This was the first image listed by Bing for "This isn't the 60s anymore."
Posted on 04/25/2014 10:44:44 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
Two students are suing the University of Hawaii for violating their First Amendment rights after administrator prevented them from distributing copies of the U.S. Constitution — demonstrating a frightening lack of knowledge about the very legal document they were attempting to censor.
Students Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone, members of the Young Americans for Liberty chapter at UH-Hilo, were prevented from handing out copies of the Constitution at a recruitment event in January. A week later, they were again informed by a censorship-minded administrator that their First Amendment-protected activities were in violation of school policy.
The students were told that they could only distribute literature from within UH-Hilo’s “free speech zone,” a small, muddy, frequently-flooded area on the edge of campus.
Administrators further clarified their level of respect for students’ free speech rights, making comments like, “This isn’t really the ’60s anymore,” and “people can’t really protest like that anymore,” according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
the whole country is a free speech zone
bump
Damn. WTF.
And areas that are designated as “non-free speech zones” are exactly where you need free speech.
What are they worried about? Too many people handing out fliers for everything? Heck that is what college is all about.
I would say if not for the USS Arizona and other WW2 memorials/gravesites I’d say sure. The Missouri can be moved.
So if my employee manual states that blacks must be called the "N" word then that means I have no choice but to address them as such?
I call BS.
The Constitution is unconstitutional
Is this a joke? This is crazy.
As long as you don't violate the "noise" laws...and your topic has been submitted and approved by the "Student Speech Council," at least 96 hours prior to your speech. Unless of course, your speech topic falls under one of the "Always Approved" topics.
“So if my employee manual states that blacks must be called the “N” word then that means I have no choice but to address them as such?
I call BS. “
there are policies that are followed in any establishment. they would have to be within the law, the example you state would be considered hostile in a work environment and therefore wouldn’t be allowed.
This was the first image listed by Bing for "This isn't the 60s anymore."
” ... the University of California system is more private than public”
The UC system is public, despite the fact that it receives less than half of its funding from the state. Restrictions of speech on public property are viewed very skeptically by the courts.
In this case, UH would have to argue compellingly that some important public purpose (safety, for example) is served by the restrictions.
Looks like the Choom Gang has struck again!
>>So if my employee manual states that blacks must be called the “N” word then that means I have no choice but to address them as such?<<
Yes you would, except that would probably be a civil right action on the part of the addressee, not you.
What if you are in a play that uses that word? It is a 100% legitimate demand.
A better example is an employer that won’t allow political posters and buttons. Perfectly acceptable
As long as the rules apply to everyone, an employer has vast control of behaviors on his/her property and/or when you are acting as an employee.
All employment is voluntary on both parties.
Nonsense. When has it ever been illegal to simply offer someone printed material? And no university or other entity should be able to enforce such a rule except on private property, and a state university is not private property and those students were definitely authorized to be on that campus.
Can people "approach people" and ask for directions, or for the time, or to bum a cigarette (or a legal joint some places), or for other mundane reasons people often "approach people"?
And everyone has a right to decline whatever someone might approach and request of them.
>>In this case, UH would have to argue compellingly that some important public purpose (safety, for example) is served by the restrictions.<<
Agreed and I don’t know why UH is fighting this. Do they not have Legal Counsel to tell them they will probably lose?
The only conclusion I can come to is probably every judge in HI is an uber-liberal and will back the up, USC be damned.
I don't care if it's the prettiest garden in the world, the leftist concept of a "free speech zone" sounds like something from George Orwell. Speech that is confined to an approved zone is not free, and those who accept such a restriction accept the loss of freedom.
A public university is private property? Who does it belong to?
>>A public university is private property? Who does it belong to?<<
Unfortunately it isn’t that cut and dried. The administrators of a facility can still set rules of conduct. The example I gave of not allowing political posters, buttons and the like is just one example.
Just as employees can choose to work elsewhere, students can choose to attend another university.
You as a private citizen cannot just walk into a state university campus without a legitimate reason.
This is far from a slam dunk but I think there is probably some meat on the bones in favor of the students.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.