What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Pogo]

What turned out to be a premise has turned out to be one filled with presumptions and allegations. You are entitled to your own opinions, Pogo, not your own facts. There are many angles on this story, all of them you would readily dismiss without a second thought.

This is clearly an objective story, simply because I have sources like this one reporting on it, notice that this Campus Safety website has no political leanings to it whatsoever:

http://www.campussafetymagazine.com...d-for-Charging-Pro-Life-Group-Security-Fee.as

DOOD!? I'm the one asking for more information! How the fuck is that "dismissing" something?

Y'all need to figure out your own irony here. Seriously. This thread's a failure.

"This thread's a failure"? No, your entire premise is a failure. You keep insisting Fox is wrong, you insist that you need more information perhaps to prove that they might be wrong and are somehow not reporting objectively. You create the illusion of objectivity when you do such. Sorry, Pogo, I crushed your premise with loads of case law and historical precedent So now you resort to attacking the source as an alternate recourse.

Your entire premise about Fox News is a red herring. We weren't talking about Fox News, we were talking about free speech. Should I construe your assertions as an attempt to derail this thread, Pogo?

Oh bullshit. You and the T(roll) are the ones harping on Fox Noise as if it's some kind of teen idol, not me.

Yeah the thread is a mess, not entirely your fault but you contribute. One T(roll) is out there trying to control everything any other poster says; you're all hung up on Fox Noise being this oracle of infallibility at the suggestion of a second source, then I've got this other guy flooding me with negs and PMs who isn't even IN this discussion.

Ironic in a thread that's supposed to be about free speech, don't you think?

I have things to do. You're welcome to it. The hypocrisy here runs too deep for my hip boots.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Anybody else?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have to wonder if the abolitionists had been required to pay a fee, while the pro slavery crowd was not required to pay that fee, and the abolitionists could in fact speak against the evils of slavery, but only where they could afford it or only before people who agreed with them, if that too would meet the standard that their free speech was not abridged. After all, they were not gagged and were permitted to speak.

I wonder if the movement against slavery would have had the same force if that had happened?

Speech is protected for a reason. Unpopular speech is the most protected and we need to guard against any infringement on speech, regardless of whether we agree with those who speak out or not.

Being a 'nutter' in someones mind is not justification for turning a blind eye to the continued violation of liberty by our government and its institutions.

The University has every right to provide security if they deem it necessary. If the policy of the University is that groups acquiring the use of certain facilities at certain times for certain purposes are responsble for additional security costs,

not to mention btw additional costs of set up, clean up, etc., that are common charges to groups using schools,

then the group is obligated to pay unless they can prove to the satisfaction of a judge or jury that the charges were unreasonable and inappropriate.

Whether the content of the event involves free speech is irrelevant.

 

[The T]

What turned out to be a premise has turned out to be one filled with presumptions and allegations. You are entitled to your own opinions, Pogo, not your own facts. There are many angles on this story, all of them you would readily dismiss without a second thought.

This is clearly an objective story, simply because I have sources like this one reporting on it, notice that this Campus Safety website has no political leanings to it whatsoever:

http://www.campussafetymagazine.com...d-for-Charging-Pro-Life-Group-Security-Fee.as

DOOD!? I'm the one asking for more information! How the fuck is that "dismissing" something?

Y'all need to figure out your own irony here. Seriously. This thread's a failure.

"This thread's a failure"? No, your entire premise is a failure. You keep insisting Fox is wrong, you insist that you need more information perhaps to prove that they might be wrong and are somehow not reporting objectively. You create the illusion of objectivity when you do such. Sorry, Pogo, I crushed your premise with loads of case law and historical precedent. So now you resort to attacking the source as an alternate recourse.

Your entire premise about Fox News is a red herring. We weren't talking about Fox News, we were talking about free speech. Should I construe your assertions as an attempt to derail this thread, Pogo?

BINGO...and I asserted as much when he first tried to foist it...Pogo lives in grey areas in regard to liberty...shame Liberty lives in the light and Pogo remains blinded from it?

 

[The T]

DOOD!? I'm the one asking for more information! How the fuck is that "dismissing" something?

Y'all need to figure out your own irony here. Seriously. This thread's a failure.

"This thread's a failure"? No, your entire premise is a failure. You keep insisting Fox is wrong, you insist that you need more information perhaps to prove that they might be wrong and are somehow not reporting objectively. You create the illusion of objectivity when you do such. Sorry, Pogo, I crushed your premise with loads of case law and historical precedent So now you resort to attacking the source as an alternate recourse.

Your entire premise about Fox News is a red herring. We weren't talking about Fox News, we were talking about free speech. Should I construe your assertions as an attempt to derail this thread, Pogo?

Oh bullshit. You and the T(roll) are the ones harping on Fox Noise as if it's some kind of teen idol, not me.

Yeah the thread is a mess, not entirely your fault but you contribute. One T(roll) is out there trying to control everything any other poster says; you're all hung up on Fox Noise being this oracle of infallibility at the suggestion of a second source, then I've got this other guy flooding me with negs and PMs who isn't even IN this discussion.

Ironic in a thread that's supposed to be about free speech, don't you think?

I have things to do. You're welcome to it.

NO BS of it. YOU are part of the problem Pogo. Liberty is ALL or nothing...YOU impose limitations and place blame to back you up. WHERE do YOU really stand son?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to insure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.

"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.

If you can prove that fees for security have never ever been imposed by UB management, for any other event, ever,

then you start to have a case.

Given that the Christians and the Atheists were not charged this fee to hold a debate, I'd say my case begins there. Thanks for playing.

And what's your case? That the University has no right to exercise discretion in evaluating the need for security?

 

[TemplarKormac]

DOOD!? I'm the one asking for more information! How the fuck is that "dismissing" something?

Y'all need to figure out your own irony here. Seriously. This thread's a failure.

"This thread's a failure"? No, your entire premise is a failure. You keep insisting Fox is wrong, you insist that you need more information perhaps to prove that they might be wrong and are somehow not reporting objectively. You create the illusion of objectivity when you do such. Sorry, Pogo, I crushed your premise with loads of case law and historical precedent So now you resort to attacking the source as an alternate recourse.

Your entire premise about Fox News is a red herring. We weren't talking about Fox News, we were talking about free speech. Should I construe your assertions as an attempt to derail this thread, Pogo?

1) Oh bullshit. You and the T(roll) are the ones harping on Fox Noise as if it's some kind of teen idol, not me.

2) Yeah the thread is a mess, not entirely your fault but you contribute. One T(roll) is out there trying to control everything any other poster says; you're all hung up on Fox Noise being this oracle of infallibility at the suggestion of a second source, then I've got this other guy flooding me with negs and PMs who isn't even IN this discussion.

3) Ironic in a thread that's supposed to be about free speech, don't you think?

I have things to do. You're welcome to it.

1) You brought "Fox Noise" up first. Nice way to bait Mr. T into it, but a disingenuous presumption to think I would play along with it.

2) This thread is no mess, you made the mess, Pogo. Couldn't you have simply admitted defeat rather than attack the source of the story? That's bush league, Pogo.

3) Ironic you would misapply the term "free speech" to mean intentionally drawing people's attention away from the actual premises made here today. Like I said, you can have an opinion, but you don't have any facts, hence this little anti-Fox Noise crusade you went on, and why your argument was so soundly dispatched.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did the pro-life group, or any of its adherents, start the "near-riot"? No? Then why would you penalize them simply for acquiring enemies who don't know how to behave in public? Try charging the fees for extra security to the people who actually break the law. I believe the law DOES provide for that sort of thing.

How is this a hard concept?

The pro-life group brought in anti-abortion extremists who go around making claims that an abortion is no different than gassing Jews in Nazi Germany.

They intentionally created an atmosphere of elevated tension.

That is patently false. Were this a pro abortion group, you would be eerily silent, wouldn't you?

Why can't you argue like a grown-up? I know you secretly want to.

Genocide Awareness Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the group that Students for Life brought on the campus.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you can prove that fees for security have never ever been imposed by UB management, for any other event, ever,

then you start to have a case.

Given that the Christians and the Atheists were not charged this fee to hold a debate, I'd say my case begins there. Thanks for playing.

And what's your case? That the University has no right to exercise discretion in evaluating the need for security?

My case? Look to this post for my case, and stop bothering me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/331792-what-is-the-price-of-free-speech-2.html#post8365095

 

[The T]

"This thread's a failure"? No, your entire premise is a failure. You keep insisting Fox is wrong, you insist that you need more information perhaps to prove that they might be wrong and are somehow not reporting objectively. You create the illusion of objectivity when you do such. Sorry, Pogo, I crushed your premise with loads of case law and historical precedent So now you resort to attacking the source as an alternate recourse.

Your entire premise about Fox News is a red herring. We weren't talking about Fox News, we were talking about free speech. Should I construe your assertions as an attempt to derail this thread, Pogo?

1) Oh bullshit. You and the T(roll) are the ones harping on Fox Noise as if it's some kind of teen idol, not me.

2) Yeah the thread is a mess, not entirely your fault but you contribute. One T(roll) is out there trying to control everything any other poster says; you're all hung up on Fox Noise being this oracle of infallibility at the suggestion of a second source, then I've got this other guy flooding me with negs and PMs who isn't even IN this discussion.

3) Ironic in a thread that's supposed to be about free speech, don't you think?

I have things to do. You're welcome to it.

1) You brought "Fox Noise" up first. Nice way to bait Mr. T into it, but a disingenuous presumption to think I would play along with it.

2) This thread is no mess, you made the mess, Pogo. Couldn't you have simply admitted defeat rather than attack the source of the story? That's bush league, Pogo.

3) Ironic you would misapply the term "free speech" to mean intentionally drawing people's attention away from the actual premises made here today. Like I said, you can have an opinion, but you don't have any facts, hence this little anti-Fox Noise crusade you went on.

^^MAN of Honour. Thanks.

 

[Unkotare]

Yeah the thread is a mess...

Then STFU and go post on another one instead of spamming this one with your whiny nonsense.

 

[Pogo]

"This thread's a failure"? No, your entire premise is a failure. You keep insisting Fox is wrong, you insist that you need more information perhaps to prove that they might be wrong and are somehow not reporting objectively. You create the illusion of objectivity when you do such. Sorry, Pogo, I crushed your premise with loads of case law and historical precedent So now you resort to attacking the source as an alternate recourse.

Your entire premise about Fox News is a red herring. We weren't talking about Fox News, we were talking about free speech. Should I construe your assertions as an attempt to derail this thread, Pogo?

1) Oh bullshit. You and the T(roll) are the ones harping on Fox Noise as if it's some kind of teen idol, not me.

2) Yeah the thread is a mess, not entirely your fault but you contribute. One T(roll) is out there trying to control everything any other poster says; you're all hung up on Fox Noise being this oracle of infallibility at the suggestion of a second source, then I've got this other guy flooding me with negs and PMs who isn't even IN this discussion.

3) Ironic in a thread that's supposed to be about free speech, don't you think?

I have things to do. You're welcome to it.

1) You brought "Fox Noise" up first. Nice way to bait Mr. T into it, but a disingenuous presumption to think I would play along with it.

2) This thread is no mess, you made the mess, Pogo. Couldn't you have simply admitted defeat rather than attack the source of the story? That's bush league, Pogo.

3) Ironic you would misapply the term "free speech" to mean intentionally drawing people's attention away from the actual premises made here today. Like I said, you can have an opinion, but you don't have any facts, hence this little anti-Fox Noise crusade you went on.

Don't sit here and lie about it. The thread is on the record. You and Troll melted down over the phrase "Fox Noise" and abandoned your own topic just to attack me. And you attacked for the mere suggestion that there may be more to the story than Fox Noise tells. And then the third guy negging from the side, too much of a coward to even participate in the exchange.

All of which tells me who has what attitude about free speech when it dares to be speech that might not agree with yours, and who's a flaming hypocrite. Once again ... y'all are doing exactly the same thing you accuse the university of doing; raising the price of free speech. You can't stand the idea of any opinions but your own.

So yeah this thread's a mess. Have fun in your bubble though.

The price of free speech?

 

[Pogo]

And btw to the poster who's flooding me with PMs, I warned you. Now you'll be reported.

 

[Unkotare]

So yeah this thread's a mess. Have fun in your bubble though.

I thought you said you had things to do. STFU and go do them, ya whiny little bitch.

 

[The T]

1) Oh bullshit. You and the T(roll) are the ones harping on Fox Noise as if it's some kind of teen idol, not me.

2) Yeah the thread is a mess, not entirely your fault but you contribute. One T(roll) is out there trying to control everything any other poster says; you're all hung up on Fox Noise being this oracle of infallibility at the suggestion of a second source, then I've got this other guy flooding me with negs and PMs who isn't even IN this discussion.

3) Ironic in a thread that's supposed to be about free speech, don't you think?

I have things to do. You're welcome to it.

1) You brought "Fox Noise" up first. Nice way to bait Mr. T into it, but a disingenuous presumption to think I would play along with it.

2) This thread is no mess, you made the mess, Pogo. Couldn't you have simply admitted defeat rather than attack the source of the story? That's bush league, Pogo.

3) Ironic you would misapply the term "free speech" to mean intentionally drawing people's attention away from the actual premises made here today. Like I said, you can have an opinion, but you don't have any facts, hence this little anti-Fox Noise crusade you went on.

Don't sit here and lie about it. The thread is on the record. You and Troll melted down over the phrase "Fox Noise" and abandoned your own topic just to attack me. And you attacked for the mere suggestion that there may be more to the story than Fox Noise tells. And then the third guy negging from the side, too much of a coward to even participate in the exchange.

All of which tells me who has what attitude about free speech when it dares to be speech that might not agree with yours, and who's a flaming hypocrite. Once again ... y'all are doing exactly the same thing you accuse the university of doing; raising the price of free speech. You can't stand the idea of any opinions but your own.

So yeah this thread's a mess. Have fun in your bubble though.

The price of free speech?

YOU are a LIAR, deceiver. *BYE*

 

[Unkotare]

And btw to the poster who's flooding me with PMs, I warned you. Now you'll be reported.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL8e2ujXe8g]Stop Whining - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pogo]

.

To answer the question posed in the OP, I'd say the price of Free Speech is very high.

A person has to have the self-confidence, humility and maturity to allow others to voice their opinions without feeling the need to shout them down, threaten them or punish them in some way. They have to be at peace with themselves and with others. That requires a certain inner strength.

Clearly, many people don't have that strength.

yup
Q.E.D.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Oh bullshit. You and the T(roll) are the ones harping on Fox Noise as if it's some kind of teen idol, not me.

2) Yeah the thread is a mess, not entirely your fault but you contribute. One T(roll) is out there trying to control everything any other poster says; you're all hung up on Fox Noise being this oracle of infallibility at the suggestion of a second source, then I've got this other guy flooding me with negs and PMs who isn't even IN this discussion.

3) Ironic in a thread that's supposed to be about free speech, don't you think?

I have things to do. You're welcome to it.

1) You brought "Fox Noise" up first. Nice way to bait Mr. T into it, but a disingenuous presumption to think I would play along with it.

2) This thread is no mess, you made the mess, Pogo. Couldn't you have simply admitted defeat rather than attack the source of the story? That's bush league, Pogo.

3) Ironic you would misapply the term "free speech" to mean intentionally drawing people's attention away from the actual premises made here today. Like I said, you can have an opinion, but you don't have any facts, hence this little anti-Fox Noise crusade you went on.

Don't sit here and lie about it. The thread is on the record. You and Troll melted down over the phrase "Fox Noise" and abandoned your own topic just to attack me. And you attacked for the mere suggestion that there may be more to the story than Fox Noise tells. And then the third guy negging from the side, too much of a coward to even participate in the exchange.

All of which tells me who has what attitude about free speech when it dares to be speech that might not agree with yours, and who's a flaming hypocrite. Once again ... y'all are doing exactly the same thing you accuse the university of doing; raising the price of free speech. You can't stand the idea of any opinions but your own.

So yeah this thread's a mess. Have fun in your bubble though.

The price of free speech?

How quaint. You inherently disagreed with my assertions very factually at first. And when I presented information to the contrary, you began attacking my source. You didn't even attempt to address the thread any further. Your whole reason for disagreeing was not to posit an alternate view, but to sate your dislike of the source I cited. I couldn't care less about what opinions you hold Pogo! You are free to have any opinion you want! What you can't do is sit here and call me a liar, or make up your own wild facts and assertions.

I'm not raising the price of anything. You are simply upset because someone used a source you disagreed with. Do I not have a right to site whatever source I want to? Or must I obtain your permission to cite a source you think is reliable and trustworthy? Funny, you lecture me on free speech. That's not how it works, buddy. You began attacking the source, so I acted by questioning your logic. You obfuscated, shucked, jived and dodged each time I confronted you on it. I was taught to defend myself, and my sources if need be. There's nothing more to this story than what it is.

Your argument has been reduced to nothing but a mere protest. Now what of the story, Pogo? Would you behoove yourself to address it? Or shall we continue this pointless exchange?

 

[Unkotare]

.

To answer the question posed in the OP, I'd say the price of Free Speech is very high.

A person has to have the self-confidence, humility and maturity to allow others to voice their opinions without feeling the need to shout them down, threaten them or punish them in some way. They have to be at peace with themselves and with others. That requires a certain inner strength.

Clearly, many people don't have that strength.

yup
Q.E.D.

You said you had things to do. Go do them. NOW.































(this is me telling you what to do - does that flip the switch on whatever unresolved teen angst you are suffering from, deary?)

 

[TemplarKormac]

And btw to the poster who's flooding me with PMs, I warned you. Now you'll be reported.

Yeah, I don't advocate harassment. I may disagree with Pogo here, but it's NOT worth harassing him over.