What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[TemplarKormac]

So in that regard, what QWB and WW presented illustrates why the University of Buffalo's fee assessment is unconstitutional.

There are now five (including my citations) cases stating the unconstitutionality of this action not only based on discrimination, but unfair assessment of fees and use of money and issuance of regulation to restrict free speech. The opposition in this debate will be hard pressed to fashion an effective rebuttal.

Case closed.

Case closed......my ass.

Once again, Quod Erat Demonstrandum

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

What school would that be, perchance?

A public school where both outside and student groups can be charged for various services for usage of the facilities.

You didn't answer the question. Nice dodge. If that school gets money from the government, it is also liable for a lawsuit of this nature.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are confused. That is for certain.

I am not interested in your court case.

The question at hand is whether or not UB discriminated against the nutter group and thus charged them as a means of infringing on their freedom of speech.

That has not been proven. Period. The University may or may not have charged other student groups similar fees. They may or may not have policies in place and spelled out "in advance". We just do not know yet.

I have stated in this thread that if such things are established.....that the University did single out this group due to the subject matter.....and that there was no basis for the fees....I am prepared to support the students in the case.

But....that has not been established yet. All we have is freaked out pro lifers on a message board making shit up and carrying out mock court....without having much in the way of facts or evidence.

What?

Here is what has been established.

• The university assessed a security fee to to a pro life group.
• This is not a standard fee.
• There is no publicly available written policy that explains what the fees are or how they are determined.

That is all I need to show that this type of fee is unconstitutional. If, as you said, you will support the students if someone can prove that, you should support them based on those three points alone.


If, on the other hand, you a partisan hack, you will continue to insist the students prove things they do not have to prove just because you want them to prove them.

I think all you've really provided is some evidence of case law that might possibly be useful to the plaintiffs.

Oooh, we got a live one here! You think the court of law is a team sport, don't you? Actually, the courts have generally sided with the plaintiffs throughout the history of this issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're reaching. There is no need to continue this debate any further. Want to know the real difference between us? One isn't claiming to be "non-partisan." Good day.

It's funny how often you pretend you want to seriously debate and then when someone obliges you you turn into PoliticalChic, start making snotty remarks and then run off.

lol, you won't make much of a lawyer.

1. If UB desires security at an event, they have every right to put security at that event.

2. If UB cannot adjust user costs based on the level of security at any given event, someone else will have to pay for that security.

3. If UB continues to charge groups for security, but can't vary the cost, they'll have to charge everyone the same...

...at that point, the groups that require little or no additional security will have to pay their share of the cost for groups getting high security.

Is that fairer in your opinion?

A government agency cannot charge extra fees based on the assessment of risk if they base that asssessment on anything that impinges on anyone's constitutional rights. That means that people occasionally end up paying more for something they don't need, just like Obamacare.

Is it a constitutional right to stage a debate in a state building, such as this state college?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the University were on some mission to suppress those with anti-abortion opinions,

why did they allow the Students for Life to bring in the anti-abortion extremist group Genocide Awareness Project that same week?

What happened to that pathetic 3 point argument you claimed perfectly exemplified the University's irrefutable ability to charge security fees based on an assessment of risk? Did someone blow it out of the water so badly that you want to pretend you never made it?

My three points at the beginning were the framework of the argument, not AN argument.

Your three points were based on the premise that you have a brain, so you are correct when you say that they are not an argument. Unfortunately, because of that false premise, they aren't a framework either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since when? Since you googled it yesterday?

Since I read about it in 2010, why do you ask?

By the way, if I didn't Google it until yesterday, why have my arguments been consistent with that ruling since I first posted in this thread on Friday?

I was not talking to you asshole.

Doesn't change the fact that I read about the case 3 years ago, does it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What?

Here is what has been established.

• The university assessed a security fee to to a pro life group.
• This is not a standard fee.
• There is no publicly available written policy that explains what the fees are or how they are determined.

That is all I need to show that this type of fee is unconstitutional. If, as you said, you will support the students if someone can prove that, you should support them based on those three points alone.


If, on the other hand, you a partisan hack, you will continue to insist the students prove things they do not have to prove just because you want them to prove them.

I think all you've really provided is some evidence of case law that might possibly be useful to the plaintiffs.

Oooh, we got a live one here! You think the court of law is a team sport, don't you? Actually, the courts have generally sided with the plaintiffs throughout the history of this issue.

Is Roe v. Wade proof that (some) abortion is a constitutional right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are confused. That is for certain.

I am not interested in your court case.

The question at hand is whether or not UB discriminated against the nutter group and thus charged them as a means of infringing on their freedom of speech.

That has not been proven. Period. The University may or may not have charged other student groups similar fees. They may or may not have policies in place and spelled out "in advance". We just do not know yet.

I have stated in this thread that if such things are established.....that the University did single out this group due to the subject matter.....and that there was no basis for the fees....I am prepared to support the students in the case.

But....that has not been established yet. All we have is freaked out pro lifers on a message board making shit up and carrying out mock court....without having much in the way of facts or evidence.

What?

Here is what has been established.

• The university assessed a security fee to to a pro life group.
• This is not a standard fee.
• There is no publicly available written policy that explains what the fees are or how they are determined.

That is all I need to show that this type of fee is unconstitutional. If, as you said, you will support the students if someone can prove that, you should support them based on those three points alone.


If, on the other hand, you a partisan hack, you will continue to insist the students prove things they do not have to prove just because you want them to prove them.

I think all you've really provided is some evidence of case law that might possibly be useful to the plaintiffs.

Partisan hack it is, is anyone surprised?

For the record, I am not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What happened to that pathetic 3 point argument you claimed perfectly exemplified the University's irrefutable ability to charge security fees based on an assessment of risk? Did someone blow it out of the water so badly that you want to pretend you never made it?

My three points at the beginning were the framework of the argument, not AN argument.

Your three points were based on the premise that you have a brain, so you are correct when you say that they are not an argument. Unfortunately, because of that false premise, they aren't a framework either.

If they're not a framework, why are people like you and TK generally adhering to them as you argue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's funny how often you pretend you want to seriously debate and then when someone obliges you you turn into PoliticalChic, start making snotty remarks and then run off.

lol, you won't make much of a lawyer.

1. If UB desires security at an event, they have every right to put security at that event.

2. If UB cannot adjust user costs based on the level of security at any given event, someone else will have to pay for that security.

3. If UB continues to charge groups for security, but can't vary the cost, they'll have to charge everyone the same...

...at that point, the groups that require little or no additional security will have to pay their share of the cost for groups getting high security.

Is that fairer in your opinion?

A government agency cannot charge extra fees based on the assessment of risk if they base that asssessment on anything that impinges on anyone's constitutional rights. That means that people occasionally end up paying more for something they don't need, just like Obamacare.

Is it a constitutional right to stage a debate in a state building, such as this state college?

In some cases. For example, whenever a university is open to groups staging debates, and uses public funds to pay for those activities, it is a constitutional right. Since that is what we are discussing here, you still lose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My three points at the beginning were the framework of the argument, not AN argument.

Your three points were based on the premise that you have a brain, so you are correct when you say that they are not an argument. Unfortunately, because of that false premise, they aren't a framework either.

If they're not a framework, why are people like you and TK generally adhering to them as you argue?

I adhered to the point that you established that the university is free to charge a fee based on assessment of risk? Can you show me when, because I have challenged that from the very first reply to your moronic attempt to reframe the debate on issues that are not pertinent to the discussion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Since I read about it in 2010, why do you ask?

By the way, if I didn't Google it until yesterday, why have my arguments been consistent with that ruling since I first posted in this thread on Friday?

I was not talking to you asshole.

Doesn't change the fact that I read about the case 3 years ago, does it?

It also doesn't change the fact that I don't care when you read about it. I was mocking your pal for burying his now brown nose six inches up your ass. He googled this shit yesterday.......and he is trying to pass it off as his legal expertise today.

Now....eat shit and stop trampling on my jokes. You bore me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What?

Here is what has been established.

• The university assessed a security fee to to a pro life group.
• This is not a standard fee.
• There is no publicly available written policy that explains what the fees are or how they are determined.

That is all I need to show that this type of fee is unconstitutional. If, as you said, you will support the students if someone can prove that, you should support them based on those three points alone.


If, on the other hand, you a partisan hack, you will continue to insist the students prove things they do not have to prove just because you want them to prove them.

I think all you've really provided is some evidence of case law that might possibly be useful to the plaintiffs.

Partisan hack it is, is anyone surprised?

For the record, I am not.

who or what are you replying to?

 

[WorldWatcher]

What school would that be, perchance?

A public school where both outside and student groups can be charged for various services for usage of the facilities.

You didn't answer the question. Nice dodge. If that school gets money from the government, it is also liable for a lawsuit of this nature.

Anyone is liable for a lawsuit, however the issue would be if they have defined fee schedules (Classrooms are "X" dollars, Auditoriums are "Y" dollars, etc...) and apply them consistently). The issue is hear is a sliding scale solely at the discretion of the school official.

I work for a public school (while my wife works for a University). We have no fees for student organizations (which normally meet after hours but before the school "buttons up" for the night). Civic groups can (and have) used the schools for meetings and events, however there is a schedule of defined fees depending on size and duration - all groups are charged the same.

A different case then the OP.


>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

My three points at the beginning were the framework of the argument, not AN argument.

Your three points were based on the premise that you have a brain, so you are correct when you say that they are not an argument. Unfortunately, because of that false premise, they aren't a framework either.

If they're not a framework, why are people like you and TK generally adhering to them as you argue?

I've adhered to the same points QWB adhered to. To suggest I did otherwise is preposterous, since I created this thread in the first place.

You made the contention that the school is free to charge a variable fee, based on the need for security, and in essence of the nature of the things and positions being debated. In Sonnier, the 5th Circuit struck down such a notion. In Forsyth, the same conclusion was reached. The Healy case established the campus as a "marketplace of ideas" therefore dispensing with any notion that a university can treat a group differently from the rest, for any reason. The Papish case built on the case Healy made by stating and making: '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.' The Rosenberger case made clear this: "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."

None of your points are pertinent to this debate, simply a futile attempt at misdirection. Your argument has no basis or framework, so therefore it is not an argument at all. The school receives government funds, and the building is government owned, meaning that they are bound by the same laws as the government is. Understand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your three points were based on the premise that you have a brain, so you are correct when you say that they are not an argument. Unfortunately, because of that false premise, they aren't a framework either.

If they're not a framework, why are people like you and TK generally adhering to them as you argue?

I adhered to the point that you established that the university is free to charge a fee based on assessment of risk? Can you show me when, because I have challenged that from the very first reply to your moronic attempt to reframe the debate on issues that are not pertinent to the discussion.

All I said was this:

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?

I only want so far opinion-wise as to say probably yes to 1 and 2.

It's a form of argument.

1. If the plaintiff could prove (to the satisfaction of judge or jury) that the answer to 1 is 'no',

they could win the case right there, outright.

2. If the plaintiff has to concede 1., then they could try 2., i.e., prove that the University does not have the right to vary the fees for security reasons.

Once they proved that, they would then only need to show that other groups had been charged less or nothing, and then they would win.

3. But if they can't win that argument, they could go on to 3., and convince judge or jury that even though the University had the right to do both 1 and 2,

discretion must have limits, and the University inappropriately exceeded those limits.

Now what's wrong with that framework?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Blow harder TK......Your facade still stands.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your three points were based on the premise that you have a brain, so you are correct when you say that they are not an argument. Unfortunately, because of that false premise, they aren't a framework either.

If they're not a framework, why are people like you and TK generally adhering to them as you argue?

I've adhered to the same points QWB adhered to. To suggest I did otherwise is preposterous, since I created this thread in the first place.

You made the contention that the school is free to charge a variable fee, based on the need for security, and in essence of the nature of the things and positions being debated. In Sonnier, the 5th Circuit struck down such a notion. In Forsyth, the same conclusion was reached. The Healy case established the campus as a "marketplace of ideas" therefore dispensing with any notion that a university can treat a group differently from the rest, for any reason. The Papish case built on the case Healy made by stating and making: '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.' The Rosenberger case made clear this: "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."

None of your points are pertinent to this debate, simply a futile attempt at misdirection. Your argument has no basis or framework, so therefore it is not an argument at all. The school receives government funds, and the building is government owned, meaning that they are bound by the same laws as the government is. Understand?

Where's the constitutional right to sponsor a debate? Is that the same as sponsoring a chess tournament, or a dance contest, or a night of amateur cage fighting?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Blow harder TK......Your facade still stands.

Yes, my argument still stands. Yours doesn't. Now go pout somewhere else.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If they're not a framework, why are people like you and TK generally adhering to them as you argue?

I've adhered to the same points QWB adhered to. To suggest I did otherwise is preposterous, since I created this thread in the first place.

You made the contention that the school is free to charge a variable fee, based on the need for security, and in essence of the nature of the things and positions being debated. In Sonnier, the 5th Circuit struck down such a notion. In Forsyth, the same conclusion was reached. The Healy case established the campus as a "marketplace of ideas" therefore dispensing with any notion that a university can treat a group differently from the rest, for any reason. The Papish case built on the case Healy made by stating and making: '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.' The Rosenberger case made clear this: "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."

None of your points are pertinent to this debate, simply a futile attempt at misdirection. Your argument has no basis or framework, so therefore it is not an argument at all. The school receives government funds, and the building is government owned, meaning that they are bound by the same laws as the government is. Understand?

Where's the constitutional right to sponsor a debate? Is that the same as sponsoring a chess tournament, or a dance contest, or a night of amateur cage fighting?

You're deflecting again, carbine!