USA: Police State?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Saturday, October 6, 2007 03:18
VIEWED: 18210
PAGE 3 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:05 PM

I decided to go looking for you. First up the "Taze me dude" is far from alone in being forcibly evicted from college campuses. That however is probably not a good thing.

The results of this case are interesting.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/judge_rules_against_evangelist.php

Quote:

Judge rules against evangelist in free speech lawsuit

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - A Pentecostal evangelist familiar to both college campuses and courtrooms has lost his initial bid to speak at Murray State University in western Kentucky.

James G. "Brother Jim" Gilles of Symsonia, Ky., sued the university in 2006, claiming that MSU deprived him of his rights to free speech and to exercise his religion by rejecting his requests to preach at the Curris Center, a campus spot frequented by students and visitors.

In October 2004, the university told Gilles he needed sponsorship from a university organization or department because his talks were considered solicitation.

Russell wrote that Murray State isn't required to treat open areas of its campus as a public forum. And because the school's policy requires everyone to get a sponsor, Gilles can't make the case that his rights were violated, Russell wrote.

Which seems to imply that the university does indeed control the forum and that saying it's a building in a state university does not imply automatically that you can use it as an open forum.

He tried elsewhere and was refused again.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070929/NEWS/709290713/-1/RSS

Quote:

"Of course," said Judge Posner, "none of this is important. There is no reason to doubt either his bona fides or that the content of his religious advocacy is protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether the protection extends to a particular site on the university campus."

Posner groped for an analogy: "The Justice Department in Washington has a large auditorium with a stage, and so would be a suitable venue for a theatrical production. But the First Amendment does not require the department to make the auditorium available for that purpose even when it is not being used for departmental business. Public property is property, and the law of trespass protects public property, as it protects private property, from uninvited guests."

"No matter how wonderfully suited the library lawn is to religious and other advocacy, Vincennes University could if it wanted bar access to the lawn to any outsider who wanted to use it for any purpose, just as it could bar outsiders from its classrooms, libraries, dining halls and dormitories. It wouldn't have to prove that allowing them in would disrupt its educational mission."

SOTUS refused to hear the case so this ruling stands in this circuit.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:07 PM

The only statutes which may apply would be "public nuisance" statues, and having looked at several of them I can't see how Meyer would be considered a "public nuisance". Washington State:

Quote:
In a regulatory environment the term nuisance embraces anything that results in an invasion of one's legal rights. A nuisance involves an unreasonable or unlawful use of property which results in material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or damage to another person or to the public.... Nuisances are sometimes called nuisances because they are remedied by abatement....

GRANDVIEW MUNICIPAL CODE: 2. "Public Nuisances" include but are not limited to the following: violations of zoning regulations, building code standards and regulations, utility regulations and standards, environmental regulations and standards, noncompliance with the city's comprehensive plan or planning goals under the Washington State Growth Management Act; violations of business license regulations, illegal discharges of sewage; the operation of offensive, odoriferous or unsanitary businesses; accumulations of refuse constituting fire or safety hazards; any land use activity which depreciates land values, is unsightly, creates excessive noise, fumes, odors, or unsanitary conditions, creates danger from fire and/or explosion, creates traffic hazards, or activities which pose a danger to public health, safety or welfare or the economic well-being of the community.

(Note that the remedy is abatement not arrest.) http://mrsc.org/Subjects/Legal/nuisances/nu-what.aspx

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:09 PM

Ah ... you skipped an important phrase: "the school's policy" required a sponsor "because his talks were considered solicitation".

So we are back to school policy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ah ... you skipped an important phrase: "the school's policy" required a sponsor.

So we are back to school policy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Actually you miss the point. If the school has no right to control it's space then how can it enforce any access policy? Your implication was that like a public park anyone can turn up, do their thing and nobody has any right to tell them no because it's a "public space." This is obviously not true.

If you cede that university policy gets to decide the use of the space (like the law says) then as I've said all along it depends on what the orders given to the cops were.

You also missed completely the second case about public property still being property covered by the laws of trespass (as i said gosh, pages ago)

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:31 PM

And in another situation.... "Public nuisance" is often used to stifle dissent.

Oakland Docks: April 7 2003
Police fired "less lethal" beanbags and wooden dowels at antiwar demonstrators and dockworkers, injuring many and arresting 25. At first the Oakland Police said they fired on the protesters because the protesters threw rocks but all videotapes (inclduing police tapes) showe dth demonstration to be peaceful and orderly. (Until the cops came, of course.) Once that chagre went out the window, the attorney charged the 25 with "trespassing, failure to disburse, and maintaining a public nuisance. It was the last charge -- maintaining a public nuisance -- that protesters attacked as vindictive. It was filed by the county district attorney's office immediately after another charge was dismissed by the court." The protests against those arrests were not carried out by university students but by longshoremen and and teamsters...

The prosecutor tried steadfastly to maintain that the protestors were a "public nuisance" but charges against the "Oakland 25" were finally dropped in April 2004

Quote:
If you cede that university policy gets to decide the use of the space (like the law says) then as I've said all along it depends on what the orders given to the cops were.

AND WHETHR OR NOT THEY FOLLOWED CAMPUS P&P OR CITY STATUTES. The right to "police" the campus does not mean the right to haul people away at any time for any reason. There are limits. What YOU seem to want is the notion that campus police... or I suppose police anywhere... can do anything at any time to anybody for no reason, and that there is not supposed to be any sort of limit on police activity, not even in deference to free speech. Which make you ... what?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:33 PM

"If the school has no right to control it's space then how can it enforce any access policy? Your implication was that like a public park anyone can turn up, do their thing and nobody has any right to tell them no because it's a "public space." This is obviously not true."

Ahhemm ... as I said earlier, the fact that access and use can be and is restricted in some areas doesn't change it's nature from a 'public' space into a 'private' one - like Sears or your living room - as you so erroneously (and repeatedly, I might add) contended.

The ruling doesn't say the police get to throw anyone off for any reason. What it does say is that the public organization that controls that space gets to set policy (within limits). So what you have yet to show is that Meyer violated policy. As similar polices indicate, his speech would easily be considered a demonstration. And demonstrations are NOT to be interfered with unless certain specific rules are broken. Which is what I said earlier as well.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:37 PM

But the larger question is this - Fletch, why WOULD you want a person who posed no threat and whose worst offence was being impolite - to be able to be arrested ? Do you really favor a police state as it appears you do ?

***************************************************************
All power to the -- police !

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:41 PM

Hey Rue, No one on this board is going to admit they're for a "police state" even if they are.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:44 PM

And yet every argument from certain posters - Fletch, Finn, Geezer, Hero, BDN, Jong, Malbadinlatin - trends that way. Not just in this thread (which Rap didn't enter) but across many threads over time.

I think I see in those people a severe fear, or maybe hatred, of actual freedom.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 7:58 PM

I checked, school policies are in no ways similar and indeed they dont need to have a writen one at all. So Sig citing a policy for another uni is about as meaningfull to this discussion as you trying to use Canadian law in Italy.

We don't know what the policies are, and even if we did they would not be legally binding on the college. You could pursue a civil action if you believed they violated their own code but not a criminal one. The Uni has the right to set the policy because it has the right to control the space under the rules of trespass you continue to ignore. That policy can be ammended by them at any time and therefore is only legally binding like a contract and not like a statute.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:01 PM

"We don't know what the policies are"

There was one news article where students were complaining about police suppression of free speech allowed by that university - by, for example - photographing demonstrators. So, I suspect the policy is pretty 'liberal' toward free speech.

"under the rules of trespass you continue to ignore" No, I addressed that many times already. My contention was that the event was 'free and open to the public', therefore his presence was acceptable. You were the one who kept trying to equate the campus to Sears or your living room, which it clearly is not.

So, to get to the heart of the topic, why are you in favor of police actions against personal and political freedom ?

***************************************************************
All power to the --- police !

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But the larger question is this - Fletch, why WOULD you want a person who posed no threat and whose worst offence was being impolite - to be able to be arrested ? Do you really favor a police state as it appears you do ?

There you go again! Deciding my opinion for me.

"Why WOULD you want a person who posed no threat and whose worst offence was being impolite - to be able to be arrested ?"

Being impolite is not a crime. He was asked to leave and refused he resisted being removed. It's not against the law to be a jackass (lucky for you) but refusing to leave the premises when the owner or their representative asks you to is trespass.

This is the thing about the law Rue, it has to be Amicable. If you want the right to tell someone you don't want in your house to leave, if you want to be able to ask the police to remove that person if he refuses, then you have to be willing to extend the same privilages to all property owners. Now if I can send an asshole into your home to verbally harrass you and you're cool with that and dont call the cops on him then I guess you're a better human being than me. But if as I suspect you want to be able to enforce yoour property rights then that privilage extends to others too.

because you keep ignoring it.

Quote:

"Of course," said Judge Posner, "none of this is important. There is no reason to doubt either his bona fides or that the content of his religious advocacy is protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether the protection extends to a particular site on the university campus."

Posner groped for an analogy: "The Justice Department in Washington has a large auditorium with a stage, and so would be a suitable venue for a theatrical production. But the First Amendment does not require the department to make the auditorium available for that purpose even when it is not being used for departmental business. Public property is property, and the law of trespass protects public property, as it protects private property, from uninvited guests."

"No matter how wonderfully suited the library lawn is to religious and other advocacy, Vincennes University could if it wanted bar access to the lawn to any outsider who wanted to use it for any purpose, just as it could bar outsiders from its classrooms, libraries, dining halls and dormitories. It wouldn't have to prove that allowing them in would disrupt its educational mission."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

"under the rules of trespass you continue to ignore" No, I addressed that many times already. My contention was that the event was 'free and open to the public', therefore his presence was acceptable. You were the one who kept trying to equate the campus to Sears or your living room, which it clearly is not.

Once more with feeling

Quote:

"Of course," said Judge Posner, "none of this is important. There is no reason to doubt either his bona fides or that the content of his religious advocacy is protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether the protection extends to a particular site on the university campus."

Posner groped for an analogy: "The Justice Department in Washington has a large auditorium with a stage, and so would be a suitable venue for a theatrical production. But the First Amendment does not require the department to make the auditorium available for that purpose even when it is not being used for departmental business. Public property is property, and the law of trespass protects public property, as it protects private property, from uninvited guests."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:19 PM

Let me provide a compromise. I contend they have a right to remove him, I have citations to prove they can do that under basic property law. If you will ceed that they have that right just the same as any property owner. I am willing to ceed that the action taken to remove him was inappropriate as he was not a threat.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:20 PM

"He was asked to leave and refused he resisted being removed. It's not against the law to be a jackass (lucky for you) but refusing to leave the premises when the owner or their representative asks you to is trespass."

But the policy, as best I can determine, says you CAN'T be asked to leave unless you are violating specific requirements. That's the point you keep sliding by. Just 'cause someone wants you gone at the moment isn't reason enough.

"they can do that under basic property law"

And the answer is, again - not quite. The organization has the right to set policy, and remove people for violating their policy. They DON'T have the right to remove anyone at will, for no reason at all. Because public property is property, but it's also the property of the public. (Unlike private property.)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:27 PM

Policy is not a law. For example you may have a policy that says you allow anyone to speak and a hate speech law. If the KKK wants to have a meeting there the university can either break the law or break the policy.

You have no idea what the policy is, despite Sigy trying to use a different UNIs. You don't know for example what the public or sexual harrassment policy is (I'm sure there is one) or the hate speech policy is. If we found that there was a public harrassment policy which likely allows the campus police to remove the individual in question. What then? Would you be as willing to quote the policy if it said they could evict him.

HERO

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch2 you're just so full of bull I don't know where to start. A public park is not the same as my livingroom. And a dorm is not the same as a public sidewalk. I'm too busy to get into a long discussion with you. Suffice it to say that if you were in the FF 'verse you'd definitely be Alliance.

Actually he made a good point. There are portions of public property closed to the public. The White House is a good example.

In your example of parks, you have freedom of speech, but that freedom does not mean you can interfere with my use and enjoyment of the park by coming over sitting at my picnic table and refusing to leave or allow me to continue my lunch with my family. That's Disorderly Conduct.

He broke the rules of decorum by refusing to give up the mike after his question. He wanted another question. It escalated from there but could have been resolved at any time by his compliance and his sitting down to enjoy the rest of Kerry's speech/Q&A.

H

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:45 PM

Fletch2

I would argue they had the right, but that the policy was flawed. I would further argue that those who support such a policy are de facto police-state supporters.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:46 PM

Quote:
I have citations to prove they can do that under basic property law.

Which do not apply in this case, seeing as it is public property and not private property, and therefore "basic property law" as YOU choose to intepret it doesn't apply

And, you have not listed "citations", you've only given "examples" which are a far stretch from the incident at-hand. I on the other had, have provide both "public nuisance" statutes, examples of "public nuisance" cases in conflict with "freedom of speech", and example public university P&Ps (form Florida) which tend to bolster my case. So far I would say that my evidence trumps your assumptions.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch2

I would argue they had the right, but that the policy was flawed.

Then we are in agreement.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:51 PM

Not that they HAD the right in this case but only IF we assume your example. Hypothetical. Look it up, it's a good word.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And the answer is, again - not quite. The organization has the right to set policy, and remove people for violating their policy. They DON'T have the right to remove anyone at will, for no reason at all. Because public property is property, but it's also the property of the public. (Unlike private property.)

You keep suggesting that Meyer was removed at will for no reason at all. If the guy sitting in the back row watching quietly was removed you may have a point.

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not that they HAD the right in this case but only IF we assume your example. Hypothetical. Look it up, it's a good word.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Are you still here?

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:58 PM

:roll eyes:

So evict me. Call the police. Taser me. Whatever.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 8:59 PM

Fletch, my response was HYPOTHETICAL to your HYPOTHETICAL scenario.

I really don't know why you got confused over your own post, which (as you may recall, though it was so long ago) began with if: If we found that there was a public harrassment policy ...

Which, btw, I also answered in the hypothetical, using the word would: I would argue they had the right ...I would further argue that those who support such a policy are de facto police-state supporters.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:03 PM

Quote:
no reason at all

Okay, no VALID reason at all.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:04 PM

BDN

No threat, no 'crime' other than being theatrical. Find me the statute against that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:05 PM

The debate has fallen into semantics now. Can ad hominem attacks be far behind?

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
:roll eyes:

So evict me. Call the police. Taser me. Whatever.
.

Don't be silly.... I was never in Skull and Bones.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:08 PM

BDN

Not semantics, matters of fact. Show me that he violated a law. Otherwise, you're saying the police should be able to haul away anyone for any reason, whether they've broken a law or not.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch, my response was HYPOTHETICAL to your HYPOTHETICAL scenario.

I really don't know why you got confused over your own post, which (as you may recall, though it was so long ago) began with if: If we found that there was a public harrassment policy ...

Which, btw, I also answered in the hypothetical, using the word would: I would argue they had the right ...I would further argue that those who support such a policy are de facto police-state supporters.

Oh I see!

Can we at least conclude that since we can't find a written policy (for THIS University) and have no idea if there is one or what instructions have been given to the police or otherwise, that the whole thing was very badly handled by the parties involved. That going forward all policies should be clearly enumberated and publically accessable and move this thread back to the topic?

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:11 PM

(post-edit) I guess I've already moved that way.

Fletch, Finn, Geezer, Hero, BDN, Jong, Malbadinlatin, Rap -

I'm curious if you support policies that restrict non-threatening speech.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch, Finn, Geezer, Hero, BDN, Jong, Malbadinlatin, Rap -

I'm curious if you support policies that restrict non-threatening speech.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Nope idiots should be allowed to be idiots.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:20 PM

So, nitty gritty time - hypothetical situation - a person should be able to give a speech on campus, or on the street corner, or in the park - at any time, as long as that person doesn't interfere with business, threaten, impede, stalk, or damage. Right ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, nitty gritty time - hypothetical situation - a person should be able to give a speech on campus, or on the street corner, or in the park - at any time, as long as that person doesn't interfere with business, threaten, impede, stalk, or damage. Right ?

"

Since he's such a good citizen, would he leave quietly if asked?

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:25 PM

'Allowed to give a speech' means not being asked to leave. If you ask that person to leave, you are not allowing them to give their speech.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
'Allowed to give a speech' means not being asked to leave. If you ask that person to leave, you are not allowing them to give their speech.

Another hyperthetical if your guy goes into a Latino neighbourhood and gives a speech advocating that all illegals be rounded up and sent home. Not a hate speech, no threats against anyone are you saying that that community "the people" in that ward should have no right to ask him to leave?

If the police believe that doing this could pose a danger to his safety would they be allowed to prevent it "for his own safety/public order?" Would the police be expected to protect him should they not be allowed to prevent him?

SIGNYM

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:37 PM

Based city statute he may be deemed a "public nuisance" if he is standing next to your park tables and preventing your from enjoying a birthday party. OTOH if he's off in the mid-distance somewhere, within earshot but not "at" your event, he's not a public nuisance.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:38 PM

In that case he'd be interfering. But if he was 10 feet away, not directing his speech at you, just up there on his soapbox, so to speak ... btw in a lot of parks one is allowed to 'reserve' a spot for a function. If you didn't reserve said spot, you're free to go somewhere else. If he follows, then he's stalking.

But Fletch, seriously, what's the issue ? Here we've posited a polite person doing nothing more than having his say. Are you trying to say the law should be on your side in shutting him up b/c you don't like his opinion ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In that case he'd be interfering. But if he was 10 feet away, not directing his speech at you, just up there on his soapbox, so to speak ... btw in a lot of parks one is allowed to 'reserve' a spot for a function. If you didn't reserve said spot, you're free to go somewhere else. If he follows, then he's stalking.

."

So 10 feet away is not interfering who sets that distance? Who gets to decide if he's interfering? Me? Him? the police?

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Based city statute he may be deemed a "public nuisance" if he is standing next to your park tables and preventing your from enjoying a birthday party. OTOH if he's off in the mid-distance somewhere, within earshot but not "at" your event, he's not a public nuisance.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Oh I agree, but I think Rue wants a blanket statement of yes/no kind of a black and white deal. Ultimately someone has to decide if he's being a public nuiscence which he will not agree with and is likely to be subjective unless we establish rules.

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 9:46 PM

10 feet away is too far to be a physical threat, and assuming he doesn't have a bullhorn or loudspeaker, 10 feet is too far away to be an audio nuisance.

If he were playing a radio and you didn't like the music, would you have the same objection ? Would you feel the need to be able to call the police and have him taken away ?

My sense is that you like the idea of freedom in theory, until a person expresses a position you disagree with. Then you want restrictions.

So this is what I propose - we use the laws that govern playing radios in public to judge the interference/ nuisance quality of speech.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

My sense is that you like the idea of freedom in theory, until a person expresses a position you disagree with. Then you want restrictions.

Actually no, let me explain where I'm coming from.

You have provided a hyperthetical in which you have gone out of your way to remove all elements of interpersonal conflict. You've said in effect "if this guy stands in a public place and is doing no harm does he have the right to free speech, can he stand and say his piece without any harrassment?" Of course the answer to that question is yes, it has to be, no reasonable person is going to say different, just like not one person here objected to the content of any of Meyer's questions (and I would like the answer to a few of them myself.)

The problem with answering the question just "yes or no" is because as the Operative would say "that is a trap." You have set up a zero conflict situation from which you want a yes/no black and white answer. Once you have it you will take that answer and apply it to a real world, shades of grey, real people problem and say "you must agree with me in this situation because you said......" or "you are a hypocrite because you said this but you don't stand by it."

Unfortunately the grey, messy real people world is where we live where there is no sunny, shiney zero conflict version of the question.

You want people to express that folks have some absolute right to free speech but in a free society there can be no such thing as an absolute right, because that society is filled with other people that also have rights. In a society your right to swing your arms ends at the end of my nose. Give someone an absolute right to swing their arms and there will be a lot of broken noses.

I believe in the principle of free speech but I also believe in a woman's right to chose. So using the fluffy Rue version of free speech if a group of anti abortion protesters stand on a sidewalk outside an abortion clinic, don't interfere with trafic or business or anything else then in principle they are ok to be there. Of course there may be some women that wont go to that clinic, not because there are threats but because their anonymity will be gone as soon as they are forced to walk by their neighbours. In that case surely the principle of a woman's right to chose has been sacrificed?

Likewise, the guy in the Latino neighbourhood saying round up illegals and put them on boats back to Mexico. Do the local voters (the people) get to object to that, or does his right to free speech trump their right to live without intimidation? I say intimidation because even if we do the fluffy Rue version and decide for simplicity that no hate speech or calls for violence are made some of those there will feel intimidated. Who gets to decide if it's intimidation or not in the fluffy version, the person speaking or the one feeling intimidated?

And that's the problem because people are different, their views are different, the rights they think most important are different so to single out your fave "right" and make it absolute ignores lots of other people with meaningfull grevances and incompatable rights.

Anyway, that's my take.

If you would please answer the question about the guy and the Latino neighbourhood?

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 11:21 PM

double

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 11:37 PM

He should have his say. Just b/c some may find his opinions objectionable is not a reason to keep him from saying them. (With all the normal restrictions - you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, you can't engage in hate speech etc.)

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
He should have his say. Just b/c some may find his opinions objectionable is not a reason to keep him from saying them.

Ok, what about the fundementalist preacher who has a history of going onto college campuses and calling women wearing short skirts and makeup "prostitutes?" I believe the women's groups at some colleges call his sermon's "intimidating and degrading to women?"

RUE

Friday, October 5, 2007 11:44 PM

calling women wearing short skirts and makeup "prostitutes?"

Sounds like slander to me. There seems to me to be a large difference between a person saying - I believe this government is out of control and needs to be held accountable - or, we need to kill all niggers - or, you there ! in the tight red t-shirt. You whore, you prostitute !

One is free speech, one is hate speech, and one is harassment - and if you can't tell the difference, you're in serious condition.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Friday, October 5, 2007 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
calling women wearing short skirts and makeup "prostitutes?"

Sounds like slander to me.
"

Really? So does he get a soapbox or not? How absolute is free speech, any point of view with any teeth will offend someone? Is offence enough to pull back the soapbox?

My understanding is that he doesnt single out specific students but speaks of a "type." Is that different from picking out a type of politician? Is only political speech absolutely protected in your view? If he said *Democrats* in short skirts and makeup are prostitutes does that make it protected?

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:01 AM

"any point of view with any teeth will offend someone? Is offence enough to pull back the soapbox?" No. But discrimination is. There ARE legally well-established limits to free speech, which I mentioned, above.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"any point of view with any teeth will offend someone? Is offence enough to pull back the soapbox?" No. But discrimination is.

I agree, but what constitutes discrimination? I mean how is expressing the opinion that a "type" of woman is a prostitute different from saying that "type" of people of a certain ethnicity should be deported? You said the Latino neighbourhood guy was allowed his soapbox right?

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:08 AM

I thought you said he was talking about illegal immigrants, which is different from saying all spics should go back to Meheeko. One calls for enforcement of the law, the other is a diatribe against a 'race' of people.

***************************************************************
PS discrimination, harassment, slander etc are pretty well legally defined.

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I thought you said he was talking about illegal immigrants, which is different from saying all spics should go back to Meheeko.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

I did. But the "preacher" never said that all women were prostitutes just one of a certain type. Or are you saying the neighbourhood guy gets a soapbox because you agree with what he says and the preacher doesnt because you don't?

Looking for the difference here...

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:14 AM

You really don't understand ?????

I post-added something (above) which mentions some of the legally well-established concepts of discrimination, harassment, slander, hate-speech, etc. This is not new legal ground, it's been well covered. If you're doing one of those, you're not covered under free-speech protections.

And the university is under an obligation to maintain a 'non-hostile' environment for all students, which are covered under Federal discrimination laws.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:18 AM

No I read it. And as I said the cases are the same. Preacher doesnt point to a girl and call her a prostitute, he expressess his opinion of a certain class of women. Latino guy expressess an opinion of a certain type of immigrant. They are both expressing an opinion of a subgroup yet Latino guy gets his Rue issues soapbox and it seems old fire and brimstone doesn't. I wonder why?

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:22 AM

Because one person is not doing something specificaly illegal while the other is. Federal dsirimination laws are based on "Ethnic/National Origin, Color, Race, Religion & Sex Discrimination" - not legal status. Someone criticizing people for being in the country illegally isn't discriminating.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Because one person is not doing something specificaly illegal while the other is. Federal dsirimination laws are based on "Ethnic/National Origin, Color, Race, Religion & Sex Discrimination" - not legal status.

But he's not discriminating on sex, he's expressing an opinion about a certain type of person. Much like you do every time you post sweeping generalisations much as we all do, it's an opinion, just not a very nice one, shouldn't free speech rules protect it? Isn't the point of free speech to allow people to say things we disagree with?

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:29 AM

"But he's not discriminating on sex, he's expressing an opinion about a certain type of person."
He's expressing an opinion about a certain female type of person. He's targeting one sex only. If he were to include the same diatribe about men it would be more of a grey shade of grey, and not so black and white.

***************************************************************
So to speak ...

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"But he's not discriminating on sex, he's expressing an opinion about a certain type of person."
He's expressing an opinion about a certain female type of person. He's targeting one sex only. If he were to have the same diatribe about men it would be more of a grey shade of grey, and not so black and white.

Oh he says nasty things about "immoral" men too. Just that their isn't usually a "men's society" on campus to complain.

So, soapbox or not?

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:43 AM

That would be an interesting test case. My feeling is if he was standing in a place where he didn't impede, wasn't targeting individuals, was making broad brush comments about the morals of kids nowadays - he could stand there and talk till the cows came home. If he was calling women whores and men faggots he'd still be discriminating against protected classes.

***************************************************************
You're all doomed I tell you, DOOMED !

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:51 AM

OTOH if he was ranting about our "hypersexualized" society... soapbox. Because then it would be based on behavior, not gender or orientation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:55 AM

Ah well you're more advanced than I am. I would ban his ass. There are two groups of people I disagree with, ones where the disagreement is purely interlectual and ones where there is some deep down loathing of the basic idea. I find that to appear "right on" trendy and with it I can tolerate free speech by people I seriously disagree with but on some hot button issues, well I'm just not advanced enough. I'm afraid an idiot calling women prostitutes because they exercise the freedom to dress as they like is one of those issues.

So there you go. I can't say yes to free speech in all cases. I can tolerate intelligent differences of opinion but I am completely intollerant of some issues where I think the act of expressing your opinion actually harms others.

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:59 AM

"I'm afraid an idiot calling women prostitutes because they exercise the freedom to dress as they like is one of those issues." And he was rightly dissuaded.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Saturday, October 6, 2007 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

"Of course," said Judge Posner, "none of this is important. There is no reason to doubt either his bona fides or that the content of his religious advocacy is protected by the First Amendment. The question is whether the protection extends to a particular site on the university campus."

Posner groped for an analogy: "The Justice Department in Washington has a large auditorium with a stage, and so would be a suitable venue for a theatrical production. But the First Amendment does not require the department to make the auditorium available for that purpose even when it is not being used for departmental business. Public property is property, and the law of trespass protects public property, as it protects private property, from uninvited guests."

Wow, a lot of material today. Much of it moving toward some resolution. I didn't see this comment made, so I will risk it. I would say the above example doesn't fit well. "protects public property ... from uninvited guests." The event that Mr. Meyers went to was open to the public, as a consequence he was an invited guest.

The questions are (in my mind's eye), was Mr. Meyers asked to leave by the organizers of the event? It is not clear to me he was. Did the organizers ask the police to remove him? I believe they unwisely did; and under that auspice it was within legal bounds for the police to ask Mr. Meyers to leave; it is not clear that they did so prior to laying hands on him... a mistake on the police's part. I'm still not convinced if they were not asked by the event organizer, the police had the right to initiate the removal.

"Let me provide a compromise. I contend they have a right to remove him, I have citations to prove they can do that under basic property law. If you will ceed that they have that right just the same as any property owner. I am willing to ceed that the action taken to remove him was inappropriate as he was not a threat."

Dang, you and I are actually pretty close to the same position, I'm just not convinced the police had a right to remove Mr. Meyers with out being asked to do so by the organizers.

Edit: Actually, I'm willing to say it -is- like private property in this sense. I have 4 people into my living room. A, B, C, and D; ostensibly to listen to A give speech, with a Q & A. D happens to be a police officer who noticed my open door, the loud voices, and wanders in. Person C starts ranting about A, and while asking questions doesn't give A a chance to answer. If I ask C to leave, and they refuse, I might ask D to remove C. On the other hand, if I sit there quietly, and D simply decides to haul C off simply because ... C is rude, stupid and obnoxious, I will be -very- unhappy with D.

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 1:22 AM

And I'm still of the opinion that public institutions are within their right to make policies, but not within their right to remove anyone at any time unless that person is violating a policy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And I'm still of the opinion that public institutions are within their right to make policies, but not within their right to remove anyone at any time unless that person is violating a policy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

But seeing that the policy is made by them and can be changed by them without penalty it is an arbitary authority. It differs only from "doing what you like" in that it documents a set of volentary limitations. It's like if I have a policy not to eat chicken, if you later catch me in KFC I may have broken policy but that has no consequence since it was a self imposed limitation.

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 2:03 AM

They can't set policies that are illegal, and public policies are always up for public debate.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 2:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
They can't set policies that are illegal, and public policies are always up for public debate.

Well they are not public enough to be up on the net. Like I said there are no standards. At least one university recently drafted a set when they realised they didnt have any.

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 2:37 AM

"there are no standards"

None that I can find on the net. And I have seen reference to the university policy on protests in news stories. So there is a policy, just not where we've looked.

I knew it had to be out there.

***************************************************************
Regulations of the University of Florida
6C1-4.016 Student Conduct Code; Violations, Penalties and Procedures for Adjudication.

(1) Philosophy. The University of Florida is an institution which encourages the intellectual and personal growth of its students as scholars and citizens. As an educational institution, the University recognizes that the transmission of knowledge, the pursuit of truth, and the development of individuals require the free exchange of ideas, self-expression, and the challenging of beliefs and customs. In order to maintain an environment where these goals can be achieved safely and equitably, the University promotes civility, respect, and integrity among all members of the community. As stated in the Standard of Ethical Conduct, students are expected to exhibit high standards of behavior and concern for others. The University strives to protect and guide the educational community by establishing a Student Conduct Code and student judicial system, which promotes individual and social responsibility. Choosing to join the University of Florida community obligates each member to a code of civilized behavior. Individuals and student organizations are expected to observe the policies, rules, and regulations of the University of Florida and the State of Florida. University policies have been designed to protect individuals and the campus community and create an environment conducive to achieving the academic mission of the institution. The purpose of the Student Conduct Code is to set forth the specific authority and responsibility of the University in maintaining social discipline, to establish guidelines which facilitate a just and civil campus community, and to outline the educational process for determining student and student organization responsibility for alleged violations of University regulations. This judicial process will follow established procedures for insuring fundamental fairness and an educational experience that facilitates the development of the individual and of the organization.

(2) Violations. A student or student organization shall not engage in the following prohibited conduct. A student who, or student organization which engages in the following prohibited conduct violates the Student Conduct Code and is subject to sanctions as provided in subsection (3) below:
(a) CAUSING PHYSICAL OR OTHER HARM TO ANY PERSON.
1. Conduct causing physical injury or endangering another?s health or safety, which includes, but is not limited to, acts of physical violence, assault, and relationship or domestic violence.
2. Actions causing physical injury or endangering one?s own health or safety. (b) SEXUAL ASSAULT AND SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
1. Sexual Assault. Any sexual act or attempt to engage in any sexual act with another person without the consent of the other person or, in circumstances in which the person is unable, due to age, disability, or chemical or other impairment, to give consent.
2. Sexual Misconduct. Any intentional intimate touching of another without the consent of the other person or, in circumstances in which the person is unable, due to age, disability, or chemical or other impairment, to give consent.
(c) HARASSMENT.
1. Harassment or Threats. Verbal or written abuse, threats, harassment, coercion or any other conduct that places another individual in reasonable fear of his or her safety through words or actions directed at that person, or substantially interferes with the working, educational or living environment of the individual, including stalking and racial harassment.
2. Sexual Harassment. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for favors, and/or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
a. Submissio

LEADB

Saturday, October 6, 2007 2:56 AM

Interesting, they do list:

"Failure to comply with a directive of law enforcement or a University official." Now, was Mr. Meyers clearly given a directive?

Gives a whole new meaning to when your professor says "Don't party this weekend, study!"

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 6, 2007 3:07 AM

Quote:
(s) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIVE.
Failure to comply with a directive of law enforcement or a University official.

This would prolly be the P&P applied to Meyer. I also think it is overly broad. For example, campus security cannot tell a pretty coed to f*ck the whole security staff, so SOME directives are out-of-bounds. This is to be decided.

Rue- I bow to the master. Where in HELL did you find this?????

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 3:10 AM

That they do. As I said before, I believe this event was staged. Meyer waited the the show was over etc etc.

My reading of the entire document is that unless the person was in violation of criminal code, the worst that could happen to them was a disciplinary hearing.

And I concur with SignyM. A lot of this is overly broad and probably able to be challenged. (ahhhhh...., the beauty of public policy up for public scrutiny ...)

It occured to me to search under "code of conduct" "university of florida".

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FLETCH2

Saturday, October 6, 2007 3:14 AM

Well I'm impressed, I couldnt find it.

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 6, 2007 3:18 AM

I scanned the document for "arrest" and didn't find anything. So removing Meyer might have followed P&P (I would challenge that particular line). Now the question is, did they use excessive force? My answer is still YES.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, October 6, 2007 3:18 AM

Sometimes it helps to be distractable ... though not often.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3