IT'S NOT MY CONSTITUTION
Posted on 03/28/2017 10:10:09 PM PDT by DavidThomas
LOS ANGELES, CA — A Pierce College student Tuesday filed suit against the school and the Los Angeles Community College District, alleging policies that restrict student free speech rights to tiny zones are unconstitutional and infringe on First Amendment rights.
Kevin Shaw, 27, contends the Woodland Hills community college violated his civil rights when he was barred from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution because he wasn't in the free speech zone -- an outdoor area roughly the size of three parking spaces -- and because he hadn't applied in advance to use it.
Probably his best Constitutional defense would be California's Constitution's Article 1, Section 2:
(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
(b) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, shall not be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
Nor shall a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.
As used in this subdivision, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.
Cant be educating the masses at college. College is for leftist indoctrination.
/sarc
The Bolshevik “perfesers” cringe when they see a U.S. Constitution. The way a vampire cringes when it sees a crucifix.
If the Constitution doesn’t apply to state or local governments, there would still be slavery.
The Supreme Court, interpreting the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment broadly, have recognized that not only are people protected from abridgment of their freedom of speech by Congress, but are also protected from abridgment by state governments as well as creatures of the state such as cities and counties. This would include publicly supported colleges.
The idea of "free speech zones" suggests that there must also be "prohibited speech zones". Not a good idea.
In support of his case, the student should arrange to have someone passing out pro-abortion or anti-Trump literature under the same circumstances. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this strengthened his case considerably.
IT'S NOT MY CONSTITUTION
I didn't say Constitution, I said First Amendment, which is what he's likely citing.
(I hate Free Speech Zones
very, very much; but I also think we ought to treat the Constitution as if it were the Supreme Law of the Land, and that means paying attention to what it actually says, not what nine black-robed guys say that it says.)
He should have said he was passing out consume with abundant amounts of directions on them and the college would have been OK.
The left likes the Constitution the same way they like the flag: handy to wrap yourself in one moment and then use as toilet paper the next.
Consume = condoms. Self correcting garbage.
Can you hijack a creation of someone else, or even a government entity, for your own purposes? Does that entity have the right to invite others to use it under certain restrictions?
The campus was not created for the free speech of anyone, it was created as a place of learning.
I think that the pitfall that the college has is if they’ve treated all speech equally. Do they have pamphlets for, say, Planned Parenthood in the health office?
If they do, then how could they possibly object to the central document of our federal government being handed out on campus? And if they favor tracts published by a particular cause which can be so vehemently argued in the public square, how could they silence the distribution of such a foundational document that enumerates not only the inalienable rights of citizens, but the limitations on government as well?
I think the college has stable ground to put in ‘free speech zones’ and to regulate the usage of those zones through application and approval, but utterly loses this particular argument as the core action was handing out a basic document of our country, yet favors distribution throughout the campus of political dogma. Be it an animal rights sign in the campus farm center to controversial opinions in the health center or even a state mandated genderless bathroom sign.
For some it is old historic stuff that doesn’t mean much.
We need to construct a constitutional suppository. It may get to leftists who have their heads so far up their asses they see glints of daylight so maybe insert it with a road flare. Unlit of course. It is up to them if they actually want to read the dang thing.
I also think we should have duels in the senate again. McTurtle vs Scheemer. It is a no lose situation. 1 gone, the other gone, both gone... No lose.
In interpreting the First Amendment to apply to any other entity than Congress, the Supreme Court is modifying the Constitution; this is outside their authority and, according to Marbury v. Madison, that a law* repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
* -- Or judicial act, if you apply the same logic as presented therein.
I think this qualifies as one of those times where good is called evil and evil is called good.
“To be fair, the First Amendment says nothing about state/local governments, privately owned businesses, or even the executive or judicial branched — it applies specifically and explicitly to the Congress.”
You are very off base. The first amendment does not only apply to congress. Where did you get such an interpretation? The body of law arising out of the 14th amendment has indeed made the states subject to the 1st amendment.
For about the last 100 years the bill of rights has been applied to the states. Also, this “private” institution is probably taking all kinds of federal money. That comes with strings. Free speech zones won’t stand. Also, the justice department is no longer the friend of such radicalism as free speech zones.
You need to learn about the 14th amendment.
“I think the college has stable ground to put in ‘free speech zones’ and to regulate the usage of those zones through application and approval”
Not if they take federal dollars, including student aid. Ask Hillsdale College about that. They had to give up federal student aid if they did not count and classify the race of their students.
With the current DOJ, they might be looking at losing student aid if they insist on illegal free speech zones.
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.