Censorship on Campus.

[eagle1462010]

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.

Does the public come there.....Are they allowed..........Yes they are. It's a side walk and these are students who live there..........They were not violating anyone's rights by handing out the Constitution there, and asking people to sign a petition that the Universities policy is wrong.

And by refusing to do so in the stated venues, they made a stand for what they believed in. They were polite as were the administrators who were trying to enforce the campus policy.

And BTW.......A public place doesn't have to be the Gov't........Arenas, Stadiums, are a place of public gatherings......aka public places the same as that side walk. I don't see why it's a big deal at all here. Those that wanted to sign the petition did so, and took the Constitution copy if they chose to.

I think this is misguided policy.

 

[ricechickie]

My opinion is that many academia would feel threatened by that.

Maybe, but I'm betting that it wouldn't be disallowed, or have any attempt to remove the shirt from the person wearing it.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

That being said, these were students who lived there and went to the school. Are they trespassers......................I don't think so........Apples to oranges..............They were not disruptive and should not have to go to a specific place to have Freedom of Speech.

 

[ricechickie]

That being said, these were students who lived there and went to the school. Are they trespassers......................I don't think so........Apples to oranges..............They were not disruptive and should not have to go to a specific place to have Freedom of Speech.

So, you think they could do this activity during class? On the field during a football game?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Does the public come there.....Are they allowed..........Yes they are. It's a side walk and these are students who live there..........They were not violating anyone's rights by handing out the Constitution there, and asking people to sign a petition that the Universities policy is wrong.

And by refusing to do so in the stated venues, they made a stand for what they believed in. They were polite as were the administrators who were trying to enforce the campus policy.

And BTW.......A public place doesn't have to be the Gov't........Arenas, Stadiums, are a place of public gatherings......aka public places the same as that side walk. I don't see why it's a big deal at all here. Those that wanted to sign the petition did so, and took the Constitution copy if they chose to.

I think this is misguided policy.

It certainly does for your First Amendment rights to be protected. Try showing up at Cowboy Stadium and handing out copies of the COTUS. You'll be asked to leave and then arrested for trespassing if you refuse.

Just as one example.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

College campuses are private property, no matter whether or not people are allowed to walk there.

 

[eagle1462010]

That being said, these were students who lived there and went to the school. Are they trespassers......................I don't think so........Apples to oranges..............They were not disruptive and should not have to go to a specific place to have Freedom of Speech.

So, you think they could do this activity during class? On the field during a football game?

That would be classified as a disruptive activity, and would be violating the rights of others....

In this example, they were not doing so........They were on a public walkway in a residential area........

 

[eagle1462010]

College campuses are private property, no matter whether or not people are allowed to walk there.

Yes and no.......and I'm still reading this.

http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/79/79_1_Davis.pdf

 

[Ibentoken]

Conservatives are far more tolerant than liberals. Animal rights activists were approaching everyone going to a rodeo I attended in Portland, Or. a while back. I took their leaflet and filed it. No problem.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

College campuses are private property, no matter whether or not people are allowed to walk there.

The Court has disagreed with us in past rulings , here's a pretty interesting piece on the subject.

Free speech on public college campuses overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Conservatives are far more tolerant than liberals. Animal rights activists were approaching everyone going to a rodeo I attended in Portland, Or. a while back. I took their leaflet and filed it. No problem.

That's not being more tolerant, that's being more mature.

 

[francoHFW]

Another bs RW "outrage", for hater dupes only.

 

[Ibentoken]

Conservatives are far more tolerant than liberals. Animal rights activists were approaching everyone going to a rodeo I attended in Portland, Or. a while back. I took their leaflet and filed it. No problem.

That's not being more tolerant, that's being more mature.

They go together.

 

[eagle1462010]

http://ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/79/79_1_Davis.pdf

28. Ala. Student Party v. Student Gov't Ass'n, 867 F.2d 1344, 1354 n.6 (llth Cir.
1989) (Tjoflat, J., dissenting). Judge Tjoflat elaborated:
Some places on campus, such as the administration building or the
president's office, are not opened as fora for use by the student body,
and may be best described as nonpublic fora. Other places on campus,
such as the residence halls and fraternity and sorority houses, have been
created to allow student expression, but remain limited for use by
certain groups or for the discussion of certain subjects; these places may
be best described as limited public fora. Other places on campus, such
as the campus student union, streets, sidewalks, and park-like areas, are
freely used for student expression. These areas are best described as
traditional public fora, in which a university's ability to regulate speech
is most circumscribed. Whether a university regulation restricts student
speech in a part of its campus that is a public forum depends on the
facts of each case


The University of Oregon classified the area of the OP as a Residential area. Therefore they decided it to be a non free speech zone. Yet under the Court decision sidewalks and streets are classified Public fora............

So, does that sidewalk and street classify as public fora, or as residential according to what I'm reading.

 

[eagle1462010]

Another bs RW "outrage", for hater dupes only.

STFU.......thank you.

 

[francoHFW]

Conservatives are far more tolerant than liberals. Animal rights activists were approaching everyone going to a rodeo I attended in Portland, Or. a while back. I took their leaflet and filed it. No problem.

That's not being more tolerant, that's being more mature.

Silly anecdote. Conservatives, tolerant of gays, furriners, women, minorities, scientists, Muslims, everyone asking for rights etc etc. Didn't even attack PETA people. lol

 

[eagle1462010]

From what I'm reading the court cases are a case by case issue. As is this one.

They have classified the areas no Free Speech Zones which would disrupt classes or administrative offices.

They have limited Free Speech Zones where depending on the protest or Free Speech could or could not violate others rights.

Or Free Speech areas where the speech would be considered public domain.


In this case it could be argued both ways................A disruptive protest around Dorm areas could disrupt students from studying or sleeping. This incident was NOT DISRUPTIVE. It was a quite handing out of documents and asking those willing to sign a petition. So this is not an open and shut case either way...........

Common sense may need to apply. These students were not disruptive so don't push the issue........but if you change it to a vocal protest then you could disrupt other students rights as it is where they live.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

From what I'm reading the court cases are a case by case issue. As is this one.

They have classified the areas no Free Speech Zones which would disrupt classes or administrative offices.

They have limited Free Speech Zones where depending on the protest or Free Speech could or could not violate others rights.

Or Free Speech areas where the speech would be considered public domain.


In this case it could be argued both ways................A disruptive protest around Dorm areas could disrupt students from studying or sleeping. This incident was NOT DISRUPTIVE. It was a quite handing out of documents and asking those willing to sign a petition. So this is not an open and shut case either way...........

Common sense may need to apply. These students were not disruptive so don't push the issue........but if you change it to a vocal protest then you could disrupt other students rights as it is where they live.

How would YOU feel though if people set up camp on the public right away outside YOUR domicile and harassed you about a petition every time you left your property?

You're right, common sense SHOULD apply here. And it goes like this.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yeah, it's one or the other. There is no other possible alternative.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Can it remove students from campus? I think not.