Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Interesting...
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.
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.
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.
Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to ensure for a disruption that never occurred while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.
"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.
REMEMBER THIS as you stick YOUR NOSE into shit SON. Fascist? Really?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.
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.
Did the pro-life group, or any of its adherents, start the "near-riot"? No? Then why would you penalize them simply for acquiring enemies who don't know how to behave in public? Try charging the fees for extra security to the people who actually break the law. I believe the law DOES provide for that sort of thing.
How is this a hard concept?
Astounding limits, excuses can be put upon speech that is prohibited in any case...until challenged.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.
Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to ensure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.
"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.
Actually? IT WAS an answer. Only ONE in MY FREE SPEECH I am exercising YOU happen to NOT like...not unlike what WE are discussing.REMEMBER THIS as you stick YOUR NOSE into shit SON. Fascist? Really?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.
Yup. That's not an answer by the way. What I'm asking you is on what basis you believe you can control other people's points. You know, rather than making one of your own.
Sorry, is that awkward?
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.
Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to ensure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.
"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.
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.
Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to insure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.
"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.
Actually? IT WAS an answer. Only ONE in MY FREE SPEECH I am exercising YOU happen to NOT like...not unlike what WE are discussing.REMEMBER THIS as you stick YOUR NOSE into shit SON. Fascist? Really?
Yup. That's not an answer by the way. What I'm asking you is on what basis you believe you can control other people's points. You know, rather than making one of your own.
Sorry, is that awkward?
GRIN and bear it son.
The T said:Hi, you have received -2636 reputation points from The T.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
FOX NOISE? YOU are an IDIOT.
Regards,
The T
Note: This is an automated message.
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.
Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to ensure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.
"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.
Fuck TK -- I don't know if it's true or not, I'm saying we need to check it out. You're saying I should just put blind trust in a known prejudiced source? Really?
Isn't that the same as saying any other news outlet should just shut the fuck up, as Fox Noise has this covered?
Might be good enough for you, but I would never go with a single source, especially one I already knew to have an agenda. I find that profoundly naive.
Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to ensure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.
"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.
Fuck TK -- I don't know if it's true or not, I'm saying we need to check it out. You're saying I should just put blind trust in a known prejudiced source? Really?
Isn't that the same as saying any other news outlet should just shut the fuck up, as Fox Noise has this covered?
Might be good enough for you, but I would never go with a single source, especially one I already knew to have an agenda. I find that profoundly naive.
I was saying by posting it that TK needs to have taken the trouble of a few minutes to investigate the story before he posted it.
I also read the entire complaint. 33 pages, although I confess to skimming through some of the superfluous stuff.
Any of you read it?
Even more interesting is that this same information is available to specific sectors of private enterprise and the markets.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...
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.
Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to ensure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.
"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.
Fuck TK -- I don't know if it's true or not, I'm saying we need to check it out. You're saying I should just put blind trust in a known prejudiced source? Really?
Isn't that the same as saying any other news outlet should just shut the fuck up, as Fox Noise has this covered?
Might be good enough for you, but I would never go with a single source, especially one I already knew to have an agenda. I find that profoundly naive.
Actually? IT WAS an answer. Only ONE in MY FREE SPEECH I am exercising YOU happen to NOT like...not unlike what WE are discussing.Yup. That's not an answer by the way. What I'm asking you is on what basis you believe you can control other people's points. You know, rather than making one of your own.
Sorry, is that awkward?
GRIN and bear it son.
You gave no answer. Because there isn't any.
You lost, now quit trolling.
This just in: fascism confirmed--
The T said:Hi, you have received -2636 reputation points from The T.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
FOX NOISE? YOU are an IDIOT.
Regards,
The T
Note: This is an automated message.
Same guy crowing about "FREE SPEECH", spends all his energy trying to control that of others.
-- not to mention an emotional relationship with a TV channel....
Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to ensure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.
"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.
Fuck TK -- I don't know if it's true or not, I'm saying we need to check it out. You're saying I should just put blind trust in a known prejudiced source? Really?
Isn't that the same as saying any other news outlet should just shut the fuck up, as Fox Noise has this covered?
Might be good enough for you, but I would never go with a single source, especially one I already knew to have an agenda. I find that profoundly naive.
No, I simply chose Fox News as the basis for this article. I could have just as easily found an article about this from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC or other liberally slanted news networks, had they simply taken the time to report on it, I noticed they didn't take the time to. If you can find where any of those networks covered this incident in detail, I'd be happy to lend it some credence.
And why exactly would Fox lie about something like this? Are you accusing them of continually perpetrating a hoax on the American people? Tell me, would you apply this reasoning to those other liberally biased outlets? Or is this confined simply to Fox News? Your next answer will speak to your objectivity, Pogo. Take note that I'm not attacking you, I ask out of hope that such a line of skeptical reasoning is applied equally. I take everything with a grain of salt until it can be corroborated, I don't selectively apply this rationale to things or people I may not approve of.
Every news outlet has a slant. That is a fact.Fuck TK -- I don't know if it's true or not, I'm saying we need to check it out. You're saying I should just put blind trust in a known prejudiced source? Really?
Isn't that the same as saying any other news outlet should just shut the fuck up, as Fox Noise has this covered?
Might be good enough for you, but I would never go with a single source, especially one I already knew to have an agenda. I find that profoundly naive.
No, I simply chose Fox News as the basis for this article. I could have just as easily found an article about this from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC or other liberally slanted news networks, had they simply taken the time to report on it, I noticed they didn't take the time to. If you can find where any of those networks covered this incident in detail, I'd be happy to lend it some credence.
And why exactly would Fox lie about something like this? Are you accusing them of continually perpetrating a hoax on the American people? Tell me, would you apply this reasoning to those other liberally biased outlets? Or is this confined simply to Fox News? Your next answer will speak to your objectivity, Pogo. Take note that I'm not attacking you, I ask out of hope that such a line of skeptical reasoning is applied equally. I take everything with a grain of salt until it can be corroborated, I don't selectively apply this rationale to things or people I may not approve of.
I don't know if that's a question or what but I guess I have to restate this again...
(a) Fox Noise is known to have a slant. We all know that.
(b) it's been reported -- details still wanting -- that an event took place previously which, if true as described, would vitally impact the angle on this story.
(c) If that report is valid, it is not mentioned by Fox Noise;
(d) If that report is valid, for Fox Noise to mention it would undermine its own agenda of sensationalism, because it would extinguish the hair-on-fire outrage angle on which that sensationalism depends; it would make for "balance".
(e) Therefore we have reasonable grounds to reserve opinion until we can find out more, before we take a Fox Noise ball and run it to the end zone.
Fox Noise by itself? Damn right I won't trust it.
Ironic thread. What price free speech? One guy tries to jump in and control what everybody else says. Another guy gets offended if you suggest his source might need a second opinion.
Please.
