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  
•       •       •

4996 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

Archived thread

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

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

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