What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting case.

But an observation:

It would be enormously beneficial to the credibility of the OP and other outraged nutters if one.....just one....of the cases you bring up did not involve a nutter or nutter group as plaintiff.

I bring up examples of the government oppressing moonbat groups all the time. That is because, unlike you, I believe everyone should enjoy the exact same liberties.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The university was definetly in the wrong, and should return the money they charged the group. But this Is not a constitutional issue.

How is it not a constitutional issue when a government funded group denies a basic right?

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

If they simply charged every single group the same fee you might be able to argue that the equal burden makes it legal, but it would still be wrong. The fact that the school charged one group based solely on the content of their debate, but didn't charge two other groups who wanted to do the same thing because their speech wasn't "offensive" makes you the one with a problem.

 

[Pogo]

How is it not a constitutional issue when a government funded group denies a basic right?

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

If they simply charged every single group the same fee you might be able to argue that the equal burden makes it legal, but it would still be wrong. The fact that the school charged one group based solely on the content of their debate, but didn't charge two other groups who wanted to do the same thing because their speech wasn't "offensive" makes you the one with a problem.

I don't have a "problem", incessant drama queen. I have logic.

Did the school -- or anyone -- prevent anyone from speaking? Did anyone who did speak get penalized for it?

No.

Therefore there's no speech right infringed. Nobody has a Constitutional right to use the Joseph. P. Wackoff Building for their debate. They have the right to the debate, not the building. Just as Phil Robertson has the right to his speech -- not the name of A&E.

How soon we forget...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

If they simply charged every single group the same fee you might be able to argue that the equal burden makes it legal, but it would still be wrong. The fact that the school charged one group based solely on the content of their debate, but didn't charge two other groups who wanted to do the same thing because their speech wasn't "offensive" makes you the one with a problem.

I don't have a "problem", incessant drama queen. I have logic.

Did the school -- or anyone -- prevent anyone from speaking? Did anyone who did speak get penalized for it?

No.

Therefore there's no speech right infringed. Nobody has a Constitutional right to use the Joseph. P. Wackoff Building for their debate. They have the right to the debate, not the building. Just as Phil Robertson has the right to his speech -- not the name of A&E.

How soon we forget...

When the university loses the case will you admit you are wrong? Or will you still insist that the problem is that I am a drama queen?

 

[Kosh]

So what, no ACLU to come show this university that they should not have discriminated.

 

[Pogo]

If they simply charged every single group the same fee you might be able to argue that the equal burden makes it legal, but it would still be wrong. The fact that the school charged one group based solely on the content of their debate, but didn't charge two other groups who wanted to do the same thing because their speech wasn't "offensive" makes you the one with a problem.

I don't have a "problem", incessant drama queen. I have logic.

Did the school -- or anyone -- prevent anyone from speaking? Did anyone who did speak get penalized for it?

No.

Therefore there's no speech right infringed. Nobody has a Constitutional right to use the Joseph. P. Wackoff Building for their debate. They have the right to the debate, not the building. Just as Phil Robertson has the right to his speech -- not the name of A&E.

How soon we forget...

When the university loses the case will you admit you are wrong? Or will you still insist that the problem is that I am a drama queen?

It won't -- on that basis.
It should on the basis of discriminatory fees, but not First Amendment grounds.

The document cites : "debate [that] is silenced when university policies regulate speech based on content and viewpoint and vest administrators with unbridled discretion to impose fees for the exercise of speech."

But the debate was not silenced; only the use of the facility was affected. There's an obvious and fundamental difference between speech and the building in which it takes place.

And just so you know, "drama queen" has nothing to do with this event or this suit. It has to do with "makes you the one with a problem" -- your insatiable need to personalize and polarize every post into some kind of soap opera confrontation. So no, no court can change that. Only you can.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The issues are:

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

Probably 'yes'.

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

Probably 'yes'.

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


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

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

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

and they will produce evidence to support that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 "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

Although the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are inalienable, they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government. The state may indeed place restrictions on free speech pursuant to a compelling governmental interest. The restrictions must be narrowly tailored and afford the speaker an alternate outlet of communication.

This will be the Constitutional context in which the security fee is evaluated by the courts.

The school will argue that the fee is content neutral, constitutes an incidental restriction of speech, if any, and represents a compelling governmental interest to ensure the safety of those attending the debate. The school will also maintain that the student organization was afforded an alternate outlet of communication, as no action was taken against the student organization to disallow it speaking in any other school venue. See, e.g. Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989), where noise ordinances were upheld as a Constitutional restriction of free expression.

The University will likely prevail in the lawsuit, as there is no evidence that the fee was content specific given the fact that speakers with opposing viewpoints were also at the debate.

From the lawsuit:

At times during the debate, there were minor verbal interruptions from people in the audience expressing other points of view and criticizing the arguments made by the pro-abortion debaters…

Since advocates of privacy rights were also allowed to participate, clearly the fee was not designed to prevent those opposed to privacy rights to express their opinions as well.

The motive of the student organization is obviously partisan, having little to do with 'free speech,' as the ‘argument’ that the fee represents the University’s ‘hostility’ toward those opposed to privacy rights is specious, unwarranted, and unsubstantiated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The school had some incidents in the spring that mainly centered around the anti-abortion student group bringing in some outside activists who put up a very inflammatory display involving pictures of dismembered fetuses, and comparisons of abortion to genocide,

the usual stuff.

 

[Dutch]

In my opinion, the price of free speech was paid for with the over one million combat deats since the revolutionary war so idiots like you and me can post on this messageboard without fear of a knock at the door because of something we posted.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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

If they simply charged every single group the same fee you might be able to argue that the equal burden makes it legal, but it would still be wrong. The fact that the school charged one group based solely on the content of their debate, but didn't charge two other groups who wanted to do the same thing because their speech wasn't "offensive" makes you the one with a problem.

I don't have a "problem", incessant drama queen. I have logic.

Did the school -- or anyone -- prevent anyone from speaking? Did anyone who did speak get penalized for it?

No.

Therefore there's no speech right infringed. Nobody has a Constitutional right to use the Joseph. P. Wackoff Building for their debate. They have the right to the debate, not the building. Just as Phil Robertson has the right to his speech -- not the name of A&E.

How soon we forget...

Let's examine a similar situation: you might argue that requiring identification before someone can vote is a poll tax, even if every single voter were required to present ID to confirm they are who they claim to be, prior to casting their vote.
Requiring a fee be paid prior to making a public presentation has the same effect, that being the curtailment of freedom of expression (speech).

 

[LoneLaugher]

Interesting case.

But an observation:

It would be enormously beneficial to the credibility of the OP and other outraged nutters if one.....just one....of the cases you bring up did not involve a nutter or nutter group as plaintiff.

I bring up examples of the government oppressing moonbat groups all the time. That is because, unlike you, I believe everyone should enjoy the exact same liberties.

That sounds nice. Got an example?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

If they simply charged every single group the same fee you might be able to argue that the equal burden makes it legal, but it would still be wrong. The fact that the school charged one group based solely on the content of their debate, but didn't charge two other groups who wanted to do the same thing because their speech wasn't "offensive" makes you the one with a problem.

I don't have a "problem", incessant drama queen. I have logic.

Did the school -- or anyone -- prevent anyone from speaking? Did anyone who did speak get penalized for it?

No.

Yes, in fact, they did: they had to cough up $650. Denying that makes you look INCREDIBLY stupid.

 

[editec]

A very Wise man once said:

"The liberty of discussion is the great safeguard of all other liberties."

And so perhaps the better question is: What is the price of denying our freedom of speech?

Which is what the New England Political Correctness Nazis are determined to do.

Buffalo is NOT New England.

Here's another head up.... New York is not in New England, either.

You really expect people to take you seriously when you are so obviously ignorant of even the most commonly understood facts?

 

[Darkwind]

The university was definetly in the wrong, and should return the money they charged the group. But this Is not a constitutional issue.

Actually, if the University takes federal funds, it does become a Constitutional issue.

For the same reason that teachers cannot speak of religion in the classroom because that would be a breach of the First Amendment, if a University accepts funds from the Federal government, then they are in fact, an extension of the government and cannot charge or infringe upon the right of free speech.

 

[The T]

The reactionary FAR RIGHT students has been trained by cohorts of prejudiced HOME SCHOOL EDUCTORS to truly think that our Founders conceived the freedom of speech so that FAR RIGHT WING social Christianity could trample our American principles.

Not much are you for LIBERTY of the individual, are you Fakey?

YOU are such a tool of those that pay YOU to be here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A very Wise man once said:

"The liberty of discussion is the great safeguard of all other liberties."

And so perhaps the better question is: What is the price of denying our freedom of speech?

Which is what the New England Political Correctness Nazis are determined to do.

Buffalo is NOT New England.

Here's another head up.... New York is not in New England, either.

You really expect people to take you seriously when you are so obviously ignorant of even the most commonly understood facts?

Luckily his free speech rights protect his right to ask for directions.

 

[Vox]

Political Correctness is not new...and it originated in New England.

With the Puritans precisely who first spread their influence over Massachusetts; then over all of New England; and finally into cities they founded as they migrated West....like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland.

The Puritans arrived in Massachusetts and immediately declared themselves the "Elect of God" which imbued them with moral and intellectual superiority. (They were copying the old Hebrews)

They found that Control was the best instrument for exercising this self-declared superiority. And soon, they were hanging women in Boston Commons for being Quakers instead of Puritans...and then hanging young people as witches for nonconformity; and then putting people in jail under the Sedition laws for criticizing President Adams from Braintree, Massachusetts.

Jefferson pardoned them all as soon as he was elected, but it has not taught these highbrow assholes not to: Always look down their noses at the folks in the Heartland of this country.

These people, pinheads, have now dispensed with God, but not their presumption of superiority and definitely not of Control....which they have learned to love.

The price to be paid for the freedom to express opinions different from these Jackasses in New England, and their dispersed spawn.....is to be marginalized as a bigot by these mean-spirited people who are certain that the right to opine stops as soon as you disagree with them...and since they control the mainstream media, it is a dangerous thing.

But, it is well with the fight. Its not a new fight....and neither is the enemy.

That's absolutely absurd. You're suggesting the Puritans invented self-righteousness and before that it didn't exist?

Bull SHIT.

no, they did not invent it. They exemplified it and spread it in this country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The university was definetly in the wrong, and should return the money they charged the group. But this Is not a constitutional issue.

Actually, if the University takes federal funds, it does become a Constitutional issue.

For the same reason that teachers cannot speak of religion in the classroom because that would be a breach of the First Amendment, if a University accepts funds from the Federal government, then they are in fact, an extension of the government and cannot charge or infringe upon the right of free speech.

Really? Prove that. Prove that no student group in a school receiving government funds can be charged for costs when they request a use of the facilities.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There was no silencing, but the attempt was made to. No other group at that University had to pay a fee to hold a debate. There are similar situations where a university refused to recognize a group for its views or otherwise discriminated against a group because of their viewpoints while other groups were unaffected. The case law is below.

Over 25 years ago, the Supreme Court handed down Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 484 U.S. 260 (1988), a case which gave public schools unbridled power to restrict the free speech of their students. However such a case only applied to high schoolers. But 16 years before, the Supreme Court held in Healy v. James 408 U.S. 169 (1972); that a college or university could not refuse to recognize an organization simply because university officials had an unproven fear of school disruption. In this case Central Connecticut State College's refusal to recognize a chapter of Students for a Democratic Society violated the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, the court recognized the campus to be a "marketplace of ideas."

A year later in Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri 410 U.S. 667 (1973), Healy was upheld by the Supreme Court saying Healy made "clear that the mere dissemination of ideas - no matter how offensive to good taste - on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency.'"

Almost 22 years later, the court handed down Rosenberger v. Rector of the University of Virginia 515 U.S. 819 (1995), where the University denied publication funding to a religious group, while handing the funding out to secular groups on campus. The court rejected the University's contention that funding a religious group would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, holding that such policy violated the First Amendment altogether. In the opinion the court held:

In ancient Athens, and, as Europe entered into a new period of intellectual awakening, in places like Bologna, Oxford, and Paris, universities began as voluntary and spontaneous assemblages or concourses for students to speak and to write and to learn. The quality and creative power of student intellectual life to this day remains a vital measure of a school's influence and attainment. For the University, by regulation, to cast disapproval on particular viewpoints of its students risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation's intellectual life, its college and university campuses.

So, to say that no violation of free speech occurred here would be inaccurate. Simply by discriminately charging student advocacy groups an inordinate fee for the right to hold a debate casts a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of these students, regardless if the event went on as planned. Schools can only limit speech if it causes a reasonable disruption to it's image or operations.