What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Quantum Windbag]

@Quantum Windbag

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

That is the one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I confused you with one of the other drooling idiots. Perfectly understandable, the drool turns my stomach. I still win based on the fact that you haven't dealt with the fact that I posted a court decision that finds security fees that are assessed based on aything that is not spelled out in advance to be facially unconstitutional.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

I have never argued that point with you before. You are kind of confused about who is who, aren't you?

The term "pro-abortion" is a red meat feast term. I am not pro abortion. I have never met a person who is pro abortion. Every pro choice person I know would love to see a decrease in the number of abortions that are performed.

The person who wrote that article is pro choice. She is discussing reasons why abortion should be a choice. And who the fuck is she? I asked you to name someone ....as in someone at USMB or a well known public figure. Try harder.

 

[TemplarKormac]

@Quantum Windbag

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

That is the one.

I knew it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I have never argued that point before. You are kind of confused about who is who, aren't you?

The term "pro-abortion" is a red meat feast term. I am not pro abortion. I have never met a person who is pro abortion. Every pro choice person I know would love to see a decrease in the number of abortions that are performed.

I wasn't aware that I said that you, personally, were pro abortion. In fact, I wasn't aware that you thought I did until I proved to you, again, that some people are pro abortion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

I confused you with one of the other drooling idiots. Perfectly understandable, the drool turns my stomach. I still win based on the fact that you haven't dealt with the fact that I posted a court decision that finds security fees that are assessed based on aything that is not spelled out in advance to be facially unconstitutional.

You are confused. That is for certain.

I am not interested in your court case.

The question at hand is whether or not UB discriminated against the nutter group and thus charged them as a means of infringing on their freedom of speech.

That has not been proven. Period. The University may or may not have charged other student groups similar fees. They may or may not have policies in place and spelled out "in advance". We just do not know yet.

I have stated in this thread that if such things are established.....that the University did single out this group due to the subject matter.....and that there was no basis for the fees....I am prepared to support the students in the case.

But....that has not been established yet. All we have is freaked out pro lifers on a message board making shit up and carrying out mock court....without having much in the way of facts or evidence.

 

[LoneLaugher]

@Quantum Windbag

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

That is the one.

I knew it.

Since when? Since you googled it yesterday?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

I have never argued that point before. You are kind of confused about who is who, aren't you?

The term "pro-abortion" is a red meat feast term. I am not pro abortion. I have never met a person who is pro abortion. Every pro choice person I know would love to see a decrease in the number of abortions that are performed.

I wasn't aware that I said that you, personally, were pro abortion. In fact, I wasn't aware that you thought I did until I proved to you, again, that some people are pro abortion.

Some people? Anyone we know?

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

Okay, in the Sonnier v Crane case, the 5th Circuit struck down SLU's fee scheme as unconstitutional. It cited Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement as precedent.

Its opinion as stated in the ruling:

"Sonnier argues next the SLU's speech policy violates the First Amendment because it gives the University the "sole discretion . . . in determining both the need for, and the strength of the security" at the public assembly demonstration, and assesses the cost of additional security on the sponsoring individual or organization. In response, the defendants assert the the fee has never been charged. Regardless of whether the fee has ever been charged, we agree with Sonnier.

In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a virtually identical security fee provision that required organizations to pay for "the cost of necessary and reasonable protection (for the assemblies). . . (that) exceeds the usual and normal costs of law enforcement. 505 U.S. 123, 126 (1992). The Forsyth County Court found the security fee unconstitutional because, among other reasons, the regulation included no objective standards directing how to establish the level of the fee. Instead the amount of the security fee was left to the "whim of the administrator."

The SLU security fee provision has the same shortcomings as the ordinance struck down in Forsyth County. As the policy states, determining the additional amount of security needed is at the "sole discretion" of the University; no objective factors are provided for the University to rely upon when making such a determination. Because of the unbridled discretion this provision gives to the University, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction with regards to the security fee."

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-30186-CV0.wpd.pdf Pages 19-20

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. I did not.

Try again.

I confused you with one of the other drooling idiots. Perfectly understandable, the drool turns my stomach. I still win based on the fact that you haven't dealt with the fact that I posted a court decision that finds security fees that are assessed based on aything that is not spelled out in advance to be facially unconstitutional.

You are confused. That is for certain.

I am not interested in your court case.

The question at hand is whether or not UB discriminated against the nutter group and thus charged them as a means of infringing on their freedom of speech.

That has not been proven. Period. The University may or may not have charged other student groups similar fees. They may or may not have policies in place and spelled out "in advance". We just do not know yet.

I have stated in this thread that if such things are established.....that the University did single out this group due to the subject matter.....and that there was no basis for the fees....I am prepared to support the students in the case.

But....that has not been established yet. All we have is freaked out pro lifers on a message board making shit up and carrying out mock court....without having much in the way of facts or evidence.

What?

Here is what has been established.

• The university assessed a security fee to to a pro life group.
• This is not a standard fee.
• There is no publicly available written policy that explains what the fees are or how they are determined.

That is all I need to show that this type of fee is unconstitutional. If, as you said, you will support the students if someone can prove that, you should support them based on those three points alone.


If, on the other hand, you a partisan hack, you will continue to insist the students prove things they do not have to prove just because you want them to prove them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is the one.

I knew it.

Since when? Since you googled it yesterday?

Since I read about it in 2010, why do you ask?

By the way, if I didn't Google it until yesterday, why have my arguments been consistent with that ruling since I first posted in this thread on Friday?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So in that regard, what QWB and WW presented illustrates why the University of Buffalo's fee assessment is unconstitutional.

There are now five (including my citations) cases stating the unconstitutionality of this action not only based on discrimination, but unfair assessment of fees and use of money and issuance of regulation to restrict free speech. The opposition in this debate will be hard pressed to fashion an effective rebuttal.

Case closed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

My three points at the beginning were the framework of the argument, not AN argument.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I knew it.

Since when? Since you googled it yesterday?

Since I read about it in 2010, why do you ask?

By the way, if I didn't Google it until yesterday, why have my arguments been consistent with that ruling since I first posted in this thread on Friday?

I was not talking to you asshole.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So in that regard, what QWB and WW presented illustrates why the University of Buffalo's fee assessment is unconstitutional.

There are now five (including my citations) cases stating the unconstitutionality of this action not only based on discrimination, but unfair assessment of fees and use of money and issuance of regulation to restrict free speech. The opposition in this debate will be hard pressed to fashion an effective rebuttal.

Case closed.

Case closed......my ass.

 

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

What school would that be, perchance?

A public school where both outside and student groups can be charged for various services for usage of the facilities.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I confused you with one of the other drooling idiots. Perfectly understandable, the drool turns my stomach. I still win based on the fact that you haven't dealt with the fact that I posted a court decision that finds security fees that are assessed based on aything that is not spelled out in advance to be facially unconstitutional.

You are confused. That is for certain.

I am not interested in your court case.

The question at hand is whether or not UB discriminated against the nutter group and thus charged them as a means of infringing on their freedom of speech.

That has not been proven. Period. The University may or may not have charged other student groups similar fees. They may or may not have policies in place and spelled out "in advance". We just do not know yet.

I have stated in this thread that if such things are established.....that the University did single out this group due to the subject matter.....and that there was no basis for the fees....I am prepared to support the students in the case.

But....that has not been established yet. All we have is freaked out pro lifers on a message board making shit up and carrying out mock court....without having much in the way of facts or evidence.

What?

Here is what has been established.

• The university assessed a security fee to to a pro life group.
• This is not a standard fee.
• There is no publicly available written policy that explains what the fees are or how they are determined.

That is all I need to show that this type of fee is unconstitutional. If, as you said, you will support the students if someone can prove that, you should support them based on those three points alone.


If, on the other hand, you a partisan hack, you will continue to insist the students prove things they do not have to prove just because you want them to prove them.

I think all you've really provided is some evidence of case law that might possibly be useful to the plaintiffs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

My three points at the beginning were the framework of the argument, not AN argument.

No, it has nothing to do with the argument or an argument. Period.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are confused. That is for certain.

I am not interested in your court case.

The question at hand is whether or not UB discriminated against the nutter group and thus charged them as a means of infringing on their freedom of speech.

That has not been proven. Period. The University may or may not have charged other student groups similar fees. They may or may not have policies in place and spelled out "in advance". We just do not know yet.

I have stated in this thread that if such things are established.....that the University did single out this group due to the subject matter.....and that there was no basis for the fees....I am prepared to support the students in the case.

But....that has not been established yet. All we have is freaked out pro lifers on a message board making shit up and carrying out mock court....without having much in the way of facts or evidence.

What?

Here is what has been established.

• The university assessed a security fee to to a pro life group.
• This is not a standard fee.
• There is no publicly available written policy that explains what the fees are or how they are determined.

That is all I need to show that this type of fee is unconstitutional. If, as you said, you will support the students if someone can prove that, you should support them based on those three points alone.


If, on the other hand, you a partisan hack, you will continue to insist the students prove things they do not have to prove just because you want them to prove them.

I think all you've really provided is some evidence of case law that might possibly be useful to the plaintiffs.

True.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since when? Since you googled it yesterday?

Since I read about it in 2010, why do you ask?

By the way, if I didn't Google it until yesterday, why have my arguments been consistent with that ruling since I first posted in this thread on Friday?

I was not talking to you asshole.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum