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 69
    More: Asinine, University of Hawaii, U.S. Constitution, Hawaii, free speech zone, fellow students, Young Americans for Liberty, First Amendment  
•       •       •

4974 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Apr 2014 at 5:08 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-26 04:27:49 PM  
5 votes:

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

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

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


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

4.bp.blogspot.com

Hawaii and Alaska included.
2014-04-26 04:00:55 PM  
5 votes:

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


Did you RTFA? They weren't being stopped from handing out the Constitution, just to sit at one of the tables like everyone else. And how do you know they were conservative, was the Second Amendment highlighted and the 4th whited out?
2014-04-26 04:00:44 PM  
5 votes:

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

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


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

www.tucsonsentinel.com

pic related

How dare someone think they can hand this out in public.
2014-04-26 03:05:03 PM  
5 votes:
Both Burch and her friend, the complaint alleges, were at an outdoor event featuring other student groups who were distributing literature from various tables set up for that purpose. Burch claims she left her table and approached other students, and an administrator told her and her friend to get behind their table.

Oh look, another conservative that thinks the rules don't apply to them. Because obviously the message they were trying to get out was so much more important than everyone elses.
2014-04-26 05:44:04 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

Universities adopted free speech zones because:
1. They're authoritarian scumbags, and sometimes there is a viewpoint they won't hesitate to use their powers to try to squash out
2. They are sometimes well-meaning people who are too zealous over certain concepts and cross the line into infringing people's basic rights
3. Probably some naive people thought it would make them less likely to face lawsuits and such since they could keep an eye on the protesters more easily
2014-04-26 05:26:23 PM  
4 votes:

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

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


ya, it does.

Can't believe liberals actually now think the 1st amendment should go away too. if it were a Bush hating group or a protest against Israel, you bet your bottom you would be defending their freedom of speech.
2014-04-26 03:17:05 PM  
4 votes:

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

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


You sure do love authority, don't you? Why should there be rules on a public campus about peaceably assembling and distributing pamphlets? Does the notion of that activity offend you so? We have a state school, political speech, and it seems no one was being disruptive. Why does this activity trouble you? Is it because they are conservative?
2014-04-26 05:36:09 PM  
3 votes:
So to "Occupy" private property for an months is protected free speech, but leaving your booth to hand out copies of the Constitution is breaking the rules and deserves to be punished. Got it.
2014-04-26 05:18:23 PM  
3 votes:
I am guessing you people were the same people who were there telling the protesters at the RNC to take their little 200 square feet free speech zone 4 blocks away and like it, because it's the rules, RIGHT?????

(Free speech zones: a great idea when it's applied to people you don't agree with.)
2014-04-26 04:46:33 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


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

/nice reductio ad absurdum
2014-04-26 04:41:58 PM  
3 votes:

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


So I can just walk into a classroom during a lecture and start passing out propaganda?
2014-04-26 04:38:23 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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


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


So, they could hand out their flyers at the table like everyone else, or leave.  If you can't abide by the rules don't play the game.
2014-04-26 04:11:17 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


upload.wikimedia.org

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

Here's the thing, you boot-licking ass-twat: when government-set rules are unconstitutional, they, by definition, do NOT apply to anyone.
2014-04-26 08:50:19 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:24:02 PM  
2 votes:
Mugato [TotalFark]

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

Thank godparticle the TF flag alerts us when this level of stupid will crop up.
2014-04-26 06:11:26 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


There's far more constitutional ways to police disruption - i.e. a disturbing the peace arrest. No one is saying that there should be no rules. Disrupting classes or speakers is a problem that must be dealt with. But forcing all protesters to register in advance and reserve a tiny area is not legal. Ask federal courts, who have continuously struck down free speech zones and speech codes on campuses across the nation
2014-04-26 05:56:19 PM  
2 votes:

jaytkay: Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican


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


it's the progressives, which for now is better organised and more unified, that has a spooky lack of originality amongst its adherents.
2014-04-26 05:53:47 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

Jesus are you so full of shiat.


Seemed pretty correct to me. "We believe in freedom of speech unless that speech doesn't go with our worldview; in which case we'll shame you into silence you Nazi-fascist-anti Semitic-cis male-homophobic-bigoted-racist-woman hater."
2014-04-26 05:50:15 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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


And such a huge majority of prisoners are locked up for minor drug offenses, but everyone is up in arms over that. If you can't abide by the rules don't play the game go to prison.
2014-04-26 05:45:29 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


4.  You can't offend the precious snowflakes, or allow someone to be offended, and the right to not be offended is now apparently a thing, and it trumps the right to free speech.
2014-04-26 05:41:39 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

/nice reductio ad absurdum

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

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


They were at a publicly funded institution and their actions were in accordance with the foundation upon which all our laws are written.  You have a the right to free speech, even when somebody else doesn't like your speech.  The student's actions weren't inciting violence or creating a public menace, so the actions of the school's employees were illegal.
2014-04-26 05:40:35 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

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

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


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

Libs will always attempt to silence anything that goes against their beliefs. The Constitution is completely against their beliefs. They simply do not want freedom of speech, because then people will argue against their government use of force. Can't have uppity citizens challenging the Messiah.
2014-04-26 05:39:44 PM  
2 votes:
"Free Speech Zone" is a contradiction in terms.
2014-04-26 05:34:41 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

Also:

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

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

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

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

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

Nope, this allegation sounds in no way made up by some ignorant right-winger with a persecution complex.
2014-04-26 05:29:45 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

Now If someone decides that the rules about Free Speech Zone doesn't apply to them, well they're right, it doesn't.  The Constitution guarantees free speech, and case history is pretty clear that these limited Free Speech Zones go too far to restrict it.
2014-04-26 05:17:10 PM  
2 votes:
Even thinking about "Free Speech Zones" makes me want to lodge a formal protest at the "Punch A College Administrator In The Face Zone".
2014-04-26 04:46:41 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


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

And I also wish we knew if they were just handing out copies of the Constitution.  Or if in addition to that they were trying to recruit for the organization (they're Libertarians).  If it was more than handing out copies, then I think they should be following the rules like the other groups.
2014-04-26 04:27:30 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


They knew the rules regarding distribution of their flyers and deliberately broke them. No one was preventing them from disseminating info at their table.
2014-04-27 09:42:40 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:24:10 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-26 09:33:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:37:00 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The only exceptions to this is when it directly intercedes with law enforcement, and I'd argue that the civil disobedience of the 60s was far more in your face than any of this.
2014-04-26 06:18:57 PM  
1 votes:
Baz744:
So I can walk onto a military base any time and hand out flyers any place I want so long as they're not advertisements?

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

I'm not holding my breath.


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

This may also apply to college campuses.  However, I still want someone to explain to me why a copy of the U.S. Constitution could be considered forbidden "propaganda."  I want someone to tell me why it is important that people not be informed as to the rules to which our government is supposed to adhere, the rules we all live under in the U.S.
2014-04-26 06:18:26 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Your right to not listen doesn't trump their right to speak, either. If they are in a public place, they are free to say what they want, just like you are free to ignore it. But you can't make them go away just because you disagree.
2014-04-26 06:14:14 PM  
1 votes:
Democrats also got police to try to make these people get back to their assigned tables.

www.learnnc.org

media.npr.org

historyz.com
The party of "freedom" hasn't changed a bit.
2014-04-26 06:13:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


Seriously? You're OK with this? Seriously, you typed that out and that doesn't sound even the least bit scary or draconian to you? At all?
2014-04-26 06:10:17 PM  
1 votes:
Dinki [TotalFark]
2014-04-26 03:05:03 PM


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

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

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


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

Because they're the party of "Freedom".
2014-04-26 06:09:51 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Oh, look, "libertarians".

/ Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican


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

Your point? Invalid now. Have a seat.
2014-04-26 06:08:36 PM  
1 votes:

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


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


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


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

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

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

When did we start accepting this crap?
2014-04-26 06:04:54 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

Hawaii and Alaska included.

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


And you are ignorant of prior USSC precedent saying handing out flyers is perfectly fine anywhere aside from advertisement.
2014-04-26 06:04:09 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


Listen, captain obvious...there shouldnt BE a "free speech zone." We already have one...it's called "the whole damn country" according to the constitution.
2014-04-26 06:01:08 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

No more evil zones "outside of which speech is banned." We'll just ban speech altogether within a limited area and for a limited time. No biggie.
2014-04-26 06:00:28 PM  
1 votes:

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


Imagine that, when you give people 200 square feet to engage in free speech, all of them end up that one place.
2014-04-26 05:57:35 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Jesus are you so full of shiat.

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


One more time. I had no idea they were conservatives so that's bullshiat. As for hating the Constitution, that would be GW Bush. The use of the word "uppity" and "Messiah" just sealed that the whole post was a troll.
2014-04-26 05:56:55 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Jesus are you so full of shiat.

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


No, we are fine with idiots outing themselves. But we do not like it when idiots block us from getting to class on time or find the booths that we were looking for. And then the precious snowflakes cry to the Washington Free Bacon because nobody wanted to stop at their booth and the college did not let them force people to stop.
2014-04-26 05:56:37 PM  
1 votes:
I voted for obama. I do not care to own a gun. Anyone who preventa the constitution from freely being distributed should be shot and killed in town square. Regardless of what side you are on. Anyone who believes the constitution hander outers should be restricted to behind a table should also be shot and killed in the town square.
2014-04-26 05:52:33 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


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


Well, i would recommend 'don't play the game' for that whole convention. As preventing someone from distributing the constitution anywhere is anti- constitutional.
2014-04-26 05:43:13 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


FTFY.
2014-04-26 05:43:04 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Jesus are you so full of shiat.
2014-04-26 05:42:58 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

I, personally, like free speech zones. That way, if I'm on campus, I don't have to listen to some PETA harpy or I can avoid getting pepper sprayed because I strayed too close to an Occupy protest. I can also avoid the KKK recruiter, the black panther guy, WBC, whatever preacher that decided today was a good day to hand out bibles, Mormons, Scientologists and Methodists.
2014-04-26 05:40:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Oh, look, "libertarians".

/ Fiercely independent thinkers who vote Republican
2014-04-26 05:36:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


I for one had no idea it was a conservative group. Free Speech Zones are when they want to shut up protesters. I don't think handing out the constitution applies.
2014-04-26 05:33:56 PM  
1 votes:
Why do people keep calling the Constitution "propaganda?"  Do people really think that way?
2014-04-26 05:32:06 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Once again, liberals against free speech. How quaint.

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

Colleges use federal money. The government is not supposed to be able to trample the Constitution. So every lawsuit is a triumph over the liberal piss pants ugly folks.
2014-04-26 05:31:24 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

/ I know this because it has become very popular to go and heckle him
2014-04-26 05:25:19 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

These whiny conservatives need to get their asses behind the table like everyone else, hand out their constitutions, and quit their whining.  But what's a conservative without lots of unnecessary whining and the constant feeling of persecution?
2014-04-26 05:23:45 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


The hate runs deep in you.
2014-04-26 05:20:01 PM  
1 votes:
What's the big deal here? It's not like they weren't allowing them to spread their message or censoring them. If they didn't want to follow the rules they should have chosen another location.
2014-04-26 05:19:23 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

And  'Liberty' in the title of the organization has gotten to be like 'Patriot', if you see what I'm saying, and I think you do.
2014-04-26 04:59:06 PM  
1 votes:
The lesson here is that if you invent asinine things like "Free Speech Zones," don't be surprised when the shoe is on the other foot.
2014-04-26 04:56:45 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


And I didn't say that they have the right to disrupt lectures by handing out propaganda, but you took my statement and ran with it, reducing it to the point of absurdity.  Barring students from disrupting class lectures and interfering with learning does not go against the 1st Amendment.  Barring people from getting up and handing out flyers in public areas does go against the 1st Amendment.
2014-04-26 04:56:18 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

/nice reductio ad absurdum


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

Also, the point he makes is valid.  An area was set up for student groups to hand out literature, these students left that area.  The issue wasn't their message, it was the physical location of where and means by which they were spreading it.
2014-04-26 04:51:17 PM  
1 votes:

Fark It: And since when is the Constitution propaganda?


I didn't say it was, that's wasn't my point. You said anyone can hand out anything anywhere and I was illustrating that there might be boundaries to that and that doesn't make it some travesty against the 1st amendment.
2014-04-26 04:50:43 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Exactly.
2014-04-26 04:35:18 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

Hawaii and Alaska included.

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


I'm not a conservative, and they should be "allowed" to hand out literature anywhere, especially at a public university, as per the 1st Amendment.
2014-04-26 04:32:47 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

Hawaii and Alaska included.


They were allowed to hand out literature at their table. Conservatives who are frothing at the mouth over this incident have conveniently ignored this fact.
2014-04-26 04:15:16 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Evidently the girl and her friend weren't getting any attention while sitting at their table, so they decided to take their literature and force it on others.
2014-04-26 04:09:03 PM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report