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 258
    More: Asinine, University of Hawaii, U.S. Constitution, Hawaii, free speech zone, fellow students, Young Americans for Liberty, First Amendment  
•       •       •

4991 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2014 at 5:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



258 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 258 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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