Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So the University has a good argument that it was not unreasonable for them to require additional security based on the nature of the event, as well as the timing of the event.
Do you want to argue that the University should not have the right to exercise discretion matters of security?
If so go ahead.
based upon your spurious reasoning,
the university should charge each male student $5 for every time they go out after dark...
and charge each female student $10...
'n the administrator should be charged, say, $100 per day for security if he continues to insist upon being such a lightning-rod jerk...
The university was definetly in the wrong, and should return the money they charged the group. But this Is not a constitutional issue.
TRANSLATION: "I lost the argument so I need to CHANGE MY TAMPON..."Damn, that is incredibly stupid.
They are going to lose it because the fees violate the 1st Amendment. You can blather on all day long, and rationalize your way around the entire debate, but they will still lose because they violated the free speech rights of that group. You might not like it, but that is your fucking problem, and I don't fucking care if you get butthurt over other people's speech.
I've made no comment on the content of anybody's speech, neither here nor in the Robertson kerfuffle, oh drama queen. All I've discussed is how it works.
Fucking sorry if fucking that's fucking inconfuckingvenient, drama queen. Go change your tampon.
YOU wimp.
No sweat TK. Understood. When attacked, I give as I get. As to the rest of it? The PM's he's getting aren't from me. A NEG he got for being disingenuous, and deserved for advocating that which he knows is untrue AND attacking me falsely.TRANSLATION: "I lost the argument so I need to CHANGE MY TAMPON..."I've made no comment on the content of anybody's speech, neither here nor in the Robertson kerfuffle, oh drama queen. All I've discussed is how it works.
Fucking sorry if fucking that's fucking inconfuckingvenient, drama queen. Go change your tampon.
YOU wimp.
T. I want a debate here, not a flame fest. I love ya, but you and Pogo should simply stop addressing one another. Please, I beg of you two not to get my thread moved.
As for anyone else who feels it necessary to PM bomb someone for having an opinion, that's out of line. I was informed of such behavior and will come out and say that I do not condone it. I don't care who you are, what party you are or what views you hold. To neg, PM bomb or otherwise take out anger on someone for having an opinion is not right.
The university was definetly in the wrong, and should return the money they charged the group. But this Is not a constitutional issue.
I'm just jumping into this discussion and only read the first few posts. I came across this and I disagree, even though I am pro-life.
I think the university was within its right to charge the group at the very least a security "deposit". Perhaps it should have been returned if there were no altercations or damage done to university property, but one could argue that due to the nature of the event, security guards would have to be paid to maintain the peace and at the universities expense.
Whether or not they choose to do the same if a pro-choice event is held would be up to the administrators of the university.
Just my humble opinion.
Immie
No sweat TK. Understood. When attacked, I give as I get. As to the rest of it? The PM's he's getting aren't from me. A NEG he got for being disingenuous, and deserved for advocating that which he knows is untrue AND attacking me falsely.TRANSLATION: "I lost the argument so I need to CHANGE MY TAMPON..."
YOU wimp.
T. I want a debate here, not a flame fest. I love ya, but you and Pogo should simply stop addressing one another. Please, I beg of you two not to get my thread moved.
As for anyone else who feels it necessary to PM bomb someone for having an opinion, that's out of line. I was informed of such behavior and will come out and say that I do not condone it. I don't care who you are, what party you are or what views you hold. To neg, PM bomb or otherwise take out anger on someone for having an opinion is not right.
Otherwise? I am OUT of this thread unless I read something else disingenuous and feel compelled to address. Love you too brother.
The university was definetly in the wrong, and should return the money they charged the group. But this Is not a constitutional issue.
I'm just jumping into this discussion and only read the first few posts. I came across this and I disagree, even though I am pro-life.
I think the university was within its right to charge the group at the very least a security "deposit". Perhaps it should have been returned if there were no altercations or damage done to university property, but one could argue that due to the nature of the event, security guards would have to be paid to maintain the peace and at the universities expense.
Whether or not they choose to do the same if a pro-choice event is held would be up to the administrators of the university.
Just my humble opinion.
Immie
I respect that. But what the university cannot do is selectively apply this fee. Nobody else on campus was required to pay it. As the article states, A similar debate between Christians and Atheists was held, and they were not required by the University to pay such a fee.
PRICE isn't the ISSUE. It is ALL being treated equally.I'm just jumping into this discussion and only read the first few posts. I came across this and I disagree, even though I am pro-life.
I think the university was within its right to charge the group at the very least a security "deposit". Perhaps it should have been returned if there were no altercations or damage done to university property, but one could argue that due to the nature of the event, security guards would have to be paid to maintain the peace and at the universities expense.
Whether or not they choose to do the same if a pro-choice event is held would be up to the administrators of the university.
Just my humble opinion.
Immie
I respect that. But what the university cannot do is selectively apply this fee. Nobody else on campus was required to pay it. As the article states, A similar debate between Christians and Atheists was held, and they were not required by the University to pay such a fee.
They can apply the fee based on their understanding of the need for security. It is their choice. How much security do you think is bought for $650, anyway.
Your insistence that the Christian/Athiest debate is an identical situation is odd. You don't have enough information to make that claim.
I'm just jumping into this discussion and only read the first few posts. I came across this and I disagree, even though I am pro-life.
I think the university was within its right to charge the group at the very least a security "deposit". Perhaps it should have been returned if there were no altercations or damage done to university property, but one could argue that due to the nature of the event, security guards would have to be paid to maintain the peace and at the universities expense.
Whether or not they choose to do the same if a pro-choice event is held would be up to the administrators of the university.
Just my humble opinion.
Immie
I respect that. But what the university cannot do is selectively apply this fee. Nobody else on campus was required to pay it. As the article states, A similar debate between Christians and Atheists was held, and they were not required by the University to pay such a fee.
They can apply the fee based on their understanding of the need for security. It is their choice. How much security do you think is bought for $650, anyway.
Your insistence that the Christian/Athiest debate is an identical situation is odd. You don't have enough information to make that claim.
I respect that. But what the university cannot do is selectively apply this fee. Nobody else on campus was required to pay it. As the article states, A similar debate between Christians and Atheists was held, and they were not required by the University to pay such a fee.
They can apply the fee based on their understanding of the need for security. It is their choice. How much security do you think is bought for $650, anyway.
Your insistence that the Christian/Athiest debate is an identical situation is odd. You don't have enough information to make that claim.
That's garbage reasoning, LL.
They both used the same freaking building. Can the university levy the fee? Yes. Can they selectively apply it based on religious or political viewpoints? No. Even still, the "security" just sat outside and read the newspaper. The building itself most likely owned by the government, meaning the University was out of bounds by charging the fee. That is the issue being addressed here.
Does it matter? They WERE charged when others WERE NOT...WHY?They can apply the fee based on their understanding of the need for security. It is their choice. How much security do you think is bought for $650, anyway.
Your insistence that the Christian/Athiest debate is an identical situation is odd. You don't have enough information to make that claim.
That's garbage reasoning, LL.
They both used the same freaking building. Can the university levy the fee? Yes. Can they selectively apply it based on religious or political viewpoints? No. Even still, the "security" just sat outside and read the newspaper. The building itself most likely owned by the government, meaning the University was out of bounds by charging the fee. That is the issue being addressed here.
Garbage reasoning huh?
What proof do you have that their religious or political viewpoints had anything to do with the amount of the fee? Any at all?
Does it matter? They WERE charged when others WERE NOT...WHY?That's garbage reasoning, LL.
They both used the same freaking building. Can the university levy the fee? Yes. Can they selectively apply it based on religious or political viewpoints? No. Even still, the "security" just sat outside and read the newspaper. The building itself most likely owned by the government, meaning the University was out of bounds by charging the fee. That is the issue being addressed here.
Garbage reasoning huh?
What proof do you have that their religious or political viewpoints had anything to do with the amount of the fee? Any at all?
I saw that. All of it. I sent it as a reminder to whom I was addressing.Does it matter? They WERE charged when others WERE NOT...WHY?Garbage reasoning huh?
What proof do you have that their religious or political viewpoints had anything to do with the amount of the fee? Any at all?
I believe that was established amidst all the trolling and name calling in between. Cecilie put it best, no denial needed to have occurred for abridgement to take place. It's as simple as that.
Does it matter? They WERE charged when others WERE NOT...WHY?That's garbage reasoning, LL.
They both used the same freaking building. Can the university levy the fee? Yes. Can they selectively apply it based on religious or political viewpoints? No. Even still, the "security" just sat outside and read the newspaper. The building itself most likely owned by the government, meaning the University was out of bounds by charging the fee. That is the issue being addressed here.
Garbage reasoning huh?
What proof do you have that their religious or political viewpoints had anything to do with the amount of the fee? Any at all?
The university has some explaining to do.
Didn't we just establish there was a near-riot there the previous week on this same issue? Are we ignoring that?
Let me be the first to admit, I didn't look deeply into the story or look for corroboration, going so far by the OP's extract. But there's also the source -- Fox Noise. Some kind of cross check is definitely called for.
Did the pro-life group, or any of its adherents, start the "near-riot"? No? Then why would you penalize them simply for acquiring enemies who don't know how to behave in public? Try charging the fees for extra security to the people who actually break the law. I believe the law DOES provide for that sort of thing.
How is this a hard concept?
There was no silencing, but the attempt was made to. No other group at that University had to pay a fee to hold a debate. There are similar situations where a university refused to recognize a group for its views or otherwise discriminated against a group because of their viewpoints while other groups were unaffected. The case law is below.
Over 25 years ago, the Supreme Court handed down Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260 (1988), a case which gave public schools unbridled power to restrict the free speech of their students. However such a case only applied to high schoolers. But 16 years before, the Supreme Court held in Healy v. James 408 U.S. 169 (1972); that a college or university could not refuse to recognize an organization simply because university officials had an unproven fear of school disruption. In this case Central Connecticut State College's refusal to recognize a chapter of Students for a Democratic Society violated the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, the court recognized the campus to be a "marketplace of ideas."
A year later in Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri 410 U.S. 667 (1973), Healy was upheld by the Supreme Court saying Healy made "clear that the mere dissemination of ideas - no matter how offensive to good taste - on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency.'"
Almost 22 years later, the court handed down Rosenberger v. Rector of the University of Virginia 515 U.S. 819 (1995), where the University denied publication funding to a religious group, while handing the funding out to secular groups on campus. The court rejected the University's contention that funding a religious group would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, holding that such policy violated the First Amendment altogether. In the opinion the court held:
In ancient Athens, and, as Europe entered into a new period of intellectual awakening, in places like Bologna, Oxford, and Paris, universities began as voluntary and spontaneous assemblages or concourses for students to speak and to write and to learn. The quality and creative power of student intellectual life to this day remains a vital measure of a school's influence and attainment. For the University, by regulation, to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation's intellectual life, its college and university campuses.
So, to say that no violation of free speech occurred here would be inaccurate. Simply by discriminately charging student advocacy groups an inordinate fee for the right to hold a debate casts a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of these students, regardless if the event went on as planned. Schools can only limit speech if it causes a reasonable disruption to it's image or operations.
Does it matter? They WERE charged when others WERE NOT...WHY?That's garbage reasoning, LL.
They both used the same freaking building. Can the university levy the fee? Yes. Can they selectively apply it based on religious or political viewpoints? No. Even still, the "security" just sat outside and read the newspaper. The building itself most likely owned by the government, meaning the University was out of bounds by charging the fee. That is the issue being addressed here.
Garbage reasoning huh?
What proof do you have that their religious or political viewpoints had anything to do with the amount of the fee? Any at all?
Many of you conservatives had the opposite opinions on free speech during the Occupy protests, seems many of you supported all sorts of arbitrary and politically motivated caveats and conditions on protests as well as many calls for occupy to pay up for all the fucking cops and pepper spray.
