, hand out their constitutions, and quit their whining.  But what's a conservative without lots of unnecessary whining and the constant feeling of persecution?
 
2014-04-26 05:25:25 PM  

ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.


"WE, as Young Americans for Liberty believe:  that government is the negation of liberty..."


Libertarian.  But sound pretty conservative to me.
 
2014-04-26 05:25:56 PM  

Diogenes: It ain't exactly Rosa Parks being told to move the back of the bus.  But it is pretty silly.

I'm not particularly happy what this group deems restrictive speech codes, but you might find it interesting.   A site to look up and see if your school or alma mater has speech codes.


Mine has some pretty absurd and indefensible shiat in theirs.  I remind the freshman work-study who calls asking for money off that a few times a year, and I'm sure that gets passed right up the chain.
 
2014-04-26 05:26:23 PM  

Mugato: Fark It: And since when is the Constitution propaganda?

I didn't say it was, that's wasn't my point. You said anyone can hand out anything anywhere and I was illustrating that there might be boundaries to that and that doesn't make it some travesty against the 1st amendment.


ya, it does.

Can't believe liberals actually now think the 1st amendment should go away too. if it were a Bush hating group or a protest against Israel, you bet your bottom you would be defending their freedom of speech.
 
2014-04-26 05:27:14 PM  

Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.


Stay at your table!!! Stay behind the line!!!

this sounds asinine. literature is already being circulated, what does it matter where it passes from one hand to another?
 
2014-04-26 05:28:23 PM  
"This isn't really the '60s anymore"

Really? What's with the qualifier?
 
2014-04-26 05:28:24 PM  

BMFPitt: Diogenes: It ain't exactly Rosa Parks being told to move the back of the bus.  But it is pretty silly.

I'm not particularly happy what this group deems restrictive speech codes, but you might find it interesting.   A site to look up and see if your school or alma mater has speech codes.

Mine has some pretty absurd and indefensible shiat in theirs.  I remind the freshman work-study who calls asking for money off that a few times a year, and I'm sure that gets passed right up the chain.


Mine's dinged for the discrimination and harassment section of the student handbook.  I read the offending section and it seemed pretty boilerplate to me.  But I suppose it could be broadly interpreted to suppress speech.
 
2014-04-26 05:28:35 PM  
"How to pay for college by suing them"
 
2014-04-26 05:29:32 PM  

Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.


.... well... it is the rules we all live by..... sorta.
 
2014-04-26 05:29:45 PM  

MFAWG: I read the part where they were at an event (that one presumes they had to register for) and they decided that the rules that applied to every one else shouldn't apply to them.


But then you skipped the right after that where it says they protested the rules, and then were told they couldn't protest except in the Free Speech Zone.

Now If someone decides that the rules about Free Speech Zone doesn't apply to them, well they're right, it doesn't.  The Constitution guarantees free speech, and case history is pretty clear that these limited Free Speech Zones go too far to restrict it.
 
2014-04-26 05:29:57 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

Stay at your table!!! Stay behind the line!!!

this sounds asinine. literature is already being circulated, what does it matter where it passes from one hand to another?


Because some people are punitive control freaks.
 
2014-04-26 05:31:24 PM  

ArkAngel: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Did you RTFA? They were also restricted to a "free speech zone" when they tried to protest. Either one is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech.


There's a reason universities adopted the concept of a Free Speech Zone.

Anybody can go there and pass out whatever. From Neo- nazis passing out swasticas to hellfire and damnation preachers. The reason it's like that is; any group there doesn't disrupt the entire campus.

If it wasn't like that; you'd have to pass 20 or 30 idiots spouting verbal trash everyday. This way; if you want to go listen, you can. If you want to avoid it, you can.

/ the idea is; you have right to free speech, but, I have the right to avoid your cardboard demogogary

// there's a hellfire preacher that inhabits the kansas state university free speech zone from 8-10am, every Saturday for the last 10 years; he ran out of new and interesting material 5 years ago and just rants about Obama, the Illuminati, ravenous sluttitude, the government and EBT cards.

/ I know this because it has become very popular to go and heckle him
 
2014-04-26 05:32:06 PM  

Damaniel: ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.

Young Americans for Liberty. Sounds like a conservative group to me ('liberty' and 'patriot' are the go-to words that conservatives love to use in their organization names).

These whiny conservatives need to get their asses behind the table like everyone else, hand out their constitutions, and quit their whining.  But what's a conservative without lots of unnecessary whining and the constant feeling of persecution?


Once again, liberals against free speech. How quaint.

The Constitution of the United States offends you. Think about what that says about you. Scum.

Colleges use federal money. The government is not supposed to be able to trample the Constitution. So every lawsuit is a triumph over the liberal piss pants ugly folks.
 
2014-04-26 05:33:56 PM  
Why do people keep calling the Constitution "propaganda?"  Do people really think that way?
 
2014-04-26 05:33:59 PM  
Conform, citizen.
 
2014-04-26 05:34:34 PM  

Thunderpipes: Mugato: Fark It: And since when is the Constitution propaganda?

I didn't say it was, that's wasn't my point. You said anyone can hand out anything anywhere and I was illustrating that there might be boundaries to that and that doesn't make it some travesty against the 1st amendment.

ya, it does.

Can't believe liberals actually now think the 1st amendment should go away too. if it were a Bush hating group or a protest against Israel, you bet your bottom you would be defending their freedom of speech.


Speaking of Bush:

The most prominent examples [of free speech zones] were those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration. Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.

And a factual reminder for everyone here:  The "free speech zone" in question here was not the area set up with tables.  It was the area the student was told to go to when she announced her intention to protest being told to sit at her table.

And yes, I think that sucks regardless of what or whom you're protesting for or against.
 
2014-04-26 05:34:41 PM  

Nabb1: Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?


The "stay behind your table" rule for vendors is a content neutral time, place, and manner regulation to preserve an orderly environment at an outdoor campus event. This lawsuit, like your defense of it, it utterly frivolous and without merit.

Also:

A week after the incident, another administrator allegedly told Burch and fellow student Anthony Vizzone that if they wanted to protest, the proper place would be in the university's "free speech zone." The administrator also allegedly said, "This isn't really the '60s anymore" and "people can't really protest like that anymore."

This doesn't sound even the slightest bit made up by someone who doesn't even understand why so-called "free speech zones" exist.

They're to protect free speech in environments where, owing to some compelling governmental interest like national security, presidential security, or maintaining public order, the government is justified in suppressing speech entirely for a limited time and in a limited area. They exist for the exact opposite reason persons using the term with sinister connotations think it means.

And Fox News prostitutes like Greta Van Susteren know better. The other day I lost completely what little remaining respect I had for her when she characterized a "free speech zone" as a designated area, "outside of which free speech is banned."

Fine. Best response to this bullsh*t: stop "free speech zones" entirely. Just tell protestors at high profile, high security events, or in otherwise potentially dangerous situations they can't protest at all within a certain limited area. That way the government will be establishing only a limited area within which speech is temporarily banned for security or other purposes. None of these evil places "outside of which free speech is banned."

Nope, this allegation sounds in no way made up by some ignorant right-winger with a persecution complex.
 
2014-04-26 05:36:09 PM  
So to "Occupy" private property for an months is protected free speech, but leaving your booth to hand out copies of the Constitution is breaking the rules and deserves to be punished. Got it.
 
2014-04-26 05:36:50 PM  

Fark It: Free speech zones are never a good idea, but it says a lot about somebody when they change their opinion on them based on the political views (or perceived political views) of the people subject to those "free speech zones."


I for one had no idea it was a conservative group. Free Speech Zones are when they want to shut up protesters. I don't think handing out the constitution applies.
 
2014-04-26 05:38:57 PM  

aerojockey: MFAWG: I read the part where they were at an event (that one presumes they had to register for) and they decided that the rules that applied to every one else shouldn't apply to them.

But then you skipped the right after that where it says they protested the rules, and then were told they couldn't protest except in the Free Speech Zone.

Now If someone decides that the rules about Free Speech Zone doesn't apply to them, well they're right, it doesn't.  The Constitution guarantees free speech, and case history is pretty clear that these limited Free Speech Zones go too far to restrict it.


www.wearysloth.com

I object!

i.imgur.com

'Overruled'

www.wearysloth.com

I strenuously object!

i.imgur.com

Duly noted, and overruled.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

'I wonder if there's any Jack Daniels left.'
 
2014-04-26 05:39:11 PM  

Thunderpipes: Mugato: Fark It: And since when is the Constitution propaganda?

I didn't say it was, that's wasn't my point. You said anyone can hand out anything anywhere and I was illustrating that there might be boundaries to that and that doesn't make it some travesty against the 1st amendment.

ya, it does.

Can't believe liberals actually now think the 1st amendment should go away too. if it were a Bush hating group or a protest against Israel, you bet your bottom you would be defending their freedom of speech.


Don't "Liberals!!" this like it's your speeding ticket or that time you tripped on the sidewalk.

This is a pretty cut and dry issue of some dicks who should be allowed to be dicks and hand out flyers anywhere on campus as long as they don't harass or injure anyone. The fact that they were handing out the constitution should merit the ironic tag.

//Merritt Burch? That's really her name? Poor bastard.
 
2014-04-26 05:39:30 PM  

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

Stay at your table!!! Stay behind the line!!!

this sounds asinine. literature is already being circulated, what does it matter where it passes from one hand to another?


Were you ever in college? I remember going to the activities fairs where the student groups and choirs had booths, it was incredibly cramped and one person standing in the aisle would cause massive traffic jams. And of course the jackasses standing in front of buildings and on sidewalks blocking everybody and trying to hold conversations about their imaginary friends. I'm trying to get back to my dorm because that vodka won't drink itself so stop jabbing my stomach with bibles and constitutions and flyers about Palestine. And when I push them aside and tell them to fark off they hold themselves all righteously indignant and think I am a jerk for not wanting their crap. So I have no problems with telling people to hand out crap in appropriate places. They shouldn't block traffic or stand in middle of an intersection.
 
2014-04-26 05:39:44 PM  
"Free Speech Zone" is a contradiction in terms.
 
2014-04-26 05:40:01 PM  

big pig peaches: So to "Occupy" private property for an months is protected free speech, but leaving your booth to hand out copies of the Constitution is breaking the rules and deserves to be punished. Got it.


No. Neither is protected speech.
 
2014-04-26 05:40:04 PM  

big pig peaches: So to "Occupy" private property for an months is protected free speech, but leaving your booth to hand out copies of the Constitution is breaking the rules and deserves to be punished. Got it.


And the occupy morons didn't even know what they were protesting.

Libs will always attempt to silence anything that goes against their beliefs. The Constitution is completely against their beliefs. They simply do not want freedom of speech, because then people will argue against their government use of force. Can't have uppity citizens challenging the Messiah.
 
2014-04-26 05:40:08 PM  

Thunderpipes: Once again, liberals against free speech. How quaint.

The Constitution of the United States offends you. Think about what that says about you. Scum.


Oh please. No one has done more to fark over the constitution in recent years like Bush. nowhere in the article does it say they were conservatives.
 
2014-04-26 05:40:35 PM  

Baz744: They're to protect free speech in environments where, owing to some compelling governmental interest like national security, presidential security, or maintaining public order, the government is justified in suppressing speech entirely for a limited time and in a limited area. They exist for the exact opposite reason persons using the term with sinister connotations think it means.


"In order to protect the 1st Amendment, we must abridge it!"

Fine. Best response to this bullsh*t: stop "free speech zones" entirely. Just tell protestors at high profile, high security events, or in otherwise potentially dangerous situations they can't protest at all within a certain limited area. That way the government will be establishing only a limited area within which speech is temporarily banned for security or other purposes. None of these evil places "outside of which free speech is banned."

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-04-26 05:40:52 PM  

ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.


Oh, look, "libertarians".

/ Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican
 
2014-04-26 05:41:39 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Fark It: Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?

We're not talking about that though, are we?  That's now what happened.  And since when is the Constitution propaganda?  And so what if they were handing out propaganda?

/nice reductio ad absurdum

If free speech is the issue it shouldn't matter what's handed out. The Communist Manifesto should be just as protected as the US Constitution.

Also, the point he makes is valid.  An area was set up for student groups to hand out literature, these students left that area.  The issue wasn't their message, it was the physical location of where and means by which they were spreading it.


They were at a publicly funded institution and their actions were in accordance with the foundation upon which all our laws are written.  You have a the right to free speech, even when somebody else doesn't like your speech.  The student's actions weren't inciting violence or creating a public menace, so the actions of the school's employees were illegal.
 
2014-04-26 05:42:58 PM  

Mugato: Fark It: Free speech zones are never a good idea, but it says a lot about somebody when they change their opinion on them based on the political views (or perceived political views) of the people subject to those "free speech zones."

I for one had no idea it was a conservative group. Free Speech Zones are when they want to shut up protesters. I don't think handing out the constitution applies.


You're forgetting about cardboard box hellfire and damnation preachers.

I, personally, like free speech zones. That way, if I'm on campus, I don't have to listen to some PETA harpy or I can avoid getting pepper sprayed because I strayed too close to an Occupy protest. I can also avoid the KKK recruiter, the black panther guy, WBC, whatever preacher that decided today was a good day to hand out bibles, Mormons, Scientologists and Methodists.
 
2014-04-26 05:43:03 PM  

iheartscotch: There's a reason universities adopted the concept of a Free Speech Zone.

Anybody can go there and pass out whatever. From Neo- nazis passing out swasticas to hellfire and damnation preachers. The reason it's like that is; any group there doesn't disrupt the entire campus.

If it wasn't like that; you'd have to pass 20 or 30 idiots spouting verbal trash everyday. This way; if you want to go listen, you can. If you want to avoid it, you can.

/ the idea is; you have right to free speech, but, I have the right to avoid your cardboard demogogary

// there's a hellfire preacher that inhabits the kansas state university free speech zone from 8-10am, every Saturday for the last 10 years; he ran out of new and interesting material 5 years ago and just rants about Obama, the Illuminati, ravenous sluttitude, the government and EBT cards.

/ I know this because it has become very popular to go and heckle him


And there's a reason the assholes are still there. If they're not a threat to safety, they remain. Being a nuisance to college students isn't against the law. You're going to hear a whole lot of bullshiat your whole life - get used to it. That's what this goddamn country is about.
 
2014-04-26 05:43:04 PM  

Thunderpipes: And the occupy morons didn't even know what they were protesting.

Libs will always attempt to silence anything that goes against their beliefs. The Constitution is completely against their beliefs. They simply do not want freedom of speech, because then people will argue against their government use of force. Can't have uppity citizens challenging the Messiah


Jesus are you so full of shiat.
 
2014-04-26 05:43:13 PM  

Mugato: Fark It: Free speech zones are never a good idea, but it says a lot about somebody when they change their opinion on them based on the political views (or perceived political views) of the people subject to those "free speech zones."

I for one had no idea it was a conservative group. Free Speech Zones are when they want to shut up protesters. permit orderly speech activities in environments where owing to some compelling interest like protecting the president or maintaining public order the government is justified in temporarily and in a limited area banning speech entirely. I don't think handing out the constitution applies.


FTFY.
 
2014-04-26 05:44:04 PM  

iheartscotch: If it wasn't like that; you'd have to pass 20 or 30 idiots spouting verbal trash everyday. This way; if you want to go listen, you can. If you want to avoid it, you can.


That's bull.  When I was in college before these free speech zones were implemented I didn't walk past 20 or 30 idiots every day.  (Well I probably did, but not protesting idiots.)  The idiots I walked past were annoying but very few were disruptive.

Universities adopted free speech zones because:
1. They're authoritarian scumbags, and sometimes there is a viewpoint they won't hesitate to use their powers to try to squash out
2. They are sometimes well-meaning people who are too zealous over certain concepts and cross the line into infringing people's basic rights
3. Probably some naive people thought it would make them less likely to face lawsuits and such since they could keep an eye on the protesters more easily
 
2014-04-26 05:44:48 PM  

nightbringerggz: TuteTibiImperes: Fark It: Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?

We're not talking about that though, are we?  That's now what happened.  And since when is the Constitution propaganda?  And so what if they were handing out propaganda?

/nice reductio ad absurdum

If free speech is the issue it shouldn't matter what's handed out. The Communist Manifesto should be just as protected as the US Constitution.

Also, the point he makes is valid.  An area was set up for student groups to hand out literature, these students left that area.  The issue wasn't their message, it was the physical location of where and means by which they were spreading it.

They were at a publicly funded institution and their actions were in accordance with the foundation upon which all our laws are written.  You have a the right to free speech, even when somebody else doesn't like your speech.  The student's actions weren't inciting violence or creating a public menace, so the actions of the school's employees were illegal.


How much space was in between the tables? Could traffic still move with the budding libertarians standing in the walkway, or did they block people from moving? If other students did not want to stop at their table, that doesn't mean they can stand in the aisle and force people to take their items and listen to them.
 
2014-04-26 05:45:29 PM  

aerojockey: iheartscotch: If it wasn't like that; you'd have to pass 20 or 30 idiots spouting verbal trash everyday. This way; if you want to go listen, you can. If you want to avoid it, you can.

That's bull.  When I was in college before these free speech zones were implemented I didn't walk past 20 or 30 idiots every day.  (Well I probably did, but not protesting idiots.)  The idiots I walked past were annoying but very few were disruptive.

Universities adopted free speech zones because:
1. They're authoritarian scumbags, and sometimes there is a viewpoint they won't hesitate to use their powers to try to squash out
2. They are sometimes well-meaning people who are too zealous over certain concepts and cross the line into infringing people's basic rights
3. Probably some naive people thought it would make them less likely to face lawsuits and such since they could keep an eye on the protesters more easily


4.  You can't offend the precious snowflakes, or allow someone to be offended, and the right to not be offended is now apparently a thing, and it trumps the right to free speech.
 
2014-04-26 05:45:49 PM  
That's the nice thing about choice: you get to move on and choose elsewhere
 
2014-04-26 05:46:49 PM  
If you don't like the rules, then start fighting to have them changed. In the meantime, stfu and get behind your table like everyone else.
 
2014-04-26 05:48:03 PM  

fusillade762: "This isn't really the '60s anymore"
Really? What's with the qualifier?



It means extra, yet subtle, emphasis on the idea that the year is indeed 2014, and the 1960s (a time when student protests were fashionable) ended over forty years ago, and this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. The speaker could well have preceded the statement, with "you know, this isn't the '60s...", but that would have been more antagonistic and less elegant.


For comparison, see "That's so 1990s", which is used to indicate something is not only a bit out of date, but also hackneyed and trite. The amusing thing about this example is that "so" is not usually a word you would use in this context.
 
2014-04-26 05:50:15 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!

The rules were in place for a reason.  If I had to guess
, I'd assume that student groups were restricted to proselytizing from the tables only to maintain some semblance of order. If one group starts to 'work the crowd' then others get it into their heads to do the same thing, and suddenly things are much more chaotic.


So, they could hand out their flyers at the table like everyone else, or leave.  If you can't abide by the rules don't play the game.


And such a huge majority of prisoners are locked up for minor drug offenses, but everyone is up in arms over that. If you can't abide by the rules don't play the game go to prison.
 
2014-04-26 05:50:17 PM  
I like opposing views- gives you the opportunity to defend your beliefs (or take a moment to hear a conflicting opinion and re-adjust your values).
 
2014-04-26 05:51:53 PM  

aerojockey: iheartscotch: If it wasn't like that; you'd have to pass 20 or 30 idiots spouting verbal trash everyday. This way; if you want to go listen, you can. If you want to avoid it, you can.

That's bull.  When I was in college before these free speech zones were implemented I didn't walk past 20 or 30 idiots every day.  (Well I probably did, but not protesting idiots.)  The idiots I walked past were annoying but very few were disruptive.

Universities adopted free speech zones because:
1. They're authoritarian scumbags, and sometimes there is a viewpoint they won't hesitate to use their powers to try to squash out
2. They are sometimes well-meaning people who are too zealous over certain concepts and cross the line into infringing people's basic rights
3. Probably some naive people thought it would make them less likely to face lawsuits and such since they could keep an eye on the protesters more easily


Have you been on a major campus recently? Because, I have.

Free speech zones are absolutely clogged with people promoting one cause or another. It's not crowded all the time; but, especially on weekends, you can run into all sorts of interesting individuals.

/ I kid you not, there was a KKK recruiter, in full dress, in our free speech zone last march. We get PETA, WBC, preachers, pimps, local politicians, living statues, more preachers, we even had a Scientologist a few months ago.
 
2014-04-26 05:52:33 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Nabb1: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!

The rules were in place for a reason.  If I had to guess
, I'd assume that student groups were restricted to proselytizing from the tables only to maintain some semblance of order. If one group starts to 'work the crowd' then others get it into their heads to do the same thing, and suddenly things are much more chaotic.


So, they could hand out their flyers at the table like everyone else, or leave.  If you can't abide by the rules don't play the game.


Well, i would recommend 'don't play the game' for that whole convention. As preventing someone from distributing the constitution anywhere is anti- constitutional.
 
2014-04-26 05:53:47 PM  

Mugato: Thunderpipes: And the occupy morons didn't even know what they were protesting.

Libs will always attempt to silence anything that goes against their beliefs. The Constitution is completely against their beliefs. They simply do not want freedom of speech, because then people will argue against their government use of force. Can't have uppity citizens challenging the Messiah

Jesus are you so full of shiat.


Seemed pretty correct to me. "We believe in freedom of speech unless that speech doesn't go with our worldview; in which case we'll shame you into silence you Nazi-fascist-anti Semitic-cis male-homophobic-bigoted-racist-woman hater."
 
2014-04-26 05:56:19 PM  

jaytkay: Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican


actually, the conservative movement in the us is split into a fair number of factions


it's the progressives, which for now is better organised and more unified, that has a spooky lack of originality amongst its adherents.
 
2014-04-26 05:56:37 PM  
I voted for obama. I do not care to own a gun. Anyone who preventa the constitution from freely being distributed should be shot and killed in town square. Regardless of what side you are on. Anyone who believes the constitution hander outers should be restricted to behind a table should also be shot and killed in the town square.
 
2014-04-26 05:56:55 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Mugato: Thunderpipes: And the occupy morons didn't even know what they were protesting.

Libs will always attempt to silence anything that goes against their beliefs. The Constitution is completely against their beliefs. They simply do not want freedom of speech, because then people will argue against their government use of force. Can't have uppity citizens challenging the Messiah

Jesus are you so full of shiat.

Seemed pretty correct to me. "We believe in freedom of speech unless that speech doesn't go with our worldview; in which case we'll shame you into silence you Nazi-fascist-anti Semitic-cis male-homophobic-bigoted-racist-woman hater."


No, we are fine with idiots outing themselves. But we do not like it when idiots block us from getting to class on time or find the booths that we were looking for. And then the precious snowflakes cry to the Washington Free Bacon because nobody wanted to stop at their booth and the college did not let them force people to stop.
 
2014-04-26 05:57:35 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Mugato: Thunderpipes: And the occupy morons didn't even know what they were protesting.

Libs will always attempt to silence anything that goes against their beliefs. The Constitution is completely against their beliefs. They simply do not want freedom of speech, because then people will argue against their government use of force. Can't have uppity citizens challenging the Messiah

Jesus are you so full of shiat.

Seemed pretty correct to me. "We believe in freedom of speech unless that speech doesn't go with our worldview; in which case we'll shame you into silence you Nazi-fascist-anti Semitic-cis male-homophobic-bigoted-racist-woman hater."


One more time. I had no idea they were conservatives so that's bullshiat. As for hating the Constitution, that would be GW Bush. The use of the word "uppity" and "Messiah" just sealed that the whole post was a troll.
 
2014-04-26 06:00:28 PM  

iheartscotch: Free speech zones are absolutely clogged with people promoting one cause or another. It's not crowded all the time; but, especially on weekends, you can run into all sorts of interesting individuals.


Imagine that, when you give people 200 square feet to engage in free speech, all of them end up that one place.
 
2014-04-26 06:00:41 PM  
www.reviewjournal.com
 
2014-04-26 06:01:08 PM  

Fark It: "In order to protect the 1st Amendment, we must abridge it!"


In order to protect (public safety, the president, an assembly VIPs for some event, etc.) we must temporarily establish a perimeter within which members of the public might not be allowed at all, much less engage in speech activities.

But because morons like you insist on giving "free speech zone" a sinister spin, we can no longer set aside areas within those perimeters where protestors may permissibly engage in orderly speech activities.

Instead, in the interest of protecting free speech from your sinister zones "outside of which speech is banned," we'll just have to temporarily speech within those perimeters altogether.

No more evil zones "outside of which speech is banned." We'll just ban speech altogether within a limited area and for a limited time. No biggie.
 
2014-04-26 06:01:14 PM  

ArkAngel: Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

Oh, look, some uppity black that think the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone else's.

Here's the thing, you boot-licking ass-twat: when government-set rules are unconstitutional, they, by definition, do NOT apply to anyone.


This.
 
2014-04-26 06:04:09 PM  

Lorelle: Nabb1: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!

They knew the rules regarding distribution of their flyers and deliberately broke them. No one was preventing them from disseminating info at their table.


Listen, captain obvious...there shouldnt BE a "free speech zone." We already have one...it's called "the whole damn country" according to the constitution.
 
2014-04-26 06:04:54 PM  

Lorelle: Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.

They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.


And you are ignorant of prior USSC precedent saying handing out flyers is perfectly fine anywhere aside from advertisement.
 
2014-04-26 06:05:01 PM  

Nabb1: Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?


So as long as they're orderly and it doesn't seem to be disruptive, anyone can distribute anything anywhere on a campus? Is that your point?
 
2014-04-26 06:05:01 PM  

rebelyell2006: TerminalEchoes: Mugato: Thunderpipes: And the occupy morons didn't even know what they were protesting.

Libs will always attempt to silence anything that goes against their beliefs. The Constitution is completely against their beliefs. They simply do not want freedom of speech, because then people will argue against their government use of force. Can't have uppity citizens challenging the Messiah

Jesus are you so full of shiat.

Seemed pretty correct to me. "We believe in freedom of speech unless that speech doesn't go with our worldview; in which case we'll shame you into silence you Nazi-fascist-anti Semitic-cis male-homophobic-bigoted-racist-woman hater."

No, we are fine with idiots outing themselves. But we do not like it when idiots block us from getting to class on time or find the booths that we were looking for. And then the precious snowflakes cry to the Washington Free Bacon because nobody wanted to stop at their booth and the college did not let them force people to stop.


This.
 
2014-04-26 06:05:46 PM  
It's not like huge swathes of Americans are ignorant of their rights or anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0he0cqHH20
 
2014-04-26 06:07:48 PM  

MyRandomName: Lorelle: Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.

They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.

And you are ignorant of prior USSC precedent saying handing out flyers is perfectly fine anywhere aside from advertisement.


So I can walk onto a military base any time and hand out flyers any place I want so long as they're not advertisements?

You're gonna have to produce a citation for this proposition, counselor.

I'm not holding my breath.
 
2014-04-26 06:08:10 PM  

ArkAngel:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 299x237]

Oh, look, some uppity black that think the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone else's.



Free Government-issued Cleansings?
 
2014-04-26 06:08:36 PM  

letrole: fusillade762: "This isn't really the '60s anymore"
Really? What's with the qualifier?


It means extra, yet subtle, emphasis on the idea that the year is indeed 2014, and the 1960s (a time when student protests were fashionable) ended over forty years ago, and this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. The speaker could well have preceded the statement, with "you know, this isn't the '60s...", but that would have been more antagonistic and less elegant.


For comparison, see "That's so 1990s", which is used to indicate something is not only a bit out of date, but also hackneyed and trite. The amusing thing about this example is that "so" is not usually a word you would use in this context.


It is apropriate to protest any time a right is denied or substantively abridged, whatever your politics. Suggesting that somehow because it's "not the 1960s" this means people shouldn't protest is utterly stupid.

It also scares me that so many agree with this policy and outright degrade what happened just because they don't like the politics. Seriously, protest and free speech is by it's very nature supposed to be invasive and obstructive, that's how you get the point across. Disrupting is the best means of protesting activities which are an affront to one's beliefs, if done peacefully.

It also kind of scares me because some comments from many read like a desire to abridge rights whenever the topic is unpopular or not what you believe in.

When did we start accepting this crap?
 
2014-04-26 06:09:27 PM  
Those little bastards are lucky a porno professor didn't feel "triggered", then steal their shiat and unleash a self-righteous ass-whoopin' on them. Emotionally-violent pieces of shiat.
 
2014-04-26 06:09:37 PM  

nightbringerggz: TuteTibiImperes: Fark It: Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?

We're not talking about that though, are we?  That's now what happened.  And since when is the Constitution propaganda?  And so what if they were handing out propaganda?

/nice reductio ad absurdum

If free speech is the issue it shouldn't matter what's handed out. The Communist Manifesto should be just as protected as the US Constitution.

Also, the point he makes is valid.  An area was set up for student groups to hand out literature, these students left that area.  The issue wasn't their message, it was the physical location of where and means by which they were spreading it.

They were at a publicly funded institution and their actions were in accordance with the foundation upon which all our laws are written.  You have a the right to free speech, even when somebody else doesn't like your speech.  The student's actions weren't inciting violence or creating a public menace, so the actions of the school's employees were illegal.


Your right to free speech does not include your right to free speech can coexist with the school's right to enforce regulations regarding the organization of student group activities.  The school never told them they couldn't hand out constitutions, they just told them they had to hand them out from behind the tables just like every other student group had to hand out their literature.

The content was never censored, they just told them to stay in the area they were supposed to stay in.
 
2014-04-26 06:09:45 PM  

The more you eat the more you fart: Listen, captain obvious...there shouldnt BE a "free speech zone." We already have one...it's called "the whole damn country" according to the constitution.


I visited my local elementary school unannounced with a bullhorn, passing out little American flags and exhorting the kids to "CELEBRATE FREEDOM"!

The staff and police were not appreciative.

They are fascists who hate America.
 
2014-04-26 06:09:51 PM  

jaytkay: ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.

Oh, look, "libertarians".

/ Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican


Im a libertarian...ane i voted for obama. Twice.

Your point? Invalid now. Have a seat.
 
2014-04-26 06:10:17 PM  
Dinki [TotalFark]
2014-04-26 03:05:03 PM


Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

Oh look another liberal fascist who believes in ordering people into zones where Inalienable rights can be "expressed".


From the same libtards that support "free speech zones" be guarded by police with assault rifles and contained behind chain-linked fences.

Because they're the party of "Freedom".
 
2014-04-26 06:11:26 PM  

iheartscotch: ArkAngel: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Did you RTFA? They were also restricted to a "free speech zone" when they tried to protest. Either one is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech.

There's a reason universities adopted the concept of a Free Speech Zone.

Anybody can go there and pass out whatever. From Neo- nazis passing out swasticas to hellfire and damnation preachers. The reason it's like that is; any group there doesn't disrupt the entire campus.

If it wasn't like that; you'd have to pass 20 or 30 idiots spouting verbal trash everyday. This way; if you want to go listen, you can. If you want to avoid it, you can.

/ the idea is; you have right to free speech, but, I have the right to avoid your cardboard demogogary

// there's a hellfire preacher that inhabits the kansas state university free speech zone from 8-10am, every Saturday for the last 10 years; he ran out of new and interesting material 5 years ago and just rants about Obama, the Illuminati, ravenous sluttitude, the government and EBT cards.

/ I know this because it has become very popular to go and heckle him


There's far more constitutional ways to police disruption - i.e. a disturbing the peace arrest. No one is saying that there should be no rules. Disrupting classes or speakers is a problem that must be dealt with. But forcing all protesters to register in advance and reserve a tiny area is not legal. Ask federal courts, who have continuously struck down free speech zones and speech codes on campuses across the nation
 
2014-04-26 06:11:56 PM  
Maybe I should start handing out questionable literature at the UW campus and get me a payday. I gotta get me some of this free speech money before the bubble pops.
 
2014-04-26 06:13:18 PM  

aerojockey: iheartscotch: Free speech zones are absolutely clogged with people promoting one cause or another. It's not crowded all the time; but, especially on weekends, you can run into all sorts of interesting individuals.

Imagine that, when you give people 200 square feet to engage in free speech, all of them end up that one place.


I understand what you are saying; and I agree that free speech is important.

But, can you imagine the havoc if 30 or 40 Neo-nazis descended on a school and started goose stepping down the halls? I can almost guarantee that someone would lose their temper.

What if Fred Phelp's ( I know, he's been removed as head winner) merry band of winners show up? Do they get to run all over campus with their signs?

True enough, most of the people are harmless and want to promote a message; but, I don't need to hear hellfire and damnation sermons while I'm renewing all of my certs.

/ your right to speak freely doesn't trump my right to not listen to you
 
2014-04-26 06:13:35 PM  
If people want to be belligerent and obnoxious in spreading the word about their personal beliefs, so long as their not actually violating the rights of others, just let them.  The more annoying they are, the less likely anyone is to take them seriously.  The worst thing you can do is actually convince or force them to behave reasonably and risk someone being taken in by them.

Nothing cures a bad idea like hearing it from someone you don't respect.
 
2014-04-26 06:13:41 PM  

The more you eat the more you fart: jaytkay: ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.

Oh, look, "libertarians".

/ Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican

Im a libertarian...ane i voted for obama. Twice.

Your point? Invalid now. Have a seat.


I didn't realize your self-identification and experience was indicative of the vast majority of self-described "libertarians".

Boy, am I embarrassed!
 
2014-04-26 06:13:52 PM  

Baz744: Fark It: "In order to protect the 1st Amendment, we must abridge it!"

In order to protect (public safety, the president, an assembly VIPs for some event, etc.) we must temporarily establish a perimeter within which members of the public might not be allowed at all, much less engage in speech activities.

But because morons like you insist on giving "free speech zone" a sinister spin, we can no longer set aside areas within those perimeters where protestors may permissibly engage in orderly speech activities.

Instead, in the interest of protecting free speech from your sinister zones "outside of which speech is banned," we'll just have to temporarily speech within those perimeters altogether.

No more evil zones "outside of which speech is banned." We'll just ban speech altogether within a limited area and for a limited time. No biggie.


Seriously? You're OK with this? Seriously, you typed that out and that doesn't sound even the least bit scary or draconian to you? At all?
 
2014-04-26 06:14:14 PM  
Democrats also got police to try to make these people get back to their assigned tables.

www.learnnc.org

media.npr.org

historyz.com
The party of "freedom" hasn't changed a bit.
 
2014-04-26 06:15:13 PM  
they're, not their

/sigh
 
2014-04-26 06:16:30 PM  

iheartscotch: aerojockey: iheartscotch: Free speech zones are absolutely clogged with people promoting one cause or another. It's not crowded all the time; but, especially on weekends, you can run into all sorts of interesting individuals.

Imagine that, when you give people 200 square feet to engage in free speech, all of them end up that one place.

I understand what you are saying; and I agree that free speech is important.

But, can you imagine the havoc if 30 or 40 Neo-nazis descended on a school and started goose stepping down the halls? I can almost guarantee that someone would lose their temper.

What if Fred Phelp's ( I know, he's been removed as head winner) merry band of winners show up? Do they get to run all over campus with their signs?

True enough, most of the people are harmless and want to promote a message; but, I don't need to hear hellfire and damnation sermons while I'm renewing all of my certs.

/ your right to speak freely doesn't trump my right to not listen to you


Plus, if they aren't students or aren't supposed to be in that classroom, then they are trespassing.
 
2014-04-26 06:17:00 PM  
Hawaii trifecta in play
 
2014-04-26 06:17:02 PM  

jaytkay: The more you eat the more you fart: Listen, captain obvious...there shouldnt BE a "free speech zone." We already have one...it's called "the whole damn country" according to the constitution.

I visited my local elementary school unannounced with a bullhorn, passing out little American flags and exhorting the kids to "CELEBRATE FREEDOM"!

The staff and police were not appreciative.

They are fascists who hate America.


lol!

Funnied that one, I did.
 
2014-04-26 06:17:16 PM  

OnlyM3: The party of "freedom" hasn't changed a bit.


Now I know you're trolling. Or you don't know that the parties were completely different then. Annoying or ignorant,  either one.
 
2014-04-26 06:18:17 PM  
TuteTibiImperes [TotalFark]

, I'd assume that student groups were restricted to proselytizing from the tables only to maintain some semblance of order.
Yes the world will fall into disorder if a person hands you a piece of paper outside of a government approved zone.

You'd be the one reporting this disorderly "degenerate".
cdn.twentytwowords.com
 
2014-04-26 06:18:26 PM  

iheartscotch: aerojockey: iheartscotch: Free speech zones are absolutely clogged with people promoting one cause or another. It's not crowded all the time; but, especially on weekends, you can run into all sorts of interesting individuals.

Imagine that, when you give people 200 square feet to engage in free speech, all of them end up that one place.

I understand what you are saying; and I agree that free speech is important.

But, can you imagine the havoc if 30 or 40 Neo-nazis descended on a school and started goose stepping down the halls? I can almost guarantee that someone would lose their temper.

What if Fred Phelp's ( I know, he's been removed as head winner) merry band of winners show up? Do they get to run all over campus with their signs?

True enough, most of the people are harmless and want to promote a message; but, I don't need to hear hellfire and damnation sermons while I'm renewing all of my certs.

/ your right to speak freely doesn't trump my right to not listen to you


Your right to not listen doesn't trump their right to speak, either. If they are in a public place, they are free to say what they want, just like you are free to ignore it. But you can't make them go away just because you disagree.
 
2014-04-26 06:18:32 PM  

Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.


This.

Also included: Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa.
 
2014-04-26 06:18:57 PM  
Baz744:
So I can walk onto a military base any time and hand out flyers any place I want so long as they're not advertisements?

You're gonna have to produce a citation for this proposition, counselor.

I'm not holding my breath.


No, you will need a permit to be on that base.  To get a permit, one way or another, you are going to sign a form and waive your rights to certain things, one of which will be soliciting on that property.  This applies to both civilian and military personnel.

This may also apply to college campuses.  However, I still want someone to explain to me why a copy of the U.S. Constitution could be considered forbidden "propaganda."  I want someone to tell me why it is important that people not be informed as to the rules to which our government is supposed to adhere, the rules we all live under in the U.S.
 
2014-04-26 06:20:33 PM  

OnlyM3: Democrats also got police to try to make these people get back to their assigned tables.

[www.learnnc.org image 850x664]

[media.npr.org image 850x687]

[historyz.com image 700x489]
The party of "freedom" hasn't changed a bit.


I go from agreeing with most "conservatives" in this thread to reading your late to the party idiocy.
 
2014-04-26 06:20:53 PM  

jaytkay: The more you eat the more you fart: jaytkay: ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.

Oh, look, "libertarians".

/ Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican

Im a libertarian...ane i voted for obama. Twice.

Your point? Invalid now. Have a seat.

I didn't realize your self-identification and experience was indicative of the vast majority of self-described "libertarians".

Boy, am I embarrassed!


You seem alright, so I'll go up on my internet soapbox again.

img.fark.net

There are people attempting to shoehorn in all those who care about civil liberties and the Constitution with some fringe right wingers. This is totally deceptive.

The authoritarians are the problem, and they're found in both parties.
 
2014-04-26 06:21:44 PM  

Kit Fister: It is apropriate to protest any time a right is denied or substantively abridged, whatever your politics.

The only people who protest and make cat-calls and otherwise create a nuisance are the ineffective and powerless passengers of society who have nothing better to do. Everyone else works within the system, yea rather, are indeed the system.

That's right, what society needs is a bunch of loons who can't function within it making all the decisions and  bringing forth those ideas by a combination of temper tantrums and intimidation by mob behaviour.
 
2014-04-26 06:23:17 PM  

EggSniper: Nothing cures a bad idea like hearing it from someone you don't respect.


"This", as the young people say.
 
2014-04-26 06:23:56 PM  

Nabb1: Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?


"public campus"

You know how I know you've never worked in education?

Because you're unaware that college/university campuses are on private property.
 
2014-04-26 06:23:58 PM  

Back Alley Proctologist: Those little bastards are lucky a porno professor didn't feel "triggered", then steal their shiat and unleash a self-righteous ass-whoopin' on them. Emotionally-violent pieces of shiat.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2014-04-26 06:24:02 PM  
Mugato [TotalFark]

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?
That's some total fark level idiocy there.
Not only is the USC now "propaganda" this nutter now claims "Would you like a copy" with Barging into a classroom and shouting down the instructor.

Thank godparticle the TF flag alerts us when this level of stupid will crop up.
 
2014-04-26 06:25:00 PM  

Fark It: I'm not a conservative, and they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.


CRtwenty: What's the big deal here? It's not like they weren't allowing them to spread their message or censoring them. If they didn't want to follow the rules they should have chosen another location.


 The real problem is that they WERE being allowed to distribute them. The fact they were not being 'oppressed' is almost certainly what peeved them. So they started distributing them in a way not allowed, then finally started protesting that there were rules about how things can be distributed in the first place.
 The real goal of the exercise was not to hand out copies of the Constitution - they were allowed to do that. The real goal was to get 'liberals' to 'repress' them in order to feed the faux outrage machine, and they just kept pushing the boundaries until they reached their goal.
 
2014-04-26 06:28:30 PM  

ArkAngel: iheartscotch: ArkAngel: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Did you RTFA? They were also restricted to a "free speech zone" when they tried to protest. Either one is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech.

There's a reason universities adopted the concept of a Free Speech Zone.

Anybody can go there and pass out whatever. From Neo- nazis passing out swasticas to hellfire and damnation preachers. The reason it's like that is; any group there doesn't disrupt the entire campus.

If it wasn't like that; you'd have to pass 20 or 30 idiots spouting verbal trash everyday. This way; if you want to go listen, you can. If you want to avoid it, you can.

/ the idea is; you have right to free speech, but, I have the right to avoid your cardboard demogogary

// there's a hellfire preacher that inhabits the kansas state university free speech zone from 8-10am, every Saturday for the last 10 years; he ran out of new and interesting material 5 years ago and just rants about Obama, the Illuminati, ravenous sluttitude, the government and EBT cards.

/ I know this because it has become very popular to go and heckle him

There's far more constitutional ways to police disruption - i.e. a disturbing the peace arrest. No one is saying that there should be no rules. Disrupting classes or speakers is a problem that must be dealt with. But forcing all protesters to register in advance and reserve a tiny area is not legal. Ask federal courts, who have continuously struck down free speech zones and speech codes on campuses across the nation


I agree that there is probably a better way to police disruptions.

I've just got this image in my head of PETA setting up in the cafeteria to protest meat. Or a hellfire and damnation preacher setting up somewhere in the biology department with a bullhorn. Or a young earther setting up in the Geology department.

The point is; there have to be rules about protesting or some ass is going to set up an illuminati display right across from the trigonometry class, for reasons.

/ the thing about it is; those rules are likely to impinge on the 1st amendment
 
2014-04-26 06:28:52 PM  

Kit Fister: Baz744: Fark It: "In order to protect the 1st Amendment, we must abridge it!"

In order to protect (public safety, the president, an assembly VIPs for some event, etc.) we must temporarily establish a perimeter within which members of the public might not be allowed at all, much less engage in speech activities.

But because morons like you insist on giving "free speech zone" a sinister spin, we can no longer set aside areas within those perimeters where protestors may permissibly engage in orderly speech activities.

Instead, in the interest of protecting free speech from your sinister zones "outside of which speech is banned," we'll just have to temporarily speech within those perimeters altogether.

No more evil zones "outside of which speech is banned." We'll just ban speech altogether within a limited area and for a limited time. No biggie.

Seriously? You're OK with this? Seriously, you typed that out and that doesn't sound even the least bit scary or draconian to you? At all?


I don't know what you're talking about. I was offering a solution to the problem of those evil free speech zones, outside of which speech is banned. They won't exist anymore under my proposal.

Presidential debate protestors, for example, can be treated just like everyone else. They won't be forced at gunpoint into some free speech zone where they'll be within sight of the building where the debate is being held, where the candidates themselves will almost have to see their signs as they walk into the building, and where the media will have easy access to them.

No more such tyranny. They can stay 6 blocks away outside the perimeter like everyone else.

First you were b*tching about free speech zones. Now you're calling me "draconian" when I suggest getting rid of them.

Surely you're not the kind of mental midget who can't grasp why situations like presidential debates or armed insurgencies against federal law enforcement call for establishing secure perimeters.

What's the matter then? Doesn't anything suit you?
 
2014-04-26 06:28:59 PM  

The more you eat the more you fart: jaytkay: ElLoco: MFAWG: Conservative poutrage at it's finest, reported by one of the house organs of Conservative poutrage.

I'm guessing you and several of the others up there didn't read the article? It was a Young Americans for Liberty group.

Oh, look, "libertarians".

/ Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican

Im a libertarian...ane i voted for obama. Twice.

Your point? Invalid now. Have a seat.


I have always voted Libertarian until last time when the Republicans went to far with how douchebaggy their candidates were. My ideologies are right leaning but I the GOP is awful.
 
2014-04-26 06:31:48 PM  

iheartscotch: ArkAngel: iheartscotch: ArkAngel: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Did you RTFA? They were also restricted to a "free speech zone" when they tried to protest. Either one is a restriction on the right to freedom of speech.

There's a reason universities adopted the concept of a Free Speech Zone.

Anybody can go there and pass out whatever. From Neo- nazis passing out swasticas to hellfire and damnation preachers. The reason it's like that is; any group there doesn't disrupt the entire campus.

If it wasn't like that; you'd have to pass 20 or 30 idiots spouting verbal trash everyday. This way; if you want to go listen, you can. If you want to avoid it, you can.

/ the idea is; you have right to free speech, but, I have the right to avoid your cardboard demogogary

// there's a hellfire preacher that inhabits the kansas state university free speech zone from 8-10am, every Saturday for the last 10 years; he ran out of new and interesting material 5 years ago and just rants about Obama, the Illuminati, ravenous sluttitude, the government and EBT cards.

/ I know this because it has become very popular to go and heckle him

There's far more constitutional ways to police disruption - i.e. a disturbing the peace arrest. No one is saying that there should be no rules. Disrupting classes or speakers is a problem that must be dealt with. But forcing all protesters to register in advance and reserve a tiny area is not legal. Ask federal courts, who have continuously struck down free speech zones and speech codes on campuses across the nation

I agree that there is probably a better way to police disruptions.

I've just got this image in my head of PETA setting up in the cafeteria to protest meat. Or a hellfire and damnation preacher setting up somewhere in the biology department with a bullhorn. Or a young earther setting up in the Geology department.

The point is; there have to be rules about protesting or some ass is going to set up an illuminati display right across from the trigonometry class, for reasons.

/ the thing about it is; those rules are likely to impinge on the 1st amendment


Not at all. The courts have determined that there can be reasonable restrictions on free speech, like yelling fire in a theater or printing invasion plans before the invasion. Preventing people from setting up protests in a classroom is very reasonable.
 
2014-04-26 06:35:16 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-26 06:37:00 PM  

Baz744: Kit Fister: Baz744: Fark It: "In order to protect the 1st Amendment, we must abridge it!"

In order to protect (public safety, the president, an assembly VIPs for some event, etc.) we must temporarily establish a perimeter within which members of the public might not be allowed at all, much less engage in speech activities.

But because morons like you insist on giving "free speech zone" a sinister spin, we can no longer set aside areas within those perimeters where protestors may permissibly engage in orderly speech activities.

Instead, in the interest of protecting free speech from your sinister zones "outside of which speech is banned," we'll just have to temporarily speech within those perimeters altogether.

No more evil zones "outside of which speech is banned." We'll just ban speech altogether within a limited area and for a limited time. No biggie.

Seriously? You're OK with this? Seriously, you typed that out and that doesn't sound even the least bit scary or draconian to you? At all?

I don't know what you're talking about. I was offering a solution to the problem of those evil free speech zones, outside of which speech is banned. They won't exist anymore under my proposal.

Presidential debate protestors, for example, can be treated just like everyone else. They won't be forced at gunpoint into some free speech zone where they'll be within sight of the building where the debate is being held, where the candidates themselves will almost have to see their signs as they walk into the building, and where the media will have easy access to them.

No more such tyranny. They can stay 6 blocks away outside the perimeter like everyone else.

First you were b*tching about free speech zones. Now you're calling me "draconian" when I suggest getting rid of them.

Surely you're not the kind of mental midget who can't grasp why situations like presidential debates or armed insurgencies against federal law enforcement call for establishing secure perimeters.

What's the matter then? Doesn't anything suit you?


I call attempts to keep peaceful protests away from the eyes of those it's meant to target a bit draconian. I should be able to picket outside the whitehouse, have a sign at a presidential debate (if we had real presidential debates), show up at a gun show with anti NRA material, whatever.

The only exceptions to this is when it directly intercedes with law enforcement, and I'd argue that the civil disobedience of the 60s was far more in your face than any of this.
 
2014-04-26 06:37:15 PM  

Kit Fister: iheartscotch: aerojockey: iheartscotch: Free speech zones are absolutely clogged with people promoting one cause or another. It's not crowded all the time; but, especially on weekends, you can run into all sorts of interesting individuals.

Imagine that, when you give people 200 square feet to engage in free speech, all of them end up that one place.

I understand what you are saying; and I agree that free speech is important.

But, can you imagine the havoc if 30 or 40 Neo-nazis descended on a school and started goose stepping down the halls? I can almost guarantee that someone would lose their temper.

What if Fred Phelp's ( I know, he's been removed as head winner) merry band of winners show up? Do they get to run all over campus with their signs?

True enough, most of the people are harmless and want to promote a message; but, I don't need to hear hellfire and damnation sermons while I'm renewing all of my certs.

/ your right to speak freely doesn't trump my right to not listen to you

Your right to not listen doesn't trump their right to speak, either. If they are in a public place, they are free to say what they want, just like you are free to ignore it. But you can't make them go away just because you disagree.


It's not about wether I agree or disagree with the message; it's about the delivery. I have always wondered if people consider how pontificating over a bullhorn makes them look. It's an annoyance and you aren't going to win the hearts and minds of anybody by shouting slogans at them.

/ Like I said upthread; there needs to be rules for protesting or you'll get Neo-nazis protesting in a holocaust museum.
 
2014-04-26 06:42:27 PM  

Kit Fister: call attempts to keep peaceful protests away from the eyes of those it's meant to target a bit draconian. I should be able to picket outside the whitehouse, have a sign at a presidential debate (if we had real presidential debates), show up at a gun show with anti NRA material, whatever.

The only exceptions to this is when it directly intercedes with law enforcement, and I'd argue that the civil disobedience of the 60s was far more in your face than any of this.


I see. So you are the kind of mental midget who can't grasp the need for secure perimeters in situations like presidential debates and armed insurgencies against federal law enforcement. That's why your argument just blows right past security and public safety issues like they don't even exist.

Well young man, I can see you've got a a lot to learn yet. But I can also see you'll be a passionate debater once you reach high school!
 
2014-04-26 06:43:11 PM  
 
2014-04-26 06:45:04 PM  

Baz744: Kit Fister: call attempts to keep peaceful protests away from the eyes of those it's meant to target a bit draconian. I should be able to picket outside the whitehouse, have a sign at a presidential debate (if we had real presidential debates), show up at a gun show with anti NRA material, whatever.

The only exceptions to this is when it directly intercedes with law enforcement, and I'd argue that the civil disobedience of the 60s was far more in your face than any of this.

I see. So you are the kind of mental midget who can't grasp the need for secure perimeters in situations like presidential debates and armed insurgencies against federal law enforcement. That's why your argument just blows right past security and public safety issues like they don't even exist.

Well young man, I can see you've got a a lot to learn yet. But I can also see you'll be a passionate debater once you reach high school!


I guess that makes you a masterdebater.
 
2014-04-26 06:45:32 PM  
Free speech ain't free if it's restricted to the free speech zone. It's funny how these 60's anti-establishment types are now the establishment and crushing free speech just like the establishment of the 60's did.

/too much use of the word establishment
//er, did it again
///stop
 
2014-04-26 06:45:49 PM  

doyner: I guess that makes you a masterdebater.


I sometimes masterdebate several times a day.
 
2014-04-26 06:49:10 PM  

Kit Fister: iheartscotch: aerojockey: iheartscotch: Free speech zones are absolutely clogged with people promoting one cause or another. It's not crowded all the time; but, especially on weekends, you can run into all sorts of interesting individuals.

Imagine that, when you give people 200 square feet to engage in free speech, all of them end up that one place.

I understand what you are saying; and I agree that free speech is important.

But, can you imagine the havoc if 30 or 40 Neo-nazis descended on a school and started goose stepping down the halls? I can almost guarantee that someone would lose their temper.

What if Fred Phelp's ( I know, he's been removed as head winner) merry band of winners show up? Do they get to run all over campus with their signs?

True enough, most of the people are harmless and want to promote a message; but, I don't need to hear hellfire and damnation sermons while I'm renewing all of my certs.

/ your right to speak freely doesn't trump my right to not listen to you

Your right to not listen doesn't trump their right to speak, either. If they are in a public place, they are free to say what they want, just like you are free to ignore it. But you can't make them go away just because you disagree.


Attention whores are attention whores no matter what they're saying. You're only acting all huffy about this group because you agree with then politically.

Get out of my Farking way, I'm trying to get to class and I don't care about your Farking politics. I came to college to learn, and to a lesser extent drink and fark.
 
2014-04-26 06:50:10 PM  

Thunderpipes: Can't believe liberals actually now think the 1st amendment should go away too


They dont
Thats all you sunshine
 
2014-04-26 06:52:53 PM  

The Homer Tax: Get out of my Farking way, I'm trying to get to class


Were these people any more of an obstacle than the shrubbery by the stairs ?
 
2014-04-26 06:53:05 PM  

iheartscotch: It's not about wether I agree or disagree with the message; it's about the delivery. I have always wondered if people consider how pontificating over a bullhorn makes them look. It's an annoyance and you aren't going to win the hearts and minds of anybody by shouting slogans at them.

/ Like I said upthread; there needs to be rules for protesting or you'll get Neo-nazis protesting in a holocaust museum.


You realize that neo-nazis get to protest at holocaust museums, right?  It's kinda important that we let them do that, too.

As to the delivery, I don't recall anything about a bullhorn being used, nor did I see anything about someone else's right to be there being obstructed.

Amusingly enough, the only thing about this that I don't get is that conservatives are handing out copies of the Constitution.  Aren't they afraid people will actually read it?  It's a pretty damn liberal document, even mentions such socialism as promoting the general welfare, and things like a right to have government not support religion, a right to be free from unreasonable searches, automatic citizenship for people who are born here, a ban on slavery, and a right to due process.
 
2014-04-26 06:53:08 PM  
another thread filled with logical fallacies and beliefs based on them.
 
2014-04-26 06:55:01 PM  

OnlyM3: Democrats also got police to try to make these people get back to their assigned tables.

[www.learnnc.org image 850x664]

[media.npr.org image 850x687]

[historyz.com image 700x489]
The party of "freedom" hasn't changed a bit.


Those were "Southern Democrats", southern conservatives who only belonged to the Democratic Party because, after losing the civil war, southerners had a deeply ingrained and entrenched hatred of Lincoln and wanted nothing to do with his Republican Party. After the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Johnson, also southern Democrat, many white southerners began voting Republican. Beginning with Nixon and continuing through Reagan , the Southern Democrat conservative bloc gradually switched to Republican. The southern Democrats of the Jim Crow era are the Republicans of today.
 
2014-04-26 06:55:11 PM  

Baz744: So you are the kind of mental midget who can't grasp the need for secure perimeters in situations like presidential debates and armed insurgencies against federal law enforcement


(paraphrased) Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security
 
2014-04-26 06:56:57 PM  

oryx: Free speech ain't free if it's restricted to the free speech zone. It's funny how these 60's anti-establishment types are now the establishment and crushing free speech just like the establishment of the 60's did.

/too much use of the word establishment
//er, did it again
///stop


Your repeated use of the word establishment has been established. The current establishment has taken notice of your noticing the previous establishment's continued establishment.

/establishment.
 
2014-04-26 06:57:02 PM  

Fark It: Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

Those awful conservatives and the message they're trying to get out.

[www.tucsonsentinel.com image 850x977]

pic related

How dare someone think they can hand this out in public.


Except nobody was stopping them from handing it out. Thanks for playing.
 
2014-04-26 07:03:23 PM  

DarkVader: iheartscotch: It's not about wether I agree or disagree with the message; it's about the delivery. I have always wondered if people consider how pontificating over a bullhorn makes them look. It's an annoyance and you aren't going to win the hearts and minds of anybody by shouting slogans at them.

/ Like I said upthread; there needs to be rules for protesting or you'll get Neo-nazis protesting in a holocaust museum.

You realize that neo-nazis get to protest at holocaust museums, right?  It's kinda important that we let them do that, too.

As to the delivery, I don't recall anything about a bullhorn being used, nor did I see anything about someone else's right to be there being obstructed.

Amusingly enough, the only thing about this that I don't get is that conservatives are handing out copies of the Constitution.  Aren't they afraid people will actually read it?  It's a pretty damn liberal document, even mentions such socialism as promoting the general welfare, and things like a right to have government not support religion, a right to be free from unreasonable searches, automatic citizenship for people who are born here, a ban on slavery, and a right to due process.


I realize that Neo-nazis can protest outside of a holocaust museum. What I am saying is, with out rules, they'd be inside the holocaust museum.

The right to protest is important; but, not to the point that it is disruptive or violent.

As to the constitution itself; both sides need to reread the constitution and bill of rights.
 
2014-04-26 07:05:09 PM  

Fark It: I'm not a conservative, and they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.


Should they be allowed to enter a lecture theatre or seminar room during a lecture or seminar and hand it out then? During a classical music concert?
 
2014-04-26 07:06:05 PM  

fugeeface: Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.

This.

Also included: Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa.


Thank you for remembering us, although the bill of rights is a somewhat moot point here.
We've got no say in the body that holds ultimate authority and the local politicians can pretty much get away with murder.

/In the literal sense, on some occasions...
 
2014-04-26 07:07:01 PM  
I see that the young women in question are in "Young Americans for Liberty". Isn't it sad that "liberty" in an organisations name, like "family", is a sure sign of a bunch of deranged wackjobs?
 
2014-04-26 07:08:12 PM  

Baz744: I sometimes masterdebate several times a day.



The amusing thing about  master debater is that it sounds like masturbater, but being an actual  masturbater isn't very funny at all. Masturbating several times per day might easily strain your prostate. I suggest cold showers, or perhaps a calming hobby such as playing xbone, linux programming, or making faintly rude postings on popular web forums.

Now Baz744, you may have heard many things that simply aren't true. Masturbation doesn't cause blindness or hairy palms. Those come from dating gingers.
 
2014-04-26 07:09:14 PM  

Danger Avoid Death: OnlyM3: Democrats also got police to try to make these people get back to their assigned tables.

[www.learnnc.org image 850x664]

[media.npr.org image 850x687]

[historyz.com image 700x489]
The party of "freedom" hasn't changed a bit.

Those were "Southern Democrats", southern conservatives who only belonged to the Democratic Party because, after losing the civil war, southerners had a deeply ingrained and entrenched hatred of Lincoln and wanted nothing to do with his Republican Party. After the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Johnson, also southern Democrat, many white southerners began voting Republican. Beginning with Nixon and continuing through Reagan , the Southern Democrat conservative bloc gradually switched to Republican. The southern Democrats of the Jim Crow era are the Republicans of today.


http://www.redstate.com/diary/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern -s trategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/
 
2014-04-26 07:12:29 PM  
I'm not a free speech zone person, but the Universities do have to do something to control public events.  It's hard to take an exam when there is a two-story tall aborted fetus sign being moved back and forth as protestors scream at the students about the ills of abortion. 15-foot high signs accompanying arseholes who want to tell the students that education is of the devil is also pretty darn disruptive.  And loud.  Pushing them back to a place that isn't immediately next to classrooms or dorms is something I advocate, even if I find the idea of free speech zones generally appalling.

/Let the students learn without your drama.
 
2014-04-26 07:13:12 PM  

jaytkay: The more you eat the more you fart: Listen, captain obvious...there shouldnt BE a "free speech zone." We already have one...it's called "the whole damn country" according to the constitution.

I visited my local elementary school unannounced with a bullhorn, passing out little American flags and exhorting the kids to "CELEBRATE FREEDOM"!

The staff and police were not appreciative.

They are fascists who hate America.


Maybe try wearing something underneath the trenchcoat next time.
 
2014-04-26 07:14:53 PM  

Thunderpipes: if it were a Bush hating group or a protest against Israel, you bet your bottom you would be defending their freedom of speech.


What year do you think this is?
 
2014-04-26 07:28:39 PM  
As a career student (graduated) from the largest school in the US with a campus: we like the free speech zones. That's where the school puts the dooshbags who come and lecture about sexual immorality and abortion. It's a shame the free speech zone was right outside the math building but it's better to be shouted at once a day rather than accosted all day all over campus.

No1curr about your religion, asshole! Get out of my way, I'm late for my Physics nap.
 
2014-04-26 07:31:39 PM  

clowncar on fire: I like opposing views- gives you the opportunity to defend your beliefs (or take a moment to hear a conflicting opinion and re-adjust your values).


To a point.  If the other side is just shouting and calling you names, it's not the best environment to learn something in.
 
2014-04-26 07:33:11 PM  

GORDON: Why do people keep calling the Constitution "propaganda?"  Do people really think that way?


It's just that it's widely available on the Internet. I don't need to smell a right winger's B.O. to remind myself what's in the Constitution.

Also; no one thinks we should go back to that time except for wing nuts. Blacks were 3/5 a person and women couldn't vote. The original constitution ain't so farking awesome, ya know? And the amended one could use a little tweaking, too.
 
2014-04-26 07:34:22 PM  

djwebb1127: I voted for obama. I do not care to own a gun. Anyone who preventa the constitution from freely being distributed should be shot and killed in town square. Regardless of what side you are on. Anyone who believes the constitution hander outers should be restricted to behind a table should also be shot and killed in the town square.


Oh yeah, because THAT'S constitutional...
 
2014-04-26 07:39:06 PM  
Conservitards like to pretend this is some new invention.  At Georgia Tech in the 1980's we had well defined zone and rules.  Those who played by them could stand there and preach all day.  And typically be ridiculed.  Those who didn't follow the rules got rousted.  Simple rules that are the same for everyone, hard to follow but your issue isn't any more important than the next person, to people who just want to get to class without being molested.
 
2014-04-26 07:39:34 PM  

kyrg: The University had it out for them.  http://www.thefire.org/complaint-in-burch-and-vizzone-v-university-of - hawaii-et-al/

The University will lose in court.  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13833614167911464291


 The complaint fails even to allege facts from which anyone could infer the university "had it out for them." It alleges first that:


1) the YAL students arrived too late to secure a favorable spot to distribute their literature, that

2) this made them angry, that

3) they therefore felt self-entitled to break the well established, pre-written and content neutral rule prohibiting groups distributing literature at that event from leaving their tables,

4) because after all they saw the Accounting Club sell some tickets to their chili dinner that that way, and

5) the lady who told them not to leave their table didn't tell the Accounting Club not to do so, and

6) my favorite part, "she spoke to them in an authoritative tone," therefore

7) WAAAAHHH!!! WE'RE PERSECUTED JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CONSERVATIVES. WAAAAAHHH!!!

Of course, they failed to allege that the lady who told them not to leave their table even saw the Accounting Club students leave their table, a fact necessary to even begin to argue that she intended to discriminate against them.

Of course they also alleged that:

1) The campus only has a tiny area designated for wholly unregulated, impromptu speech activities, that

2) They felt self-entitled to have more people attend their event than would probably show up at the designated area for wholly unregulated, impromptu speech activities, that

3) A campus tyrant oppressively suggested that they publicize their event at the designated area beforehand, that

4) They weren't going to submit to the campus tyrant's tyranny, so

5) They instead petitioned to use another area for their event which requires pre-approval, that

6) When they did, they got an email which, in tyrannical caps, said "DON'T PUBLICIZE THIS EVENT UNTIL WE GET BACK TO YOU TO LET YOU KNOW IF THE SPOT IS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME," that

7) This made them angry, because they felt self-entitled to publicize the event before they knew for sure the spot would be available for them to use, that

8) The administrator responsible didn't get back to them for a long time, and

9) They just know she usually gets backs to other groups sooner than they did for them, that

10) They just know the reason for the delay was because she's a liberal tyrant who

11) WANTS TO OPPRESS US JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CONSERVATIVES. WAAAHHH!

Most sinister of all: when one of them went to her office, and spoke to some kid who works there, HE couldn't explain the reason for the delay. I bet he even looked confused and a bit surprised, and said something oppressive like "I'll ask her, and get back to you."

I can hardly imagine a more mundane course of non-sinister events ever leading to conservative poutrage about being oppressed.

I suppose there's a modest chance the lady who took a long time to get back to them will fess up that the reason she didn't was because she just likes oppressing conservatives, and had nothing to do with anything mundane like her flaking out and forgetting about it/losing the paperwork under a pile on her desk/ etc. Otherwise, it alleges jack sh*t.

Then, the campus tyrant who suggested they pre-publicize their event at the designated impromptu speech location (which would have prevented the whole bureaucratic delay thing altogether) might admit that his real purpose in offering such preposterous advice was to work reverse psychology on conservative students who he knew would feel oppressed by it, and therefore petition to use another area enabling his co-conspirator to oppress them by delaying her response.

But probably not.
 
2014-04-26 07:41:53 PM  
F*ck everyone who doesn't like the free speech zones. How about the schools just trespass your annoying wing nut asses and be done with you. The students won't miss you, that's for sure.
 
2014-04-26 07:47:00 PM  

Nabb1: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

I was asking Dinki. He seems to have flexible opinions on this stuff based on things like that. Also, there were other incidents mentioned in the article. Personally, I think "free speech zones" are anathema to the First Amendment, but we have a country full of people with delicate sensibilities who are so open minded that anything that diverts from their open minded views is offensive.


From what I gather, free speech zones are places you can protest, put up signs, march, yell, whatever -- and not get arrested for disrupting someone else's thing. You can protest wherever you like but there's no guarantee you won't be shouted down and/or lower the level of discourse to a useless level. Freedom of speech doesn't mean there aren't consequences.
 
2014-04-26 07:48:24 PM  

DarkVader: You realize that neo-nazis get to protest at holocaust museums, right?  It's kinda important that we let them do that, too.


If society can't enforce normal standards without protection orders or decrees or cleverly crafted pieces of paper, then what's the point? Has everything gone that low?

When did the US Constitution become this secular scripture that defines acceptable behaviour of the  citizenry, and not an instrument to constrain the powers of the state?

So the locals are violating the Constitution by running a bunch of wannabe hitlers out of town, simply because they're farking nazis with the gall to taunt some Jewish people? Dude, they're nazis.

If you are so depraved that you can see no fundamental difference between the rights of regular people and farking nazis, I said farking nazis, then you have a problem.

B.b.but we have to protect the rights of even the worst == and that's where I repeat, they're farking nazis.
 
2014-04-26 07:50:23 PM  
Obama lived in Hawaii. That explains a lot.
 
2014-04-26 08:02:25 PM  

letrole: [img.fark.net image 636x740]


What about ass to vagina?
 
2014-04-26 08:08:48 PM  

GORDON: Baz744:
So I can walk onto a military base any time and hand out flyers any place I want so long as they're not advertisements?

You're gonna have to produce a citation for this proposition, counselor.

I'm not holding my breath.

No, you will need a permit to be on that base.  To get a permit, one way or another, you are going to sign a form and waive your rights to certain things, one of which will be soliciting on that property.  This applies to both civilian and military personnel.

This may also apply to college campuses.  However, I still want someone to explain to me why a copy of the U.S. Constitution could be considered forbidden "propaganda."  I want someone to tell me why it is important that people not be informed as to the rules to which our government is supposed to adhere, the rules we all live under in the U.S.


The university never said it was forbidden. The whiny biatch was allowed to hand out copies of the constitution from her table.

Since conservatives here think that people should be able to shove handouts on anyone anywhere at anytime, I'm sure they will have no problem with atheists going into churches on Sunday mornings and handing out atheist literature, since they have the 1st Amendment right to do so. Right?
 
2014-04-26 08:11:24 PM  
I don't know the rules at this university, however, if it is anything like mine then it would mean:
1 They had to apply and sponsored to be a club. To do so, they would have had to agree to follow the schools rules.
2 They were given a budget of school funds to pay for events, which had to be approved
3 They would have had to apply to participate in this event, and then agree to the terms set for the event,
4 If they decided to break the rules they had agreed to, then their future budgets and status as an official club would be looked at. As a side not, our college Republicans couldn't help but be dicks and were told to take a few years break.

Any time you have a clubs show themselves off type event, it is a bit like a pot luck. Imagine pot luck where that one fat guy just won't move from in front of the lasagna, some stupid kid keeps running back and forth trying o slide between strangers legs, and Mrs Schultz keeps trying to sneak beet juice in your stew and goddamnit it doesn't need beet juice it was your granny's prize winning recipe and it doesn't call for no farking beet juice! The students visiting the event are like the hungry people with their plates, going from table to table seeing what is offered. You can dress up your table, but if you don't have rules restricting the above behaviors then what you get is a clusterfark of message crowding, traffic and safety issues, and an unpleasant time for anyone checking out the event. They were not limited to what the could hand out, they just had to follow the rules of the event. If they didnt want to follow those rules, there is plenty of time that the event isnt going on. My campus was much bigger than theirs and we didn't have problems like this, and by that I mean attention whores trying to martyr themselves because they can only relate to the world as a victim.
 
2014-04-26 08:11:46 PM  
letrole: [img.fark.net image 636x740]

CK2005: What about ass to vagina?


turn the picture over, it's on there with fellatio
 
2014-04-26 08:13:50 PM  
My free speech zone is wherever I'm standing.
 
2014-04-26 08:17:30 PM  

Cerebral Ballsy: F*ck everyone who doesn't like the free speech zones. How about the schools just trespass your annoying wing nut asses and be done with you. The students won't miss you, that's for sure.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-26 08:21:57 PM  

Fark It: TuteTibiImperes: Fark It: Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?

We're not talking about that though, are we?  That's now what happened.  And since when is the Constitution propaganda?  And so what if they were handing out propaganda?

/nice reductio ad absurdum

If free speech is the issue it shouldn't matter what's handed out. The Communist Manifesto should be just as protected as the US Constitution.

Also, the point he makes is valid.  An area was set up for student groups to hand out literature, these students left that area.  The issue wasn't their message, it was the physical location of where and means by which they were spreading it.

Thank you for clarifying your stance on free speech zones.


Your words exactly up-thread:

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

There was an article earlier today about a Florida judge handing out miniature New Testament bibles to defendants as they collected their paperwork when they left the courtroom. It didn't work well for him. These attention starved Constitution wavers need to pick their battles better. This not about free speech, it is about following the same simple rules as everybody else.
 
2014-04-26 08:25:06 PM  

Baz744: kyrg: The University had it out for them.  http://www.thefire.org/complaint-in-burch-and-vizzone-v-university-of - hawaii-et-al/

The University will lose in court.  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13833614167911464291

 The complaint fails even to allege facts from which anyone could infer the university "had it out for them." It alleges first that:


1) the YAL students arrived too late to secure a favorable spot to distribute their literature, that

2) this made them angry, that

3) they therefore felt self-entitled to break the well established, pre-written and content neutral rule prohibiting groups distributing literature at that event from leaving their tables,

4) because after all they saw the Accounting Club sell some tickets to their chili dinner that that way, and

5) the lady who told them not to leave their table didn't tell the Accounting Club not to do so, and

6) my favorite part, "she spoke to them in an authoritative tone," therefore

7) WAAAAHHH!!! WE'RE PERSECUTED JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CONSERVATIVES. WAAAAAHHH!!!

Of course, they failed to allege that the lady who told them not to leave their table even saw the Accounting Club students leave their table, a fact necessary to even begin to argue that she intended to discriminate against them.

Of course they also alleged that:

1) The campus only has a tiny area designated for wholly unregulated, impromptu speech activities, that

2) They felt self-entitled to have more people attend their event than would probably show up at the designated area for wholly unregulated, impromptu speech activities, that

3) A campus tyrant oppressively suggested that they publicize their event at the designated area beforehand, that

4) They weren't going to submit to the campus tyrant's tyranny, so

5) They instead petitioned to use another area for their event which requires pre-approval, that

6) When they did, they got an email which, in tyrannical caps, said "DON'T PUBLICIZE THIS EVENT UNTIL WE GET BA ...


I can see you read one of the links I attached, I'm looking... no, I don't see any comment from you about the second link, humm. Anyway, did you see this one?  http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/26/its-official-at-dartmouth-the-word- f iesta-is-racist-and-white-people-cant-use-it/ because it's another free speech issue, although her butt hurt will carry the day because she's not white.
To paraphrase  George Orwell  "We're all equal, it's just some are more equal than others" Am I right?
 
2014-04-26 08:25:30 PM  

Fark It: Dinki: Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.

Those awful conservatives and the message they're trying to get out.

[www.tucsonsentinel.com image 850x977]

pic related

How dare someone think they can hand this out in public.


Why do they do it? They only believe a part of the Second,not even the whole second, and none of the others.
 
2014-04-26 08:25:35 PM  

doyner: The lesson here is that if you invent asinine things like "Free Speech Zones," don't be surprised when the shoe is on the other foot.


These particular students invented free speech zone?
 
2014-04-26 08:26:54 PM  

Skeezix: Since conservatives here think that people should be able to shove handouts on anyone anywhere at anytime, I'm sure they will have no problem with atheists going into churches on Sunday mornings and handing out atheist literature, since they have the 1st Amendment right to do so. Right?



Conservative doesn't mean the opposite of you. Genuine conservatives think schools should be able to control protests by shutting them down the way they used to. You see, genuine conservatives don't like protests at all. So stop using words that you don't mean. The tea party isn't conservative, it's an insane mix of the worst bits of libertarianism and right wing authoritarian horse shiat. Anti-Abortionists aren't conservative, they're single issue zealots. Lots of political and philosophical spectrum in the ranks there.

Conservatism is a glorified, somewhat false remembrance of how much better it was just before you were born, whatever your age. Then it went downhill. The tea party is radicalism, just not left wing radicalism. Certainly not conservative.
 
2014-04-26 08:42:24 PM  
The last time a checked the entire United States was a free speech zone.  Is the first amendment no longer applicable?
 
2014-04-26 08:50:19 PM  
Ugh, absolutely disgusting what we've devolved into.  A bunch of punitive, petty children waiting for their turn to stick it to the other guy, whose identity politics and media-driven political narratives they adhere to over the shared, unequivocally non-partisan founding ideals enshrined in the Constitution.  Everything is a battle now between two sides, it's like a Cold Civil War, and instead of turning on the people perpetuating this stalemate, furthering the police/surveillance state, and selling out to the super wealthy, they have us turned on each other.

I've dealt with winos aggressively panhandling and even ask for rides, evangelicals going door-to-door, and religious weirdos wanting to talk about Jesus (at my public college).  I politely decline whatever they're asking for, and if that doesn't take, I tell them to fark off.  I never thought for a moment that there should be a law against any of that, that there should be more rules.  It's the cost of living in a free society.  We have people now defending "free speech zones" who were likely their loudest critics during the prior president's administration.  It's sickening to see what happens when the roles are reversed, to see people you otherwise mostly agree with become the statists they railed against just a few years ago.

I would blame the sellout Boomer scum that infest our media, government, and educational institutions, but it's not just them.  An entire generation of young people has been conditioned into either accepting this as our status quo or not even being aware of the world outside of their iPhones.

What happened to this country to not only make us hate each other, but to hate the very ideals that are supposed to bind us?
 
2014-04-26 08:52:33 PM  

Skeezix: GORDON: Baz744:
So I can walk onto a military base any time and hand out flyers any place I want so long as they're not advertisements?

You're gonna have to produce a citation for this proposition, counselor.

I'm not holding my breath.

No, you will need a permit to be on that base.  To get a permit, one way or another, you are going to sign a form and waive your rights to certain things, one of which will be soliciting on that property.  This applies to both civilian and military personnel.

This may also apply to college campuses.  However, I still want someone to explain to me why a copy of the U.S. Constitution could be considered forbidden "propaganda."  I want someone to tell me why it is important that people not be informed as to the rules to which our government is supposed to adhere, the rules we all live under in the U.S.

The university never said it was forbidden. The whiny biatch was allowed to hand out copies of the constitution from her table.

Since conservatives here think that people should be able to shove handouts on anyone anywhere at anytime, I'm sure they will have no problem with atheists going into churches on Sunday mornings and handing out atheist literature, since they have the 1st Amendment right to do so. Right?


People keep ignoring my question.  Why is the Constitution considered annoying propaganda?  It's basically the law upon which our society is built upon.  Why does it need to be a secret, whether it is on a "handout," or whatever?
 
2014-04-26 08:56:38 PM  

Fark It: Ugh, absolutely disgusting what we've devolved into.  A bunch of punitive, petty children waiting for their turn to stick it to the other guy, whose identity politics and media-driven political narratives they adhere to over the shared, unequivocally non-partisan founding ideals enshrined in the Constitution.  Everything is a battle now between two sides, it's like a Cold Civil War, and instead of turning on the people perpetuating this stalemate, furthering the police/surveillance state, and selling out to the super wealthy, they have us turned on each other.

I've dealt with winos aggressively panhandling and even ask for rides, evangelicals going door-to-door, and religious weirdos wanting to talk about Jesus (at my public college).  I politely decline whatever they're asking for, and if that doesn't take, I tell them to fark off.  I never thought for a moment that there should be a law against any of that, that there should be more rules.  It's the cost of living in a free society.  We have people now defending "free speech zones" who were likely their loudest critics during the prior president's administration.  It's sickening to see what happens when the roles are reversed, to see people you otherwise mostly agree with become the statists they railed against just a few years ago.

I would blame the sellout Boomer scum that infest our media, government, and educational institutions, but it's not just them.  An entire generation of young people has been conditioned into either accepting this as our status quo or not even being aware of the world outside of their iPhones.

What happened to this country to not only make us hate each other, but to hate the very ideals that are supposed to bind us?


img.fark.net

Well said. Damn. It's classic divide and conquer.
 
2014-04-26 08:59:09 PM  

OnlyM3: Democrats also got police to try to make these people get back to their assigned tables.

[www.learnnc.org image 850x664]

[media.npr.org image 850x687]

[historyz.com image 700x489]
The party of "freedom" hasn't changed a bit.


I pretty much had you pegged as a moron from the very Boobies I ever read of yours. You do know that George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurman, etc. were all Democrats, right? You also know that the Southern Democrats were so unbelievably conservative that they would curl the hair on Ann Coulter's chest, right?

While I am at it, with you bashing liberals for the "Freedom" tag...think of terms like Patriot Act, Freedom Fries, Color Coded Terror Alert. What party came up with such pedestrian propaganda? I would swear that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the gang were up in a tree house dreaming this shiat up after school.
 
2014-04-26 09:05:19 PM  
For everyone who agrees with the universities initial handling of these students, should have absolutely no problems with the exact same rules being applied to all.  Including the gay, lesbian, and transgender community, womyns right groups, environmentalist groups, etc.  And if they have an issue they can protest in an official free speech area somewhere out of sight.

Protests are supposed to be in your face events.  Not pushed to the side or moved to a more convenient area.  This applies to all public property.  Otherwise the Westboro idiots would not even be an issue.
 
2014-04-26 09:15:14 PM  

GORDON: People keep ignoring my question.  Why is the Constitution considered annoying propaganda?  It's basically the law upon which our society is built upon.  Why does it need to be a secret, whether it is on a "handout," or whatever?


You keep asking the same stupid question, no one said anything of the sort.
 
2014-04-26 09:16:04 PM  

Fark It: Ugh, absolutely disgusting what we've devolved into.  A bunch of punitive, petty children waiting for their turn to stick it to the other guy, whose identity politics and media-driven political narratives they adhere to over the shared, unequivocally non-partisan founding ideals enshrined in the Constitution.  Everything is a battle now between two sides, it's like a Cold Civil War, and instead of turning on the people perpetuating this stalemate, furthering the police/surveillance state, and selling out to the super wealthy, they have us turned on each other.

I've dealt with winos aggressively panhandling and even ask for rides, evangelicals going door-to-door, and religious weirdos wanting to talk about Jesus (at my public college).  I politely decline whatever they're asking for, and if that doesn't take, I tell them to fark off.  I never thought for a moment that there should be a law against any of that, that there should be more rules.  It's the cost of living in a free society.  We have people now defending "free speech zones" who were likely their loudest critics during the prior president's administration.  It's sickening to see what happens when the roles are reversed, to see people you otherwise mostly agree with become the statists they railed against just a few years ago.

I would blame the sellout Boomer scum that infest our media, government, and educational institutions, but it's not just them.  An entire generation of young people has been conditioned into either accepting this as our status quo or not even being aware of the world outside of their iPhones.

What happened to this country to not only make us hate each other, but to hate the very ideals that are supposed to bind us?


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-26 09:19:11 PM  

Lorelle: Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.

They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.


I'm a liberal but side with them here. This is an infringement of their free speech
 
2014-04-26 09:30:16 PM  

Diogenes: Mine's dinged for the discrimination and harassment section of the student handbook.  I read the offending section and it seemed pretty boilerplate to me.  But I suppose it could be broadly interpreted to suppress speech.


I'd have to see it to tell you why it is bad.

Mine bans "inappropriately directed laughter."

// Article is old, but I last checked and it was still there in 2012.
 
2014-04-26 09:31:48 PM  

Fark It: And I didn't say that they have the right to disrupt lectures by handing out propaganda, but you took my statement and ran with it, reducing it to the point of absurdity. Barring students from disrupting class lectures and interfering with learning does not go against the 1st Amendment. Barring people from getting up and handing out flyers in public areas does go against the 1st Amendment.


So, rules are only for those who you deem in need of them?  I mean, your argument is that theses students should have the right to disregard rules just for the sake of their passing out copies of the Constitution.  What makes them special in that they don't have to follow the rules like the rest of the student body?  Because they're Libertarians?  Because they're passing out copies of the Constitution?  What is it that makes THEM special?
 
2014-04-26 09:33:49 PM  

iheartscotch: DarkVader: iheartscotch: It's not about wether I agree or disagree with the message; it's about the delivery. I have always wondered if people consider how pontificating over a bullhorn makes them look. It's an annoyance and you aren't going to win the hearts and minds of anybody by shouting slogans at them.

/ Like I said upthread; there needs to be rules for protesting or you'll get Neo-nazis protesting in a holocaust museum.

You realize that neo-nazis get to protest at holocaust museums, right?  It's kinda important that we let them do that, too.

As to the delivery, I don't recall anything about a bullhorn being used, nor did I see anything about someone else's right to be there being obstructed.

Amusingly enough, the only thing about this that I don't get is that conservatives are handing out copies of the Constitution.  Aren't they afraid people will actually read it?  It's a pretty damn liberal document, even mentions such socialism as promoting the general welfare, and things like a right to have government not support religion, a right to be free from unreasonable searches, automatic citizenship for people who are born here, a ban on slavery, and a right to due process.

I realize that Neo-nazis can protest outside of a holocaust museum. What I am saying is, with out rules, they'd be inside the holocaust museum.

The right to protest is important; but, not to the point that it is disruptive or violent.


Nobody said anything about violent.

Protest is inherently disruptive, even someone walking down the sidewalk with a sign causes a small disruption to your day if you look up and read the sign.  You've noticed it, whatever you were thinking about has been momentarily disrupted.  So you cannot ban protests just because they're disruptive, that would negate the entire concept of free speech.

And whether the neo-nazis can protest inside the museum or not depends on quite a few things.  Is the museum private or public?  If it's public, does the museum normally allow people to carry signs of any sort?  Do they allow protests of any sort inside?  If they do, do they require permits for those protests?  Do they allow anyone to hand out literature?

The issue at this university is about an area that is open to students, it's an outdoor area, admission to the area is apparently not controlled, and students who had a right to be there were handing out literature.  If the university did not require them to agree not to leave the table as a condition of setting up a table (and there is no evidence that they did) then the university's actions were unreasonable.

As to the constitution itself; both sides need to reread the constitution and bill of rights.

I've read it, quite a few times actually.  I'm not sure what your statement even means.
 
2014-04-26 09:43:27 PM  

Baz744: Instead, in the interest of protecting free speech from your sinister zones "outside of which speech is banned," we'll just have to temporarily speech within those perimeters altogether.

No more evil zones "outside of which speech is banned." We'll just ban speech altogether within a limited area and for a limited time. No biggie.


You seem to be confused.  Is not the small area where the First Amendment is not being abridged that we are angry about it's the large Constitution-free area that you think is perfectly OK.
 
2014-04-26 09:50:08 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: So, rules are only for those who you deem in need of them?  I mean, your argument is that theses students should have the right to disregard rules just for the sake of their passing out copies of the Constitution.  What makes them special in that they don't have to follow the rules like the rest of the student body?  Because they're Libertarians?  Because they're passing out copies of the Constitution?  What is it that makes THEM special?


"The Rules" are subject to quite a few things that may make them unenforceable or even illegal.

In the US, here's how that typically goes, in order of precedence:

The Constitution of the United States

Federal Law           Signed and ratified treaties

Regulations produced by federal agencies pursuant to Federal Law

State Law

Regulations produced by state agencies pursuant to State Law

Local Ordinances

"The Rules" - a.k.a. rules administratively produced by a school


In this case, "The Rules" at the bottom of that list are in violation of a substantive right guaranteed by the law at the top of the list, the Constitution.  Therefore, the rules aren't for those I or anyone else would deem in need of them or those that I or anyone else would deem not in need of them.  The rules are for no one, they are invalid, and they may not be enforced.
 
2014-04-26 09:50:20 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: So, rules are only for those who you deem in need of them?  I mean, your argument is that theses students should have the right to disregard rules just for the sake of their passing out copies of the Constitution.


What are you babbling about?  He's saying that those rules should not exist for anyone, period.  He is OK with other rules that prohibit disrupting of class.

Why are you OK with these rules being applied to anyone handing out anything in a public space?  What is wrong with you?
 
2014-04-26 09:53:34 PM  

DarkVader: AurizenDarkstar: So, rules are only for those who you deem in need of them?  I mean, your argument is that theses students should have the right to disregard rules just for the sake of their passing out copies of the Constitution.  What makes them special in that they don't have to follow the rules like the rest of the student body?  Because they're Libertarians?  Because they're passing out copies of the Constitution?  What is it that makes THEM special?

"The Rules" are subject to quite a few things that may make them unenforceable or even illegal.

In the US, here's how that typically goes, in order of precedence:

The Constitution of the United States

Federal Law           Signed and ratified treaties

Regulations produced by federal agencies pursuant to Federal Law

State Law

Regulations produced by state agencies pursuant to State Law

Local Ordinances

"The Rules" - a.k.a. rules administratively produced by a school


In this case, "The Rules" at the bottom of that list are in violation of a substantive right guaranteed by the law at the top of the list, the Constitution.  Therefore, the rules aren't for those I or anyone else would deem in need of them or those that I or anyone else would deem not in need of them.  The rules are for no one, they are invalid, and they may not be enforced.


Really?  This isn't a free speech issue, this is an issue about students who decided to disregard the rules (which should be noted, weren't onerous or stopping the rest of the students from passing out their literature).

Go right ahead and continue to argue an issue that this isn't, it won't change the actual issue.  But I guess rules set down are meant to be broken whenever you (or others) feel that they don't pertain to you.
 
2014-04-26 09:56:04 PM  
Given that the UH Hilo faculty is heavy with over-the-hill hippies, the irony is thick and deep here.
 
2014-04-26 09:56:18 PM  

BMFPitt: AurizenDarkstar: So, rules are only for those who you deem in need of them?  I mean, your argument is that theses students should have the right to disregard rules just for the sake of their passing out copies of the Constitution.

What are you babbling about?  He's saying that those rules should not exist for anyone, period.  He is OK with other rules that prohibit disrupting of class.

Why are you OK with these rules being applied to anyone handing out anything in a public space?  What is wrong with you?


I thought it was being done on a college campus?  The college has the right to set rules for groups and clubs with are sponsored by the school (or allowed by the school).  The students didn't have their literature confiscated, they weren't arrested or jailed, they were told that they had to abide by the same rules as the rest of the student body.

Christ, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
2014-04-26 10:00:39 PM  

DarkVader: AurizenDarkstar: So, rules are only for those who you deem in need of them?  I mean, your argument is that theses students should have the right to disregard rules just for the sake of their passing out copies of the Constitution.  What makes them special in that they don't have to follow the rules like the rest of the student body?  Because they're Libertarians?  Because they're passing out copies of the Constitution?  What is it that makes THEM special?

"The Rules" are subject to quite a few things that may make them unenforceable or even illegal.

In the US, here's how that typically goes, in order of precedence:

The Constitution of the United States

Federal Law           Signed and ratified treaties

Regulations produced by federal agencies pursuant to Federal Law

State Law

Regulations produced by state agencies pursuant to State Law

Local Ordinances

"The Rules" - a.k.a. rules administratively produced by a school


In this case, "The Rules" at the bottom of that list are in violation of a substantive right guaranteed by the law at the top of the list, the Constitution.  Therefore, the rules aren't for those I or anyone else would deem in need of them or those that I or anyone else would deem not in need of them.  The rules are for no one, they are invalid, and they may not be enforced.


They were at a college event with a expected set of behaviors. They did not meet those behaviors, and got extra butthurt when they were told they were not living up to agreed upon behaviors. This not a free speech issue. This is a case of precious snowflakes not bothering with the rules. The Constitution says nothing about the unalienable right to be a dick on club recruitment day. If they wanted to hand out the books but sitting at a table is way to restricting, then they probably shouldn't have agreed to sit at a table and hand things out day.
 
2014-04-26 10:01:44 PM  

Lorelle: Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.


Summed up concisely.
 
2014-04-26 11:05:37 PM  

BMFPitt: Diogenes: It ain't exactly Rosa Parks being told to move the back of the bus.  But it is pretty silly.

I'm not particularly happy what this group deems restrictive speech codes, but you might find it interesting.   A site to look up and see if your school or alma mater has speech codes.

Mine has some pretty absurd and indefensible shiat in theirs.  I remind the freshman work-study who calls asking for money off that a few times a year, and I'm sure that gets passed right up the chain.


Yeah, and the fundraising folks-- or anyone else-- really believe *that's* why you're not donating.
 
2014-04-26 11:20:53 PM  

Thunderpipes: Mugato: Fark It: And since when is the Constitution propaganda?

I didn't say it was, that's wasn't my point. You said anyone can hand out anything anywhere and I was illustrating that there might be boundaries to that and that doesn't make it some travesty against the 1st amendment.

ya, it does.

Can't believe liberals actually now think the 1st amendment should go away too. if it were a Bush hating group or a protest against Israel, you bet your bottom you would be defending their freedom of speech.


You know, it's funny: I just saw the newest Captain America movie last night, and if you haven't, there are no spoilers in my saying that it's a pretty transparent allegory for the current freedom vs security debate going on in this country. The thing is, Hollywood-- that flaming bastion of liberalism, according to every conservative mouthpiece I've ever heard-- seemed to be coming down pretty hard on the side of freedom.

OTOH, as I recall far-right conservatives pretty much creamed in their collective pants after passing the raft of post 9/11 pro-"security," freedom-restricting legislative measures and executive orders. And are the ones acting most en bloc to keep them in place over twelve years later.

Oh, and the organization that has worked most consistently and tirelessly to protect free speech in America, for decades? The ACLU. Another organization conservatives have equally consistently and tirelessly painted as a liberal mouthpiece.

So you wanna explain to me again how it's the liberals who want to do away with the first amendment?
 
2014-04-26 11:26:52 PM  

Great clown Pagliacci's pick-me-up: They were at a college event with a expected set of behaviors. They did not meet those behaviors, and got extra butthurt when they were told they were not living up to agreed upon behaviors. This not a free speech issue. This is a case of precious snowflakes not bothering with the rules. The Constitution says nothing about the unalienable right to be a dick on club recruitment day. If they wanted to hand out the books but sitting at a table is way to restricting, then they probably shouldn't have agreed to sit at a table and hand things out day.


Pretty much this. If this was a certain event where they were doing this, then I can see why they didn't want people handing out pamphlets out in the open. Were they that desperate for attention that they couldn't do it from behind the table like everyone else was able to?
 
2014-04-26 11:30:21 PM  
And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.
 
2014-04-26 11:31:12 PM  

brimed03: So you wanna explain to me again how it's the liberals who want to do away with the first amendment?


It's called projection. It's what conservatives do instead of owning up to their own shortcomings.
 
2014-04-26 11:40:32 PM  

Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.


Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.
 
2014-04-26 11:44:21 PM  

nightbringerggz: TuteTibiImperes: Fark It: Mugato: Fark It: they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.

So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?

We're not talking about that though, are we?  That's now what happened.  And since when is the Constitution propaganda?  And so what if they were handing out propaganda?

/nice reductio ad absurdum

If free speech is the issue it shouldn't matter what's handed out. The Communist Manifesto should be just as protected as the US Constitution.

Also, the point he makes is valid.  An area was set up for student groups to hand out literature, these students left that area.  The issue wasn't their message, it was the physical location of where and means by which they were spreading it.

They were at a publicly funded institution and their actions were in accordance with the foundation upon which all our laws are written.  You have a the right to free speech, even when somebody else doesn't like your speech.  The student's actions weren't inciting violence or creating a public menace, so the actions of the school's employees were illegal.


See, you say that, but you cite no directly-applicable legislative statutes and legal precedents to support it. It's almost like, beyond a general high school education in US rights, you have no knowledge of the subject you're insisting upon.

If these things were as simple as you say, there would be no need for Appeals courts and a Supreme Court. It would be like a Bingo Club meeting where someone is appointed Parliamentarian and recites the relevant bylaw whenever there's a question.
 
2014-04-26 11:47:37 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.


Pretty much why I find today's Conservatives insufferable.

Can't imagine what they would do without the perpetual persecution complex.
 
2014-04-26 11:57:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.


I have no sympathy for people with your mentality.  Even the university essentially admits that their "rule" is unconstitutional.  "We will make any changes that are needed to ensure that free expression and First Amendment rights are fully protected."

But yeah, just keep licking that jackboot.  I'm sure if you lick it well enough it might not crush your balls.  Oh, oops, it apparently already did, because you clearly don't have any.

But if you choose to get out from under it someday, here's a helpful hint:

It's not that some people are above the rules, it's that ALL people are above the rules when the rules are unconstitutional.
 
2014-04-27 12:00:53 AM  

djwebb1127: I voted for obama. I do not care to own a gun. Anyone who preventa the constitution from freely being distributed should be shot and killed in town square. Regardless of what side you are on. Anyone who believes the constitution hander outers should be restricted to behind a table should also be shot and killed in the town square.


Having liberal points of view is no kind of evidence that you're not an idiot.

You can, theoretically speaking, exercise your free speech on any inch of American soil. Try it on the White House lawn-- or on US Route 95 for that matter-- and see how far you get.

Some restrictions on the where and when of an exercise of free speech have nothing to do with restricting free speech. Sometimes it's just as matter of safety or regulating the flow of an event.

This particular incident would appear to fall under the latter. To me, the Free Speech Zone, or perhaps just its location, are more worthy of question. Perhaps... dependent on applicable legislation/judicial decisions that I am not aware of. This may already be moot.

/please don't be such an idiot as to say "hurrdurr the Bill of Rights" as your legislative basis. We have a court system to provide specific interpretations of the application of our most general document.
 
2014-04-27 12:02:33 AM  

DarkVader: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

I have no sympathy for people with your mentality.  Even the university essentially admits that their "rule" is unconstitutional.  "We will make any changes that are needed to ensure that free expression and First Amendment rights are fully protected."

But yeah, just keep licking that jackboot.  I'm sure if you lick it well enough it might not crush your balls.  Oh, oops, it apparently already did, because you clearly don't have any.

But if you choose to get out from under it someday, here's a helpful hint:

It's not that some people are above the rules, it's that ALL people are above the rules when the rules are unconstitutional.


Then how come no one else was complaining about this rule? How come all the other groups were able to hand pamphlets from behind the table?
 
2014-04-27 12:06:25 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.


I have no idea why you think this issue is about conservatives.

This is about free speech, and a state university's illegal attempt to restrict it.

I'm not a conservative, I generally consider the Democratic Party to not be nearly liberal enough.  I consider most "libertarians" to be idiot pawns of the right, and friends of the corporate oligarchists

But I will not support an unconstitutional "rule" even when its application hurts someone I don't like.
 
2014-04-27 12:09:59 AM  

The more you eat the more you fart: Lorelle: Nabb1: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!

They knew the rules regarding distribution of their flyers and deliberately broke them. No one was preventing them from disseminating info at their table.

Listen, captain obvious...there shouldnt BE a "free speech zone." We already have one...it's called "the whole damn country" according to the constitution.


Good. Right. Now go stand in the center lane of US Route 95 North and exercise your free speech.

If you survive it, and if they give you Internet access from prison, do get back to us with your newly-informed understanding of how "the whole damn country" is a free-speech zone.

/don't "well obviously" me. The whole damned point is that your statement is blindingly, stupidly simplistic and the issue is just a *little* more complicated than you pretend.
//or does "complicated" make your head hurt?
 
2014-04-27 12:10:33 AM  

brimed03: This particular incident would appear to fall under the latter. To me, the Free Speech Zone, or perhaps just its location, are more worthy of question. Perhaps... dependent on applicable legislation/judicial decisions that I am not aware of. This may already be moot.


This isn't even as bad as the Free Speech Zone. I think those are absurd because they try to put it somewhere where few people would notice. The school was willing to let them set up at a table at this event and hand out pamphlets, they just couldn't directly solicit people with it. Apparently this is the only group that had a problem with it. That leads me to believe that these precious snowflakes were overreacting.

I remember reading something about an event in Michigan where a Christian Pastor got all huffy because they wouldn't let him hand out pamphlets directly to people similar to this.
 
2014-04-27 12:10:45 AM  

DarkVader: AurizenDarkstar: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.

I have no idea why you think this issue is about conservatives.

This is about free speech, and a state university's illegal attempt to restrict it.

I'm not a conservative, I generally consider the Democratic Party to not be nearly liberal enough.  I consider most "libertarians" to be idiot pawns of the right, and friends of the corporate oligarchists

But I will not support an unconstitutional "rule" even when its application hurts someone I don't like.


How are they attempting to restrict free speech?  The group was allowed to hand out the constitution flyers at their table like every other group was.

The 'free speech zone' bit may be a bit more problematic, but in light of there being no actual legitimate reason to protest, I'm less concerned about it.
 
2014-04-27 12:20:28 AM  
The development of these Orwellian "Free Speech Zones" was truly a step backwards.

So wish Orwell was alive today (though I bet he is glad he isn't.)
 
2014-04-27 12:40:38 AM  

Mrtraveler01: DarkVader: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

I have no sympathy for people with your mentality.  Even the university essentially admits that their "rule" is unconstitutional.  "We will make any changes that are needed to ensure that free expression and First Amendment rights are fully protected."

But yeah, just keep licking that jackboot.  I'm sure if you lick it well enough it might not crush your balls.  Oh, oops, it apparently already did, because you clearly don't have any.

But if you choose to get out from under it someday, here's a helpful hint:

It's not that some people are above the rules, it's that ALL people are above the rules when the rules are unconstitutional.

Then how come no one else was complaining about this rule? How come all the other groups were able to hand pamphlets from behind the table?


I have no idea.  How come no one else refused to move to the back of the bus before Rosa Parks did?  How come no one else opened a birth control clinic before Margaret Sanger did?
 
2014-04-27 01:03:24 AM  

GORDON: Baz744:
So I can walk onto a military base any time and hand out flyers any place I want so long as they're not advertisements?

You're gonna have to produce a citation for this proposition, counselor.

I'm not holding my breath.

No, you will need a permit to be on that base.  To get a permit, one way or another, you are going to sign a form and waive your rights to certain things, one of which will be soliciting on that property.  This applies to both civilian and military personnel.

This may also apply to college campuses.  However, I still want someone to explain to me why a copy of the U.S. Constitution could be considered forbidden "propaganda."  I want someone to tell me why it is important that people not be informed as to the rules to which our government is supposed to adhere, the rules we all live under in the U.S.


I could argue it a couple of ways. One, of course it's propaganda... but not necessarily with the modern, loaded connotative meaning of the term. It's a document expressive of a point of view. That's propaganda. The way that word is used today, no one likes to think of the Constitution as political propaganda. It is. The Founding Fathers knew that. It's why they wrote it.

Two, in this instance the Constitution is being used in a connotatively propagandistic way. It isn't being distributed by the (non-partisan) League of Women Voters; the group passing it out has a decided political perspective and is using the distribution of the Constitution as a means to push their particular political agenda. I did not just contradict my first point, by the way. The Constitution is denotatively propaganda; the action of handing it out to make a libertarian statement is connotatively propagandistic.

Three, per free speech you cannot discriminate in the dissemination of points of view. Allow this group to hand out the Constitution and you have to allow everyone else to do it. The result here would be a disrupted event and a public safety hazard.

I have more but I've tired of this. The real answer to your question is this: abstractly, the school doesn't care what they were handing out, only whether they were doing it while following the rules established for the event *to which they were invited.* Rules set up simply for event planning and public safety reasons. No one at UofH is "out to get" anyone or anyone's rights and it's fatuous to argue otherwise.

Good intentions don't preclude the possibility that the students' rights were infringed. Were they? Maybe, although I don't think so. FIRE has a judicial history that includes a few really important campus free-speech decisions and a shiatload of nuisance suits. I am glad FIRE exists because of the former. I think they should be ashamed of their tactics because of the latter, which are mainly about publicity for FIRE at the expense of the students involved. This particular case I expect will be one of the latter and they know it.

Which is shameful and dirty pool because they aren't being honest with the students, especially about the stakes. When future employers Google them this will always be out there and some employers will write them off as a result. For the sake of cheap publicity, FIRE is playing with the students' futures and are not, I'd be willing to bet, discussing that with them so the students can make an informed choice.

Ironically, you know who is likeliest to be most honest with the students so they could be informed decision-makers? Yep. The university administrators. Only now that there's a lawsuit involved, they won't be able to talk about it.

I hope to hell these students have access to a third, uninterested party. I hope their parents, or someone, are sounding a note of caution. They think FIRE is an ally with pure intent, but they have an agenda just like everyone else, and the students' best interests are not on it.
 
2014-04-27 01:10:53 AM  

The more you eat the more you fart: Listen, captain obvious...there shouldnt BE a "free speech zone." We already have one...it's called "the whole damn country" according to the constitution.


Go down to your local Wal Mart and start biatching in the produce section about how Wal Mart is profiting off the backs of underpaid workers and government subsidies and see how much of the "whole damn country" is a free speech zone.  Go on, we'll wait.
 
2014-04-27 01:15:42 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: DarkVader: AurizenDarkstar: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.

I have no idea why you think this issue is about conservatives.

This is about free speech, and a state university's illegal attempt to restrict it.

I'm not a conservative, I generally consider the Democratic Party to not be nearly liberal enough.  I consider most "libertarians" to be idiot pawns of the right, and friends of the corporate oligarchists

But I will not support an unconstitutional "rule" even when its application hurts someone I don't like.

How are they attempting to restrict free speech?  The group was allowed to hand out the constitution flyers at their table like every other group was.

The 'free speech zone' bit may be a bit more problematic, but in light of there being no actual legitimate reason to protest, I'm less concerned about it.


So you're saying that they have the right to free speech only so long as they sit at their table?  That the right to free speech doesn't extend to a public sidewalk?  It doesn't matter what their flyers contained.  It doesn't matter what every other group was doing.  What matters is that the rule is an illegitimate attempt to contain their speech, and that just cannot stand.
 
2014-04-27 01:22:40 AM  

DarkVader: TuteTibiImperes: DarkVader: AurizenDarkstar: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.

I have no idea why you think this issue is about conservatives.

This is about free speech, and a state university's illegal attempt to restrict it.

I'm not a conservative, I generally consider the Democratic Party to not be nearly liberal enough.  I consider most "libertarians" to be idiot pawns of the right, and friends of the corporate oligarchists

But I will not support an unconstitutional "rule" even when its application hurts someone I don't like.

How are they attempting to restrict free speech?  The group was allowed to hand out the constitution flyers at their table like every other group was.

The 'free speech zone' bit may be a bit more problematic, but in light of there being no actual legitimate reason to protest, I'm less concerned about it.

So you're saying that they have the right to free speech only so long as they sit at their table?  That the right to free speech doesn't extend to a public sidewalk?  It doesn't matter what their flyers contained.  It doesn't matter what every other group was doing.  What matters is that the rule is an illegitimate attempt to contain their speech, and that just cannot stand.


Acting as a student organization in a school sponsored event, yes, they are elected to abide by the guidelines of that event.  If one of those guidelines is that participating organizations can only interact with the crowd from behind their tables, then yes, the school's position is entirely reasonable.
 
2014-04-27 01:23:52 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: DarkVader: TuteTibiImperes: DarkVader: AurizenDarkstar: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.

I have no idea why you think this issue is about conservatives.

This is about free speech, and a state university's illegal attempt to restrict it.

I'm not a conservative, I generally consider the Democratic Party to not be nearly liberal enough.  I consider most "libertarians" to be idiot pawns of the right, and friends of the corporate oligarchists

But I will not support an unconstitutional "rule" even when its application hurts someone I don't like.

How are they attempting to restrict free speech?  The group was allowed to hand out the constitution flyers at their table like every other group was.

The 'free speech zone' bit may be a bit more problematic, but in light of there being no actual legitimate reason to protest, I'm less concerned about it.

So you're saying that they have the right to free speech only so long as they sit at their table?  That the right to free speech doesn't extend to a public sidewalk?  It doesn't matter what their flyers contained.  It doesn't matter what every other group was doing.  What matters is that the rule is an illegitimate attempt to contain their speech, and that just cannot stand.

Acting as a student organization in a school sponsored event, yes, they are elected to abide by the guidelines of that event.  If one of those guidelines is that participating organizations can only interact wi ...


Elected should be expected there, darn autocorrect.
 
2014-04-27 01:28:31 AM  

kyrg: The University had it out for them.  http://www.thefire.org/complaint-in-burch-and-vizzone-v-university-of - hawaii-et-al/

The University will lose in court.  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13833614167911464291


Ok, the ability to Google doesn't make you either a journalist or a jurist.

First you cite the press release of the organization that is funding the lawsuit. You just failed Journo101: Confirming Information With Unbiased Sources.

Then you cite (Google search term: free+speech+Supreme+Court?) a court case that refers to free speech in an airport terminal. FYI, the Supreme Court has a long history of viewing university campuses differently than anywhere else and ruling accordingly. I could also pick apart the case you chose (including a highly divided court that filed four? five? different majority, minority, and concurring reports), but I'm going to just say you picked a lousy case to apply because a university campus is not an airport terminal and is not treated as such in any Supreme Court ruling. Reversed and remanded.

/if you *are* a lawyer, now would be a good time to shut up and delete it from your profile
 
2014-04-27 01:32:15 AM  

DarkVader: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

I have no sympathy for people with your mentality.  Even the university essentially admits that their "rule" is unconstitutional.  "We will make any changes that are needed to ensure that free expression and First Amendment rights are fully protected."

But yeah, just keep licking that jackboot.  I'm sure if you lick it well enough it might not crush your balls.  Oh, oops, it apparently already did, because you clearly don't have any.

But if you choose to get out from under it someday, here's a helpful hint:

It's not that some people are above the rules, it's that ALL people are above the rules when the rules are unconstitutional.


You do know that saying "We will make any changes that are needed to ensure that free expression and First Amendment rights are fully protected."  does not mean saying "Even the university essentially admits that their "rule" is unconstitutional. " Right? It isnt even close. I mean you seem to be typing and responding, so I assume you can read. I am going to have to assume, you never were in any sort of club or have been a part of any kind of social function. These students were not told "you cant hand out this political garbage, we have rules specifically to demean that very paper you hold. Muhahahaha." They were told "this is hand things out at a table day, please go back to your table to hand things out. you are in the way of everyone else trying to hand things out at their tables or trying to receive things being handed out from a table" This inst about the supression of ideas, it is about a snowflake who does not like hearing "no" and cannot understand why they have to follow the rules they agreed upon so that everyone could have a smooth day of getting handed things from tables.

As a side note, I used to carry around a copy of the Constitution I got from a table at my school's hand things from tables day. He wasn't even a student, he was a local business owner. He didn't feel the need to chase students around the event, because he understood that he had agreed to the event rules and people would stop by eventually. I guarantee my campus was much, much larger than this one and, except for some inter club biatchiness, it went smooth every time because people didn't feel the need to hang themselves on a cross to feel special. That would happen later in the semester, because we were an open campus.
 
2014-04-27 01:33:40 AM  

Slartibartfaster: The Homer Tax: Get out of my Farking way, I'm trying to get to class

Were these people any more of an obstacle than the shrubbery by the stairs ?


You'd be surprised how much attention goes into the planning and placement of campus shrubbery. For exactly that reason.

/distributors of pamphlets, OTOH, either give no thought to it at all; or if they're smart, deliberately position themselves to be obstacles, in order to extend the window of time they have to engage you.
 
2014-04-27 01:36:59 AM  

Back Alley Proctologist: Danger Avoid Death: OnlyM3: Democrats also got police to try to make these people get back to their assigned tables.

[www.learnnc.org image 850x664]

[media.npr.org image 850x687]

[historyz.com image 700x489]
The party of "freedom" hasn't changed a bit.

Those were "Southern Democrats", southern conservatives who only belonged to the Democratic Party because, after losing the civil war, southerners had a deeply ingrained and entrenched hatred of Lincoln and wanted nothing to do with his Republican Party. After the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Johnson, also southern Democrat, many white southerners began voting Republican. Beginning with Nixon and continuing through Reagan , the Southern Democrat conservative bloc gradually switched to Republican. The southern Democrats of the Jim Crow era are the Republicans of today.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern -s trategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/


LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

lookit my independent citation! REDSTATE.COM

LOL LOL LOL LOL oh gotta breathe gotta LOL LOL LOL LOL
 
2014-04-27 01:41:50 AM  

Baz744: kyrg: The University had it out for them.  http://www.thefire.org/complaint-in-burch-and-vizzone-v-university-of - hawaii-et-al/

The University will lose in court.  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13833614167911464291

 The complaint fails even to allege facts from which anyone could infer the university "had it out for them." It alleges first that:


1) the YAL students arrived too late to secure a favorable spot to distribute their literature, that

2) this made them angry, that

3) they therefore felt self-entitled to break the well established, pre-written and content neutral rule prohibiting groups distributing literature at that event from leaving their tables,

4) because after all they saw the Accounting Club sell some tickets to their chili dinner that that way, and

5) the lady who told them not to leave their table didn't tell the Accounting Club not to do so, and

6) my favorite part, "she spoke to them in an authoritative tone," therefore

7) WAAAAHHH!!! WE'RE PERSECUTED JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CONSERVATIVES. WAAAAAHHH!!!

Of course, they failed to allege that the lady who told them not to leave their table even saw the Accounting Club students leave their table, a fact necessary to even begin to argue that she intended to discriminate against them.

Of course they also alleged that:

1) The campus only has a tiny area designated for wholly unregulated, impromptu speech activities, that

2) They felt self-entitled to have more people attend their event than would probably show up at the designated area for wholly unregulated, impromptu speech activities, that

3) A campus tyrant oppressively suggested that they publicize their event at the designated area beforehand, that

4) They weren't going to submit to the campus tyrant's tyranny, so

5) They instead petitioned to use another area for their event which requires pre-approval, that

6) When they did, they got an email which, in tyrannical caps, said "DON'T PUBLICIZE THIS EVENT UNTIL WE GET BACK TO YOU TO LET YOU KNOW IF THE SPOT IS AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME," that

7) This made them angry, because they felt self-entitled to publicize the event before they knew for sure the spot would be available for them to use, that

8) The administrator responsible didn't get back to them for a long time, and

9) They just know she usually gets backs to other groups sooner than they did for them, that

10) They just know the reason for the delay was because she's a liberal tyrant who

11) WANTS TO OPPRESS US JUST BECAUSE WE'RE CONSERVATIVES. WAAAHHH!

Most sinister of all: when one of them went to her office, and spoke to some kid who works there, HE couldn't explain the reason for the delay. I bet he even looked confused and a bit surprised, and said something oppressive like "I'll ask her, and get back to you."

I can hardly imagine a more mundane course of non-sinister events ever leading to conservative poutrage about being oppressed.

I suppose there's a modest chance the lady who took a long time to get back to them will fess up that the reason she didn't was because she just likes oppressing conservatives, and had nothing to do with anything mundane like her flaking out and forgetting about it/losing the paperwork under a pile on her desk/ etc. Otherwise, it alleges jack sh*t.

Then, the campus tyrant who suggested they pre-publicize their event at the designated impromptu speech location (which would have prevented the whole bureaucratic delay thing altogether) might admit that his real purpose in offering such preposterous advice was to work reverse psychology on conservative students who he knew would feel oppressed by it, and therefore petition to use another area enabling his co-conspirator to oppress them by delaying her response.

But probably not.


You sir or madam, are a breath of fresh air.

How dare you.
 
2014-04-27 01:52:23 AM  

Great clown Pagliacci's pick-me-up: I don't know the rules at this university, however, if it is anything like mine then it would mean:
1 They had to apply and sponsored to be a club. To do so, they would have had to agree to follow the schools rules.
2 They were given a budget of school funds to pay for events, which had to be approved
3 They would have had to apply to participate in this event, and then agree to the terms set for the event,
4 If they decided to break the rules they had agreed to, then their future budgets and status as an official club would be looked at. As a side not, our college Republicans couldn't help but be dicks and were told to take a few years break.

Any time you have a clubs show themselves off type event, it is a bit like a pot luck. Imagine pot luck where that one fat guy just won't move from in front of the lasagna, some stupid kid keeps running back and forth trying o slide between strangers legs, and Mrs Schultz keeps trying to sneak beet juice in your stew and goddamnit it doesn't need beet juice it was your granny's prize winning recipe and it doesn't call for no farking beet juice! The students visiting the event are like the hungry people with their plates, going from table to table seeing what is offered. You can dress up your table, but if you don't have rules restricting the above behaviors then what you get is a clusterfark of message crowding, traffic and safety issues, and an unpleasant time for anyone checking out the event. They were not limited to what the could hand out, they just had to follow the rules of the event. If they didnt want to follow those rules, there is plenty of time that the event isnt going on. My campus was much bigger than theirs and we didn't have problems like this, and by that I mean attention whores trying to martyr themselves because they can only relate to the world as a victim.


Why are all the rational, reasonable people at the end of the thread?

The rest of you: wtf is wrong with you? Why can't you assume the best about people? Why does every little thing have to be a Huge Plot To Deny Your Rights?

I've run this kind of event a dozen times. This Farker and Farker kyrg have the right of it: whiny snowflakes slept in and showed up too late to get one of the "good tables" so they decided the rules didn't apply to them and they became butthurt drama queens when called out on it. That's all. That's it.

If you want to debate the fine details of free speech on university campuses, *fine.* But stop screaming AUTHORITAHY! and REPRESHUN! Yes that happens. Is it happening here? Hell no. If you want to be taken seriously, save your outrage for the real thing.
 
2014-04-27 01:56:06 AM  
I'm surprised to find so many authoritarians on Fark. Well, the authoritarian mindset has been spreading among both the right and left a lot lately. I blame the "war on terror" an subsequent propoganda wars.

I seem to remember a certain paine in the ass, an atheist and traitor who handed out fliers calling for the overthrow of the government. I think his flier was called "common sense".

Unless these people were creating a hazard or being terrifically obnoxious (enough to create a hazard), handing out fliers on public property is free speech. No matter how much you dislike people trying to hand you "Watchtower", you have to put up with them. That's called "freedom".
 
2014-04-27 02:00:20 AM  

Fark It: Ugh, absolutely disgusting what we've devolved into.  A bunch of punitive, petty children waiting for their turn to stick it to the other guy, whose identity politics and media-driven political narratives they adhere to over the shared, unequivocally non-partisan founding ideals enshrined in the Constitution.  Everything is a battle now between two sides, it's like a Cold Civil War, and instead of turning on the people perpetuating this stalemate, furthering the police/surveillance state, and selling out to the super wealthy, they have us turned on each other.

I've dealt with winos aggressively panhandling and even ask for rides, evangelicals going door-to-door, and religious weirdos wanting to talk about Jesus (at my public college).  I politely decline whatever they're asking for, and if that doesn't take, I tell them to fark off.  I never thought for a moment that there should be a law against any of that, that there should be more rules.  It's the cost of living in a free society.  We have people now defending "free speech zones" who were likely their loudest critics during the prior president's administration.  It's sickening to see what happens when the roles are reversed, to see people you otherwise mostly agree with become the statists they railed against just a few years ago.

I would blame the sellout Boomer scum that infest our media, government, and educational institutions, but it's not just them.  An entire generation of young people has been conditioned into either accepting this as our status quo or not even being aware of the world outside of their iPhones.

What happened to this country to not only make us hate each other, but to hate the very ideals that are supposed to bind us?


Your first paragraph, I was sure you were specifically talking about this thread. You would have been completely right and it should be the Weeners posted in every likely contentious thread from here on out.

I have no problem with contentious political dialogue. I just rarely see a willingness to actually dialogue here.
 
2014-04-27 02:14:51 AM  

noblewolf: For everyone who agrees with the universities initial handling of these students, should have absolutely no problems with the exact same rules being applied to all.  Including the gay, lesbian, and transgender community, womyns right groups, environmentalist groups, etc.  And if they have an issue they can protest in an official free speech area somewhere out of sight.

Protests are supposed to be in your face events.  Not pushed to the side or moved to a more convenient area.  This applies to all public property.  Otherwise the Westboro idiots would not even be an issue.


Know how I know you barely read tfa in your haste to post here?

1. The university did treat everyone the same at this event.

2. The group broke the rules of an organized event they signed up to participate in.

3. There are well over 2000 colleges and universities in the US, and only a small percentage wind up in the news for this. Even if it was legit-- which it's not-- the numbers tell it: US colleges and universities, while imperfect, are assiduous in their efforts to apply rules in a consistent and impartial manner.

4. Stop confusing civil disobedience for protesting. They both have their place in society but one is a subset of the other. Protests can be done without causing disruption; in most cases you can get your message across without breaking rules. It happens in front of the White House every day.

5. I will defend, as a principle, your right to public protest. I will support your right to protest in a public and effective manner and venue. Your right to protest dies not trump my right to carry on with the business of my day. Follow the rules and GTFO of my way.
 
2014-04-27 02:17:25 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Lorelle: Fark It: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

Citation needed.  Handing out literature, of any sort, is allowed in this country.  It doesn't matter who does it, or what they believe, or which political party occupies the White House.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x529]

Hawaii and Alaska included.

They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.

I'm a liberal but side with them here. This is an infringement of their free speech


No, it isn't. Keep reading the comments. Amid the dreck there are some decent explanations of why that's so.

Possibly one of those explanations might be mine.
 
2014-04-27 02:27:56 AM  

DarkVader: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

I have no sympathy for people with your mentality.  Even the university essentially admits that their "rule" is unconstitutional.  "We will make any changes that are needed to ensure that free expression and First Amendment rights are fully protected."

But yeah, just keep licking that jackboot.  I'm sure if you lick it well enough it might not crush your balls.  Oh, oops, it apparently already did, because you clearly don't have any.

But if you choose to get out from under it someday, here's a helpful hint:

It's not that some people are above the rules, it's that ALL people are above the rules when the rules are unconstitutional.


... As long as you're leaping to conclusions, mind standing near that cliff over there?

The university admitted nothing by that statement except their willingness to examine the issue and make changes *as and if needed.* Which is a hell of a lot more open-minded than you're being.
 
2014-04-27 02:39:47 AM  

DarkVader: AurizenDarkstar: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.

I have no idea why you think this issue is about conservatives.

This is about free speech, and a state university's illegal attempt to restrict it.

I'm not a conservative, I generally consider the Democratic Party to not be nearly liberal enough.  I consider most "libertarians" to be idiot pawns of the right, and friends of the corporate oligarchists

But I will not support an unconstitutional "rule" even when its application hurts someone I don't like.


And as a fellow American I'm glad to hear it. But this is *almost* certainly not a constitutional issue, for reasons discussed to death in this thread. Unfortunately, we have lots of people yammering on about something they know nothing about beyond what they learned in high school about the Bill of Rights. And proving they failed the test questions on the reason and purpose of having a court system to interpret questions pertaining to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

I've actually studied educational law. Two semesters of it, as part of the advanced degree I earned during a 15 year career in higher ed. And *I'm* not qualified to render a definitive answer to the question raised here, although I do know where I'd place a very large bet if I had any money and a willing sucker.
 
2014-04-27 02:51:27 AM  

Mrtraveler01: brimed03: This particular incident would appear to fall under the latter. To me, the Free Speech Zone, or perhaps just its location, are more worthy of question. Perhaps... dependent on applicable legislation/judicial decisions that I am not aware of. This may already be moot.

This isn't even as bad as the Free Speech Zone. I think those are absurd because they try to put it somewhere where few people would notice. The school was willing to let them set up at a table at this event and hand out pamphlets, they just couldn't directly solicit people with it. Apparently this is the only group that had a problem with it. That leads me to believe that these precious snowflakes were overreacting.

I remember reading something about an event in Michigan where a Christian Pastor got all huffy because they wouldn't let him hand out pamphlets directly to people similar to this.


Hell, we wouldn't let a US Census worker into the residence halls to find and survey specific students, because we believed it violated students' rights to privacy and our no-solicitation policy. A frickin' US Census worker! But somehow this is all part of the Gubbmint Plot tah Deny Our Raaaghhts.

I won't deny that I met and even worked for a few people who would happily deny students free speech just to make their own jobs easy. I'd argue there was a pervasive underlying ethos of it at one school I worked at-- unsurprisingly, the most conservative school I ever worked at. But far and away most of the administrators on the level of the one probably involved in this incident, and in the whole division this person probably works in, are rabid supporters of student rights in general and the student voice in specific.
 
2014-04-27 03:14:30 AM  

DarkVader: Mrtraveler01: DarkVader: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

I have no sympathy for people with your mentality.  Even the university essentially admits that their "rule" is unconstitutional.  "We will make any changes that are needed to ensure that free expression and First Amendment rights are fully protected."

But yeah, just keep licking that jackboot.  I'm sure if you lick it well enough it might not crush your balls.  Oh, oops, it apparently already did, because you clearly don't have any.

But if you choose to get out from under it someday, here's a helpful hint:

It's not that some people are above the rules, it's that ALL people are above the rules when the rules are unconstitutional.

Then how come no one else was complaining about this rule? How come all the other groups were able to hand pamphlets from behind the table?

I have no idea.  How come no one else refused to move to the back of the bus before Rosa Parks did?  How come no one else opened a birth control clinic before Margaret Sanger did?


Wow. Wow.

You just compared these kids to Rosa Parks. You just compared this issue to racial segregation.

This. Isn't. A Free-Speech. Issue. These are not civil rights heroes. These are kids who even FIRE mumblingly admits were given the same rights and abilities as everyone else present to distribute their information; who chose instead to break the rules. Rules that existed solely for the reasons of coordinating a large event *to which they were invited*, and public safety. Rules that respected the unbiased distribution of materials representing any and all points of view.

One of two things are going to happen here. One, the courts are going to laugh this out of the building. Two, the school will take the expedient approach of tweaking the rules or event layout because they don't want the costs or publicity that distracts from their mission (e.g. education and job placement of students; and including ancillary things like recruitment, admissions, hiring, internship partnerships, and tuition-offsetting fundraising). That parenthetical should give you an idea of why they are, sadly, likely to take the second approach: fighting this just doesn't tie into their core mission. FIRE will declare "victory" and send out a new round of requests to its own donors. The students will feel like they did something big and future employers will quietly wastebasket their applications after Google turns up these articles. And not a single constitutional issue will have been decided.

End if the day, only FIRE is going to walk away a winner, the prize being more publicity for FIRE and another hollow claim on which to raise money for FIRE. And for the most part, that's all FIRE is about. I really wish it wasn't that way-- that they were a more focused ACLU-- but it is.
 
2014-04-27 03:21:28 AM  
I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but I was under the impression that the entire country was supposed to be a "free speech zone", not some roped off area.
 
2014-04-27 03:43:54 AM  

Sean M: I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but I was under the impression that the entire country was supposed to be a "free speech zone", not some roped off area.


Not in the post 9/11 world.
 
2014-04-27 04:07:24 AM  

Sean M: I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but I was under the impression that the entire country was supposed to be a "free speech zone", not some roped off area.


That's okay, just ignore the other 234 comments in the thread :)
 
2014-04-27 04:49:47 AM  

SpacePirate: Cerebral Ballsy: F*ck everyone who doesn't like the free speech zones. How about the schools just trespass your annoying wing nut asses and be done with you. The students won't miss you, that's for sure.


That wasn't bait, it was a blanket response to a few specific wing nuts in the thread.

It's true, students really couldn't care less about those idiots. I have never seen an actual conversation going on in a free speech zone. Just religio-babble from idiots and occasionally students screaming back at them.
 
2014-04-27 04:55:57 AM  

Mugato: GORDON: People keep ignoring my question.  Why is the Constitution considered annoying propaganda?  It's basically the law upon which our society is built upon.  Why does it need to be a secret, whether it is on a "handout," or whatever?

You keep asking the same stupid question, no one said anything of the sort.


Not only does he keep asking the same stupid question, he ignores replies.
 
2014-04-27 07:24:10 AM  

Lorelle: Nabb1: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!

They knew the rules regarding distribution of their flyers and deliberately broke them. No one was preventing them from disseminating info at their table.


You sure do love those rules, don't you? That's a common trait of authoritarians. We're supposed to have a First Amendment to protect us from the likes of you.
 
2014-04-27 07:26:24 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: I thought it was being done on a college campus?  The college has the right to set rules for groups and clubs with are sponsored by the school (or allowed by the school).  The students didn't have their literature confiscated, they weren't arrested or jailed, they were told that they had to abide by the same rules as the rest of the student body.


So your argument is that a state university is wholly distinct from the state government?  At least that's something.  I don't buy it, but it's much better than just saying that this kind of stuff is just totally OK.

And even if it were a private school, shenanigans like this mean they are terrible at higher education, which should embrace speech rather than suppress it.

brimed03: Yeah, and the fundraising folks-- or anyone else-- really believe *that's* why you're not donating.


I'm sure the girl on the phone forgets what I said by the time she hangs up.  That's why my post was written like that.

Now if I ever had a big pile of money, they might listen to my concerns.  I'd say, "I have ten million dollars burning a hole in my pocket.  Get rid of this whole speech code or it's all going to FIRE, with a request that they try to find a case to go after you on."
 
2014-04-27 07:55:30 AM  

DarkVader: AurizenDarkstar: Mrtraveler01: And it's not the fact it was the Constitution that UH Hilo wasn't happy about. It was the fact that they were directly soliciting to people even though there are rules against it.

http://khon2.com/2014/04/25/students-sue-uh-hilo-for-allegedly-viola ti ng-free-speech-rights/

As other have said, I have no sympathy for a group of people who think they are above the rules.

Well, from my own observations, I've noticed that a lot of today's Conservatives think they are special snowflakes and that the rules that apply to everyone else should never, EVER apply to them.

I have no idea why you think this issue is about conservatives.

This is about free speech, and a state university's illegal attempt to restrict it.

I'm not a conservative, I generally consider the Democratic Party to not be nearly liberal enough.  I consider most "libertarians" to be idiot pawns of the right, and friends of the corporate oligarchists

But I will not support an unconstitutional "rule" even when its application hurts someone I don't like.


[InigoMontoya.jpg] "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means." [/InigoMontoya.jpg]
 
2014-04-27 09:42:40 AM  
99.998er

While I am at it, with you bashing liberals for the "Freedom" tag...think of terms like Patriot Act, Freedom Fries, Color Coded Terror Alert. What party came up with such pedestrian propaganda? I would swear that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the gang were up in a tree house dreaming this shiat up after school.

*Patriot act:
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

It wouldn't have made it to bush's play pen if not for those Dims.

Patriot Act Extension Signed By Obama

Sen. Obama warned about Patriot Act abuses. President Obama proved him right.


How Obama has abused the Patriot Act

Seems the dims like to play in the same tree house bush did.

*Freedom Fries & Color Coded Terror Alert
Agreed idiotic and asinine.
 
2014-04-27 11:45:21 AM  

Sean M: I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but I was under the impression that the entire country was supposed to be a "free speech zone", not some roped off area.


(A) oh yeah, nobody's made *that* comment ITT

(B) you're right... you aren't a Constitutional scholar
 
2014-04-27 11:53:06 AM  

Nabb1: Lorelle: Nabb1: Lorelle: Mugato: Nabb1: You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?

Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?

Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.

My god, those horrible people! Coming out from behind the table and offering their hideous propaganda!

They knew the rules regarding distribution of their flyers and deliberately broke them. No one was preventing them from disseminating info at their table.

You sure do love those rules, don't you? That's a common trait of authoritarians. We're supposed to have a First Amendment to protect us from the likes of you.


That's right. Pull an Al Sharpton/Tawana Brawley and go on defending AW'ing liars so you can talk about FREEDUM!!!!1!11

In case you hadn't noticed, this First Amendment-loving country also comes with a lot of rules. Whyn't you go break some, scream FURSTAMMEMMENT some more, and see how that works out.
 
2014-04-27 11:59:06 AM  

BMFPitt: AurizenDarkstar: I thought it was being done on a college campus?  The college has the right to set rules for groups and clubs with are sponsored by the school (or allowed by the school).  The students didn't have their literature confiscated, they weren't arrested or jailed, they were told that they had to abide by the same rules as the rest of the student body.

So your argument is that a state university is wholly distinct from the state government?  At least that's something.  I don't buy it, but it's much better than just saying that this kind of stuff is just totally OK.

And even if it were a private school, shenanigans like this mean they are terrible at higher education, which should embrace speech rather than suppress it.

brimed03: Yeah, and the fundraising folks-- or anyone else-- really believe *that's* why you're not donating.

I'm sure the girl on the phone forgets what I said by the time she hangs up.  That's why my post was written like that.

Now if I ever had a big pile of money, they might listen to my concerns.  I'd say, "I have ten million dollars burning a hole in my pocket.  Get rid of this whole speech code or it's all going to FIRE, with a request that they try to find a case to go after you on."


I'm sure if I cared enough I could find some comments in your history where you complain about how people and groups with deep pockets buy elections. Good to know you're no better.

/no, it isn't "free speech" when you do that, it's an open threat and legal blackmail.
 
2014-04-27 12:36:06 PM  

brimed03: I'm sure if I cared enough I could find some comments in your history where you complain about how people and groups with deep pockets buy elections. Good to know you're no better.


Week I'm sure you couldn't, and that while looking you would find hundreds of posts defending campaign donations as speech.

/no, it isn't "free speech" when you do that, it's an open threat and legal blackmail.

That makes no sense, and if it were actually true would nullify the first part of your post.
 
2014-04-27 01:59:50 PM  
Conservatives who don't understand the Constitution applying their favorite buzzwords like "freedom" and "Constitutional rights" without understanding what they mean. Shocking!
 
2014-04-27 02:13:36 PM  
I think 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik said it best:  "A free speech zone is where you're standing."

/voted for the constitution party candidate
 
2014-04-27 03:12:37 PM  

Miss Alexandra: I think 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik said it best:  "A free speech zone is where you're standing."

/voted for the constitution party candidate


He sure got a lot of votes!
 
2014-04-27 06:20:34 PM  

Lorelle: They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.


Allowed? ALLOWED? Do you ever stop to listen to yourself? There is a time and place for everything but some things, and the list of those things is pretty small, are not subject to petty restrictions intended to keep order. Handing out free copies of this nations founding document is one of them.

Liberals "Frothing at the mouth" over this is one of this country's problems. If not for the "Pamphlet" that they were handing out there would be no nation to hand it out in in the first place.  There is no such thing as a free speech zone in that document for a reason. Free actually means free. Free from restrictions. Free from limitations. Free to annoy those that don't want to hear the message. All limitations on that speech have been put there to keep the peace but they are in the order of not screaming FIRE in a crowded movie theater or not making too much noise after 10pm. Handing out copies of the US Constitution in the middle of the day in a crowded place doesn't even come close to meeting those types of concerns. Call me when someone knocks on your door at 2am to give you a copy and we can talk about it.
 
2014-04-27 06:32:39 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Liberals "Frothing at the mouth" over this is one of this country's problems. If not for the "Pamphlet" that they were handing out there would be no nation to hand it out in in the first place.


First of all, there's nothing i the article that says that the victims in this situation were conservatives.

Second, any conservative or Republican who dare talk about the Constitution has some brass balls after what Bush did to it while the conservatives remain silent.
 
2014-04-27 06:34:56 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Handing out copies of the US Constitution in the middle of the day in a crowded place doesn't even come close to meeting those types of concerns. Call me when someone knocks on your door at 2am to give you a copy and we can talk about it.



That's not likely around here. They even stop delivering pizza at midnight.


Plus, it's England.
 
2014-04-27 06:37:28 PM  

aerojockey: I am guessing you people were the same people who were there telling the protesters at the RNC to take their little 200 square feet free speech zone 4 blocks away and like it, because it's the rules, RIGHT?????

(Free speech zones: a great idea when it's applied to people you don't agree with.)


The RNC, and the DNC for that matter, are not public institutions. They are private entities who used private funding to hold their own events on rented property (which makes it theirs for the duration of the time paid for). They actually can restrict speech on their own property and can ask that the entrances to their events be kept clear for safety reasons alone. That they also made room for protesters is a plus, that it was not front and center was not their problem. The media and everyone else knew where they were and if they actually wanted to hear their message they knew where to go to hear it. When a convention is bought and paid for in its entirety using public funds then, and only then, can you complain about free speech zones.
 
2014-04-27 06:57:45 PM  

Mugato: First of all, there's nothing i the article that says that the victims in this situation were conservatives.

Second, any conservative or Republican who dare talk about the Constitution has some brass balls after what Bush did to it while the conservatives remain silent.


Not all conservatives were silent about what Bush did (or didn't do) while in office. I was pretty critical about some of the things that he did, especially the shortcuts and end runs around the Constitution. I was probably lost in the noise because liberals were making so much of it but I was not always a fan of the Bush administration and made no bones about it when I thought that they had broken the rules.

I took an oath (more than once I might add) to protect and serve the Constitution and nowhere in that oath was there a mention of a time limit as to when I could stop doing so. I took that oath seriously and still do to this day. It's as close to religion as I'll ever get.
 
2014-04-27 07:04:22 PM  

letrole: They even stop delivering pizza at midnight.


That's just... wrong. We have a local pizza chain (A big shout out to Mr. Pizza Man) that closes from 4am to 6am but that's probably because nobody orders food at those hours (or at least not enough people to make enough money to justify staying open).

But it is a fairly large city, and not in England, so there is that.
 
2014-04-27 07:16:01 PM  

Radioactive Ass: But it is a fairly large city, and not in England, so there is that.


They've got places open all night, but deliveries stop. Take that back, orders stop at midnight, delivery perhaps 12:30
 
2014-04-27 08:13:04 PM  

Mugato: Second, any conservative or Republican who dare talk about the Constitution has some brass balls after what Bush did to it while the conservatives remain silent.


These kids were 16 or younger when Bush left office.  I'm sure there is plenty to disagree with them on without blaming them for the deeds od Republicans before they were old enough to vote.

Radioactive Ass: The RNC, and the DNC for that matter, are not public institutions. They are private entities who used private funding to hold their own events


I wish that were true.
www.fec.gov
 
2014-04-27 09:00:18 PM  

BMFPitt: brimed03: I'm sure if I cared enough I could find some comments in your history where you complain about how people and groups with deep pockets buy elections. Good to know you're no better.

Week I'm sure you couldn't, and that while looking you would find hundreds of posts defending campaign donations as speech.

/no, it isn't "free speech" when you do that, it's an open threat and legal blackmail.

That makes no sense, and if it were actually true would nullify the first part of your post.


Fortunately, the percentage of fools like you is as small as it is vocal.
 
Displayed 258 of 258 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report