What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Quantum Windbag]

Because there's no denial of that right. When you don't have a premise you can't have a conclusion.

The First Amendment specifies "abridgement" of the right, not denial. Placing an undue burden or constriction on the ability to exercise that right, particularly a burden or constriction that is not placed on anyone else, qualifies.

You're assuming that an institution like a University should not have any discretion in estimating the need for security based on the nature of an event.

You are assuming that speech is a valid reason for assenting the need for security.

It isn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Didn't we just establish there was a near-riot there the previous week on this same issue? Are we ignoring that?

Let me be the first to admit, I didn't look deeply into the story or look for corroboration, going so far by the OP's extract. But there's also the source -- Fox Noise. Some kind of cross check is definitely called for.

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.

So what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You gave no answer. Because there isn't any.
You lost, now quit trolling.

This just in: fascism confirmed--


Same guy crowing about "FREE SPEECH", spends all his energy trying to control that of others.

-- not to mention an emotional relationship with a TV channel....

Now, Pogo, I remember calling paul down for accusing you of being a communist, where can you prove that T is a fascist? Could we please refrain from labeling others until there is substantial proof back that up? People like Iceman and National Socialist are fascists, simply because they have clearly demonstrated such. T on the other hand is nowhere close to being one, that is unless you can prove convincingly otherwise.

"Fascist" in this case means jumping in trying to control everybody else's posts. Particularly in a "free speech" thread. He's a flaming hypocrite.
I don't tolerate control freaks. Fuck him.

In that case, the fact that you jumped in to tell him it wasn't his place to respond to a post was fascism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The issues are:

1. Does the University have the right to charge fees, including security fees, for a student event?

Probably 'yes'.

2. Does the Universtiy have the discretion to vary those security fees based on the University's assessment of the security risks based on the nature of the event?

Probably 'yes'.

3. Was the University within the limits of that discretion when they priced the security fee at $650?


The 3rd one I predict will be what the lawyers argue about, if it goes to trial. The plaintiffs will have to concede 1 and 2 above but then argue that 3 did not comply with 2.

The plaintiffs will likely argue that the fee was excessive compared to other fees for other events, and will produce evidence of those other events' fees to make that case.

The defense will counter that because the abortion issue has become a very heated controversy on campus, the increased security was a reasonable precaution,

and they will produce evidence to support that.

Again I believe the framework above best describes the argument.

You also believe that Obamacare is more popular know than it ever was.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The issues are:

1. Does the University have the right to charge fees, including security fees, for a student event?

Probably 'yes'.

2. Does the Universtiy have the discretion to vary those security fees based on the University's assessment of the security risks based on the nature of the event?

Probably 'yes'.

3. Was the University within the limits of that discretion when they priced the security fee at $650?


The 3rd one I predict will be what the lawyers argue about, if it goes to trial. The plaintiffs will have to concede 1 and 2 above but then argue that 3 did not comply with 2.

The plaintiffs will likely argue that the fee was excessive compared to other fees for other events, and will produce evidence of those other events' fees to make that case.

The defense will counter that because the abortion issue has become a very heated controversy on campus, the increased security was a reasonable precaution,

and they will produce evidence to support that.

Again I believe the framework above best describes the argument.

You also believe that Obamacare is more popular know than it ever was.

Since you don't see any flaws in the framework, why don't you go ahead and make your argument for the plaintiff, within that framework?

Starting with 1.

Do you dispute the right of the University to charge fees as described above?

 

[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.

So what?

So the University has a good argument that it was not unreasonable for them to require additional security based on the nature of the event, as well as the timing of the event.

Do you want to argue that the University should not have the right to exercise discretion matters of security?

If so go ahead.

 

[bayoubill]

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.

So what?

So the University has a good argument that it was not unreasonable for them to require additional security based on the nature of the event, as well as the timing of the event.

Do you want to argue that the University should not have the right to exercise discretion matters of security?

If so go ahead.

based upon your spurious reasoning,

the university should charge each male student $5 for every time they go out after dark...

and charge each female student $10...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again I believe the framework above best describes the argument.

You also believe that Obamacare is more popular know than it ever was.

Since you don't see any flaws in the framework, why don't you go ahead and make your argument for the plaintiff, within that framework?

Starting with 1.

Do you dispute the right of the University to charge fees as described above?

I already pointed out the flaws in your pathetic framework, you should read more than the last post in the thread when you come back.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So what?

So the University has a good argument that it was not unreasonable for them to require additional security based on the nature of the event, as well as the timing of the event.

Do you want to argue that the University should not have the right to exercise discretion matters of security?

If so go ahead.

No the don't.

Unless you think that if the KKK showed up to protest the NAACP the university should charge them every time they wanted to speak you rally can't argue that they are right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The issues are:

1. Does the University have the right to charge fees, including security fees, for a student event?

Probably 'yes'.

2. Does the Universtiy have the discretion to vary those security fees based on the University's assessment of the security risks based on the nature of the event?

Probably 'yes'.

3. Was the University within the limits of that discretion when they priced the security fee at $650?


The 3rd one I predict will be what the lawyers argue about, if it goes to trial. The plaintiffs will have to concede 1 and 2 above but then argue that 3 did not comply with 2.

The plaintiffs will likely argue that the fee was excessive compared to other fees for other events, and will produce evidence of those other events' fees to make that case.

The defense will counter that because the abortion issue has become a very heated controversy on campus, the increased security was a reasonable precaution,

and they will produce evidence to support that.

The answers to your questions are:

1. Yes.
2. Not if they base that assessment on the content of the speech.
3. The lawyers won't bother arguing that the fees were excessive, all they have to do is prove that other groups were not charged a fee, and that the only reason this group was was because the content of their speech was offensive.

The rest of your post needs to address the actual issues before I will bother replying to it.

In regards to 2.

Your answer of 'no' demands that one assume that no content is more likely to cause problems that could be security related than any other content,

which is easily refuted by little more than the common knowledge that abortion is one of the most highly inflammatory issues in America.

It would hardly be reasonable, for example, for the University to be forced to assume that a debate about abortion, especially under the circumstances, would have no more potential danger of sparking a disturbance, or disruption, or the like,

than would, say, a debate over the flat tax,

and therefore leave the University bound to require exactly the same amount of security personnel/precautions/measures for both.

I think you lose that argument, but by all means, make your rebuttal if you have one.

 

[Pogo]

Now, Pogo, I remember calling paul down for accusing you of being a communist, where can you prove that T is a fascist? Could we please refrain from labeling others until there is substantial proof back that up? People like Iceman and National Socialist are fascists, simply because they have clearly demonstrated such. T on the other hand is nowhere close to being one, that is unless you can prove convincingly otherwise.

"Fascist" in this case means jumping in trying to control everybody else's posts. Particularly in a "free speech" thread. He's a flaming hypocrite.
I don't tolerate control freaks. Fuck him.

In that case, the fact that you jumped in to tell him it wasn't his place to respond to a post was fascism.

Actually it's factism. You were so close.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what?

So the University has a good argument that it was not unreasonable for them to require additional security based on the nature of the event, as well as the timing of the event.

Do you want to argue that the University should not have the right to exercise discretion matters of security?

If so go ahead.

based upon your spurious reasoning,

the university should charge each male student $5 for every time they go out after dark...

and charge each female student $10...

Is that your argument against the University having discretion over how much security must be provided at any given event?

 

[Pogo]

Really?

BITE ME MORON.

Why do you suppose, psychologically speaking, you're such a fascist that you need to jump in on somebody's point that had nothing to do with you? What kind of infantile insecurity drives that need to control a third party's points? Who died and made you God?

Discuss.

Since the point was that rightwingers, as a group, never point out when left wing groups are restricted, it does have something to do with him. Unless you think he isn't a rightwinger.

Neither the point nor the challenge was his. What he did was jump in between A and B, where B had challenged A to back up A's assertion, and tell B that A didn't need to do that and that B, the recipient, had the burden of proof.

Which is horseshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what?

So the University has a good argument that it was not unreasonable for them to require additional security based on the nature of the event, as well as the timing of the event.

Do you want to argue that the University should not have the right to exercise discretion matters of security?

If so go ahead.

No the don't.

Unless you think that if the KKK showed up to protest the NAACP the university should charge them every time they wanted to speak you rally can't argue that they are right.

Is there a student KKK group comparable in its status to UB's Students for Life? I think we should stick to apples and apples as best we can.

 

[The T]

Why do you suppose, psychologically speaking, you're such a fascist that you need to jump in on somebody's point that had nothing to do with you? What kind of infantile insecurity drives that need to control a third party's points? Who died and made you God?

Discuss.

Since the point was that rightwingers, as a group, never point out when left wing groups are restricted, it does have something to do with him. Unless you think he isn't a rightwinger.

Neither the point nor the challenge was his. What he did was jump in between A and B, where B had challenged A to back up A's assertion, and tell B that A didn't need to do that and that B, the recipient, had the burden of proof.

Which is horseshit.

*I* did NO such thing. YOU assigned that unto me to which *I* balked.

YOU couldn't HANDLE IT you fucking LYING PIECE OF DOG SHIT.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I've made no comment on the content of anybody's speech, neither here nor in the Robertson kerfuffle, oh drama queen. All I've discussed is how it works.

Fucking sorry if fucking that's fucking inconfuckingvenient, drama queen. Go change your tampon.

 

[bayoubill]

So what?

So the University has a good argument that it was not unreasonable for them to require additional security based on the nature of the event, as well as the timing of the event.

Do you want to argue that the University should not have the right to exercise discretion matters of security?

If so go ahead.

based upon your spurious reasoning,

the university should charge each male student $5 for every time they go out after dark...

and charge each female student $10...

'n the administrator should be charged, say, $100 per day for security if he continues to insist upon being such a lightning-rod jerk...

 

[The T]

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.

i've made no comment on the content of anybody's speech, neither here nor in the robertson kerfuffle, oh drama queen. All i've discussed is how it works.

Fucking sorry if fucking that's fucking inconfuckingvenient, drama queen. Go change your tampon.

liar.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You also believe that Obamacare is more popular know than it ever was.

Since you don't see any flaws in the framework, why don't you go ahead and make your argument for the plaintiff, within that framework?

Starting with 1.

Do you dispute the right of the University to charge fees as described above?

I already pointed out the flaws in your pathetic framework, you should read more than the last post in the thread when you come back.

Fair enough, but you haven't offered anything to prove the framework is flawed.

 

[The T]

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.

I've made no comment on the content of anybody's speech, neither here nor in the Robertson kerfuffle, oh drama queen. All I've discussed is how it works.

Fucking sorry if fucking that's fucking inconfuckingvenient, drama queen. Go change your tampon.

TRANSLATION: "I lost the argument so I need to CHANGE MY TAMPON..."

YOU wimp.