What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[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.

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".

It has nothing to do with what they plan to say. You are inventing that as a reason for the fee.

The fee was for security. The University expected that security would be necessary. Period. Reason not of importance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the University were on some mission to suppress those with anti-abortion opinions,

why did they allow the Students for Life to bring in the anti-abortion extremist group Genocide Awareness Project that same week?

What happened to that pathetic 3 point argument you claimed perfectly exemplified the University's irrefutable ability to charge security fees based on an assessment of risk? Did someone blow it out of the water so badly that you want to pretend you never made it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you name the abortion doctor who was murdered in Buffalo some years ago?

Nope!

And?

.

And who is the last person you can recall who was ever murdered over the issue of the flat tax vs. the progressive tax?

It would be a bit hard to pin that down considering that actual wars have been fought over that issue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Um. We aren't debating irony. We're debating free speech. Anyhow, don't ruin your birthday mincing words with me! Go on!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And who is the last person you can recall who was ever murdered over the issue of the flat tax vs. the progressive tax?

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

Okay, the point was, which issue is more likely to bring out violent nutbags.

Abortion

or

Tax Policy.


Therefore, which issue really kind of calls for extra security measures when they have an event.

The university did nothing really wrong here.

We understand that there are violent nutbags that are pro abortion, what's your point?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

Okay, the point was, which issue is more likely to bring out violent nutbags.

Abortion

or

Tax Policy.


Therefore, which issue really kind of calls for extra security measures when they have an event.

The university did nothing really wrong here.

We understand that there are violent nutbags that are pro abortion, what's your point?

Who is pro abortion? Name one person and prove it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

As you see in the bolded, these rules also require groups to follow the 'appropriate processes for obtaining permission to use campus facilities'...

...and one of the processes was to cover the cost of security.

That does not settle the issue of whether the security requirement mandated and its cost were reasonable in this specific case,

but it does prove that imposing a security requirement and its cost is a university's prerogative.

The rules above also impose a security responsibility on the president of the university.

Security fees cannot be charged based on the reaction to speech, I already proved that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And who is the last person you can recall who was ever murdered over the issue of the flat tax vs. the progressive tax?

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

Do you find it strange and incomprehensible as to why an abortion clinic might have an armed guard but a dentist's office down the street wouldn't even consider it?

Is it because the dentist is an idiot that trusts people not to kill him, or is it because the abortion doctor is a paranoid schizophrenic?

 

[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

As you see in the bolded, these rules also require groups to follow the 'appropriate processes for obtaining permission to use campus facilities'...

...and one of the processes was to cover the cost of security.

That does not settle the issue of whether the security requirement mandated and its cost were reasonable in this specific case,

but it does prove that imposing a security requirement and its cost is a university's prerogative.

The rules above also impose a security responsibility on the president of the university.

As you can see, that speaks nothing to charging a "security" fee as a result or reaction to speech. You're digging from the bottom of an empty barrel, Carbine.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

Okay, the point was, which issue is more likely to bring out violent nutbags.

Abortion

or

Tax Policy.


Therefore, which issue really kind of calls for extra security measures when they have an event.

The university did nothing really wrong here.

I would just like to say for my own part that I have not ruled out the possibility that UB did something wrong,

because this is not the black and white either or right or wrong check one or the other issue too many people in this thread are making it out to be.

Nobody here, I'm willing to bet, has any idea exactly what the $650 fee represents. Has anyone seen the bill? Itemized?

I happened to have read on msn's report of this story that the bill was only $150 more than 'normal' administrative charges for these sorts of events.

Eh? What's that about?

Free speech wasn't free for Buffalo campus anti-abortion rally

That btw would be the msn story that the author of this thread claimed didn't exist.

I see you have changed your position, sorta. I wonder why.

Let me describe my position this way, I don't give a fuck what the itemized bill says, they were still wrong. Until you prove me wrong with an actual court citation that allows them to charge a fee based on the content of their speech, you will be completely wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Those cost are generally considered part of the tuition, which is one reason college is so fucking expensive. Getting everyone to pay for something only a few people use is the socialist way, after all, which is why you should be outraged that they are charging extra for something that is already paid for. Except, of course, that that would require you to not be outraged by who is being charged.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If it was actually bull you would be able to cite court cases that prove it and no one would have a single court case that supported it. Funny how even Jones, even though he wants this to be right, can't find a case to support it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Have you read the post where the 5th Circuit said that security fees that are based on the projected need for security are unconstitutional? To sum it up, unless they assess the same fee to everyone they cannot assess a fee at all, which is what I said from the beginning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

A government agency cannot charge extra fees based on the assessment of risk if they base that asssessment on anything that impinges on anyone's constitutional rights. That means that people occasionally end up paying more for something they don't need, just like Obamacare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am pretty sure you were piled on for calling if Fox Noise, and claiming that the entire story was fabricated even though you claimed you read the complaint.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

You wouldn't be referring to the Sonnier v. Crain case would you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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".

It has nothing to do with what they plan to say. You are inventing that as a reason for the fee.

The fee was for security. The University expected that security would be necessary. Period. Reason not of importance.

Why did they think the security was necessary? You yourself claimed that there was a riot because the same group had brought in a controversial group, which means your argument is that the security was necessary based on the reaction to what they were saying. That makes your argument in favor of the university based n an unconstitutional reason. which negates your argument that they can do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Um. We aren't debating irony. We're debating free speech. Anyhow, don't ruin your birthday mincing words with me! Go on!

Mincing words is all he does, which is why he is beneath contempt in debates.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, the point was, which issue is more likely to bring out violent nutbags.

Abortion

or

Tax Policy.


Therefore, which issue really kind of calls for extra security measures when they have an event.

The university did nothing really wrong here.

We understand that there are violent nutbags that are pro abortion, what's your point?

Who is pro abortion? Name one person and prove it.

Again? Wasn't the last 16 times you got your ass handed to you in attempting to argue that no one supports abortion enough for you?

Pro-Abortion...with a Heart ? Site map/contents

 

[LoneLaugher]

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".

It has nothing to do with what they plan to say. You are inventing that as a reason for the fee.

The fee was for security. The University expected that security would be necessary. Period. Reason not of importance.

Why did they think the security was necessary? You yourself claimed that there was a riot because the same group had brought in a controversial group, which means your argument is that the security was necessary based on the reaction to what they were saying. That makes your argument in favor of the university based n an unconstitutional reason. which negates your argument that they can do it.

No. I did not.

Try again.