What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[blackhawk]

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

The university has some explaining to do.

 

[Pogo]

WAS the point dipstick.

Try minding your own business, dipstick.

Really?

BITE ME MORON.

Why do you suppose, psychologically speaking, you're such a fascist that you need to jump in on somebody's point that had nothing to do with you? What kind of infantile insecurity drives that need to control a third party's points? Who died and made you God?

Discuss.

 

[Pogo]

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

The university has some explaining to do.

Didn't we just establish there was a near-riot there the previous week on this same issue? Are we ignoring that?

Let me be the first to admit, I didn't look deeply into the story or look for corroboration, going so far by the OP's extract. But there's also the source -- Fox Noise. Some kind of cross check is definitely called for.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The First Amendment specifies "abridgement" of the right, not denial. Placing an undue burden or constriction on the ability to exercise that right, particularly a burden or constriction that is not placed on anyone else, qualifies.

 

[The T]

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.



University at Buffalo charged pro-life student group $650 in 'unconstitutional fees,' lawsuit alleges | Fox News

The university has some explaining to do.

Didn't we just establish there was a near-riot there the previous week on this same issue? Are we ignoring that?

Let me be the first to admit, I didn't look deeply into the story or look for corroboration, going so far by the OP's extract. But there's also the source -- Fox Noise. Some kind of cross check is definitely called for.

FOX NOISE you twit?! Good GOD man. THINK.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 know if I consider fees for extra security to be wrong, as long as they're charged to everyone. I mean, the university DOES have to pay for that extra security, and it's not unreasonable to expect the groups requiring it to defray the costs. Where this story lost me was when it was ONLY required of one group.

 

[The T]

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 know if I consider fees for extra security to be wrong, as long as they're charged to everyone. I mean, the university DOES have to pay for that extra security, and it's not unreasonable to expect the groups requiring it to defray the costs. Where this story lost me was when it was ONLY required of one group.

 

[The T]

Try minding your own business, dipstick.

Really?

BITE ME MORON.

Why do you suppose, psychologically speaking, you're such a fascist that you need to jump in on somebody's point that had nothing to do with you? What kind of infantile insecurity drives that need to control a third party's points? Who died and made you God?

Discuss.

REMEMBER THIS as you stick YOUR NOSE into shit SON. Fascist? Really?

 

[The T]

Oh? And POGO? *I* will be there every step of the way to REMIND YOU as the Fascist that I am!

 

[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 "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.



University at Buffalo charged pro-life student group $650 in 'unconstitutional fees,' lawsuit alleges | Fox News

The university has some explaining to do.

Didn't we just establish there was a near-riot there the previous week on this same issue? Are we ignoring that?

Let me be the first to admit, I didn't look deeply into the story or look for corroboration, going so far by the OP's extract. But there's also the source -- Fox Noise. Some kind of cross check is definitely called for.

No such fee existed before that "near riot" either. And the University didn't seem to mind not applying this fee to the Christians and Atheists who held a debate there with no disruption. It's quite odd they would single out a group who held a pro life view on abortion hosting a similarly themed debate to levy this fee against.

It speaks to your intellectual honesty when you simply doubt the OP's assertion based on a source he cited which you believe isn't news or doesn't qualify as news simply because you believe it to be a conservative outlet and thus illegitimate. Sorry, but to be blunt, that is a very two dimensional line of reasoning.

I did my own corroborative research, Pogo, I used sources unrelated to Fox News to postulate my positions. I researched case law, I researched even more case law. I might not be it now, but when I get up the cash, I'm going to train myself as a paralegal and take a career path which leads me to the field of constitutional scholarship.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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...

First, as I've pointed out before, the First Amendment does not require that the exercise of free speech be denied, or that anyone be arrested or charged with a crime, or any other extraneous goal posts you want to impose. It requires that it be "abridged", and charging fees that are not charged to anyone else IS an abridgement of free speech.

Second, if the Joseph P Wackoff Building is owned by the government - as buildings on state university campuses are - and is regularly made available to people and groups for gatherings, then people DO, in fact, have the Constitutional right to use that building in exactly the same way and under the exact same conditions as anyone else would. The government is required by law - MANY laws - to treat all of its constituents according to the exact same rules.

 

[The T]

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...

First, as I've pointed out before, the First Amendment does not require that the exercise of free speech be denied, or that anyone be arrested or charged with a crime, or any other extraneous goal posts you want to impose. It requires that it be "abridged", and charging fees that are not charged to anyone else IS an abridgement of free speech.

Second, if the Joseph P Wackoff Building is owned by the government - as buildings on state university campuses are - and is regularly made available to people and groups for gatherings, then people DO, in fact, have the Constitutional right to use that building in exactly the same way and under the exact same conditions as anyone else would. The government is required by law - MANY laws - to treat all of its constituents according to the exact same rules.

If the PEOPLE do pay for them then the building should be used at the people's disgression...My what roadblocks people put up to the exercise of liberty...including this University.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't think this analogy works, GW. If the debate can't afford to use the facility they can still hold the debate elsewhere. If the voter is required to have ID and doesn't, he or she can't just go do it somewhere else.

The analogy is unsound, I concur, BUT

The Supreme Court disagrees where debate and building usage is concerned, Pogo. You can't discriminately charge one group a fee for use of a facility while allowing free access to another. The campus is what is known by the courts as a "forum for student expression." In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993) which is similar in scope to this case, the Court ruled that excluding the religious organization from school installations, whilst simultaneously permitting secular groups’ use of the same place for a "wide variety of social, civic, and recreational purposes", constituted viewpoint discrimination that violated the First Amendment. Meaning, Pogo, the building should be free for use by any group regardless of religious or political viewpoints.

A lot of colleges in America receive government funding or grants for their operations, meaning they can't simply do what they want footloose and fancy free. Since government has a vested interest in the school's operations and funding, they are (or should be) bound by the Constitution.

I already said it looks like discrimination and as such unfair. But you can't say the university restricted speech when what they restricted was a facility. There was nothing about that debate that could be expressed only in that facility. Unless someone can make the point that the facility has magical powers without which someone cannot speak.

So again as we've already established, there's a question to be resolved on the setting of those fees as to whether one group was discriminated against with them. OTOH the university's policy provides that they do charge something for the overhead of that facility. As long as we accept that some charge is legitimate, then we can argue setting one fee here and another there is discriminatory. But we can't argue that fee squelches speech, because it doesn't.

I believe saying, "You can say whatever you want . . . but not here" constitutes abridgement of free speech, particularly when you only say it to certain people.

 

[Poltergist]

What the average American citizen does not realize is that government intrusion that Snowden revealed only begins to scratch the surface of what they are willing to do to the average American citizen in the name of "National Security". Understand that we live in a era of big data, but it's people that ultimately make sense of it all. The result of this are humans who have been given the power of omniscience over your lives. What's more, with the magic of statistics combined with an understanding of human psychology. We live in an era now were when you type enough words, express enough opinions and search enough websites, you literally bear your entire soul to strangers.

Consider that Google.com likely knows more about your sexual interest than even your spouse based upon your search criteria. It also knows your location, spending habits, political viewpoints, and even your mood based upon your search patterns. Since the unveiling of the much lauded internet 2.0, programers have been able to process more data about your searches and activities than ever before. Now consider social media. CNN.com Discuss boards employ a "Brand Lift" metrics system produced by vizu.com. You've never heard of brand lift metrics, you probably haven't heard of vizu. That's because it's an API that meant to sit silently in the background as it records and analyzes your activity. "Vizu Audience Incite is the first real-time attitudinal audience characterization solution for online brand advertising, allowing our customers to validate reach against custom or niche target audiences." Attiudinal is exactly what it sounds like, attitude. By "Validating Reach" Vizu.com allows it's customers, like CNN to pick and choose what comments are deemed worthy according to the Brand of politics they wish to Sell to you. In effect, the 'social media' they provide is merely an extension of their advertising. The goal is to influence your opinion, and get your like on facebook, not hear your discourse. There's no reason to think that any major news organization behaves any differently.

The ability to correlate so much data, combined with the pervasiveness of the internet in our lives, has allowed the government to acquire almost god-like powers of semi-ominiscients over most Americans. I say semi because the information they acquire is not perfect, there are always gaps. How far would they go to attain perfect information if they thought it was necessary? What would they do and would they really care about what rights they violated in the process? We like to believe that they the government doesn't violate the rules and laws it establishes, that maintaining rules and laws actually mean something to them. Though if you examine the history of this country, to believe so would be naive.

Many mass killers and terrorist tend towards high interest in politics and mental illness such as depression and anxiety. Now consider that these traits also define a portion of the American population, especially since depression and anxiety is highly prevalent but under-reported. Now that the government is capable of correlating enough data to determine which of it's citizens share these traits, would it not be prudent for the government to keep tabs on this segment of the population? After all, in the name of national security anything can be ultimately justified. Or is it about safety at all? A few high profile incidents in a country that loses thousand per year to gun violence are hardly justified in expending so many resources when it appears to have such a small impact on your overall safety. And yet the news will obsessively tell clue into the profiles of a few crazy killers, all the while ignoring the legitimate threats like robberies, and murders that occur more frequently among “sane” individuals.

Inherently the government expects you to trust them as they do this. They'll tell you it's for the security of the nation, when in actuality it is only for the security of the 1%. The government considers self preservation beyond all else, even the people they claim as citizens. This is why they create continuity of government plans, that don't involve saving anything more than the leadership. In cases of extreme emergencies the government is designed to outlast the people it claims to protect. If they need to, they will cut their losses and reside over your ashes. The 1% who controls 90% of all that is America consider the least important part of the American equation the American citizen. You speech is "free", but is it really?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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...

First, as I've pointed out before, the First Amendment does not require that the exercise of free speech be denied, or that anyone be arrested or charged with a crime, or any other extraneous goal posts you want to impose. It requires that it be "abridged", and charging fees that are not charged to anyone else IS an abridgement of free speech.

Second, if the Joseph P Wackoff Building is owned by the government - as buildings on state university campuses are - and is regularly made available to people and groups for gatherings, then people DO, in fact, have the Constitutional right to use that building in exactly the same way and under the exact same conditions as anyone else would. The government is required by law - MANY laws - to treat all of its constituents according to the exact same rules.

Nailed it.

 

[The T]

The analogy is unsound, I concur, BUT

The Supreme Court disagrees where debate and building usage is concerned, Pogo. You can't discriminately charge one group a fee for use of a facility while allowing free access to another. The campus is what is known by the courts as a "forum for student expression." In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993) which is similar in scope to this case, the Court ruled that excluding the religious organization from school installations, whilst simultaneously permitting secular groups’ use of the same place for a "wide variety of social, civic, and recreational purposes", constituted viewpoint discrimination that violated the First Amendment. Meaning, Pogo, the building should be free for use by any group regardless of religious or political viewpoints.

A lot of colleges in America receive government funding or grants for their operations, meaning they can't simply do what they want footloose and fancy free. Since government has a vested interest in the school's operations and funding, they are (or should be) bound by the Constitution.

I already said it looks like discrimination and as such unfair. But you can't say the university restricted speech when what they restricted was a facility. There was nothing about that debate that could be expressed only in that facility. Unless someone can make the point that the facility has magical powers without which someone cannot speak.

So again as we've already established, there's a question to be resolved on the setting of those fees as to whether one group was discriminated against with them. OTOH the university's policy provides that they do charge something for the overhead of that facility. As long as we accept that some charge is legitimate, then we can argue setting one fee here and another there is discriminatory. But we can't argue that fee squelches speech, because it doesn't.

I believe saying, "You can say whatever you want . . . but not here" constitutes abridgement of free speech, particularly when you only say it to certain people.

ONLY those that agree with Government, control over others and their speech that agrees with such government.

People need to be careful with what they advocate lest it catch up with themselves and find them wanting the very same as those that have had their liberty violated.

OK until it affects them.

 

[The T]

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...

First, as I've pointed out before, the First Amendment does not require that the exercise of free speech be denied, or that anyone be arrested or charged with a crime, or any other extraneous goal posts you want to impose. It requires that it be "abridged", and charging fees that are not charged to anyone else IS an abridgement of free speech.

Second, if the Joseph P Wackoff Building is owned by the government - as buildings on state university campuses are - and is regularly made available to people and groups for gatherings, then people DO, in fact, have the Constitutional right to use that building in exactly the same way and under the exact same conditions as anyone else would. The government is required by law - MANY laws - to treat all of its constituents according to the exact same rules.

Nailed it.

Yep.

 

[Pogo]

The university has some explaining to do.

Didn't we just establish there was a near-riot there the previous week on this same issue? Are we ignoring that?

Let me be the first to admit, I didn't look deeply into the story or look for corroboration, going so far by the OP's extract. But there's also the source -- Fox Noise. Some kind of cross check is definitely called for.

No such fee existed before that "near riot" either. And the University didn't seem to mind not applying this fee to the Christians and Atheists who held a debate there with no disruption. It's quite odd they would single out a group who held a pro life view on abortion hosting a similarly themed debate to levy this fee against.

It speaks to your intellectual honesty when you simply doubt the OP's assertion based on a source he cited which you believe isn't news or doesn't qualify as news simply because you believe it to be a conservative outlet and thus illegitimate. Sorry, but to be blunt, that is a very two dimensional line of reasoning.

I'm afraid it speaks of a strawman, because that ain't what I said; it's the words you put in my mouth.

Here's the actual point, and please -- just leave it unmolested...

It's been reported here (though at the time without a link) that the same university had a near-riot the week before involving the same kind of issue. That isn't mentioned anywhere in your article or OP but if true it dramatically impacts the issue. And it should be checked out, because I don't know about you but if I'm defending the university I'm all over that.

Fox Noise for its part has a long history of slant, and if that last-week's-riot story is valid, would be exactly the sort of angle it would omit -- because it would work against the company's agenda. Therefore it needs to be cross checked. That has nothing to do with Fox being "conservative". It has to do with them being historically dishonest. Fox is a tabloid mentality; it's going to present news in the most controversial hair-on-fire way it can. To mention that there might be a good reason for this extra security would undermine that mission. Therefore it deserves a critical examination. Not rocket surgery.

And back to the top -- if no such fee existed before the near-riot, and then a near-riot ensued, how is subsequently installing security fees seen as anything but expected?? Think about it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What the average American citizen does not realize is that government intrusion that Snowden revealed only begins to scratch the surface of what they are willing to do to the average American citizen in the name of "National Security". Understand that we live in a era of big data, but it's people that ultimately make sense of it all. The result of this are humans who have been given the power of omniscience over your lives. What's more, with the magic of statistics combined with an understanding of human psychology. We live in an era now were when you type enough words, express enough opinions and search enough websites, you literally bear your entire soul to strangers.

Consider that Google.com likely knows more about your sexual interest than even your spouse based upon your search criteria. It also knows your location, spending habits, political viewpoints, and even your mood based upon your search patterns. Since the unveiling of the much lauded internet 2.0, programmers have been able to process more data about your searches and activities than ever before. Now consider social media. CNN.com Discuss boards employ a "Brand Lift" metrics system produced by vizu.com. You've never heard of brand lift metrics, you probably haven't heard of vizu. That's because it's an API that meant to sit silently in the background as it records and analyzes your activity. "Vizu Audience Incite is the first real-time attitudinal audience characterization solution for online brand advertising, allowing our customers to validate reach against custom or niche target audiences." Attitudinal is exactly what it sounds like, attitude. By "Validating Reach" Vizu.com allows it's customers, like CNN to pick and choose what comments are deemed worthy according to the Brand of politics they wish to Sell to you. In effect, the 'social media' they provide is merely an extension of their advertising. The goal is to influence your opinion, and get your like on facebook, not hear your discourse. There's no reason to think that any major news organization behaves any differently.

The ability to correlate so much data, combined with the pervasiveness of the internet in our lives, has allowed the government to acquire almost god-like powers of semi-ominiscients over most Americans. I say semi because the information they acquire is not perfect, there are always gaps. How far would they go to attain perfect information if they thought it was necessary? What would they do and would they really care about what rights they violated in the process? We like to believe that they the government doesn't violate the rules and laws it establishes, that maintaining rules and laws actually mean something to them. Though if you examine the history of this country, to believe so would be naive.

Many mass killers and terrorist tend towards high interest in politics and mental illness such as depression and anxiety. Now consider that these traits also define a portion of the American population, especially since depression and anxiety is highly prevalent but under-reported. Now that the government is capable of correlating enough data to determine which of it's citizens share these traits, would it not be prudent for the government to keep tabs on this segment of the population? After all, in the name of national security anything can be ultimately justified. Or is it about safety at all? A few high profile incidents in a country that loses thousand per year to gun violence are hardly justified in expending so many resources when it appears to have such a small impact on your overall safety. And yet the news will obsessively tell clue into the profiles of a few crazy killers, all the while ignoring the legitimate threats like robberies, and murders that occur more frequently among “sane” individuals.

Inherently the government expects you to trust them as they do this. They'll tell you it's for the security of the nation, when in actuality it is only for the security of the 1%. The government considers self preservation beyond all else, even the people they claim as citizens. This is why they create continuity of government plans, that don't involve saving anything more than the leadership. In cases of extreme emergencies the government is designed to outlast the people it claims to protect. If they need to, they will cut their losses and reside over your ashes. The 1% who controls 90% of all that is America consider the least important part of the American equation the American citizen. You speech is "free", but is it really?

Interesting...

 

[The T]

Didn't we just establish there was a near-riot there the previous week on this same issue? Are we ignoring that?

Let me be the first to admit, I didn't look deeply into the story or look for corroboration, going so far by the OP's extract. But there's also the source -- Fox Noise. Some kind of cross check is definitely called for.

No such fee existed before that "near riot" either. And the University didn't seem to mind not applying this fee to the Christians and Atheists who held a debate there with no disruption. It's quite odd they would single out a group who held a pro life view on abortion hosting a similarly themed debate to levy this fee against.

It speaks to your intellectual honesty when you simply doubt the OP's assertion based on a source he cited which you believe isn't news or doesn't qualify as news simply because you believe it to be a conservative outlet and thus illegitimate. Sorry, but to be blunt, that is a very two dimensional line of reasoning.

I'm afraid it speaks of a strawman, because that ain't what I said; it's the words you put in my mouth.

Here's the actual point, and please -- just leave it unmolested...

It's been reported here (though at the time without a link) that the same university had a near-riot the week before involving the same kind of issue. That isn't mentioned anywhere in your article or OP but if true it dramatically impacts the issue. And it should be checked out, because I don't know about you but if I'm defending the university I'm all over that.

Fox Noise for its part has a long history of slant, and if that last-week's-riot story is valid, would be exactly the sort of angle it would omit. Therefore it needs to be cross checked. That has nothing to do with Fox being "conservative". It has to do with them being historically dishonest.

OK *I* will MOLEST IT...FOX NOISE Gracie?

YEAH *I* am sticking MY NOSE IN IT. What you gonna do son?