Censorship on Campus.

[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.

"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.

Colleges most certainly CAN remove students from campus.

 

[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.

Colleges most certainly CAN remove students from campus.

Not without them committing some kind of violation.

 

[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.

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.

These students didn't disrupt anyone. They simply offered a copy of the constitution to anyone who wanted one, and asked if they'd sign a petition. If you didn't want to do so then show me where they harassed anyone.

 

[francoHFW]

Most laws are there for a reason, which RW chumps of the Pub propaganda machine don't get, as all they need is a never ending, one sided tidal wave of outrage against the same old targets....

Change some laws instead of ginning up the division sometime. Of course, this is a good law (campus rule)...

 

[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.

These students didn't disrupt anyone. They simply offered a copy of the constitution to anyone who wanted one, and asked if they'd sign a petition. If you didn't want to do so then show me where they harassed anyone.

Again, how would you like if someone stood on the sidewalk outside your home and offered you ANYTHING every time you came or went?

They are college students, I'm fairly certain most of them could manage to find a copy of the COTUS without these people standing outside their dorms offering them if they so desired.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Of course they can remove students from campus.

Why wouldn't they be able to?

 

[eagle1462010]

Google Scholar

Our normal course is first to "ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] 176*176 question may be avoided." Crowell v.Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). See New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 769, n. 24 (1982). Appellees did not make a statutory construction argument before the lower courts, but at oral argument, the question was raised whether § 13k reached the types of conduct in which appellees engaged, and we should answer it. We agree with the United States that the statute covers the particular conduct of Zywicki orGrace and that it is therefore proper to reach the constitutional question involved in this case.

The statutory ban is on the display of a "flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement." 40 U. S. C. § 13k. It is undisputed that Grace's picket sign containing the text of the First Amendment falls within the description of a "flag, banner, or device." Although it is less obvious, it is equally uncontested that Zywicki's leaflets fall within the proscription as well.

The protest sign on this was a copy of the 1st Amendment outside a Court House. Grace was ordered to leave. She did and then won in court over the court that her protest sign was a flag, banner, or device and she had every right to hold that sign up outside the court house.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Colleges most certainly CAN remove students from campus.

Not without them committing some kind of violation.

Like handing out copies of the COTUS in violation of campus codes, perhaps?

 

[Ibentoken]

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

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

Shut da F**K Up!!!:

 

[francoHFW]

Another put up job by the RW propaganda machine. Seems like no one on campus but these 4 RW scofflaws gave a damn. Except for the idiotic, put up bs RW echo chamber/ hate machine...and the macho loudmouth chumps lol. So "tolerant and mature"...

 

[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.

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.

These students didn't disrupt anyone. They simply offered a copy of the constitution to anyone who wanted one, and asked if they'd sign a petition. If you didn't want to do so then show me where they harassed anyone.

Again, how would you like if someone stood on the sidewalk outside your home and offered you ANYTHING every time you came or went?

They are college students, I'm fairly certain most of them could manage to find a copy of the COTUS without these people standing outside their dorms offering them if they so desired.

I don't live outside a dorm room on a University. That is an apples to oranges argument.

The question I asked earlier/comment is under the law would this side walk and street be classified as a Free Speech Zone or not.......It is on a campus, and I've provided one court case where Texas Tech LOST in Free Speech Zones.............

And if you've ever been on a University campus you'd realize that there are always more than one side walk anyway.......

I see no violation or REASON to not allow them to pass the copy out.

And I've also shown a similar but not the same court case showing how Grace beat a Court House No Free Speech Zone as the sign was classified as a Flag.............The Constitution would be in that same catagory.

To me, this shouldn't have been a problem as these students were NOT DISTURBING the Peace there. Had they had loud speeches and caused civil discourse then I wouldn't be saying this.

I understand both sides of the equation. It is not cut and dry on their policy, as other Universities have lost the court case for similar reasons.......And could win via other examples where they disrupted others.

This case didn't disrupt jack squat.

 

[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.

These students didn't disrupt anyone. They simply offered a copy of the constitution to anyone who wanted one, and asked if they'd sign a petition. If you didn't want to do so then show me where they harassed anyone.

Again, how would you like if someone stood on the sidewalk outside your home and offered you ANYTHING every time you came or went?

They are college students, I'm fairly certain most of them could manage to find a copy of the COTUS without these people standing outside their dorms offering them if they so desired.

I don't live outside a dorm room on a University. That is an apples to oranges argument.

The question I asked earlier/comment is under the law would this side walk and street be classified as a Free Speech Zone or not.......It is on a campus, and I've provided one court case where Texas Tech LOST in Free Speech Zones.............

And if you've ever been on a University campus you'd realize that there are always more than one side walk anyway.......

I see no violation or REASON to not allow them to pass the copy out.

And I've also shown a similar but not the same court case showing how Grace beat a Court House No Free Speech Zone as the sign was classified as a Flag.............The Constitution would be in that same catagory.

To me, this shouldn't have been a problem as these students were NOT DISTURBING the Peace there. Had they had loud speeches and caused civil discourse then I wouldn't be saying this.

I understand both sides of the equation. It is not cut and dry on their policy, as other Universities have lost the court case for similar reasons.......And could win via other examples where they disrupted others.

This case didn't disrupt jack squat.

Some how I imagine that if they were instead asking for signatures on a petition to legalize gay marriage your opinion would change. No, in fact I'm 100% sure of it.


Oh, also it is an APPLES to APPLES comparison if you have ANY public right away abutting your property. That means if you have a sidewalk in your front yard, that's public property, moreso than on a college campus in fact.

 

[Ibentoken]

Remember a few years back when dems in Congress mocked Tea Party repubs who wanted to read the constitution? The dems sheepishly joined in when the populace spoke up to support it.

 

[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.

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.

These students didn't disrupt anyone. They simply offered a copy of the constitution to anyone who wanted one, and asked if they'd sign a petition. If you didn't want to do so then show me where they harassed anyone.

Again, how would you like if someone stood on the sidewalk outside your home and offered you ANYTHING every time you came or went?

They are college students, I'm fairly certain most of them could manage to find a copy of the COTUS without these people standing outside their dorms offering them if they so desired.

I don't live outside a dorm room on a University. That is an apples to oranges argument.

The question I asked earlier/comment is under the law would this side walk and street be classified as a Free Speech Zone or not.......It is on a campus, and I've provided one court case where Texas Tech LOST in Free Speech Zones.............

And if you've ever been on a University campus you'd realize that there are always more than one side walk anyway.......

I see no violation or REASON to not allow them to pass the copy out.

And I've also shown a similar but not the same court case showing how Grace beat a Court House No Free Speech Zone as the sign was classified as a Flag.............The Constitution would be in that same catagory.

To me, this shouldn't have been a problem as these students were NOT DISTURBING the Peace there. Had they had loud speeches and caused civil discourse then I wouldn't be saying this.

I understand both sides of the equation. It is not cut and dry on their policy, as other Universities have lost the court case for similar reasons.......And could win via other examples where they disrupted others.

This case didn't disrupt jack squat.

Some how I imagine that if they were instead asking for signatures on a petition to legalize gay marriage your opinion would change. No, in fact I'm 100% sure of it.


Oh, also it is an APPLES to APPLES comparison if you have ANY public right away abutting your property. That means if you have a sidewalk in your front yard, that's public property, moreso than on a college campus in fact.

I don't care what you imagine and I would not change my opinion on their ability to pass out that material even though I'd say they have the right to be retards...........

And my property is not a University............

What if they giving out coupons to a pizza place.........Would you be for or against it, and then change the subject ot solicitation over Free Speech..........I guarantee you that there are probably food coupons all over that campus.................

Again, these people didn't cause any real problem at all by handing the stuff out.........

We could go to a parking lot at a store, and find cases for and against the right of the Salvation army to ring a bell and collect money around Christmas.........Are you annoyed by this, and should they be thrown off that property as it's not a public place or is it a public place. Courts have differed on that opinion.......

I have posted cases for my opinions both for and against the University. Where is your legal documents supporting your position...........

 

[Darkwind]

Lets be sure to keep that free speech to approved loading and unloading zones.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

These students didn't disrupt anyone. They simply offered a copy of the constitution to anyone who wanted one, and asked if they'd sign a petition. If you didn't want to do so then show me where they harassed anyone.

Again, how would you like if someone stood on the sidewalk outside your home and offered you ANYTHING every time you came or went?

They are college students, I'm fairly certain most of them could manage to find a copy of the COTUS without these people standing outside their dorms offering them if they so desired.

I don't live outside a dorm room on a University. That is an apples to oranges argument.

The question I asked earlier/comment is under the law would this side walk and street be classified as a Free Speech Zone or not.......It is on a campus, and I've provided one court case where Texas Tech LOST in Free Speech Zones.............

And if you've ever been on a University campus you'd realize that there are always more than one side walk anyway.......

I see no violation or REASON to not allow them to pass the copy out.

And I've also shown a similar but not the same court case showing how Grace beat a Court House No Free Speech Zone as the sign was classified as a Flag.............The Constitution would be in that same catagory.

To me, this shouldn't have been a problem as these students were NOT DISTURBING the Peace there. Had they had loud speeches and caused civil discourse then I wouldn't be saying this.

I understand both sides of the equation. It is not cut and dry on their policy, as other Universities have lost the court case for similar reasons.......And could win via other examples where they disrupted others.

This case didn't disrupt jack squat.

Some how I imagine that if they were instead asking for signatures on a petition to legalize gay marriage your opinion would change. No, in fact I'm 100% sure of it.


Oh, also it is an APPLES to APPLES comparison if you have ANY public right away abutting your property. That means if you have a sidewalk in your front yard, that's public property, moreso than on a college campus in fact.

I don't care what you imagine and I would not change my opinion on their ability to pass out that material even though I'd say they have the right to be retards...........

And my property is not a University............

What if they giving out coupons to a pizza place.........Would you be for or against it, and then change the subject ot solicitation over Free Speech..........I guarantee you that there are probably food coupons all over that campus.................

Again, these people didn't cause any real problem at all by handing the stuff out.........

We could go to a parking lot at a store, and find cases for and against the right of the Salvation army to ring a bell and collect money around Christmas.........Are you annoyed by this, and should they be thrown off that property as it's not a public place or is it a public place. Courts have differed on that opinion.......

I have posted cases for my opinions both for and against the University. Where is your legal documents supporting your position...........

Are you just not very smart, or what?

The sidewalk in front of your house is NOT your property. Thus I could form a protest there and try to hand you literature every time you left your house or came home. Tell me you wouldn't be calling the police....

 

[francoHFW]

Those gd commie university types daring to have campus rules. Obviously targeting the GOP just like the IRS...it's amazing how high the propaganda machine can pile this crap. Always turns out it's obscure bs or a put up job to get some copy to sell to the chumps... .If there was anything to it, corporate media would jump on it. All they care about is controversy and ratings...If they were journalists after the truth, they would have told the RW to shove their "facts" a long time ago...

 

[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.

Can it remove students from campus? I think not.

Colleges most certainly CAN remove students from campus.

Not without them committing some kind of violation.

Like handing out copies of the COTUS in violation of campus codes, perhaps?

Depends on the situation and place..............Is it a public domain area as a sidewalk or a street, or classified as a residential area as the University claims.........

There are pros and cons to this.............and the con would be a VOCAL protest there could cause problems that would disrupt the sleep or studying of students at their home......aka dorm.................but that didn't happen here in this case.

 

[eagle1462010]

These students didn't disrupt anyone. They simply offered a copy of the constitution to anyone who wanted one, and asked if they'd sign a petition. If you didn't want to do so then show me where they harassed anyone.

Again, how would you like if someone stood on the sidewalk outside your home and offered you ANYTHING every time you came or went?

They are college students, I'm fairly certain most of them could manage to find a copy of the COTUS without these people standing outside their dorms offering them if they so desired.

I don't live outside a dorm room on a University. That is an apples to oranges argument.

The question I asked earlier/comment is under the law would this side walk and street be classified as a Free Speech Zone or not.......It is on a campus, and I've provided one court case where Texas Tech LOST in Free Speech Zones.............

And if you've ever been on a University campus you'd realize that there are always more than one side walk anyway.......

I see no violation or REASON to not allow them to pass the copy out.

And I've also shown a similar but not the same court case showing how Grace beat a Court House No Free Speech Zone as the sign was classified as a Flag.............The Constitution would be in that same catagory.

To me, this shouldn't have been a problem as these students were NOT DISTURBING the Peace there. Had they had loud speeches and caused civil discourse then I wouldn't be saying this.

I understand both sides of the equation. It is not cut and dry on their policy, as other Universities have lost the court case for similar reasons.......And could win via other examples where they disrupted others.

This case didn't disrupt jack squat.

Some how I imagine that if they were instead asking for signatures on a petition to legalize gay marriage your opinion would change. No, in fact I'm 100% sure of it.


Oh, also it is an APPLES to APPLES comparison if you have ANY public right away abutting your property. That means if you have a sidewalk in your front yard, that's public property, moreso than on a college campus in fact.

I don't care what you imagine and I would not change my opinion on their ability to pass out that material even though I'd say they have the right to be retards...........

And my property is not a University............

What if they giving out coupons to a pizza place.........Would you be for or against it, and then change the subject ot solicitation over Free Speech..........I guarantee you that there are probably food coupons all over that campus.................

Again, these people didn't cause any real problem at all by handing the stuff out.........

We could go to a parking lot at a store, and find cases for and against the right of the Salvation army to ring a bell and collect money around Christmas.........Are you annoyed by this, and should they be thrown off that property as it's not a public place or is it a public place. Courts have differed on that opinion.......

I have posted cases for my opinions both for and against the University. Where is your legal documents supporting your position...........

Are you just not very smart, or what?

The sidewalk in front of your house is NOT your property. Thus I could form a protest there and try to hand you literature every time you left your house or came home. Tell me you wouldn't be calling the police....

That is NOT THE SAME AS A CAMPUS............And unless I deeded that property over to the city, it would be under different by laws than on a campus.

I've provided Court cases to the definition of sidewalks and streets via Supreme court rulings.......what have you provided other than saying I'm stupid..................

A residential neighborhood is NOT THE SAME.

 

[eagle1462010]

These students didn't disrupt anyone. They simply offered a copy of the constitution to anyone who wanted one, and asked if they'd sign a petition. If you didn't want to do so then show me where they harassed anyone.

Again, how would you like if someone stood on the sidewalk outside your home and offered you ANYTHING every time you came or went?

They are college students, I'm fairly certain most of them could manage to find a copy of the COTUS without these people standing outside their dorms offering them if they so desired.

I don't live outside a dorm room on a University. That is an apples to oranges argument.

The question I asked earlier/comment is under the law would this side walk and street be classified as a Free Speech Zone or not.......It is on a campus, and I've provided one court case where Texas Tech LOST in Free Speech Zones.............

And if you've ever been on a University campus you'd realize that there are always more than one side walk anyway.......

I see no violation or REASON to not allow them to pass the copy out.

And I've also shown a similar but not the same court case showing how Grace beat a Court House No Free Speech Zone as the sign was classified as a Flag.............The Constitution would be in that same catagory.

To me, this shouldn't have been a problem as these students were NOT DISTURBING the Peace there. Had they had loud speeches and caused civil discourse then I wouldn't be saying this.

I understand both sides of the equation. It is not cut and dry on their policy, as other Universities have lost the court case for similar reasons.......And could win via other examples where they disrupted others.

This case didn't disrupt jack squat.

Some how I imagine that if they were instead asking for signatures on a petition to legalize gay marriage your opinion would change. No, in fact I'm 100% sure of it.


Oh, also it is an APPLES to APPLES comparison if you have ANY public right away abutting your property. That means if you have a sidewalk in your front yard, that's public property, moreso than on a college campus in fact.

I don't care what you imagine and I would not change my opinion on their ability to pass out that material even though I'd say they have the right to be retards...........

And my property is not a University............

What if they giving out coupons to a pizza place.........Would you be for or against it, and then change the subject ot solicitation over Free Speech..........I guarantee you that there are probably food coupons all over that campus.................

Again, these people didn't cause any real problem at all by handing the stuff out.........

We could go to a parking lot at a store, and find cases for and against the right of the Salvation army to ring a bell and collect money around Christmas.........Are you annoyed by this, and should they be thrown off that property as it's not a public place or is it a public place. Courts have differed on that opinion.......

I have posted cases for my opinions both for and against the University. Where is your legal documents supporting your position...........

Are you just not very smart, or what?

The sidewalk in front of your house is NOT your property. Thus I could form a protest there and try to hand you literature every time you left your house or came home. Tell me you wouldn't be calling the police....

I would knock you flat out by the way, on a campus I'd tell you to go take a long walk off a short bridge if I didn't like what you were preaching.

I had a neighbor actually get dirt off the front part of my property, saying it wasn't my property but the cities...........after a simple argument I reminded him if he did it again he would go to jail.

It is an EASEMENT OF MY PROPERTY....not meaning I GAVE MY PROPERTY AWAY............So a sidewalk EASEMENT is in NO WAY PUBLIC LAND.