Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
I don't have a "problem", incessant drama queen. I have logic.
Did the school -- or anyone -- prevent anyone from speaking? Did anyone who did speak get penalized for it?
No.
Therefore there's no speech right infringed. Nobody has a Constitutional right to use the Joseph. P. Wackoff Building for their debate. They have the right to the debate, not the building. Just as Phil Robertson has the right to his speech -- not the name of A&E.
How soon we forget...
![]()
When the university loses the case will you admit you are wrong? Or will you still insist that the problem is that I am a drama queen?
It won't -- on that basis.
It should on the basis of discriminatory fees, but not First Amendment grounds.
The document cites : "debate [that] is silenced when university policies regulate speech based on content and viewpoint and vest administrators with unbridled discretion to impose fees for the exercise of speech."
But the debate was not silenced; only the use of the facility was affected. There's an obvious and fundamental difference between speech and the building in which it takes place.
And just so you know, "drama queen" has nothing to do with this event or this suit. It has to do with "makes you the one with a problem" -- your insatiable need to personalize and polarize every post into some kind of soap opera confrontation. So no, no court can change that. Only you can.
Damn, that is incredibly stupid.
They are going to lose it because the fees violate the 1st Amendment. You can blather on all day long, and rationalize your way around the entire debate, but they will still lose because they violated the free speech rights of that group. You might not like it, but that is your fucking problem, and I don't fucking care if you get butthurt over other people's speech.
Last edited: