What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Mac1958]

Can you name the abortion doctor who was murdered in Buffalo some years ago?

Nope!

And?

.

And who is the last person you can recall who was ever murdered over the issue of the flat tax vs. the progressive tax?

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope!

And?

.

And who is the last person you can recall who was ever murdered over the issue of the flat tax vs. the progressive tax?

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

Okay, the point was, which issue is more likely to bring out violent nutbags.

Abortion

or

Tax Policy.


Therefore, which issue really kind of calls for extra security measures when they have an event.

The university did nothing really wrong here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

E. Freedom of Speech and Assembly; Picketing and Demonstrations.

1. No student, faculty member or other staff member or authorized visitor shall be subject to any limitation or penalty for expressing his or her views or for assembling with others for such purpose;

a. peaceful picketing and other orderly demonstrations in public areas of campus grounds and buildings are not subject to interference provided there are no violations of the rules in section I.A. of this policy.

2. In order to provide maximum protection to the participants expressing their freedom of speech and to the campus community, each president shall:


a. promulgate procedures appropriate to that campus for provision of reasonable advance notice of the date and time of any planned assembly, picketing or demonstrations upon the grounds of the campus; the proposed location of the assembly or exercise; and the intended purpose;

i. the procedures and processes shall be reviewed and revised periodically;

ii. the procedures and processes for advance notice shall not be made a condition precedent to any assembly, picketing or demonstration; and

iii. providing advance notice shall not automatically have permission to use a campus facility or building without also following the appropriate processes for obtaining permission to use campus facilities and building

The Board of Trustees of the State University of New York Rules for the Maintenance of Public Order

As you see in the bolded, these rules also require groups to follow the 'appropriate processes for obtaining permission to use campus facilities'...

...and one of the processes was to cover the cost of security.

That does not settle the issue of whether the security requirement mandated and its cost were reasonable in this specific case,

but it does prove that imposing a security requirement and its cost is a university's prerogative.

The rules above also impose a security responsibility on the president of the university.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And who is the last person you can recall who was ever murdered over the issue of the flat tax vs. the progressive tax?

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

Okay, the point was, which issue is more likely to bring out violent nutbags.

Abortion

or

Tax Policy.


Therefore, which issue really kind of calls for extra security measures when they have an event.

The university did nothing really wrong here.

...says the boot-licking fascist. Dude, just stop...everyone here KNOWS you are an authoritarian shit!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope!

And?

.

And who is the last person you can recall who was ever murdered over the issue of the flat tax vs. the progressive tax?

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

Do you find it strange and incomprehensible as to why an abortion clinic might have an armed guard but a dentist's office down the street wouldn't even consider it?

 

[PredFan]

What is the price of free speech? Well, that depends on the speech.

Phil Robertson spoke-he got temporarily suspended.
Sarah Palin speaks-the left wing media bashes her.
Alan West speaks-Democrats sling racist remarks at him.
The KKK speaks-they are ridiculed by everyone.

The price varies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And who is the last person you can recall who was ever murdered over the issue of the flat tax vs. the progressive tax?

I don't know.

What in the world are you talking about, and precisely how does it pertain to the post of mine that you quoted?

.

Okay, the point was, which issue is more likely to bring out violent nutbags.

Abortion

or

Tax Policy.


Therefore, which issue really kind of calls for extra security measures when they have an event.

The university did nothing really wrong here.

I would just like to say for my own part that I have not ruled out the possibility that UB did something wrong,

because this is not the black and white either or right or wrong check one or the other issue too many people in this thread are making it out to be.

Nobody here, I'm willing to bet, has any idea exactly what the $650 fee represents. Has anyone seen the bill? Itemized?

I happened to have read on msn's report of this story that the bill was only $150 more than 'normal' administrative charges for these sorts of events.

Eh? What's that about?

Free speech wasn't free for Buffalo campus anti-abortion rally

That btw would be the msn story that the author of this thread claimed didn't exist.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nobody here, I'm willing to bet, has any idea exactly what the $650 fee represents. Has anyone seen the bill? Itemized?

I happened to have read on msn's report of this story that the bill was only $150 more than 'normal' administrative charges for these sorts of events.

Eh? What's that about?

Free speech wasn't free for Buffalo campus anti-abortion rally

That btw would be the msn story that the author of this thread claimed didn't exist.

I believe the MSN article is incorrect. The complaint is here -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/UBSLcomplaint.pdf


1. Normally Universities don't charge an administrative fee for student organizations to reserve facilities at all. The school in this case had a policy and charge security fees when they determined that such actions might be required. (Which on it's face may violate a previous SCOTUS ruling on that issue.)

2. They were also in error in that the "$150" wasn't over what was normally charged - since there is normally no charge to reserve a room - the $150 was over what the Student Organization received in the school allocation for their budget which was $500.



>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody here, I'm willing to bet, has any idea exactly what the $650 fee represents. Has anyone seen the bill? Itemized?

I happened to have read on msn's report of this story that the bill was only $150 more than 'normal' administrative charges for these sorts of events.

Eh? What's that about?

Free speech wasn't free for Buffalo campus anti-abortion rally

That btw would be the msn story that the author of this thread claimed didn't exist.

I believe the MSN article is incorrect. The complaint is here -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/UBSLcomplaint.pdf


1. Normally Universities don't charge an administrative fee for student organizations to reserve facilities at all. The school in this case had a policy and charge security fees when they determined that such actions might be required. (Which on it's face may violate a previous SCOTUS ruling on that issue.)

2. They were also in error in that the "$150" wasn't over what was normally charged - since there is normally no charge to reserve a room - the $150 was over what the Student Organization received in the school allocation for their budget which was $500.



>>>>

I considered that possibility because of the coincidence of the number 150, which is why I granted myself an escape clause by putting it in the form of a question lol.

Of course whether the event costs more the student group's budget is itself irrelevant. All sorts of groups, including student groups, engage in fundraisers, seek donations, sell stuff, etc., etc., in order to cover the costs of things they want to do that cost money.

Not the least of which is to simply charge admission.

Plus I don't think UB's administration would be expected to forego what they determined would be appropriate security based on whether or not it was convenient for a group to cover the cost of it, as required by the rules.

I've worked at schools and paying to use the facilities is as common as common gets.

 

[TemplarKormac]

>

BTW - The applicable case is Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement (1992) where the SCOTUS determined that fees (beyond a nominal amount) were limiting on Free Speech when such fees existed without defined guidelines and were solely at the discretion of a government official.

Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).

So UB will probably not win in court on this one.


>>>>

WE aren't talking Georgia, now ARE we? What in Sam Hill has this to do with it?

It has everything to do with this. That was a case where the Supreme Court told Forsyth County that it could not enact ordinances which imposed varying fees that limited the free speech of the Nationalist Movement. This falls right in line with what UB is doing. This is precedent, T, and it will go a long way to tell UB that it can't selectively impose fees on one group as opposed to others.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nobody here, I'm willing to bet, has any idea exactly what the $650 fee represents. Has anyone seen the bill? Itemized?

I happened to have read on msn's report of this story that the bill was only $150 more than 'normal' administrative charges for these sorts of events.

Eh? What's that about?

Free speech wasn't free for Buffalo campus anti-abortion rally

That btw would be the msn story that the author of this thread claimed didn't exist.

I believe the MSN article is incorrect. The complaint is here -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/UBSLcomplaint.pdf


1. Normally Universities don't charge an administrative fee for student organizations to reserve facilities at all. The school in this case had a policy and charge security fees when they determined that such actions might be required. (Which on it's face may violate a previous SCOTUS ruling on that issue.)

2. They were also in error in that the "$150" wasn't over what was normally charged - since there is normally no charge to reserve a room - the $150 was over what the Student Organization received in the school allocation for their budget which was $500.



>>>>

I considered that possibility because of the coincidence of the number 150, which is why I granted myself an escape clause by putting it in the form of a question lol.

Of course whether the event costs more the student group's budget is itself irrelevant. All sorts of groups, including student groups, engage in fundraisers, seek donations, sell stuff, etc., etc., in order to cover the costs of things they want to do that cost money.

Not the least of which is to simply charge admission.

Plus I don't think UB's administration would be expected to forego what they determined would be appropriate security based on whether or not it was convenient for a group to cover the cost of it, as required by the rules.

This will probably be the applicable case law -->> Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).

I've worked at schools and paying to use the facilities is as common as common gets.

My wife currently works at a University, they do not charge student organizations fees to use facilities, they only require pre-scheduling. Outside organizations have a fee structure based on the size of the facility needed.

My daughter just finished her undergraduate work, in her leadership positions with the AFROTC program one of her responsibilities was to request/schedule ROTC activities with the campus. No fees were charged to student groups for use of campus facilities.


>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nobody here, I'm willing to bet, has any idea exactly what the $650 fee represents. Has anyone seen the bill? Itemized?

I happened to have read on msn's report of this story that the bill was only $150 more than 'normal' administrative charges for these sorts of events.

Eh? What's that about?

Free speech wasn't free for Buffalo campus anti-abortion rally

That btw would be the msn story that the author of this thread claimed didn't exist.

I believe the MSN article is incorrect. The complaint is here -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/UBSLcomplaint.pdf


1. Normally Universities don't charge an administrative fee for student organizations to reserve facilities at all. The school in this case had a policy and charge security fees when they determined that such actions might be required. (Which on it's face may violate a previous SCOTUS ruling on that issue.)

2. They were also in error in that the "$150" wasn't over what was normally charged - since there is normally no charge to reserve a room - the $150 was over what the Student Organization received in the school allocation for their budget which was $500.



>>>>

I've worked at schools and paying to use the facilities is as common as common gets.

What school would that be, perchance?

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

BTW - The applicable case is Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement (1992) where the SCOTUS determined that fees (beyond a nominal amount) were limiting on Free Speech when such fees existed without defined guidelines and were solely at the discretion of a government official.

Forsyth County, Ga. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992).

So UB will probably not win in court on this one.


>>>>

WE aren't talking Georgia, now ARE we? What in Sam Hill has this to do with it?

It has everything to do with this, this was a case where the Supreme Court told Forsyth County that it could not enact ordinances which imposed varying fees that limited the free speech of the nationalists. This falls right in line with what UB is doing. This is precedent, T, and it will go a long way to tell UB that it can't selectively impose fees on one group as opposed to others.

I think he decided to disagree with my post without reading either the post or the case law based on two factors: (a) I posted, (b) a desire to jump in and disagree just to disagree.




>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

DOOD!? I'm the one asking for more information! How the **** is that "dismissing" something?

Y'all need to figure out your own irony here. Seriously. This thread's a failure.

"This thread's a failure"? No, your entire premise is a failure. You keep insisting Fox is wrong, you insist that you need more information perhaps to prove that they might be wrong and are somehow not reporting objectively. You create the illusion of objectivity when you do such. Sorry, Pogo, I crushed your premise with loads of case law and historical precedent So now you resort to attacking the source as an alternate recourse.

Your entire premise about Fox News is a red herring. We weren't talking about Fox News, we were talking about free speech. Should I construe your assertions as an attempt to derail this thread, Pogo?

Oh bullshit. You and the T(roll) are the ones harping on Fox Noise as if it's some kind of teen idol, not me.

Yeah the thread is a mess, not entirely your fault but you contribute. One T(roll) is out there trying to control everything any other poster says; you're all hung up on Fox Noise being this oracle of infallibility at the suggestion of a second source, then I've got this other guy flooding me with negs and PMs who isn't even IN this discussion.

Ironic in a thread that's supposed to be about free speech, don't you think?

I have things to do. You're welcome to it. The hypocrisy here runs too deep for my hip boots.

Let's see. First you get your ass chewed to pieces on the basic issues at hand. Then you switch to pages and pages of "Oh, I can't discuss the issue because the source cited isn't good enough (never mind that I already DID discuss the issues, and got my ass handed to me). Fox NEWWSS!" Now we get an airy handwave and "I'm much too good for this thread".

Does anyone else find the reek of defeat and failure rather overwhelming on this?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So what?

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

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

If so go ahead.

No the don't.

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

Leftists for some reason really like the idea of telling radical protest groups that they can shut down the free speech rights of their enemies by simply starting riots and behaving as badly as possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why are you still here? You surrendered and ran off. Coming back to hang around and try to convince people that wasn't really what you did just increases the pathetic exponentially.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, as a matter of fact, if their "assessment" includes opinions about the speech being expressed, they CAN'T.

Assessments based on the size of the crowd likely to be attracted, yes. Based on whether or not the subject matter is "controversial", no.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This thread needs more people role playing legal professionals. It is riveting.

Well, it certainly doesn't need any more people ducking and dodging like there's a sniper on a grassy knoll somewhere. You're doing that more than sufficiently.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, that's not what he gave. I'm simply asking for the source of there "no others had been charged before comes from", it's not from the OP link.


>>>>

You're being facetious.

No, I was asking for you to substantiate your claim - if you can't that's OK.


>>>>

Listening to the board leftists sententiously quacking on about how they can't comment on the issue because it hasn't been sufficiently proven to truly exist - particularly the ones who already DID comment at length, and then dropped back to this position after getting savaged - is just hilarious. The crowd who gave us spectacles like "George Zimmerman was acquitted, but HE'S STILL A MURDERER! STRING HIM UP!" now suddenly is too cautious to form opinions, make comments, and leap to conclusions based on preliminary new stories? Really?!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

This wasn't a government issue.

This was a bunch of Christian Douchebags insisting on their right to be douchebags.

Again, it goes back to what Mike Royko's suggestion about the Nazis who wanted to March In Skokie.

Let them, and let them take the consequences.

But the university thought, "meh, we don't want these guys to take the asskicking that they deserve." And they laid on extra security that really, the frat party probbly didn't need.

One of these days JoeB might get enough brains to prove me wrong, today is not that day.

It's sorta funny, hearing a leftist suddenly being outraged at someone demanding their Constitutional right to be a douchebag, hmmm? Near as I can tell, after baby killing, the right to douchebaggery is normally the only one the left considers inviolate.