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

Archived thread

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