What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Unkotare]

As for anyone else who feels it necessary to PM bomb someone for having an opinion, that's out of line. I was informed of such behavior and will come out and say that I do not condone it. I don't care who you are, what party you are or what views you hold. To neg, PM bomb or otherwise take out anger on someone for having an opinion is not right.

You can relax, because it hasn't happened. That was just pogo whining again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many of you conservatives had the opposite opinions on free speech during the Occupy protests, seems many of you supported all sorts of arbitrary and politically motivated caveats and conditions on protests as well as many calls for occupy to pay up for all the ******* cops and pepper spray.

They're also the people who want to put armed guards in schools everywhere,

but here they won't allow a University to beef up security for one event.

Crazy shit.

True.

And they attempt to make the unsubstantiated claim that the security fee was intended to ‘preempt’ those opposed to privacy rights from speaking.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"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. **** 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.

I was using your definition, which is what confused you. By my definition it is posting on a message board.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It wasn't mine either, but I didn't see you jumping on the idiot that challenged me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Still having trouble comprehending English? Feel free to point out where I said there was a student KKK group, idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 ******* problem, and I don't ******* 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.

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

Now we see the second part of the Pogo debate tactic, denial.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 fact that you didn't respond to my comment does not prove it doesn't exist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

I'm not saying who's right or wrong here, as far as plaintiff/defendant go.

So far I've mostly just added relevant information and tried to lay out a framework for what the issues are, and what the arguments are going to be.

Except none of the information you have added is relevant, and you really haven't addressed any of the posts that anyone has made that point out why your posts are irrelevant. Which actually means that all you have actually done here is waste electrons.

 

[JoeB131]

No, this isn't another thread about Duck Dynasty, just to get that out of the way. This thread is about the value of free speech. In April of this year, UB Students for Life; a Pro-Life student group at the University of Buffalo was charged $650 in "security fees" to hold a debate on abortion on campus, and are in the midst of a lawsuit against the school for placing unfair burdens on their rights to free speech. So, what is the price of free speech? What is the price of holding on to an ideal or view you hold dear? What is the price of defending what you believe is right and true? If this case is any indication, we're about to find out.

How much does free speech cost?

The University at Buffalo charged a pro-life student group nearly $650 in “unconstitutional fees” to exercise its freedom of speech during an event in April, a lawsuit alleges.

UB Students for Life, an official student organization at the school since 2012, held a pro-life abortion debate on April 18 and were instructed by school officials to hire university police to attend the event since it involved “controversial” expression. School officials later charged the group $649.63, or $150 more than the group’s entire annual Student Association funding even though one of the officers sat outside and read the newspaper.

“A public university is commonly known as the ‘marketplace of ideas,’” according to the 33-page lawsuit, which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. “That marketplace depends on free and vigorous debate between students — 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.”

More than 200 people attended the debate and no major disruptions were reported. At the same time, however, two other student groups — the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and UB Freethinkers — hosted a debate between a Christian and an atheist and were not levied security fees by university officials.

University at Buffalo charged pro-life student group $650 in 'unconstitutional fees,' lawsuit alleges | Fox News

Did the university have to provide extra security officers to protect the participants, then it strikes me the fees were reasonable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many of you conservatives had the opposite opinions on free speech during the Occupy protests, seems many of you supported all sorts of arbitrary and politically motivated caveats and conditions on protests as well as many calls for occupy to pay up for all the ******* cops and pepper spray.

They're also the people who want to put armed guards in schools everywhere,

but here they won't allow a University to beef up security for one event.

Crazy shit.

True.

And they attempt to make the unsubstantiated claim that the security fee was intended to ‘preempt’ those opposed to privacy rights from speaking.

If there hadn't been security and some anti-abortion terrorist had shown up and shot some pro-choicers, then these people would be blaming it on gun free zones,

and giving us that business about the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

[The T]

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

I'm not saying who's right or wrong here, as far as plaintiff/defendant go.

So far I've mostly just added relevant information and tried to lay out a framework for what the issues are, and what the arguments are going to be.

Except none of the information you have added is relevant, and you really haven't addressed any of the posts that anyone has made that point out why your posts are irrelevant. Which actually means that all you have actually done here is waste electrons.

And as an AGW type? Carbonated's time here means he is living a LIE like MOST Liberals on these boards.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm just jumping into this discussion and only read the first few posts. I came across this and I disagree, even though I am pro-life.

I think the university was within its right to charge the group at the very least a security "deposit". Perhaps it should have been returned if there were no altercations or damage done to university property, but one could argue that due to the nature of the event, security guards would have to be paid to maintain the peace and at the universities expense.

Whether or not they choose to do the same if a pro-choice event is held would be up to the administrators of the university.

Just my humble opinion.

Immie

I respect that. But what the university cannot do is selectively apply this fee. Nobody else on campus was required to pay it. As the article states, A similar debate between Christians and Atheists was held, and they were not required by the University to pay such a fee.

They can apply the fee based on their understanding of the need for security. It is their choice. How much security do you think is bought for $650, anyway.

Your insistence that the Christian/Athiest debate is an identical situation is odd. You don't have enough information to make that claim.

Why do I have to explain the same thing multiple times? Do you idiots not know how to read?

The only way they can charge a security fee for an event that impinges on speech is if they charge everyone the same fee. It cannot be based on the expected reaction to the content of the event because that is a content based restriction on free speech, which is unconstitutional. If you can't get that through the miniscule hole you use to feed information to your brain cell, shut the **** up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I'm not saying who's right or wrong here, as far as plaintiff/defendant go.

So far I've mostly just added relevant information and tried to lay out a framework for what the issues are, and what the arguments are going to be.

Except none of the information you have added is relevant, and you really haven't addressed any of the posts that anyone has made that point out why your posts are irrelevant. Which actually means that all you have actually done here is waste electrons.

You're the guy who believes in no government at all. You're hardly fit to an arbiter of what is or isn't relevant.

Who should control campus security?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They can apply the fee based on their understanding of the need for security. It is their choice. How much security do you think is bought for $650, anyway.

Your insistence that the Christian/Athiest debate is an identical situation is odd. You don't have enough information to make that claim.

That's garbage reasoning, LL.

They both used the same freaking building. Can the university levy the fee? Yes. Can they selectively apply it based on religious or political viewpoints? No. Even still, the "security" just sat outside and read the newspaper. The building itself most likely owned by the government, meaning the University was out of bounds by charging the fee. That is the issue being addressed here.

Garbage reasoning huh?

What proof do you have that their religious or political viewpoints had anything to do with the amount of the fee? Any at all?

The simple fact is that they don't charge everyone a fee, which means they do it on some criteria that involves a judgement call based on the expected result to the content of the speech. That makes it unconstitutional, period.

 

[The T]

I'm not saying who's right or wrong here, as far as plaintiff/defendant go.

So far I've mostly just added relevant information and tried to lay out a framework for what the issues are, and what the arguments are going to be.

Except none of the information you have added is relevant, and you really haven't addressed any of the posts that anyone has made that point out why your posts are irrelevant. Which actually means that all you have actually done here is waste electrons.

You're the guy who believes in no government at all. You're hardly fit to an arbiter of what is or isn't relevant.

Who should control campus security?

When do your Government checks dry up Carbonated?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many of you conservatives had the opposite opinions on free speech during the Occupy protests, seems many of you supported all sorts of arbitrary and politically motivated caveats and conditions on protests as well as many calls for occupy to pay up for all the ******* cops and pepper spray.

Feel free to point out any post I made that even remotely resembles what you just claimed.

Since you can't, that makes you wrong, and pathetic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many of you conservatives had the opposite opinions on free speech during the Occupy protests, seems many of you supported all sorts of arbitrary and politically motivated caveats and conditions on protests as well as many calls for occupy to pay up for all the ******* cops and pepper spray.

They're also the people who want to put armed guards in schools everywhere,

but here they won't allow a University to beef up security for one event.

Crazy shit.

No, I am the people who want to take guns away from cops unless everyone gets to have them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, this isn't another thread about Duck Dynasty, just to get that out of the way. This thread is about the value of free speech. In April of this year, UB Students for Life; a Pro-Life student group at the University of Buffalo was charged $650 in "security fees" to hold a debate on abortion on campus, and are in the midst of a lawsuit against the school for placing unfair burdens on their rights to free speech. So, what is the price of free speech? What is the price of holding on to an ideal or view you hold dear? What is the price of defending what you believe is right and true? If this case is any indication, we're about to find out.

How much does free speech cost?

The University at Buffalo charged a pro-life student group nearly $650 in “unconstitutional fees” to exercise its freedom of speech during an event in April, a lawsuit alleges.

UB Students for Life, an official student organization at the school since 2012, held a pro-life abortion debate on April 18 and were instructed by school officials to hire university police to attend the event since it involved “controversial” expression. School officials later charged the group $649.63, or $150 more than the group’s entire annual Student Association funding even though one of the officers sat outside and read the newspaper.

“A public university is commonly known as the ‘marketplace of ideas,’” according to the 33-page lawsuit, which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. “That marketplace depends on free and vigorous debate between students — 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.”

More than 200 people attended the debate and no major disruptions were reported. At the same time, however, two other student groups — the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and UB Freethinkers — hosted a debate between a Christian and an atheist and were not levied security fees by university officials.

University at Buffalo charged pro-life student group $650 in 'unconstitutional fees,' lawsuit alleges | Fox News

Did the university have to provide extra security officers to protect the participants, then it strikes me the fees were reasonable.

Newsflash, it is irrelevant if the university had to hire security unless they apply those fees to everyone.

Wait,
I already said that, multiple times. JoeB is just an idiot that loves to see the government trample on people, and then pretend that it doesn't matter cause it wasn't him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The university has some explaining to do.

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.

If the KKK caused a riot on the campus because a pro LGBT group brought in a some black drag queens would you blame the students, or the KKK? Personally, I would blame the KKK, which is why the alleged riot is irrelevant, even if it actually happened.

The purpose of campus security is to provide campus security.

Are you aware that the person arrested at the disturbance was a pro-choice professor?

Of course you aren't. Now you can pretend that's irrelevant too.

 

[The T]

No, this isn't another thread about Duck Dynasty, just to get that out of the way. This thread is about the value of free speech. In April of this year, UB Students for Life; a Pro-Life student group at the University of Buffalo was charged $650 in "security fees" to hold a debate on abortion on campus, and are in the midst of a lawsuit against the school for placing unfair burdens on their rights to free speech. So, what is the price of free speech? What is the price of holding on to an ideal or view you hold dear? What is the price of defending what you believe is right and true? If this case is any indication, we're about to find out.

University at Buffalo charged pro-life student group $650 in 'unconstitutional fees,' lawsuit alleges | Fox News

Did the university have to provide extra security officers to protect the participants, then it strikes me the fees were reasonable.

Newsflash, it is irrelevant if the university had to hire security unless they apply those fees to everyone.

Wait,
I already said that, multiple times. JoeB is just an idiot that loves to see the government trample on people, and then pretend that it doesn't matter cause it wasn't him.

Just wait until it is...the Communist fangs and claws will be quite visible.