Censorship on Campus.

That you're a liar comes as no surprise.

From your cited article:

“While doing so, the students were approached multiple times by school administrators and campus police who all asked the students to move to a different area of campus.”

The school administration had no issue with students passing out copies of the Constitution, the issue concerned the venue. Such venue restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, and in no way violate the First Amendment. The school afforded students ample other means to express their views, where jurisdictions are at liberty to place reasonable restrictions on where citizens gather (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

What's disgusting is your lie and effort to propagate that lie, as the university in fact did not 'threaten' students because they were passing out the Constitution.
 
You should see the faces of the TSA agents when I hand them my small metal bill of rights and I ask them to hold on to them as I say ok I will had you my "rights".
 
That you're a liar comes as no surprise.

From your cited article:

“While doing so, the students were approached multiple times by school administrators and campus police who all asked the students to move to a different area of campus.”

The school administration had no issue with students passing out copies of the Constitution, the issue concerned the venue. Such venue restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, and in no way violate the First Amendment. The school afforded students ample other means to express their views, where jurisdictions are at liberty to place reasonable restrictions on where citizens gather (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

What's disgusting is your lie and effort to propagate that lie, as the university in fact did not 'threaten' students because they were passing out the Constitution.
They were threatened. Read it again, pissant. Lying leftist trash.

"University officials threatened to call the police and disciplinary action against students who were passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution at Southern Oregon University (SOU) last week."
 
I think college campuses should all be flooded with people handing out brochures, coupons, bibles, qurans, leaflets, and all kinds of other things. When a highschool student comes to visit my university I want them to see chaos everywhere as hundreds of people run around trying to hand students as many pieces of paper as possible.

Which, if you've ever been on a college campus, is ABSOLUTELY what would happen if they didn't restrict these people to certain areas.
 
I think college campuses should all be flooded with people handing out brochures, coupons, bibles, qurans, leaflets, and all kinds of other things. When a highschool student comes to visit my university I want them to see chaos everywhere as hundreds of people run around trying to hand students as many pieces of paper as possible.

Which, if you've ever been on a college campus, is ABSOLUTELY what would happen if they didn't restrict these people to certain areas.
I went to the U of Minnesota and U of Missouri in the 60s. Every telephone pole had flyers of every political thought you could think of, mostly socialist or communist. Free literature was everywhere.
 
That you're a liar comes as no surprise.

From your cited article:

“While doing so, the students were approached multiple times by school administrators and campus police who all asked the students to move to a different area of campus.”

The school administration had no issue with students passing out copies of the Constitution, the issue concerned the venue. Such venue restrictions are perfectly Constitutional, and in no way violate the First Amendment. The school afforded students ample other means to express their views, where jurisdictions are at liberty to place reasonable restrictions on where citizens gather (see, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

What's disgusting is your lie and effort to propagate that lie, as the university in fact did not 'threaten' students because they were passing out the Constitution.

You should have done more research

Ever hear of the O'Brien Test?

a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms." The regulation must 1) be within the constitutional power of the government to enact, 2) further an important or substantial government interest, 3) that interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech (or "content neutral", as later cases have phrased it), and 4) prohibit no more speech than is essential to further that interest. ]

Does this meet that test?
 
Okay.......I watched most of the video, skipping small portions.

The Campus made a policy of Free Speech Zones on the campus, and regulated where on a public campus they could or could not use their 1st Amendment Rights on Campus. The explanation was that other groups could come there and cause disruptions to the campus, so the campus decided WHICH PUBLIC PLACE WAS LEGIT FOR THE 1ST AMENDMENT..........

In a public place you have the right to Freedom of Speech, which is why they were handing out the Constitution in the 1st place. The administrators there were trying to talk them out of the policy and were fairly friendly, only hints of possible consequences were addressed.

So really, this comes down to the explanation of the 1st Amendment itself. It's a public place. It is NOT OFF LIMITS TO THE PUBLIC. Anyone can walk down the sidewalks there even if they are not a student.

Those handing out the Constitution made their point. That the University should not be able to decide where the 1st Amendment on a public venue is legal or not.

Perhaps its time for the University itself to actually read the Constitution as they have violated it by restricting it on public property.

The kids knew their rights and the administrators knew it in my opinion.
 
1037-2.jpg
 
Okay.......I watched most of the video, skipping small portions.

The Campus made a policy of Free Speech Zones on the campus, and regulated where on a public campus they could or could not use their 1st Amendment Rights on Campus. The explanation was that other groups could come there and cause disruptions to the campus, so the campus decided WHICH PUBLIC PLACE WAS LEGIT FOR THE 1ST AMENDMENT..........

In a public place you have the right to Freedom of Speech, which is why they were handing out the Constitution in the 1st place. The administrators there were trying to talk them out of the policy and were fairly friendly, only hints of possible consequences were addressed.

So really, this comes down to the explanation of the 1st Amendment itself. It's a public place. It is NOT OFF LIMITS TO THE PUBLIC. Anyone can walk down the sidewalks there even if they are not a student.

Those handing out the Constitution made their point. That the University should not be able to decide where the 1st Amendment on a public venue is legal or not.

Perhaps its time for the University itself to actually read the Constitution as they have violated it by restricting it on public property.

The kids knew their rights and the administrators knew it in my opinion.

I disagree, because I don't think a University is a public place, even in partially funded by the government, and so the First doesn't protect you from THEM violating your rights. I think in THAT regard, ALL colleges are not part of the government.

Surely you agree that a college has the right to maintain order on their campus.
 
Okay.......I watched most of the video, skipping small portions.

The Campus made a policy of Free Speech Zones on the campus, and regulated where on a public campus they could or could not use their 1st Amendment Rights on Campus. The explanation was that other groups could come there and cause disruptions to the campus, so the campus decided WHICH PUBLIC PLACE WAS LEGIT FOR THE 1ST AMENDMENT..........

In a public place you have the right to Freedom of Speech, which is why they were handing out the Constitution in the 1st place. The administrators there were trying to talk them out of the policy and were fairly friendly, only hints of possible consequences were addressed.

So really, this comes down to the explanation of the 1st Amendment itself. It's a public place. It is NOT OFF LIMITS TO THE PUBLIC. Anyone can walk down the sidewalks there even if they are not a student.

Those handing out the Constitution made their point. That the University should not be able to decide where the 1st Amendment on a public venue is legal or not.

Perhaps its time for the University itself to actually read the Constitution as they have violated it by restricting it on public property.

The kids knew their rights and the administrators knew it in my opinion.

"Open to the public" and "public" are not the same thing. I think if you did a little research, you'd find that the college specifically has the ability to remove anyone's permission to be on the campus, making them trespassers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top