What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[NYcarbineer]

I believe the MSN article is incorrect. The complaint is here -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/UBSLcomplaint.pdf


1. Normally Universities don't charge an administrative fee for student organizations to reserve facilities at all. The school in this case had a policy and charge security fees when they determined that such actions might be required. (Which on it's face may violate a previous SCOTUS ruling on that issue.)

2. They were also in error in that the "$150" wasn't over what was normally charged - since there is normally no charge to reserve a room - the $150 was over what the Student Organization received in the school allocation for their budget which was $500.



>>>>

I considered that possibility because of the coincidence of the number 150, which is why I granted myself an escape clause by putting it in the form of a question lol.

Of course whether the event costs more the student group's budget is itself irrelevant. All sorts of groups, including student groups, engage in fundraisers, seek donations, sell stuff, etc., etc., in order to cover the costs of things they want to do that cost money.

Not the least of which is to simply charge admission.

Plus I don't think UB's administration would be expected to forego what they determined would be appropriate security based on whether or not it was convenient for a group to cover the cost of it, as required by the rules.

This will probably be the applicable case law -->> Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).

I've worked at schools and paying to use the facilities is as common as common gets.

My wife currently works at a University, they do not charge student organizations fees to use facilities, they only require pre-scheduling. Outside organizations have a fee structure based on the size of the facility needed.

My daughter just finished her undergraduate work, in her leadership positions with the AFROTC program one of her responsibilities was to request/schedule ROTC activities with the campus. No fees were charged to student groups for use of campus facilities.


>>>>

Ok, some do some don't fair enough.

The cost of facility use however is real to the University. Someone has to pay it. You can shift it to the tuition bills, the taxpayers, etc., I suppose.

 

[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.

No, as a matter of fact, if their "assessment" includes opinions about the speech being expressed, they CAN'T.

Assessments based on the size of the crowd likely to be attracted, yes. Based on whether or not the subject matter is "controversial", no.

Yeah.....that would be a load of bull. Sounded like legal stuff, though. Congrats.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I considered that possibility because of the coincidence of the number 150, which is why I granted myself an escape clause by putting it in the form of a question lol.

Of course whether the event costs more the student group's budget is itself irrelevant. All sorts of groups, including student groups, engage in fundraisers, seek donations, sell stuff, etc., etc., in order to cover the costs of things they want to do that cost money.

Not the least of which is to simply charge admission.

Plus I don't think UB's administration would be expected to forego what they determined would be appropriate security based on whether or not it was convenient for a group to cover the cost of it, as required by the rules.

This will probably be the applicable case law -->> Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).

I've worked at schools and paying to use the facilities is as common as common gets.

My wife currently works at a University, they do not charge student organizations fees to use facilities, they only require pre-scheduling. Outside organizations have a fee structure based on the size of the facility needed.

My daughter just finished her undergraduate work, in her leadership positions with the AFROTC program one of her responsibilities was to request/schedule ROTC activities with the campus. No fees were charged to student groups for use of campus facilities.


>>>>

Ok, some do some don't fair enough.

The cost of facility use however is real to the University. Someone has to pay it. You can shift it to the tuition bills, the taxpayers, etc., I suppose.

What part of "the building is government owned" did you not hear?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

No, as a matter of fact, if their "assessment" includes opinions about the speech being expressed, they CAN'T.

Assessments based on the size of the crowd likely to be attracted, yes. Based on whether or not the subject matter is "controversial", no.

Yeah.....that would be a load of bull. Sounded like legal stuff, though. Congrats.

An utterly thoughtless post. Running out of ideas?

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, as a matter of fact, if their "assessment" includes opinions about the speech being expressed, they CAN'T.

Assessments based on the size of the crowd likely to be attracted, yes. Based on whether or not the subject matter is "controversial", no.

Yeah.....that would be a load of bull. Sounded like legal stuff, though. Congrats.

An utterly thoughtless post. Running out of ideas?

Nope. But I am still waiting for you to prove that no other student group has ever been charged facilities usage fees by the University of Buffalo. You ever gonna do that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

This will probably be the applicable case law -->> Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).



My wife currently works at a University, they do not charge student organizations fees to use facilities, they only require pre-scheduling. Outside organizations have a fee structure based on the size of the facility needed.

My daughter just finished her undergraduate work, in her leadership positions with the AFROTC program one of her responsibilities was to request/schedule ROTC activities with the campus. No fees were charged to student groups for use of campus facilities.


>>>>

Ok, some do some don't fair enough.

The cost of facility use however is real to the University. Someone has to pay it. You can shift it to the tuition bills, the taxpayers, etc., I suppose.

What part of "the building is government owned" did you not hear?

Why is that in conflict with anything I said.

Let me say what I said in a different way:

If UB decides it needs $650 worth of extra security at an event, BUT,

UB is not allowed, for whatever reason, to impose that cost directly on those holding the event,

then UB has to get that same $650 somewhere else.

UB, obviously, has a finite set of revenues from various sources.

I was suggesting where they could get it. SOMEONE will have to pay it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah.....that would be a load of bull. Sounded like legal stuff, though. Congrats.

An utterly thoughtless post. Running out of ideas?

Nope. But I am still waiting for you to prove that no other student group has ever been charged facilities usage fees by the University of Buffalo. You ever gonna do that?

Can't. The law forbids that behavior, LL. So you'll be hard pressed to find an example. I will say that this group has been in existence on that campus since the 1980's, they were never charged this fee in the past, so why now?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ok, some do some don't fair enough.

The cost of facility use however is real to the University. Someone has to pay it. You can shift it to the tuition bills, the taxpayers, etc., I suppose.

What part of "the building is government owned" did you not hear?

Why is that in conflict with anything I said.

Let me say what I said in a different way:

If UB decides it needs $650 worth of extra security at an event, BUT,

UB is not allowed, for whatever reason, to impose that cost directly on those holding the event,

then UB has to get that same $650 somewhere else.

UB, obviously, has a finite set of revenues from various sources.

I was suggesting where they could get it. SOMEONE will have to pay it.

What you don't understand is that the university doesn't pay for the building, Carbine! Hence, "government owned." So, how does this not conflict with what you said? What you also fail to understand is that it can't charge that $650 period. We've gone over this dozens of times, yet you remain too thickheaded to grasp it. It doesn't need the $650 because the charge was arbitrary, not systematic. Nobody can confirm that such a charge was ever administered to anyone else on campus. So why did it want that $650? To perhaps dissuade them from holding that debate? Or not exercising their free speech?

 

[LoneLaugher]

An utterly thoughtless post. Running out of ideas?

Nope. But I am still waiting for you to prove that no other student group has ever been charged facilities usage fees by the University of Buffalo. You ever gonna do that?

Can't. The law forbids that behavior, LL. So you'll be hard pressed to find an example. I will say that this group has been in existence on that campus since the 1980's, they were never charged this fee in the past, so why now?

I have no idea. But I am pleased that you are finally admitting to making a claim that you cannot support. It is an important step in your growth as a human being.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, as a matter of fact, if their "assessment" includes opinions about the speech being expressed, they CAN'T.

Assessments based on the size of the crowd likely to be attracted, yes. Based on whether or not the subject matter is "controversial", no.

Yeah.....that would be a load of bull. Sounded like legal stuff, though. Congrats.

That wasn't even a good try, Sparky.

You're the one who suddenly has a bug up his ass about "proof". Can't comment without having it 100% proven that there's really anything to comment on, right?

So by all means. Prove to me that it's actually legal for a government entity to assess fees differently to different groups based on what they plan to say - or are expected to say - at their gathering.

Prove that what I said was "a load of bull".

 

[NYcarbineer]

What part of "the building is government owned" did you not hear?

Why is that in conflict with anything I said.

Let me say what I said in a different way:

If UB decides it needs $650 worth of extra security at an event, BUT,

UB is not allowed, for whatever reason, to impose that cost directly on those holding the event,

then UB has to get that same $650 somewhere else.

UB, obviously, has a finite set of revenues from various sources.

I was suggesting where they could get it. SOMEONE will have to pay it.

What you don't understand is that the university doesn't pay for the building, Carbine! Hence, "government owned." So, how does this not conflict with what you said? What you also fail to understand is that it can't charge that $650 period. We've gone over this dozens of times, yet you remain too thickheaded to grasp it. It doesn't need the $650 because the charge was arbitrary, not systematic. Nobody can confirm that such a charge was ever administered to anyone else on campus. So why did it want that $650? To perhaps dissuade them from holding that debate? Or not exercising their free speech?

What groups pay for using a building is what it costs a school, mostly in labor, to provide that use.

You keep making claims about fee that you don't back up with anything other than what the plaintiffs are claiming in their lawsuit.

Don't you get that they're an interested party in this, or representing one side of the argument?

I will ask you one simple question, for starters, for the record:

Have you seen a copy of the bill for $650, itemized?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why is that in conflict with anything I said.

Let me say what I said in a different way:

If UB decides it needs $650 worth of extra security at an event, BUT,

UB is not allowed, for whatever reason, to impose that cost directly on those holding the event,

then UB has to get that same $650 somewhere else.

UB, obviously, has a finite set of revenues from various sources.

I was suggesting where they could get it. SOMEONE will have to pay it.

What you don't understand is that the university doesn't pay for the building, Carbine! Hence, "government owned." So, how does this not conflict with what you said? What you also fail to understand is that it can't charge that $650 period. We've gone over this dozens of times, yet you remain too thickheaded to grasp it. It doesn't need the $650 because the charge was arbitrary, not systematic. Nobody can confirm that such a charge was ever administered to anyone else on campus. So why did it want that $650? To perhaps dissuade them from holding that debate? Or not exercising their free speech?

What groups pay for using a building is what it costs a school, mostly in labor, to provide that use.

You keep making claims about fee that you don't back up with anything other than what the plaintiffs are claiming in their lawsuit.

Don't you get that they're an interested party in this, or representing one side of the argument?

I will ask you one simple question, for starters, for the record:

Have you seen a copy of the bill for $650, itemized?

How cute.

Should there not have been a bill of $650.43 (to the penny), then this group would be guilty of perjuring the court. What motivation did they have for filing the lawsuit? Why hasn't UB commented on it? It was reported that the "security" they paid for was sitting outside reading the newspaper. That tells you right there they paid that $650.

Are you accusing them of lying? Isn't that what you always do when you have no rebuttal?

 

[Intense]

she did this on school grounds....

The question is not where the debate was held, but, was the same standard applied across the board.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What you don't understand is that the university doesn't pay for the building, Carbine! Hence, "government owned." So, how does this not conflict with what you said? What you also fail to understand is that it can't charge that $650 period. We've gone over this dozens of times, yet you remain too thickheaded to grasp it. It doesn't need the $650 because the charge was arbitrary, not systematic. Nobody can confirm that such a charge was ever administered to anyone else on campus. So why did it want that $650? To perhaps dissuade them from holding that debate? Or not exercising their free speech?

What groups pay for using a building is what it costs a school, mostly in labor, to provide that use.

You keep making claims about fee that you don't back up with anything other than what the plaintiffs are claiming in their lawsuit.

Don't you get that they're an interested party in this, or representing one side of the argument?

I will ask you one simple question, for starters, for the record:

Have you seen a copy of the bill for $650, itemized?

How cute.

Should there not have been a bill of $650.43 (to the penny), then this group would be guilty of perjuring the court. What motivation did they have for filing the lawsuit? Why hasn't UB commented on it? It was reported that the "security" they paid for was sitting outside reading the newspaper. That tells you right there they paid that $650.

Are you accusing them of lying? Isn't that what you always do when you have no rebuttal?

I'm claiming you claiming to be absolutely certain that UB had no right to charge $650 when you haven't even seen what the bill was for.

I'm not even claiming they DID have every right to charge that much.

See the difference between us?

Do you realize that the outcome of this could be that UB will be forced to provide every group the same amount of security they provided at the Students for Life event, and thus charge EVERYONE the $650,

out of 'fairness'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What you don't understand is that the university doesn't pay for the building, Carbine! Hence, "government owned." So, how does this not conflict with what you said? What you also fail to understand is that it can't charge that $650 period. We've gone over this dozens of times, yet you remain too thickheaded to grasp it. It doesn't need the $650 because the charge was arbitrary, not systematic. Nobody can confirm that such a charge was ever administered to anyone else on campus. So why did it want that $650? To perhaps dissuade them from holding that debate? Or not exercising their free speech?

What groups pay for using a building is what it costs a school, mostly in labor, to provide that use.

You keep making claims about fee that you don't back up with anything other than what the plaintiffs are claiming in their lawsuit.

Don't you get that they're an interested party in this, or representing one side of the argument?

I will ask you one simple question, for starters, for the record:

Have you seen a copy of the bill for $650, itemized?

How cute.

Should there not have been a bill of $650.43 (to the penny), then this group would be guilty of perjuring the court. What motivation did they have for filing the lawsuit? Why hasn't UB commented on it? It was reported that the "security" they paid for was sitting outside reading the newspaper. That tells you right there they paid that $650.

Are you accusing them of lying? Isn't that what you always do when you have no rebuttal?

Stick to your legal argument, you were doing better.

The plaintiffs are complaining that the university has 'unbridled discretion' to determine how much security there will be and how much will be charged for it.

That, you see, is a tacit admission that the university is entitled to some discretion, but that it shouldn't be, as the plaintiffs allege,

'unbridled' which is a fancy word for unlimited.

Go back to my framework for the argument and you'll see that the plaintiffs are following it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What groups pay for using a building is what it costs a school, mostly in labor, to provide that use.

You keep making claims about fee that you don't back up with anything other than what the plaintiffs are claiming in their lawsuit.

Don't you get that they're an interested party in this, or representing one side of the argument?

I will ask you one simple question, for starters, for the record:

Have you seen a copy of the bill for $650, itemized?

How cute.

Should there not have been a bill of $650.43 (to the penny), then this group would be guilty of perjuring the court. What motivation did they have for filing the lawsuit? Why hasn't UB commented on it? It was reported that the "security" they paid for was sitting outside reading the newspaper. That tells you right there they paid that $650.

Are you accusing them of lying? Isn't that what you always do when you have no rebuttal?

I'm claiming you claiming to be absolutely certain that UB had no right to charge $650 when you haven't even seen what the bill was for.

I'm not even claiming they DID have every right to charge that much.

See the difference between us?

Do you realize that the outcome of this could be that UB will be forced to provide every group the same amount of security they provided at the Students for Life event, and thus charge EVERYONE the $650,

out of 'fairness'?

You're reaching. There is no need to continue this debate any further. Want to know the real difference between us? One isn't claiming to be "non-partisan." Good day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How cute.

Should there not have been a bill of $650.43 (to the penny), then this group would be guilty of perjuring the court. What motivation did they have for filing the lawsuit? Why hasn't UB commented on it? It was reported that the "security" they paid for was sitting outside reading the newspaper. That tells you right there they paid that $650.

Are you accusing them of lying? Isn't that what you always do when you have no rebuttal?

I'm claiming you claiming to be absolutely certain that UB had no right to charge $650 when you haven't even seen what the bill was for.

I'm not even claiming they DID have every right to charge that much.

See the difference between us?

Do you realize that the outcome of this could be that UB will be forced to provide every group the same amount of security they provided at the Students for Life event, and thus charge EVERYONE the $650,

out of 'fairness'?

You're reaching. There is no need to continue this debate any further. Want to know the real difference between us? One isn't claiming to be "non-partisan." Good day.

It's funny how often you pretend you want to seriously debate and then when someone obliges you you turn into PoliticalChic, start making snotty remarks and then run off.

lol, you won't make much of a lawyer.

1. If UB desires security at an event, they have every right to put security at that event.

2. If UB cannot adjust user costs based on the level of security at any given event, someone else will have to pay for that security.

3. If UB continues to charge groups for security, but can't vary the cost, they'll have to charge everyone the same...

...at that point, the groups that require little or no additional security will have to pay their share of the cost for groups getting high security.

Is that fairer in your opinion?

 

[Pogo]

How cute.

Should there not have been a bill of $650.43 (to the penny), then this group would be guilty of perjuring the court. What motivation did they have for filing the lawsuit? Why hasn't UB commented on it? It was reported that the "security" they paid for was sitting outside reading the newspaper. That tells you right there they paid that $650.

Are you accusing them of lying? Isn't that what you always do when you have no rebuttal?

I'm claiming you claiming to be absolutely certain that UB had no right to charge $650 when you haven't even seen what the bill was for.

I'm not even claiming they DID have every right to charge that much.

See the difference between us?

Do you realize that the outcome of this could be that UB will be forced to provide every group the same amount of security they provided at the Students for Life event, and thus charge EVERYONE the $650,

out of 'fairness'?

You're reaching. There is no need to continue this debate any further. Want to know the real difference between us?

One isn't claiming to be "non-partisan." Good day.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm claiming you claiming to be absolutely certain that UB had no right to charge $650 when you haven't even seen what the bill was for.

I'm not even claiming they DID have every right to charge that much.

See the difference between us?

Do you realize that the outcome of this could be that UB will be forced to provide every group the same amount of security they provided at the Students for Life event, and thus charge EVERYONE the $650,

out of 'fairness'?

You're reaching. There is no need to continue this debate any further. Want to know the real difference between us?

One isn't claiming to be "non-partisan." Good day.

The real irony is why you aren't debating my thread anymore? Weren't you just assailing me for "piling on" yesterday?

 

[Pogo]

You're reaching. There is no need to continue this debate any further. Want to know the real difference between us?

One isn't claiming to be "non-partisan." Good day.

The real irony is why you aren't debating my thread anymore? Weren't you just assailing me for "piling on" yesterday?

Because there was no debate to be had here. I got piled on, negged and PM-bombed for the mere suggestion that we might need a better source than Fox Noise, so that kinda told me all I needed to know about free speech.

I don't want to fuck up my day today anyway. Just thought "one of us" was an ironic turn of phrase here.

Carry on.