What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Temporarily conceding for sake of argument, is it a constitutional right to require the government to pay the cost of exercising that right?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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

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

I never pout. I mock. And I mock you. When are you going to prove that the University treated this group differently because of the political views of the group?

I know when. Never. You cannot. You are speculating. But you are doing so while using up the word quota of a hundred men. Thus.....you are a blowhard.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

How is that deflection?

You're claiming that a constitutional right was violated. Proving that claim starts with proving that a constitutional right existed in the first place.

You can't violate a non-existent right.

Burden of proof for showing that a constitutional right was violated starts with proving the existence of the right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Temporarily conceding for sake of argument, is it a constitutional right to require the government to pay the cost of exercising that right?

The constitution obligates government to ensure that students are allowed to exercise that right. Like I said before, the university is funded by the government, meaning it is bound to the same obligations of perpetuating free speech (equally and for all) as the government is, so long as such speech does not cause a disruption. As Rosenberger clearly points out, universities can't enforce regulations that limit the speech of the student body.

So in this case, it is a constitutional right. Pure and simple.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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!

How is that deflection?

You're claiming that a constitutional right was violated. Proving that claim starts with proving that a constitutional right existed in the first place.

You can't violate a non-existent right.

Burden of proof for showing that a constitutional right was violated starts with proving the existence of the right.

Free speech is nonexistent right?

You've finally gone off your rocker, Carbine! Argument disqualified!

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

I never pout. I mock. And I mock you. When are you going to prove that the University treated this group differently because of the political views of the group?

I know when. Never. You cannot. You are speculating. But you are doing so while using up the word quota of a hundred men. Thus.....you are a blowhard.

You'll live. Even if you don't have an argument, you'll live, troll.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yes, Perchance High School, in Pretentious, NY.

The word 'public' was a clue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Yes, Perchance High School, in Pretentious, NY.

The word 'public' was a clue.

The terms "High School" and "College" do not mean the same thing, nitwit. The courts made that distinction already, namely in Hazelwood, Healy, Papish, and Rosenberger.

We could go at this forever, or you and every liberal on this thread arguing for this university can admit you lost this debate.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Yes, Perchance High School, in Pretentious, NY.

The word 'public' was a clue.

The terms "High School" and "College" do not mean the same thing, nitwit. The courts made that distinction already, namely in Hazelwood, Healy, Papish, and Rosenberger.

We could go at this forever, or you and every liberal on this thread arguing for this university can admit you lost this debate.

Nobody is arguing for the University. We are just pointing out that you have not made the case that the University infringed on the groups free speech rights. You have speculated....and you have "name dropped" several decided cases....but you have not presented a bit of evidence supporting the claim that you have made regarding The University of Buffalo.

Blowhard gonna blow.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, Perchance High School, in Pretentious, NY.

The word 'public' was a clue.

The terms "High School" and "College" do not mean the same thing, nitwit. The courts made that distinction already, namely in Hazelwood, Healy, Papish, and Rosenberger.

We could go at this forever, or you and every liberal on this thread arguing for this university can admit you lost this debate.

Nobody is arguing for the University. We are just pointing out that you have not made the case that the University infringed on the groups free speech rights. You have speculated....and you have "name dropped" several decided cases....but you have not presented a bit of evidence supporting the claim that you have made regarding The University of Buffalo.

Blowhard gonna blow.

Troll gonna troll. Didn't name drop, I did research, unlike you. Quantum shredded that assertion with Sonnier. WW did the same with Forsyth. Established precedent says that what UB did was unconstitutional, and any establishment of "security" fees to limit speech is unconstitutional, regardless of the tenure of the fees in question.

Sayonara!

 

[LoneLaugher]

The terms "High School" and "College" do not mean the same thing, nitwit. The courts made that distinction already, namely in Hazelwood, Healy, Papish, and Rosenberger.

We could go at this forever, or you and every liberal on this thread arguing for this university can admit you lost this debate.

Nobody is arguing for the University. We are just pointing out that you have not made the case that the University infringed on the groups free speech rights. You have speculated....and you have "name dropped" several decided cases....but you have not presented a bit of evidence supporting the claim that you have made regarding The University of Buffalo.

Blowhard gonna blow.

Troll gonna troll. Didn't name drop, I did research, unlike you. Quantum shredded that assertion with Sonnier. WW did the same with Forsyth. Established precedent says that what UB did was unconstitutional, and any establishment of "security" fees to limit speech is unconstitutional, regardless of the tenure of the fees in question.

Sayonara!

We'll see, won't we?

Research? Yer funny.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nobody is arguing for the University. We are just pointing out that you have not made the case that the University infringed on the groups free speech rights. You have speculated....and you have "name dropped" several decided cases....but you have not presented a bit of evidence supporting the claim that you have made regarding The University of Buffalo.

Blowhard gonna blow.

Troll gonna troll. Didn't name drop, I did research, unlike you. Quantum shredded that assertion with Sonnier. WW did the same with Forsyth. Established precedent says that what UB did was unconstitutional, and any establishment of "security" fees to limit speech is unconstitutional, regardless of the tenure of the fees in question.

Sayonara!

We'll see, won't we?

Research? Yer funny.

Your concession is noted. Scram.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Troll gonna troll. Didn't name drop, I did research, unlike you. Quantum shredded that assertion with Sonnier. WW did the same with Forsyth. Established precedent says that what UB did was unconstitutional, and any establishment of "security" fees to limit speech is unconstitutional, regardless of the tenure of the fees in question.

Sayonara!

We'll see, won't we?

Research? Yer funny.

Your concession is noted. Scram.

I conceded nothing. Unlike you...I will wait for the case to be argued.

By the way, "sayonara" denotes a lengthy period of separation. In our case....and especially since you have just returned to the discussion....the more appropriate term would be "kimi no koto wo yamenai".

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're deflecting again, carbine!

How is that deflection?

You're claiming that a constitutional right was violated. Proving that claim starts with proving that a constitutional right existed in the first place.

You can't violate a non-existent right.

Burden of proof for showing that a constitutional right was violated starts with proving the existence of the right.

Free speech is nonexistent right?

You've finally gone off your rocker, Carbine! Argument disqualified!

You have to prove this was a free speech issue. The conflict is over the terms and cost of renting a facility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Yes, Perchance High School, in Pretentious, NY.

The word 'public' was a clue.

The terms "High School" and "College" do not mean the same thing, nitwit. The courts made that distinction already, namely in Hazelwood, Healy, Papish, and Rosenberger.

We could go at this forever, or you and every liberal on this thread arguing for this university can admit you lost this debate.

Let me ask another way. Is Roe v Wade the final word on abortion rights?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

I can see the University's concern, abortion debates being such calm rational affairs. Be like if they'd wanted to hold a Klan meeting or something. Paying for some security is just good sense. Whether security was used or not doesn't matter, how do we know if the security presence didn't deter any incidents and thus justified the cost?

It's a baseless lawsuit, and if it were me, I'd toss it out of my court.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

I can see the University's concern, abortion debates being such calm rational affairs. Be like if they'd wanted to hold a Klan meeting or something. Paying for some security is just good sense. Whether security was used or not doesn't matter, how do we know if the security presence didn't deter any incidents and thus justified the cost?

It's a baseless lawsuit, and if it were me, I'd toss it out of my court.

You're serious, aren't you? Did you read the case law QWB, WW and I presented?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The hacks that claim they only care about how the law protects people's rights, yet try to find ways to use the law to trample people's rights. That shoe was custom made for your foot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

There you go again.

Issue one is not an issue. No one is disputing that they can charge fees, not even the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. I pointed that out the very first time you posted, yet you are still insisting that this is an issue. Issue two is not even close to being probably true, as I pointed out more than once. I had a case citation in reserve to see if you, or anyone else, was smart enough to ask about actual cases. Unfortunately, for your side, you guys already had the answers, and flew with them. That is when I dropped the bomb that detonated issue two completely, yet you are still here insisting that the first two issues are key to the entire debate.

Since issue 1 is not an issue, and issue 2 is facially unconstitutional, issue 3 only comes into play if you are an idiot.

Are you an idiot?

I advise you not to answer that question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Temporarily conceding for sake of argument, is it a constitutional right to require the government to pay the cost of exercising that right?

What cost? The only cost here comes from the government insisting on interfering with the right.