What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[LoneLaugher]

It's quite odd nobody else had to endure this fee, except for this group.

Serious question TK...

How did you establish this. IIRC the article in the OP noted that two other meetings in the building that night were not charged a fee, however that does not mean that no other event has ever been charged a fee for security.

Am I missing something and you have other information that I hasn't been presented showing that nobody else has been charged with security?



>>>>

Yes....has that been established?

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

This wasn't a government issue.

This was a bunch of Christian Douchebags insisting on their right to be douchebags.

Again, it goes back to what Mike Royko's suggestion about the Nazis who wanted to March In Skokie.

Let them, and let them take the consequences.

But the university thought, "meh, we don't want these guys to take the asskicking that they deserve." And they laid on extra security that really, the frat party probbly didn't need.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's quite odd nobody else had to endure this fee, except for this group.

Serious question TK...

How did you establish this. IIRC the article in the OP noted that two other meetings in the building that night were not charged a fee, however that does not mean that no other event has ever been charged a fee for security.

Am I missing something and you have other information that I hasn't been presented showing that nobody else has been charged with security?



>>>>

You can administer the fee to 999 out of 1000 groups. If you are only charging those 999 and not the one, that's wrong.

You can give free access to 999 out of 1000 groups, but if you give free access to the 999 and not the one, that's also wrong.

Simple point here is: it doesn't matter. Either way, it's discriminatory, either way it abridges someone's right to free speech.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's quite odd nobody else had to endure this fee, except for this group.

Serious question TK...

How did you establish this. IIRC the article in the OP noted that two other meetings in the building that night were not charged a fee, however that does not mean that no other event has ever been charged a fee for security.

Am I missing something and you have other information that I hasn't been presented showing that nobody else has been charged with security?



>>>>

You can administer the fee to 999 out of 1000 groups. If you are only charging those 999 and not the one, that's wrong.

You can give free access to 999 out of 1000 groups, but if you give free access to the 999 and not the one, that's also wrong.

Simple point here is: it doesn't matter. Either way, it's discriminatory, either way it abridges someone's right to free speech.

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

 

[LoneLaugher]

Serious question TK...

How did you establish this. IIRC the article in the OP noted that two other meetings in the building that night were not charged a fee, however that does not mean that no other event has ever been charged a fee for security.

Am I missing something and you have other information that I hasn't been presented showing that nobody else has been charged with security?



>>>>

You can administer the fee to 999 out of 1000 groups. If you are only charging those 999 and not the one, that's wrong.

You can give free access to 999 out of 1000 groups, but if you give free access to the 999 and not the one, that's also wrong.

Simple point here is: it doesn't matter. Either way, it's discriminatory, either way it abridges someone's right to free speech.

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

I'm right there with you. Have other groups been charged?

And if not......are there circumstances that justify the charges?

And if not.....the student group has a legitimate gripe.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can administer the fee to 999 out of 1000 groups. If you are only charging those 999 and not the one, that's wrong.

You can give free access to 999 out of 1000 groups, but if you give free access to the 999 and not the one, that's also wrong.

Simple point here is: it doesn't matter. Either way, it's discriminatory, either way it abridges someone's right to free speech.

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

I'm right there with you. Have other groups been charged?

And if not......are there circumstances that justify the charges?

And if not.....the student group has a legitimate gripe.

I don't know what "right there with you means", I haven't expressed either a personal opinion on the matter or dug into it to see what the legal status of fees for booking events might be.

I'm just asking if:

1. Is this a new policy/fee never used before,

2. An old policy never before enforced, or

3. The statement that "nobody else has been required to pay the fee" (to paraphrase) is factually in correct.​

That's all at this point.


>>>>

 

[The T]

Serious question TK...

How did you establish this. IIRC the article in the OP noted that two other meetings in the building that night were not charged a fee, however that does not mean that no other event has ever been charged a fee for security.

Am I missing something and you have other information that I hasn't been presented showing that nobody else has been charged with security?



>>>>

You can administer the fee to 999 out of 1000 groups. If you are only charging those 999 and not the one, that's wrong.

You can give free access to 999 out of 1000 groups, but if you give free access to the 999 and not the one, that's also wrong.

Simple point here is: it doesn't matter. Either way, it's discriminatory, either way it abridges someone's right to free speech.

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

TK gave an EXAMPLE...ONE group WAS charged...when NO others had before...and guess what? THEY were NOT a PC group...Guess what that means?

 

[LoneLaugher]

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

I'm right there with you. Have other groups been charged?

And if not......are there circumstances that justify the charges?

And if not.....the student group has a legitimate gripe.

I don't know what "right there with you means", I haven't expressed either a personal opinion on the matter or dug into it to see what the legal status of fees for booking events might be.

I'm just asking if:

1. Is this a new policy/fee never used before,

2. An old policy never before enforced, or

3. The statement that "nobody else has been required to pay the fee" (to paraphrase) is factually in correct.​

That's all at this point.


>>>>

I am asking with you. That is what it means. Have you not seen me ask the same question a half dozen times?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Serious question TK...

How did you establish this. IIRC the article in the OP noted that two other meetings in the building that night were not charged a fee, however that does not mean that no other event has ever been charged a fee for security.

Am I missing something and you have other information that I hasn't been presented showing that nobody else has been charged with security?



>>>>

You can administer the fee to 999 out of 1000 groups. If you are only charging those 999 and not the one, that's wrong.

You can give free access to 999 out of 1000 groups, but if you give free access to the 999 and not the one, that's also wrong.

Simple point here is: it doesn't matter. Either way, it's discriminatory, either way it abridges someone's right to free speech.

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

The university is a public forum for the exchange of ideas. We respect the rights of all students and their organizations to present their views on a variety of topics, and we ask others to respect these rights as well. As a university, we promote understanding and diversity of thought and cannot tolerate repression of expression.

The University at Buffalo should not attempt to repress free expression because a particular view or views are morally repugnant or personally offensive to members of the university or greater community. In fact, Rules of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York specifically state, “No student, faculty or other staff member or authorized visitor shall be subject to any limitation or penalty neither solely for the expression of his views nor for having assembled with others for such purpose.”

UB Statement of Freedom of Speech and Assembly - News Center

 

[LoneLaugher]

you can administer the fee to 999 out of 1000 groups. If you are only charging those 999 and not the one, that's wrong.

You can give free access to 999 out of 1000 groups, but if you give free access to the 999 and not the one, that's also wrong.

Simple point here is: It doesn't matter. Either way, it's discriminatory, either way it abridges someone's right to free speech.

as i read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - i simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the op?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

the university is a public forum for the exchange of ideas. We respect the rights of all students and their organizations to present their views on a variety of topics, and we ask others to respect these rights as well. As a university, we promote understanding and diversity of thought and cannot tolerate repression of expression.

The university at buffalo should not attempt to repress free expression because a particular view or views are morally repugnant or personally offensive to members of the university or greater community. In fact, rules of the board of trustees of the state university of new york specifically state, “no student, faculty or other staff member or authorized visitor shall be subject to any limitation or penalty neither solely for the expression of his views nor for having assembled with others for such purpose.”

ub statement of freedom of speech and assembly - news center

tk...

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that no other group using the facilities at ub have been charged fees or security or other facility costs???????????

What you just cited is not related to fees charged for facilities.

 

[The T]

as i read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - i simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the op?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

the university is a public forum for the exchange of ideas. We respect the rights of all students and their organizations to present their views on a variety of topics, and we ask others to respect these rights as well. As a university, we promote understanding and diversity of thought and cannot tolerate repression of expression.

The university at buffalo should not attempt to repress free expression because a particular view or views are morally repugnant or personally offensive to members of the university or greater community. In fact, rules of the board of trustees of the state university of new york specifically state, “no student, faculty or other staff member or authorized visitor shall be subject to any limitation or penalty neither solely for the expression of his views nor for having assembled with others for such purpose.”

ub statement of freedom of speech and assembly - news center

tk...

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that no other group using the facilities at ub have been charged fees or security or other facility costs???????????

What you just cited is not related to fees charged for facilities.

Does it matter? A group was CHARGED. What is wrong with you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

E. Freedom of Speech and Assembly; Picketing and Demonstrations.

1. No student, faculty member or other staff member or authorized visitor shall be subject to any limitation or penalty for expressing his or her views or for assembling with others for such purpose;

a. peaceful picketing and other orderly demonstrations in public areas of campus grounds and buildings are not subject to interference provided there are no violations of the rules in section I.A. of this policy.

2. In order to provide maximum protection to the participants expressing their freedom of speech and to the campus community, each president shall:


a. promulgate procedures appropriate to that campus for provision of reasonable advance notice of the date and time of any planned assembly, picketing or demonstrations upon the grounds of the campus; the proposed location of the assembly or exercise; and the intended purpose;

i. the procedures and processes shall be reviewed and revised periodically;

ii. the procedures and processes for advance notice shall not be made a condition precedent to any assembly, picketing or demonstration; and

iii. providing advance notice shall not automatically have permission to use a campus facility or building without also following the appropriate processes for obtaining permission to use campus facilities and building

The Board of Trustees of the State University of New York Rules for the Maintenance of Public Order

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can administer the fee to 999 out of 1000 groups. If you are only charging those 999 and not the one, that's wrong.

You can give free access to 999 out of 1000 groups, but if you give free access to the 999 and not the one, that's also wrong.

Simple point here is: it doesn't matter. Either way, it's discriminatory, either way it abridges someone's right to free speech.

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

TK gave an EXAMPLE...ONE group WAS charged...when NO others had before...and guess what? THEY were NOT a PC group...Guess what that means?

No, that's not what he gave. I'm simply asking for the source of there "no others had been charged before comes from", it's not from the OP link.

Simply stating that no other group had been charged is not giving an example, just because other groups in that building that night weren't charged does not substantiate that no other groups had ever been charged.


>>>>

 

[The T]

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

TK gave an EXAMPLE...ONE group WAS charged...when NO others had before...and guess what? THEY were NOT a PC group...Guess what that means?

No, that's not what he gave. I'm simply asking for the source of there "no others had been charged before comes from", it's not from the OP link.


>>>>

YOU need to go back then.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I read through the tread you made the claim multiple times that no other group had been charged the fee - I simply asked where you got that information. Is it based on fact? A misunderstanding of the OP?

I didn't comment at all about 999 or 1000 groups. I was trying to establish if what you said was true or if it was made-up.


>>>>

TK gave an EXAMPLE...ONE group WAS charged...when NO others had before...and guess what? THEY were NOT a PC group...Guess what that means?

No, that's not what he gave. I'm simply asking for the source of there "no others had been charged before comes from", it's not from the OP link.


>>>>

You're being facetious. There isn't one. Simply because New York law prohibits the assessment of penalties on any student groups that limit their free speech.

8 NYCRR §535.4 (a)

No student, faculty or other staff member or authorized visitor shall be subject to any limitation or penalty solely for the expression of his views nor for having assembled with others for such purpose. Peaceful picketing and other orderly demonstrations in public areas of ground and building will not be interfered with. Those involved in picketing and demonstrations may not, however, engage in specific conduct in violation of the provisions of the preceding section.

As far as I can tell, assessing a so-called "security fee" against one group is an act of penalizing the free speech of one group but not the other. The example is already there. There's nothing for you to disprove. The law prohibits charging student groups fees in order to exercise their free speech rights.

 

[The T]

TK gave an EXAMPLE...ONE group WAS charged...when NO others had before...and guess what? THEY were NOT a PC group...Guess what that means?

No, that's not what he gave. I'm simply asking for the source of there "no others had been charged before comes from", it's not from the OP link.


>>>>

You're being facetious.

He knows it. Being a hardass.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

BTW - The applicable case is Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement (1992) where the SCOTUS determined that fees (beyond a nominal amount) were limiting on Free Speech when such fees existed without defined guidelines and were solely at the discretion of a government official.

Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).

So UB will probably not win in court on this one.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

TK gave an EXAMPLE...ONE group WAS charged...when NO others had before...and guess what? THEY were NOT a PC group...Guess what that means?

No, that's not what he gave. I'm simply asking for the source of there "no others had been charged before comes from", it's not from the OP link.


>>>>

YOU need to go back then.

I've read the whole thread, mind giving me the number of TK's post where he documents that no other group has been charged?



>>>>

 

[The T]

>

BTW - The applicable case is Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement (1992) where the SCOTUS determined that fees (beyond a nominal amount) were limiting on Free Speech when such fees existed without defined guidelines and were solely at the discretion of a government official.

Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).

So UB will probably not win in court on this one.


>>>>

WE aren't talking Georgia, now ARE we? What in Sam Hill has this to do with it?

 

[The T]

No, that's not what he gave. I'm simply asking for the source of there "no others had been charged before comes from", it's not from the OP link.


>>>>

YOU need to go back then.

I've read the whole thread, mind giving me the number of TK's post where he documents that no other group has been charged?



>>>>

Mind READING IT AGAIN? IF NOT? GUESS what the answer is?