Student denied to hand out Christian themed Valentine’s Day cards on public campus

[sakinago]

Why is it Christians always run to the government stoop looking for approval?

If you have to first ask permission to do so, and get approval from governmental bodies, it is no longer a right. That’s the whole point here. Her addressing grievances against the government, to the government is also laid out in the first amendment. This is a public university we are talking about here.

She was clearly proselytising in a public space which has rules governing such actions.

What rules against proselytizing?? The only rules are congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise there of.

What you are saying is that she CANNOT talk about religion or any topic on a public campus without that campuses permission. That’s a total violation of the first amendment. There are no laws against proselytizing, I don’t care if your doing so to encourage people to abort babies for Satan, because Satan needs those souls. That’s your freedom to do so.

Im glad I posted this, seeing this much resistance from the left to a single girl passing out encouraging Valentine’s Day cards with a religious theme...yet there’s only crickets from the left (even encouragement) when antifa shows up in the hundreds and even thousands, with weapons, starts riots, blocks highways, vandalizes private and public property, and COMMITS acts of violence against police and other citizens. This is on public campuses, public parks, public areas, private areas, private campuses, pretty much wherever they please. That’s somehow just exercising their free speech...but passing out heart shaped cards with bible versus talking about love isn’t. Proselytizing: BAD, violent riots: just excercising free speech ya know.

She wasn't just 'talking' about religion. She was going up to people - whom are minding their own business - and forcing them to pay attention to her message by standing in front of them and asking them to take a pamphlet/card. That is MILES from just sitting/standing in ONE place and talking - at normal volume - about religion.

What if the college let anyone do that? At a college - full of young, idealistic minds with all kinds of different agendas? No one would be able to get to class on time as you could theoretically have hundreds of people jamming pamphlets/cards into people's faces who want nothing to do with the subject.

This is NOTHING to do with free speech. This is forcing people to listen to her message by getting into their faces - mostly against their will, I bet.

I agree with the college 100%. And this stupid bitch ain't gonna croak because she cannot bother of bunch of people with her God Club bullshit.


I strongly assume you disagree and your mind is closed on the issue.

So be it...good day.

You’re clearly confusing free speech, with “I want freedom from speech I don’t want to hear”. There’s a big distinction there. She’s allowed to go up to talk to anyone she wants, about whatever subject she wants, except when it involves Jesus (or insert what subject you don’t want to hear). As soon as Jesus was cited she crossed a line, this is what y’all are saying. If she was passing out simple Disney Valentine’s Day cards, nothing else, would that too be a violation?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But perfectly Constitutional, in no manner violating free speech rights; consequently, the lawsuit has no merit.And what some might subjectively perceive to be ‘stupid’ is viewed by others as appropriate and warranted.

`
The words "constitutional" and "stupid" are many times mutually exclusive. Just because a thing is constitutional does not, for example, mean it is moral, intelligent or right. Citizens United is an example of something that has completely corrupted politics. Furthermore, we have common sense. One person handing out Jesus loves you valentines on a public campus is hardly a gross violation of ones constitutional rights. To me, common sense says if it's a one time occurrence, let it go. It was idiotic for the college to pursue this. Now, my tax dollars are wasted on a needless lawsuit which could have been prevented.

Again, in your subjective opinion.

That you perceive the policy as "stupid" is irrelevant.

All that matters is the policy is lawful, no rights have been violated, and the lawsuit is unwarranted.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NWTC vice president of advancement, Karen Smits, told Campus Reform that "free speech is exercised every day in many different contexts all over the NWTC campus," and that the "policy deals with ‘public assembly' as the law recognizes that, unlike a public park, not all physical areas of educational institutions are open for 'public assembly.'"

Correct.

Time, place, and manner regulations have been consistently upheld by the courts where those regulation are content neutral. And there is no evidence the school’s policy singles-out Christian speech for exclusion.

"The law is very clear here," Mattox said in an interview. "Public colleges can’t tell students when and where they can speak on their own public college campus, and they certainly can’t require them to get advanced permission to speak. It’s a clear violation of the First Amendment, and it is likely the court will end up finding that here."

Wrong.

Like other rights the right to free speech is not absolute and is subject to regulation consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence – it is not a right to say anything, anywhere, at any time.

As long as the school affords students a venue to engage in free speech, the prior approval policy is perfectly Constitutional.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Just because we’ve ignored the constitution before, does not make it constitutional. Slavery, internment camps, patriot act, DOMA, all of that. I don’t care what justification you want to provide. That’s a clear violation of the text I posted up there.

So, if we’re going off of your argument here...this girl is not allowed to say “Jesus loves you on this Valentine’s Day”, on public grounds, at a public university.

It's not "my" argument, it's First Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court - take it up with them.

And the "Supreme Court is sometimes wrong" argument is ignorant nonsense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it Christians always run to the government stoop looking for approval?

If you have to first ask permission to do so, and get approval from governmental bodies, it is no longer a right. That’s the whole point here. Her addressing grievances against the government, to the government is also laid out in the first amendment. This is a public university we are talking about here.

This is just as stupid and wrong as the first time you posted it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

All of this stuff about religion is getting really, really, boring. I've gotten Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses away from the door, without being impolite. No Muslims have come BTW, even though I live in a neighborhood with a lot of Muslims in it and I have Muslim friends. I don't know why people do things like this. Now we've got these "evangelicals" coming around. Yeah, I'll answer the door, but the same thing applies.

The problem is that these "evangelicals" want to accomplish their aims by manipulating government to force their cults on us. No way.

Remember that the orange whore opened his Jerusalem embassy by sending over a Protestant fundie to speak, a guy who actually said, among other things, that Islam is not a religion and who is a member of a misogynist cult.

When one of them comes to my door I tell them I'm a Pagan, which I am.

The looks on their faces is priceless.

They seem to not be able to get away from me fast enough. LOL.

I tell them May the Mother Goddess bless you and everyone you love.

They run away in fright.

If you tell them that you are jewish it has the same effect. When I was growing up I lived on a very rough estate. The mormons came round and got their bikes nicked. They never came back. Wankers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is it Christians always run to the government stoop looking for approval?

If you have to first ask permission to do so, and get approval from governmental bodies, it is no longer a right. That’s the whole point here. Her addressing grievances against the government, to the government is also laid out in the first amendment. This is a public university we are talking about here.

She was clearly proselytising in a public space which has rules governing such actions.

What rules against proselytizing?? The only rules are congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise there of.

What you are saying is that she CANNOT talk about religion or any topic on a public campus without that campuses permission. That’s a total violation of the first amendment. There are no laws against proselytizing, I don’t care if your doing so to encourage people to abort babies for Satan, because Satan needs those souls. That’s your freedom to do so.

Im glad I posted this, seeing this much resistance from the left to a single girl passing out encouraging Valentine’s Day cards with a religious theme...yet there’s only crickets from the left (even encouragement) when antifa shows up in the hundreds and even thousands, with weapons, starts riots, blocks highways, vandalizes private and public property, and COMMITS acts of violence against police and other citizens. This is on public campuses, public parks, public areas, private areas, private campuses, pretty much wherever they please. That’s somehow just exercising their free speech...but passing out heart shaped cards with bible versus talking about love isn’t. Proselytizing: BAD, violent riots: just excercising free speech ya know.

She wasn't just 'talking' about religion. She was going up to people - whom are minding their own business - and forcing them to pay attention to her message by standing in front of them and asking them to take a pamphlet/card. That is MILES from just sitting/standing in ONE place and talking - at normal volume - about religion.

What if the college let anyone do that? At a college - full of young, idealistic minds with all kinds of different agendas? No one would be able to get to class on time as you could theoretically have hundreds of people jamming pamphlets/cards into people's faces who want nothing to do with the subject.

This is NOTHING to do with free speech. This is forcing people to listen to her message by getting into their faces - mostly against their will, I bet.

I agree with the college 100%. And this stupid bitch ain't gonna croak because she cannot bother of bunch of people with her God Club bullshit.


I strongly assume you disagree and your mind is closed on the issue.

So be it...good day.

You’re clearly confusing free speech, with “I want freedom from speech I don’t want to hear”. There’s a big distinction there. She’s allowed to go up to talk to anyone she wants, about whatever subject she wants, except when it involves Jesus (or insert what subject you don’t want to hear). As soon as Jesus was cited she crossed a line, this is what y’all are saying. If she was passing out simple Disney Valentine’s Day cards, nothing else, would that too be a violation?

At least you're consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

The content of her speech isn't at issue; the school's policy is content neutral, which is why it's Constitutional.

 

[sakinago]

NWTC vice president of advancement, Karen Smits, told Campus Reform that "free speech is exercised every day in many different contexts all over the NWTC campus," and that the "policy deals with ‘public assembly' as the law recognizes that, unlike a public park, not all physical areas of educational institutions are open for 'public assembly.'"

Correct.

Time, place, and manner regulations have been consistently upheld by the courts where those regulation are content neutral. And there is no evidence the school’s policy singles-out Christian speech for exclusion.

"The law is very clear here," Mattox said in an interview. "Public colleges can’t tell students when and where they can speak on their own public college campus, and they certainly can’t require them to get advanced permission to speak. It’s a clear violation of the First Amendment, and it is likely the court will end up finding that here."

Wrong.

Like other rights the right to free speech is not absolute and is subject to regulation consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence – it is not a right to say anything, anywhere, at any time.

As long as the school affords students a venue to engage in free speech, the prior approval policy is perfectly Constitutional.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Just because we’ve ignored the constitution before, does not make it constitutional. Slavery, internment camps, patriot act, DOMA, all of that. I don’t care what justification you want to provide. That’s a clear violation of the text I posted up there.

So, if we’re going off of your argument here...this girl is not allowed to say “Jesus loves you on this Valentine’s Day”, on public grounds, at a public university.

It's not "my" argument, it's First Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court - take it up with them.

And the "Supreme Court is sometimes wrong" argument is ignorant nonsense.

You CANNOT make arguments based on case law, because case law ALWAYS changes. It’s legal/illegal until we change our minds. So if she wins this case, then the law is now changed, is that not correct? It is legal to for open source 3D printing blueprints on guns, now that’s legal, and there’s no going back because it’s case law, is that what you’re saying

 

[Dragonlady]

Women want this? Voting democrat means more of this stupid shit. You’re voting for this ladies.

Voting Republican means no health care, and no choice on abortion. There really is no choice.

 

[Darkwind]

The best strategy is to hand out LBGQTlmnop Valentines in the exact same location.

If no one comes to shut it down, then include that piece of evidence in the lawsuit.

 

[sakinago]

If you have to first ask permission to do so, and get approval from governmental bodies, it is no longer a right. That’s the whole point here. Her addressing grievances against the government, to the government is also laid out in the first amendment. This is a public university we are talking about here.

She was clearly proselytising in a public space which has rules governing such actions.

What rules against proselytizing?? The only rules are congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise there of.

What you are saying is that she CANNOT talk about religion or any topic on a public campus without that campuses permission. That’s a total violation of the first amendment. There are no laws against proselytizing, I don’t care if your doing so to encourage people to abort babies for Satan, because Satan needs those souls. That’s your freedom to do so.

Im glad I posted this, seeing this much resistance from the left to a single girl passing out encouraging Valentine’s Day cards with a religious theme...yet there’s only crickets from the left (even encouragement) when antifa shows up in the hundreds and even thousands, with weapons, starts riots, blocks highways, vandalizes private and public property, and COMMITS acts of violence against police and other citizens. This is on public campuses, public parks, public areas, private areas, private campuses, pretty much wherever they please. That’s somehow just exercising their free speech...but passing out heart shaped cards with bible versus talking about love isn’t. Proselytizing: BAD, violent riots: just excercising free speech ya know.

She wasn't just 'talking' about religion. She was going up to people - whom are minding their own business - and forcing them to pay attention to her message by standing in front of them and asking them to take a pamphlet/card. That is MILES from just sitting/standing in ONE place and talking - at normal volume - about religion.

What if the college let anyone do that? At a college - full of young, idealistic minds with all kinds of different agendas? No one would be able to get to class on time as you could theoretically have hundreds of people jamming pamphlets/cards into people's faces who want nothing to do with the subject.

This is NOTHING to do with free speech. This is forcing people to listen to her message by getting into their faces - mostly against their will, I bet.

I agree with the college 100%. And this stupid bitch ain't gonna croak because she cannot bother of bunch of people with her God Club bullshit.


I strongly assume you disagree and your mind is closed on the issue.

So be it...good day.

You’re clearly confusing free speech, with “I want freedom from speech I don’t want to hear”. There’s a big distinction there. She’s allowed to go up to talk to anyone she wants, about whatever subject she wants, except when it involves Jesus (or insert what subject you don’t want to hear). As soon as Jesus was cited she crossed a line, this is what y’all are saying. If she was passing out simple Disney Valentine’s Day cards, nothing else, would that too be a violation?

At least you're consistent at being ignorant and wrong.

The content of her speech isn't at issue; the school's policy is content neutral, which is why it's Constitutional.

Answer the question, is it a violation to hand out plain old store bought Valentine’s Day cards on campus?

 

[sakinago]

NWTC vice president of advancement, Karen Smits, told Campus Reform that "free speech is exercised every day in many different contexts all over the NWTC campus," and that the "policy deals with ‘public assembly' as the law recognizes that, unlike a public park, not all physical areas of educational institutions are open for 'public assembly.'"

Correct.

Time, place, and manner regulations have been consistently upheld by the courts where those regulation are content neutral. And there is no evidence the school’s policy singles-out Christian speech for exclusion.

"The law is very clear here," Mattox said in an interview. "Public colleges can’t tell students when and where they can speak on their own public college campus, and they certainly can’t require them to get advanced permission to speak. It’s a clear violation of the First Amendment, and it is likely the court will end up finding that here."

Wrong.

Like other rights the right to free speech is not absolute and is subject to regulation consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence – it is not a right to say anything, anywhere, at any time.

As long as the school affords students a venue to engage in free speech, the prior approval policy is perfectly Constitutional.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Just because we’ve ignored the constitution before, does not make it constitutional. Slavery, internment camps, patriot act, DOMA, all of that. I don’t care what justification you want to provide. That’s a clear violation of the text I posted up there.

So, if we’re going off of your argument here...this girl is not allowed to say “Jesus loves you on this Valentine’s Day”, on public grounds, at a public university.

It's not "my" argument, it's First Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court - take it up with them.

And the "Supreme Court is sometimes wrong" argument is ignorant nonsense.

No it’s not ignorant nonsense. Because they get it wrong, often. That’s because they no longer operate within their constitutional confines, that is when bills come across their desk, vote yes or no on constitutionality. That’s what activism does, that’s why the progressives of the early 20th century started pushing case law, so they could be activist judges.

 

[Lysistrata]

All of this stuff about religion is getting really, really, boring. I've gotten Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses away from the door, without being impolite. No Muslims have come BTW, even though I live in a neighborhood with a lot of Muslims in it and I have Muslim friends. I don't know why people do things like this. Now we've got these "evangelicals" coming around. Yeah, I'll answer the door, but the same thing applies.

The problem is that these "evangelicals" want to accomplish their aims by manipulating government to force their cults on us. No way.

Remember that the orange whore opened his Jerusalem embassy by sending over a Protestant fundie to speak, a guy who actually said, among other things, that Islam is not a religion and who is a member of a misogynist cult.

Actually, the US Congress voted to put the embassy in Israel in their capital of Jerusalem.

It wasn't Trump.

Traditionally, America prefers to put their embassies in capital cities, and Jerusalem is indeed the capital of Israel. That's where the Knesset meets, that's where their government has its headquarters.

The location of the embassy is a completely separate issue. You buck the question of why trump sent a stupid clown to speak at the opening of this embassy. Why jeffress? To embarrass the American People? He's trash who stands for nothing.

 

[Polishprince]

The location of the embassy is a completely separate issue. You buck the question of why trump sent a stupid clown to speak at the opening of this embassy. Why jeffress? To embarrass the American People? He's trash who stands for nothing.

Rev. Jeffress is one of America's most preeminent theologians, a leading pastor of the Southern Baptist Convention. I can't think of anyone more appropriate to bring to the most holy city of Jerusalem for the solemn event.

 

[Lysistrata]

Women want this? Voting democrat means more of this stupid shit. You’re voting for this ladies.

Voting Republican means no health care, and no choice on abortion. There really is no choice.

In addition, more war. And increasing wasteful spending on the military. And a wrecked foreign policy and "diplomacy" designed to alienate longstanding allies. Not to mention a wrecked economy and a wrecked environment in which we cannot trust the air we breath and the water we drink. And more.

You want to wreck the U.S.A. and all of our freedoms? Vote republican.

 

[Borillar]

I really missed that whole part in The Gospels about Jesus handing out Valentines Day cards.

'Please Be Mine'

Yeah; I totally missed that.

Probably proselytizing stuff. I can just picture the "Christian" Valentine's card...
Roses are Red
Violets are Blue
You're going to hell
Unless you believe as I do

 

[Norman]

Student Sues College After Being Labeled 'Disruptive' For Handing Out Christian-themed Valentines

Violation of the 1st amendment, I think so.

She handed out Christian themed Valentine’s Day cards for free (a tradition she practiced with her late mother), until a campus security guard approached her and told her to stop. Why? Because it was solicitation (which doesn’t make sense because they were free). Later she was told she was disturbing the learning environment, even though this was outside, not in a classroom or library, or anywhere actual learning or studying is expected to happen without disruption. Apparently to excercise your first amendment at some of these “public” universities, one must first ask permission of the university to do so, then are limited to a tiny area to do so, and still have additional restrictions like time limits.

It’s no longer a right if you have to ask permission to do so.

She better bring on the Islamist cards next time.

 

[Polishprince]

Women want this? Voting democrat means more of this stupid shit. You’re voting for this ladies.

Voting Republican means no health care, and no choice on abortion. There really is no choice.

In addition, more war. And increasing wasteful spending on the military. And a wrecked foreign policy and "diplomacy" designed to alienate longstanding allies. Not to mention a wrecked economy and a wrecked environment in which we cannot trust the air we breath and the water we drink. And more.

You want to wreck the U.S.A. and all of our freedoms? Vote republican.

President Trump hasn't started any wars since he took the oath.

Why should he? Trump doesn't like violence, he's a businessman and blood is a big expense

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Women want this? Voting democrat means more of this stupid shit. You’re voting for this ladies.

Voting Republican means no health care, and no choice on abortion. There really is no choice.

Right we’re going to take your healthcare away. STFU with this stupid crap. Your healthcare plan for the unborn is a clamp to crush its skull.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Women want this? Voting democrat means more of this stupid shit. You’re voting for this ladies.

Voting Republican means no health care, and no choice on abortion. There really is no choice.

In addition, more war. And increasing wasteful spending on the military. And a wrecked foreign policy and "diplomacy" designed to alienate longstanding allies. Not to mention a wrecked economy and a wrecked environment in which we cannot trust the air we breath and the water we drink. And more.

You want to wreck the U.S.A. and all of our freedoms? Vote republican.

You seem stable.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If the college gets any taxpayer money in any fashion, that must let her do as she pleases.just like the BSA were forced to allow girls in b/c they accept tax money.

`
Not necessarily. To quote from my article;

Polly Olsen says giving out handmade, heart-shaped Valentines with Bible verses is a tradition that she's carried on from her late mother. But when she tried to distribute them on campus in February, security officials stopped her, saying that because she was outside the campus "public assembly area," she was violating school policy. In return, Olsen's lawsuit argues the college violated her right to free speech.​

`
At issue is a colleges right to limit speech to certain areas of the campus VS the persons allegation of free speech. Public schools have the right to limit speech to certain areas ( School speech (First Amendment) ) per supreme court decisions. As the school sees it, the aggrieved was doing this in the wrong area and asked to cease and desist, which is perfectly legal.

The college receives tax money, therefore they aren't allowed to restrict speech.


I want consistency.