What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Except that I have made the case, using the standards set up by the Supreme Court of the United States. You, unfortunately, are not satisfied with that, and insist that a 6-3 SCOTUS ruling is suspect because you don't like the result.

On the plus side, you agree with Scalia and Thomas, the two most conservative members of the court. That should make you feel good.

 

[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

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.

Look at that, another statist asshole sides with the government over freedom.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Motherfuckers have no evidence that anyone at the University acted in such a way as to infringe on the group's free speech rights. Period.

 

[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.

Except that I have made the case, using the standards set up by the Supreme Court of the United States. You, unfortunately, are not satisfied with that, and insist that a 6-3 SCOTUS ruling is suspect because you don't like the result.

On the plus side, you agree with Scalia and Thomas, the two most conservative members of the court. That should make you feel good.

You are confusing me with someone else again. Are you drinking?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Motherfuckers have no evidence that anyone at the University acted in such a way as to infringe on the group's free speech rights. Period.

I don't need any, the university is required to publish fees they charge so that everyone knows what they are, and can plan accordingly. Until you prove they did that, you loose.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Motherfuckers have no evidence that anyone at the University acted in such a way as to infringe on the group's free speech rights. Period.

I don't need any, the university is required to publish fees they charge so that everyone knows what they are, and can plan accordingly. Until you prove they did that, you loose.

You are talking out of your ass now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Except that I have made the case, using the standards set up by the Supreme Court of the United States. You, unfortunately, are not satisfied with that, and insist that a 6-3 SCOTUS ruling is suspect because you don't like the result.

On the plus side, you agree with Scalia and Thomas, the two most conservative members of the court. That should make you feel good.

You are confusing me with someone else again. Are you drinking?

Are you saying you aren't the person who made this post?

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.

Shouldn't you contact the mods and tell them that 1) someone has hacked your account or 2) I am rewriting your quotes to make it loo like you said something you didn't?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Motherfuckers have no evidence that anyone at the University acted in such a way as to infringe on the group's free speech rights. Period.

I don't need any, the university is required to publish fees they charge so that everyone knows what they are, and can plan accordingly. Until you prove they did that, you loose.

You are talking out of your ass now.

No, I am arguing that court case you don't care about.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Except that I have made the case, using the standards set up by the Supreme Court of the United States. You, unfortunately, are not satisfied with that, and insist that a 6-3 SCOTUS ruling is suspect because you don't like the result.

On the plus side, you agree with Scalia and Thomas, the two most conservative members of the court. That should make you feel good.

You are confusing me with someone else again. Are you drinking?

Are you saying you aren't the person who made this post?

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.

Shouldn't you contact the mods and tell them that 1) someone has hacked your account or 2) I am rewriting your quotes to make it loo like you said something you didn't?

Did I mention the Supreme Court?

Try harder.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are confusing me with someone else again. Are you drinking?

Are you saying you aren't the person who made this post?

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.

Shouldn't you contact the mods and tell them that 1) someone has hacked your account or 2) I am rewriting your quotes to make it loo like you said something you didn't?

Did I mention the Supreme Court?

Try harder.

Is that an admission I was right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

(Don't take this the wrong way but you're making very good arguments)

So assuming the plaintiff were to prevail,

whose responsibility are the security fees, this one, and those in the future?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

(Don't take this the wrong way but you're making very good arguments)

So assuming the plaintiff were to prevail,

whose responsibility are the security fees, this one, and those in the future?

Whoever wants to use the facilities, assuming that the university publishes the fees in advance, and doesn't make them up as they go.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

(Don't take this the wrong way but you're making very good arguments)

So assuming the plaintiff were to prevail,

whose responsibility are the security fees, this one, and those in the future?

It would be the university's right to apply a fee. If equally and without discrimination. If it is indeed so afraid such debates (or any debates for that matter) will cause a disruption, they would be well within their rights to charge a uniform security fee to all groups on campus. In this case, it chose to apply this fee discriminately, and when no regulation existed beforehand to justify it.

Should the plaintiff win out, the school will be forced to A) apply the fee equally or B) drop the fee idea altogether. On the other hand, the school can simply contract a security firm to watch over debates and other events held on campus without charging the student body an inordinate fee, or no fee at all. If it did this equally there would be no constitutional issue here.

But the main issue here is, as provided in Sonnier, Forsyth, and Rosenberger, you cannot charge a variable fee to a group simply because they have a controversial view, thus placing an unfair burden on their right to express that view. It doesn't matter how well intentioned the motive might be, it is still unconstitutional, in addition to it being a form of viewpoint discrimination.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

(Don't take this the wrong way but you're making very good arguments)

So assuming the plaintiff were to prevail,

whose responsibility are the security fees, this one, and those in the future?

It would be the university's right to apply a fee. If equally and without discrimination. If it is indeed so afraid such debates (or any debates for that matter) will cause a disruption, they would be well within their rights to charge a uniform security fee to all groups on campus. In this case, it chose to apply this fee discriminately, and when no regulation existed beforehand to justify it.

Should the plaintiff win out, the school will be forced to A) apply the fee equally or B) drop the fee idea altogether. On the other hand, the school can simply contract a security firm to watch over debates and other events held on campus without charging the student body an inordinate fee, or no fee at all. If it did this equally there would be no constitutional issue here.

But the main issue here is, as provided in Sonnier, Forsyth, and Rosenberger, you cannot charge a variable fee to a group simply because they have a controversial view, thus placing an unfair burden on their right to express that view. It doesn't matter how well intentioned the motive might be, it is still unconstitutional, in addition to it being a form of viewpoint discrimination.

Right! That IS the main issue. And one that you have not established as having taken place in this case.

Omae no atama ga warui desu ne. Oyasuminasai.

 

[TemplarKormac]

(Don't take this the wrong way but you're making very good arguments)

So assuming the plaintiff were to prevail,

whose responsibility are the security fees, this one, and those in the future?

It would be the university's right to apply a fee. If equally and without discrimination. If it is indeed so afraid such debates (or any debates for that matter) will cause a disruption, they would be well within their rights to charge a uniform security fee to all groups on campus. In this case, it chose to apply this fee discriminately, and when no regulation existed beforehand to justify it.

Should the plaintiff win out, the school will be forced to A) apply the fee equally or B) drop the fee idea altogether. On the other hand, the school can simply contract a security firm to watch over debates and other events held on campus without charging the student body an inordinate fee, or no fee at all. If it did this equally there would be no constitutional issue here.

But the main issue here is, as provided in Sonnier, Forsyth, and Rosenberger, you cannot charge a variable fee to a group simply because they have a controversial view, thus placing an unfair burden on their right to express that view. It doesn't matter how well intentioned the motive might be, it is still unconstitutional, in addition to it being a form of viewpoint discrimination.

Right! That IS the main issue. And one that you have not established as having taken place in this case.

Omae no atama ga warui desu ne. Oyasuminasai.

You haven't established that it DID take place. I've published the complaint, you've done nothing but troll my thread. So what are you whining about?

Baka ja nai no? Usero!

 

[LoneLaugher]

It would be the university's right to apply a fee. If equally and without discrimination. If it is indeed so afraid such debates (or any debates for that matter) will cause a disruption, they would be well within their rights to charge a uniform security fee to all groups on campus. In this case, it chose to apply this fee discriminately, and when no regulation existed beforehand to justify it.

Should the plaintiff win out, the school will be forced to A) apply the fee equally or B) drop the fee idea altogether. On the other hand, the school can simply contract a security firm to watch over debates and other events held on campus without charging the student body an inordinate fee, or no fee at all. If it did this equally there would be no constitutional issue here.

But the main issue here is, as provided in Sonnier, Forsyth, and Rosenberger, you cannot charge a variable fee to a group simply because they have a controversial view, thus placing an unfair burden on their right to express that view. It doesn't matter how well intentioned the motive might be, it is still unconstitutional, in addition to it being a form of viewpoint discrimination.

Right! That IS the main issue. And one that you have not established as having taken place in this case.

Omae no atama ga warui desu ne. Oyasuminasai.

You haven't established that it DID take place. I've published the complaint, you've done nothing but troll my thread. So what are you whining about?

Baka ja nai no? Usero!

Ii desu ne. Anta ga anime fan deshoo. Shyogannai, na. Dotei des kara.......

 

[Quantum Windbag]

(Don't take this the wrong way but you're making very good arguments)

So assuming the plaintiff were to prevail,

whose responsibility are the security fees, this one, and those in the future?

It would be the university's right to apply a fee. If equally and without discrimination. If it is indeed so afraid such debates (or any debates for that matter) will cause a disruption, they would be well within their rights to charge a uniform security fee to all groups on campus. In this case, it chose to apply this fee discriminately, and when no regulation existed beforehand to justify it.

Should the plaintiff win out, the school will be forced to A) apply the fee equally or B) drop the fee idea altogether. On the other hand, the school can simply contract a security firm to watch over debates and other events held on campus without charging the student body an inordinate fee, or no fee at all. If it did this equally there would be no constitutional issue here.

But the main issue here is, as provided in Sonnier, Forsyth, and Rosenberger, you cannot charge a variable fee to a group simply because they have a controversial view, thus placing an unfair burden on their right to express that view. It doesn't matter how well intentioned the motive might be, it is still unconstitutional, in addition to it being a form of viewpoint discrimination.

Right! That IS the main issue. And one that you have not established as having taken place in this case.

Omae no atama ga warui desu ne. Oyasuminasai.

Do you understand that we don't have to prove it was discrimination? All we have to do is prove that the fee is arbitrary. In order to prove that, all we have to do is prove that they don't charge it across the board to everyone.

That has been done, and you keep insisting we meet a standard of proof that you made up. I ever provided a court case, which you personally said you do not care about, to prove that I am correctly defining the parameters of the issue. You, being the asshole you are, prefer to side with Scalia and Thomas. Even after I point this out to you, you continue to argue that they got it right, and that the issue is something else.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It would be the university's right to apply a fee. If equally and without discrimination. If it is indeed so afraid such debates (or any debates for that matter) will cause a disruption, they would be well within their rights to charge a uniform security fee to all groups on campus. In this case, it chose to apply this fee discriminately, and when no regulation existed beforehand to justify it.

Should the plaintiff win out, the school will be forced to A) apply the fee equally or B) drop the fee idea altogether. On the other hand, the school can simply contract a security firm to watch over debates and other events held on campus without charging the student body an inordinate fee, or no fee at all. If it did this equally there would be no constitutional issue here.

But the main issue here is, as provided in Sonnier, Forsyth, and Rosenberger, you cannot charge a variable fee to a group simply because they have a controversial view, thus placing an unfair burden on their right to express that view. It doesn't matter how well intentioned the motive might be, it is still unconstitutional, in addition to it being a form of viewpoint discrimination.

Right! That IS the main issue. And one that you have not established as having taken place in this case.

Omae no atama ga warui desu ne. Oyasuminasai.

Do you understand that we don't have to prove it was discrimination? All we have to do is prove that the fee is arbitrary. In order to prove that, all we have to do is prove that they don't charge it across the board to everyone.

That has been done, and you keep insisting we meet a standard of proof that you made up. I ever provided a court case, which you personally said you do not care about, to prove that I am correctly defining the parameters of the issue. You, being the asshole you are, prefer to side with Scalia and Thomas. Even after I point this out to you, you continue to argue that they got it right, and that the issue is something else.

The ******* thread us about freedom of speech being infringed. Is it not?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right! That IS the main issue. And one that you have not established as having taken place in this case.

Omae no atama ga warui desu ne. Oyasuminasai.

Do you understand that we don't have to prove it was discrimination? All we have to do is prove that the fee is arbitrary. In order to prove that, all we have to do is prove that they don't charge it across the board to everyone.

That has been done, and you keep insisting we meet a standard of proof that you made up. I ever provided a court case, which you personally said you do not care about, to prove that I am correctly defining the parameters of the issue. You, being the asshole you are, prefer to side with Scalia and Thomas. Even after I point this out to you, you continue to argue that they got it right, and that the issue is something else.

The ******* thread us about freedom of speech being infringed. Is it not?

Yes, which is why you arguing about discriminatory fees, and insisting that we have to prove that the fees were applied unfairly, is so amusing. In cases like this, all the plaintiff has to prove is that the infringement occurred.

As I already pointed out earlier in the thread, the mere existence of a fee is evidence of infringement, you have admitted that the fee exists, therefore you have admitted that their rights were infringed. You are just so stupid you think you haven't admitted that. You also think that the fact that you haven't admitted what you admitted means that the plaintiffs have to prove that the fee is discriminatory.

You, as usual, are wrong. The burden of proof is now on the people who are arguing that the infringement is reasonable and constitutional. The plaintiffs are free to counter that argument, but you have to make it first. Until you do, all I have to do is sit here and sneer.

Unfortunately, for you, I actually had to deal with other idiots in this thread, so I already destroyed the only argument that makes sense to the idiots, that the university can base the fee on the perceived reaction to the speech.

That means that you have to do one thing before you climb out of the pit of partisan hackery, you have to provide a valid reason for the fees. In this case, due to all those court decisions you don't care about, valid means that the fee is based on objective standards that are applied to everyone, not on a decision of the university or its agents that is solely at their discretion. That burden is entirely on you, and until you do that there is no merit to any argument you raise that attempts to paint you as unbiased, all you are doing is confirming your own bias.

Feel free to continue to pretend you are the unbiased one in this thread though, it amuses me, and I actually look forward to coming back into this thread just so I can sneer at the self righteous asshole who thinks he is better than I am.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you understand that we don't have to prove it was discrimination? All we have to do is prove that the fee is arbitrary. In order to prove that, all we have to do is prove that they don't charge it across the board to everyone.

That has been done, and you keep insisting we meet a standard of proof that you made up. I ever provided a court case, which you personally said you do not care about, to prove that I am correctly defining the parameters of the issue. You, being the asshole you are, prefer to side with Scalia and Thomas. Even after I point this out to you, you continue to argue that they got it right, and that the issue is something else.

The ******* thread us about freedom of speech being infringed. Is it not?

Yes, which is why you arguing about discriminatory fees, and insisting that we have to prove that the fees were applied unfairly, is so amusing. In cases like this, all the plaintiff has to prove is that the infringement occurred.

As I already pointed out earlier in the thread, the mere existence of a fee is evidence of infringement, you have admitted that the fee exists, therefore you have admitted that their rights were infringed. You are just so stupid you think you haven't admitted that. You also think that the fact that you haven't admitted what you admitted means that the plaintiffs have to prove that the fee is discriminatory.

You, as usual, are wrong. The burden of proof is now on the people who are arguing that the infringement is reasonable and constitutional. The plaintiffs are free to counter that argument, but you have to make it first. Until you do, all I have to do is sit here and sneer.

Unfortunately, for you, I actually had to deal with other idiots in this thread, so I already destroyed the only argument that makes sense to the idiots, that the university can base the fee on the perceived reaction to the speech.

That means that you have to do one thing before you climb out of the pit of partisan hackery, you have to provide a valid reason for the fees. In this case, due to all those court decisions you don't care about, valid means that the fee is based on objective standards that are applied to everyone, not on a decision of the university or its agents that is solely at their discretion. That burden is entirely on you, and until you do that there is no merit to any argument you raise that attempts to paint you as unbiased, all you are doing is confirming your own bias.

Feel free to continue to pretend you are the unbiased one in this thread though, it amuses me, and I actually look forward to coming back into this thread just so I can sneer at the self righteous asshole who thinks he is better than I am.

The university also has a legal responsibility for campus safety, and potential legal liability for failing to provide that safety.

-That proves there was a valid reason for the security at the event -

unless of course you want to argue that.