What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Quantum Windbag]

They're also the people who want to put armed guards in schools everywhere,

but here they won't allow a University to beef up security for one event.

Crazy shit.

True.

And they attempt to make the unsubstantiated claim that the security fee was intended to ‘preempt’ those opposed to privacy rights from speaking.

If there hadn't been security and some anti-abortion terrorist had shown up and shot some pro-choicers, then these people would be blaming it on gun free zones,

and giving us that business about the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that gets through your bias.

How other people react to what you say is not justification for charging you more to say it.
​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not saying who's right or wrong here, as far as plaintiff/defendant go.

So far I've mostly just added relevant information and tried to lay out a framework for what the issues are, and what the arguments are going to be.

Except none of the information you have added is relevant, and you really haven't addressed any of the posts that anyone has made that point out why your posts are irrelevant. Which actually means that all you have actually done here is waste electrons.

You're the guy who believes in no government at all. You're hardly fit to an arbiter of what is or isn't relevant.

Who should control campus security?

Funny how you always have to resort to a strawman when I am in a thread, isn't it?

 

[The T]

True.

And they attempt to make the unsubstantiated claim that the security fee was intended to ‘preempt’ those opposed to privacy rights from speaking.

If there hadn't been security and some anti-abortion terrorist had shown up and shot some pro-choicers, then these people would be blaming it on gun free zones,

and giving us that business about the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in a way that gets through your bias.

How other people react to what you say is not justification for charging you more to say it.​

Freedom of speech is MORE free to some...somehow it JUST IS...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If the KKK caused a riot on the campus because a pro LGBT group brought in a some black drag queens would you blame the students, or the KKK? Personally, I would blame the KKK, which is why the alleged riot is irrelevant, even if it actually happened.

The purpose of campus security is to provide campus security.

Are you aware that the person arrested at the disturbance was a pro-choice professor?

Of course you aren't. Now you can pretend that's irrelevant too.

The purpose of campus security is to protect the school, just ask anyone who has ever been on a campus. If they were actually there to protect people there would be no crime on campus.

 

[The T]

If the KKK caused a riot on the campus because a pro LGBT group brought in a some black drag queens would you blame the students, or the KKK? Personally, I would blame the KKK, which is why the alleged riot is irrelevant, even if it actually happened.

The purpose of campus security is to provide campus security.

Are you aware that the person arrested at the disturbance was a pro-choice professor?

Of course you aren't. Now you can pretend that's irrelevant too.

The purpose of campus security is to protect the school, just ask anyone who has ever been on a campus. If they were actually there to protect people there would be no crime on campus.

And If they were ARMED...just think of what they could do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, this isn't another thread about Duck Dynasty, just to get that out of the way. This thread is about the value of free speech. In April of this year, UB Students for Life; a Pro-Life student group at the University of Buffalo was charged $650 in "security fees" to hold a debate on abortion on campus, and are in the midst of a lawsuit against the school for placing unfair burdens on their rights to free speech. So, what is the price of free speech? What is the price of holding on to an ideal or view you hold dear? What is the price of defending what you believe is right and true? If this case is any indication, we're about to find out.

University at Buffalo charged pro-life student group $650 in 'unconstitutional fees,' lawsuit alleges | Fox News

Did the university have to provide extra security officers to protect the participants, then it strikes me the fees were reasonable.

Newsflash, it is irrelevant if the university had to hire security unless they apply those fees to everyone.

Wait,
I already said that, multiple times. JoeB is just an idiot that loves to see the government trample on people, and then pretend that it doesn't matter cause it wasn't him.

You're making an absurdly illogical assumption that every event at a university has exactly the same security issues.

 

[The T]

Did the university have to provide extra security officers to protect the participants, then it strikes me the fees were reasonable.

Newsflash, it is irrelevant if the university had to hire security unless they apply those fees to everyone.

Wait,
I already said that, multiple times. JoeB is just an idiot that loves to see the government trample on people, and then pretend that it doesn't matter cause it wasn't him.

You're making an absurdly illogical assumption that every event at a university has exactly the same security issues.

But they DO for everyone that comes on campus. *I* know. Try another illogical one Carbonated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did the university have to provide extra security officers to protect the participants, then it strikes me the fees were reasonable.

Newsflash, it is irrelevant if the university had to hire security unless they apply those fees to everyone.

Wait,
I already said that, multiple times. JoeB is just an idiot that loves to see the government trample on people, and then pretend that it doesn't matter cause it wasn't him.

You're making an absurdly illogical assumption that every event at a university has exactly the same security issues.

I am not making any such assumption, asshole, I am applying the fucking law, you should try it sometime.

Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals assessed the constitutionality of several speech policies at Southeastern Louisiana University (SLU). The court held that SLU's policy concerning the imposition of security fees on demonstrators violated the First Amendment, sending a signal to universities that they cannot penalize controversial speakers for audience reaction. However, giving an unwarranted amount of deference to SLU, the Fifth Circuit upheld the school's policies limiting the times and places where non-students can gather.

Federal Court of Appeals Rejects Unconstitutional Security Fee Policy, But Upholds University's Limitations on Non-Student Speech - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education - FIRE

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Why do I have to explain the same thing multiple times? Do you idiots not know how to read?

The only way they can charge a security fee for an event that impinges on speech is if they charge everyone the same fee. It cannot be based on the expected reaction to the content of the event because that is a content based restriction on free speech, which is unconstitutional. If you can't get that through the miniscule hole you use to feed information to your brain cell, shut the fuck up.

Nonsense.

 

[The T]

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.

Why do I have to explain the same thing multiple times? Do you idiots not know how to read?

The only way they can charge a security fee for an event that impinges on speech is if they charge everyone the same fee. It cannot be based on the expected reaction to the content of the event because that is a content based restriction on free speech, which is unconstitutional. If you can't get that through the miniscule hole you use to feed information to your brain cell, shut the fuck up.

Nonsense.

WHAT nonsense? Highlight it...or does TRUTH hit a nerve with you Lunger?

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I can agree with you in the regard of selective application especially since I believe UB is a public university meaning it actually belongs to the people. However, I believe they can justify the charge. Abortion is a controversial topic and there could very easily have been trouble. A debate between Christians and Atheists is not as likely to break out in violence. Now, if a pro-choice group wanted "equal time" I would think the university would be obligated to charge said group as well... I doubt they would, but they would be obligated to do so.

At least in my humble opinion.

Immie

 

[LoneLaugher]

All of it. Nonsense.

 

[The T]

All of it. Nonsense.

Just like YOUR POSTS, right, Lunger? Now WHY does ONE group get charged a FEE, and NO OTHERS do? CARE to explain it? Or is it NONSENSE?

 

[LoneLaugher]

All of it. Nonsense.

Just like YOUR POSTS, right, Lunger?

You are too smart for me. Mercy!

 

[The T]

All of it. Nonsense.

Just like YOUR POSTS, right, Lunger?

You are too smart for me. Mercy!

WHY does ONE group of Americans get charged for speaking, and ALL OTHERS don't? CARE to explain it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just like YOUR POSTS, right, Lunger?

You are too smart for me. Mercy!

WHY does ONE group of Americans get charged for speaking, and ALL OTHERS don't? CARE to explain it?

You have not established that as fact.

If that claim is established as fact, I would be inclined to support the student group in this case.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Why do I have to explain the same thing multiple times? Do you idiots not know how to read?

The only way they can charge a security fee for an event that impinges on speech is if they charge everyone the same fee. It cannot be based on the expected reaction to the content of the event because that is a content based restriction on free speech, which is unconstitutional. If you can't get that through the miniscule hole you use to feed information to your brain cell, shut the fuck up.

Really QW? I think you are living in the America that people from my generation believe we had at one time: an America that no longer exists if it ever did.

As passage of Obamacare proves... they can do whatever the hell they want and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it.

Immie

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Why do I have to explain the same thing multiple times? Do you idiots not know how to read?

The only way they can charge a security fee for an event that impinges on speech is if they charge everyone the same fee. It cannot be based on the expected reaction to the content of the event because that is a content based restriction on free speech, which is unconstitutional. If you can't get that through the miniscule hole you use to feed information to your brain cell, shut the fuck up.

Really QW? I think you are living in the America that people from my generation believe we had at one time: an America that no longer exists if it ever did.

As passage of Obamacare proves... they can do whatever the hell they want and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it.

Immie

Who is "they"?

 

[The T]

Why do I have to explain the same thing multiple times? Do you idiots not know how to read?

The only way they can charge a security fee for an event that impinges on speech is if they charge everyone the same fee. It cannot be based on the expected reaction to the content of the event because that is a content based restriction on free speech, which is unconstitutional. If you can't get that through the miniscule hole you use to feed information to your brain cell, shut the fuck up.

Really QW? I think you are living in the America that people from my generation believe we had at one time: an America that no longer exists if it ever did.

As passage of Obamacare proves... they can do whatever the hell they want and there ain't a damn thing we can do about it.

Immie

Who is "they"?

GUESS Lunger. READ the thread idiot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

I can agree with you in the regard of selective application especially since I believe UB is a public university meaning it actually belongs to the people. However, I believe they can justify the charge. Abortion is a controversial topic and there could very easily have been trouble. A debate between Christians and Atheists is not as likely to break out in violence. Now, if a pro-choice group wanted "equal time" I would think the university would be obligated to charge said group as well... I doubt they would, but they would be obligated to do so.

At least in my humble opinion.

Immie

I can understand and relate to that line of reasoning, but it wouldn't hold up in the court of law. A university can't simply profile one group or another for faulty reasons such as "we're afraid they'll start a riot" or something along those lines. Since they receive government funding, they are obligated by the constitution same as the government to obligate the free speech rights of any all students, provided the speech does not disrupt normal campus operations.