Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Ummm it wasn't opened up. No forum was. they said.. NO your group can't meet here this time. There was no debate actively going on, they simply decided that the topic they wanted to talk about was not something they wanted to be associated with that day

I was using the legal term.

A government building that allows people to speak there on certain issues is referred to as a "limited public forum." Once they make this determination, they are required under the 1st amendment to allow anyone who meets the basic issue criteria to use the facilities (according to the time restrictions). As long as the group wanting to use the facilities was a "recognized political party or organization" and the topic was "public questions and issues," the venue cannot discriminate based on the message.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:There's also the added issue that non-union members are forced to contribute part of their paycheck to support political activities that they may not support.

AGAIN. Not true. the money they give (at a huge discount) is payment for having a 3rd party negotiate for them. You're dead wrong here.

So the money collected from the non-members is segregated into a separate account and only used to pay for negotiation fees?

Color me skeptical.

However. They are also obliged to not favor any religion. People have a freedom of religion, and this means that a "public forum" can't appear to favor, or discredit any religion.

Now... people are pretty lawsuit happy... i can garuntee some group would sue the school if they let them stay and preach hate. This means the school will either spend money on lawyers and LOSE in court. Or settle for lots of money. Either way you are saying you want to waste your tax payer money that you so scaredly hold has "your money"

biccat wrote:
So the money collected from the non-members is segregated into a separate account and only used to pay for negotiation fees?

Color me skeptical.

Most likely not since they get one big check from the school districts payroll dept... But if it makes you feel better, you can assume they spend the non union peoples money first. Unless you want to pay the pay roll person more money now to seperate this out and make a new check/direct deposite?

And btw, there are very few non-union people that benefit from the union, and far fewer people that are against the union than republican news would let you believe.

frgsinwntr wrote:However. They are also obliged to not favor any religion. People have a freedom of religion, and this means that a "public forum" can't appear to favor, or discredit any religion.

Huh? So my church can't use the school auditorium because that would be favoring one religion over another? I don't think so.

Freedom of Religion limits government action, not individuals. I can preach against Zen Buddhists all I want on the street corner. The government can't shut me up merely because the sidewalk is a public forum.

frgsinwntr wrote:Now... people are pretty lawsuit happy... i can garuntee some group would sue the school if they let them stay and preach hate. This means the school will either spend money on lawyers and LOSE in court. Or settle for lots of money. Either way you are saying you want to waste your tax payer money that you so scaredly hold has "your money"

No they wouldn't, because they wouldn't have a case against the school. Despite popular misconceptions, being upset isn't enough to successfully sue someone.

frgsinwntr wrote:Most likely not since they get one big check from the school districts payroll dept... But if it makes you feel better, you can assume they spend the non union peoples money first. Unless you want to pay the pay roll person more money now to seperate this out and make a new check/direct deposite?

And btw, there are very few non-union people that benefit from the union, and far fewer people that are against the union than republican news would let you believe.

I'd be happy to continue this debate, but I think we're getting OT, and the other issue is (IMO) far more interesting. Feel free to PM or start a new thread.

Biccat:"Even if the guidelines for using the facilities are limited to those "harmonious with the purposes of this District," such a restriction is unenforceable because it gives the government the final say over what is appropriate for discussion. If the superintendent says "Republican ideas are not harmonious with the school," and denied access to the venue to any Republican groups, would that be censorship or within his authority?"

Clearly this would be censorship, and clearly this is not what they are saying. Are you saying that the Tea Party's Anti Muslim campaign is solely the republicans view. No. They are not discussing political parties, they are holding a rally for intolerance of a religion that may or may not affect the district. At no time the political party they belong to comes into play as a factor for letting them have the rally, they even used the school numerous times before.

Biccat:"It's actually an unconstitutional limitation to require certain groups to pay more or deny access to facilities simply because the speech at issue might be controversial or prompt violence. What the school did here was take an unsubstantiated claim of violence (anonymous email) and use it as the basis to deny the speaker access to a public forum."

Again, this has nothing to do with the Republican or Tea party. And again I agree the action was mismanaged. I also see no record of e-mail threats made in this article. Is there another source you are using?

I do think they took the easy way out rather than having a discussion with such short notice. Not a good way to handle it by any means, but you can't take back a bullet once it is shot. A better way may be to delay the rally until further review by district officials with a set amount of time as to not unjustly prolong the Party's rally, I am sure this is what they were avoiding, and both sides would have a big headache from this. What is pertinent to the district has subjectivity to it, however a collection of the district officials would be more educated on what affects the District as they are versed in their own politics.The decision they would make would definitely be better informed than any you will receive (from both sides) on a forum far removed from the actual situation.

The article does not have much information, I believe ShumaGorath already pointed out the lack of disclosure. Does the district have a large Muslim portion that these people choose to fear unreasonably? Does the district have ties with the middle east? How do they want this to affect the district, what is the outcome for the district from this "anti-Muslim" rally? The article really only says what it wants to, we can assume none, all or some of these to draw our conclusions. Many articles discussed here on the off topic forums are not written objectively, and contain the bare essentials -1 to make an informed decision. It seems many opinions can be drawn with so little information, mine is that they have no grounds to talk about this subject for the district as no evidence provided supports it, if anyone could bring some to light I will read it. The point you are making I feel is more about free speech, see I am putting words in your mouth now...Am I a HYPOCRITE and does the context of the message/assumption matter? <--(rhetorical) I think that is not the underlying issue as they are trying to stretch what is good for the district very loosely to preach their cause of intolerance of "X" grouip. It is no surprise to me the NAACP jumped in, the last paragraph of the article in question pretty well sums up my feelings on this subject.



Just my opinion.

Edit, not trying to gang up on you or butt in. Well maybe butt in.

frgsinwntr: However. They are also obliged to not favor any religion. People have a freedom of religion, and this means that a "public forum" can't appear to favor, or discredit any religion.



Biccat: "Huh? So my church can't use the school auditorium because that would be favoring one religion over another? I don't think so.

Freedom of Religion limits government action, not individuals. I can preach against Zen Buddhists all I want on the street corner. The government can't shut me up merely because the sidewalk is a public forum.

That is not his point, you seem to have a history of not understanding or rewording other people points to make their argument seem invalid.

If a government agency cannot show bias to a political or religious party, how is letting 1 party bash another on a public forum (not a debate where both sides are equally represented) uphold this? Clearly your church or party can use the facilities to have a bake sale, youth activities and group meetings. They cannot let your church go on a slanderous campaign using the facility though. There is a difference between what was planned and what is a debate.

I am off to Chem lab. So I may chime in later today if any good points pop up!
Anyone who wants civil discourse from either side of the fence, feel free to message me. This may be wrapping itself up soon as points/counterpoints may be getting towards the head and end by the time I get back?

J-Roc77 wrote:Clearly this would be censorship, and clearly this is not what they are saying. Are you saying that the Tea Party's Anti Muslim campaign is solely the republicans view. No. They are not discussing political parties, they are holding a rally for intolerance of a religion that may or may not affect the district. At no time the political party they belong to comes into play as a factor for letting them have the rally, they even used the school numerous times before.

Well, then I'm not sure what they're saying. Because it looks like they are prohibiting a political party from hosting a political event based on some perceived threat of violence. Radical Islam is clearly a political issue (based on the War on Terror), and even if the speaker is discriminatory in his views, that doesn't give the school the authority to censor his speech.

J-Roc77 wrote:Again, this has nothing to do with the Republican or Tea party. And again I agree the action was mismanaged.

How was it mismanaged? Was the school wrong to deny the event, or did they offer the wrong reason?

J-Roc77 wrote:I also see no record of e-mail threats made in this article. Is there another source you are using?

I am confusing this case with another. My mistake.

J-Roc77 wrote:A better way may be to delay the rally until further review by district officials with a set amount of time as to not unjustly prolong the Party's rally

Further review of what? I'm still not seeing what basis the government had (apart from safety) to deny the group the right to use the premises.

J-Roc77 wrote:Does the district have a large Muslim portion that these people choose to fear unreasonably? Does the district have ties with the middle east? How do they want this to affect the district, what is the outcome for the district from this "anti-Muslim" rally?

Are you suggesting that Muslims are more prone to violence? Heck, the KKK (or was it Neo-Nazis?) were allowed to march through Skokie, a neighborhood almost exclusively Jewish.

J-Roc77 wrote:I think that is not the underlying issue as they are trying to stretch what is good for the district very loosely to preach their cause of intolerance of "X" group.

So do you think it squares with the right of free speech to deny a message that is intolerant? If so, who gets to make that decision?

J-Roc77 wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:However. They are also obliged to not favor any religion. People have a freedom of religion, and this means that a "public forum" can't appear to favor, or discredit any religion.

biccat wrote:"Huh? So my church can't use the school auditorium because that would be favoring one religion over another? I don't think so.

Freedom of Religion limits government action, not individuals. I can preach against Zen Buddhists all I want on the street corner. The government can't shut me up merely because the sidewalk is a public forum.

That is not his point, you seem to have a history of not understanding or rewording other people points to make their argument seem invalid.

Again, you make this accusation. I politely asked before if you would please point out what arguments or points you made that I ignored or reworded (although I admit, I did remove some odd """ tags in your post above). You haven't done so. Therefore, I can only conclude that either you agree that I addressed all of your points or that you disagree and for some reason I didn't respond to a point you didn't make.

A 'limited public forum' is public property which the state has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity. Anything other than time, place, manner, or subject matter restrictions are infringing on free speech.

A 'public forum' is similar to a limited public forum, only without the limitations. Parks, sidewalks, and streets are the common examples. They are held in trust to the public and any regulation of speech is infringing on the free speech right.

Ergo, there is no difference between my Church discussing religion on the sidewalk and my Church discussing religion in a school auditorium (assuming it's open to religious services).

J-Roc77 wrote:If a government agency cannot show bias to a political or religious party, how is letting 1 party bash another on a public forum (not a debate where both sides are equally represented) uphold this? Clearly your church or party can use the facilities to have a bake sale, youth activities and group meetings. They cannot let your church go on a slanderous campaign using the facility though. There is a difference between what was planned and what is a debate.

They can allow my church to use the auditorium for a Sunday service, so long as the auditorium is similarly open to atheist gatherings, Catholic Mass, Jewish Temple, etc.

Do you think the tea party group holds bake sales or youth activities on other occasions, or do you think they are attacking Democrats (and likely Republicans, lately)? Does the fact that they're bashing another political party in a public forum affect whether they should be allowed to use the premises?

It is a long established principle of freedom of speech that there are limitations around safety, the classic case being the crying of "Fire" in a crowded auditorium.

There is a distinct difference between a school refusing a political meeting because of a rational apprehension of violence, and a school refusing a political meeting because the attenders do not wear badges the right colour.

biccat wrote:
Huh? So my church can't use the school auditorium because that would be favoring one religion over another? I don't think so.

Freedom of Religion limits government action, not individuals. I can preach against Zen Buddhists all I want on the street corner. The government can't shut me up merely because the sidewalk is a public forum.

you reallly don't understand what your talking about... do you? The street corner is not an issue. you CAN have your tea party meeting there. But the school building is not the place for it. I'll be honest. I don't want to break down for you why, because you probably won't understand what I am saying.

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Now... people are pretty lawsuit happy... i can garuntee some group would sue the school if they let them stay and preach hate. This means the school will either spend money on lawyers and LOSE in court. Or settle for lots of money. Either way you are saying you want to waste your tax payer money that you so scaredly hold has "your money"

biccat wrote:
No they wouldn't, because they wouldn't have a case against the school. Despite popular misconceptions, being upset isn't enough to successfully sue someone.

Schools are sued every day at the drop of a hat... and yes... parents DO SUE because they are upset. they do it all the time. Sure they may not win, but fighting these lawsuits gets expensive

biccat wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:Most likely not since they get one big check from the school districts payroll dept... But if it makes you feel better, you can assume they spend the non union peoples money first. Unless you want to pay the pay roll person more money now to seperate this out and make a new check/direct deposite?

And btw, there are very few non-union people that benefit from the union, and far fewer people that are against the union than republican news would let you believe.

I'd be happy to continue this debate, but I think we're getting OT, and the other issue is (IMO) far more interesting. Feel free to PM or start a new thread.

biccat wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote: Does the district have a large Muslim portion that these people choose to fear unreasonably? Does the district have ties with the middle east? How do they want this to affect the district, what is the outcome for the district from this "anti-Muslim" rally?

Are you suggesting that Muslims are more prone to violence? Heck, the KKK (or was it Neo-Nazis?) were allowed to march through Skokie, a neighborhood almost exclusively Jewish.

I will use this as an example, reread my point. You seem to be willfully misunderstanding opposing views and willfully misinterpreting them to try to make your view look good in comparison. I am pointing out the Tea Party's agenda on this topic has nothing to do with the district. I also point out any the fear of Muslims is unreasonable. You make another ludicrous comment saying my view is in your words" Muslims are prone to violence". I clearly said nothing of the sort, anyone who reads objectively, even subjectively can see that. You write decently, seem to make coherent thoughts, I can assume from that you have a decent level of reading comprehension but choose to not to use it. It is quite clear to me now your intentions are not for discourse, but to troll.

You have used this method called the "Straw Man Argument" A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. You have done this to me and 2 other posters so far multiple times, it happens often enough to not look like it is a mistake. I have corrected it several times and see a another one you have snuck by me against me. I am not going to play this game with you. This behavior is detrimental to any argument you are trying to make, the more you post in this manner the more you expose yourself. If this is indeed not your intention you may want to explain in a manner more in line with the point rather than baseless inflammatory accusations. If English is not your first language please let me know in case we have further discourse.

Edit:
I may have taken troll bait here. My points still stand, and I am withdrawing from this conversation for now as there seems to be no real discourse here yet.

Yeah, it'd be bad if a group were stopped from their rights to congregate freely and to free speach, because of violence threatened by another group.

Fortunately that didn't happen. They found another venue.

So at this point we've got biccat telling us how worrisome it is that a group had to move their meeting from location to another. That's it.

"Quick, call our lawyer, I've had to send out a group SMS telling our members the meeting place was changed and I demand compensation!"

I mean, there are actual, real issues going on right now, but biccat is more worried about a group changing the venue for its meeting. Ridiculous.

biccat wrote:So just to be clear: you're O.K. with threats of violence to stop someone from talking about something you disagree with.

There were never any threats of violence mentioned in the article. You later mention anonymous emails, do you have a source for that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Union dues are a 'tax,' paid to a private entity, and non-members do not have any say in how their money is spent.

Do you feel the same about professional accredation fees paid by doctors, lawyers, accountants and the like?

frgsinwntr wrote:you reallly don't understand what your talking about... do you? The street corner is not an issue. you CAN have your tea party meeting there. But the school building is not the place for it. I'll be honest. I don't want to break down for you why, because you probably won't understand what I am saying.

I'd be happy for you to break it down. But obviously you're not reading what I've written. I've tried to outline the legal issues regarding free speech. Here's a wikipedia article on the issue.

The school (a public, government building) opened their venue up to political groups who want to discuss political issues. The Tea Party is a political group that wanted to discuss a political issue. They met all of the requirements posed by the school.

Please explain how a group meeting all of the requirements demanded by the school shouldn't be able to use the premises.

sebster wrote:There were never any threats of violence mentioned in the article. You later mention anonymous emails, do you have a source for that?

I already mentioned above that I had confused the anonymous emails with another case. Here's the opinion if you're interested.

sebster wrote:Do you feel the same about professional accredation fees paid by doctors, lawyers, accountants and the like?

If the fees were paid to a private organization that the doctors, lawyers, and accountants had no influence over, then yes, I would. However, this is not the case, and therefore it is irrelevant.

And for those interested, here's another case of the "heckler's veto." Any difference?

For the record, the museum in the boston.com article is just as wrong in refusing to replace the artwork.

biccat wrote:I already mentioned above that I had confused the anonymous emails with another case.

Ah, I missed that.

But meanwhile, are you really that bothered about a political group moving venue?

If the fees were paid to a private organization that the doctors, lawyers, and accountants had no influence over, then yes, I would. However, this is not the case, and therefore it is irrelevant.

But you have to join in order to be able to practice, and joining gives you just as much power to influence the organisation. In fact the real difference is that with unions you have an additional option, paying a reduced fee. Therefore the comparison is very relevant.

So I'll ask again, do you think doctors, lawyers, accountants and the like should be required to join professional organisations?

And for those interested, here's another case of the "heckler's veto." Any difference?

For the record, the museum in the boston.com article is just as wrong in refusing to replace the artwork.

The artwork is no longer on public display, while the group is still able to meet. Which is a very big difference.

With all due respect, you're wasting your time; capitulation to the hecklers isn't an ongoing battle, it's a war almost completely won, by the hecklers.

We needn't look to feckless school officials; how about the academics that claim to cherish their own freedom of speech? Well, turns out that they like their lives more then their freedom.

Now, that may sound harsh, but let's be fair, Islamaphobia, unlike the invidious forms of discrimination with which it is oft confused, makes a great deal of sense: after all, insult Jews, Mormons, Episcopalians of Catholics and you may get a sternly (or not so sternly) worded letter or two.

Insult Islam (say, by burning its sacred text), and heads will roll.

Like I said, Islamaphobia (literally, fear of Islam) makes a fair bit of sense when using the wrong words can make you up and disappear... (No doubt J-Roc77 will immediately undertake to enlighten the FBI that their recommendation to Molly Norris regarding her safety was unwarranted.)

Beyond that, as a quick perusal of the posts in this thread immediately makes obvious, there are plenty of people here that are quite comfortable silencing the speech they don't agree with. It's becoming the default position in places like Canada, Continental Europe and Australia.

As an aside, when speaking about unions, the critical point to bear in mind is the vast chasm between public and private sector unions. To quote;

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.

As written by that notorious Right-winger, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Becuase it is just [youtube ]address[ /youtube] and not all that?

Is that this forums code? What I just provided was the embed code given by youtube on every one of its videos via their little embed button. It worked before.

On youtube, click the "old embed" style. This site didn't change, they did.

A phobia is an irrational fear.

As a mod, I will remind people that DakkaDakka does not operate a policy of unfettered free speech.

Sadly Buzzsaw you are also getting the wrong idea here. The points being discussed are not in line with what you are discussing. I think coming to the discussion so late, and not reading all the posts can be to blame. You come in with a similar style of misinterpreting someones point of view to strengthen your own, this has already been an issue spoken about. At no time did I say the threat of violence was not real as you insinuate. Furthermore, no one here advocates the silencing of opposing views, again you are putting words into peoples mouths. Just re-read the thread entirely, and insert your name where I call out the OP on his tactics as not to waste either of our time.

Not to hijack the thread (or was this your intention? Besides bashing Islam I mean.), the conclusions you draw from a small sect, and use it to define a whole religion is baseless. I made a rebuttal to a similar statement earlier stating that the minority of the religion in no way represents the whole. I also used the possibly more familiar term of the KKK not at all representing Christianity as an example, just replace one extremest group with the other. I am not saying Islamphobia does not exist, the word phobia itself means irrational fear by the way. On a slightly different note, many people make the mistake of making cross cultural judgments, this can cause larger gaps between each culture, and does not contribute to understanding each other, you are perpetuating this.


This thread may have just been an created as an exercise in trolling and baiting, and here you are trying it yourself with your own extreme views of intolerance. You link to some articles, some written very poorly, and make claims that an entire population of people are responsible for atrocities. Seriously, do you really believe this line of thinking? You try to be verbose to give yourself an air of intelligence, however the tone and general message of your statements drowns this out.

Your input however on the issue of unions is on topic and relevant! I am surprised, as you may be too...did you want to edit that out so your post is a complete troll and completely off topic?

Sadly I get dragged back in. I am a glutton for punishment.



edit; ninja'd on the phobia part! Also I edited out my part to Biccat as the point was already made, and ignored in similar fashion to other posters who have valid points against him that seem to go unanswered. Why waste more time, other than I have a little time to waste now and again.

Buzzsaw wrote:With all due respect, you're wasting your time; capitulation to the hecklers isn't an ongoing battle, it's a war almost completely won, by the hecklers.

What? We're talking about a case where political group had to move their meeting from one venue to another. It is, at worst, an inconvenience of the most trivial nature. To try and use that free speach has been abandoned to the hecklers is ridiculous.


And your article on the apparent mass wave of censorship sweeping across Australia was terribly written, and almost completely missed the point of the issue. If that's the kind of crap media you rely on it's no surprise you've formed the ridiculous opinion above.

J-Roc77 wrote:

biccat wrote:

J-Roc77 wrote:Does the district have a large Muslim portion that these people choose to fear unreasonably? Does the district have ties with the middle east? How do they want this to affect the district, what is the outcome for the district from this "anti-Muslim" rally?

Are you suggesting that Muslims are more prone to violence? Heck, the KKK (or was it Neo-Nazis?) were allowed to march through Skokie, a neighborhood almost exclusively Jewish.

I will use this as an example, reread my point. You seem to be willfully misunderstanding opposing views and willfully misinterpreting them to try to make your view look good in comparison. I am pointing out the Tea Party's agenda on this topic has nothing to do with the district. I also point out any the fear of Muslims is unreasonable. You make another ludicrous comment saying my view is in your words" Muslims are prone to violence". I clearly said nothing of the sort, anyone who reads objectively, even subjectively can see that. You write decently, seem to make coherent thoughts, I can assume from that you have a decent level of reading comprehension but choose to not to use it. It is quite clear to me now your intentions are not for discourse, but to troll.

I reread your post. Allow me to take your questions one at a time, for the sake of clarity.

J-Roc77 wrote:Does the district have a large Muslim portion that these people choose to fear unreasonably?

You'll have to be clear about "these people." I assume you mean the school district. If so, you are making the assertion that these people have a fear of Muslims. Why would they have this fear (even if unreasonable)? It is because you're making the assumption either:
1) the school administrators believe that muslims are violence; or
2) the muslims are more prone to violence.

So I simply asked, do you believe #2 is more likely than #1?

J-Roc77 wrote:Does the district have ties with the middle east?

Again, I'm not sure how this is relevant, unless you're assuming that people of middle eastern descent are more likely to be violent than people non-middle eastern descent. Obviously the school had no problem with Democrats violently protesting the tea party's regular gatherings (assuming that the gatherings were anti-Democrat, which I think we can all agree is a reasonable assumption).

If changing the subject of derision from Democrats to Muslims/middle easterners is more likely to cause violence, then you're making the assumption that Muslims/middle easteners are more likely to commit violence. Is this the position that you're taking?

J-Roc77 wrote:How do they want this to affect the district, what is the outcome for the district from this "anti-Muslim" rally?

How does this matter from a free speech perspective?

My biggest problem with this whole "story" is we're supposed to see what you see and go "OYG, they can't meet here because they don't like us"!
yet when we champion true discrimination situations(gay marriage springs to mind), you seem to be okay with that. or if freedom is really being taken
from people(oddly Wi. teachers seems to be what i'm thinking of here), that's also okay. being told you can't meet here is ALOT less than not being
able to marry the one you truely love.

personally i would have handled it a little different. i'd have still let them meet at that site. i'd have just tripled that night's rental fee.

alarmingrick wrote:My biggest problem with this whole "story" is we're supposed to see what you see and go "OYG, they can't meet here because they don't like us"!
yet when we champion true discrimination situations(gay marriage springs to mind), you seem to be okay with that.

Not interested in getting involved in the gay marriage issue again. But suffice to say:
1) I don't think it's discrimination;
2) I think communities should be able to legislate marriage however they want;
3) Current Supreme Court precident suggests that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional; and
4) I don't really care about the issue.

alarmingrick wrote:or if freedom is really being taken from people(oddly Wi. teachers seems to be what i'm thinking of here), that's also okay.

"Collective bargaining" isn't a freedom, it's a privilage granted by the state. The state can revoke that privilage if they feel that it's no longer in their interest to allow collective bargaining. Of course, people are free to peacefully protest that revocation, or vote against those politicians that support it.

alarmingrick wrote:being told you can't meet here is ALOT less than not being able to marry the one you truely love.

I disagree. First Amendment freedom of speech is much more of a bedrock freedom than state recognition of interpersonal relationships.

alarmingrick wrote:personally i would have handled it a little different. i'd have still let them meet at that site. i'd have just tripled that night's rental fee.

Do you think that it is consistent with the Free Speech right to punish people monitarily when that speech is controversial or offensive? Or, if the venue opens themselves up to political groups, should they expect controversial issues to be raised, and therefore plan for security accordingly?

As Justice Blackmun said: an "ordinance relating to fees is invalid because it unconstitutionally ties the amount of the fee to the content of the speech and lacks adequate procedural safeguards."

They wouldn't be punished monetarily for being offered the room at a higher rate to cover extra security.

They could choose to pay the rate or go elsewhere.

This might actually be an interesting case. I'll have to dig a little into my 1st amendment materials when I get home this weekend.

This isn't a strict heckler's veto case, which normally applies to traditional open forums: palces like sidewalks, parks, etc. OTOH, even in a limited or designated public forum, you can't discriminate based on content.

I'd say going with my gut that unless there was a credible threat, the school shouldn't have denied the group access. Political groups, by definition, are going to discuss controversial things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:They wouldn't be punished monetarily for being offered the room at a higher rate to cover extra security.

They could choose to pay the rate or go elsewhere.

Not under nearly all First Amendment law. The US (often grudgingly) pretty consistently recognizes the rights of people to speak on issues. If a public actor allows people to meet and talk, they can't charge more because other people dont' like the topic.

So if the FBI should advise the school to lay on $10,000,000 of extra security, they would be legally obliged to do it and absorb the charges?

I'm just trying to get a feel for the practicalities.

Kilkrazy wrote:So if the FBI should advise the school to lay on $10,000,000 of extra security, they would be legally obliged to do it and absorb the charges?

I'm just trying to get a feel for the practicalities.

Well, it depends on the venue. I'm getting the impression that his case involves probably use of a classroom or maybe the cafeteria or auditorium, so at most a few hundred people. More likely, there will be a couple dozen. If the school feels that there would be problem due to the people attending, they can prevent those people from showing up, or bring in a cop or other security.

the question is where the threat comes from. The principle is that the speaker should not be silenced because of the acts, or potential acts, of another. So yeah, you get some messed up examples of cops protecting Klansmen having a rally. The idea is that the potential for abuse is too great to allow the government to regulate a speaker because they fear for violence.

E.g. Kent State University anti-Vietnam War protests 1970.

Obviously free speech should not be shut up by the government or other people, OTOH you have to take a practical view about the size of venue and so on.

This case sounds to me like a minor error by a low-level school district employee, being blown up to seem like concerted political repression.

Kilkrazy wrote:E.g. Kent State University anti-Vietnam War protests 1970.

Obviously free speech should not be shut up by the government or other people, OTOH you have to take a practical view about the size of venue and so on.

This case sounds to me like a minor error by a low-level school district employee, being blown up to seem like concerted political repression.

Well, a school that allows political groups to use classroom can enforce a maximum group size and other factors. I'm not sure what the Kent State example is about (that's a complex issue).

The National Guard shot a number of students who were protesting against the Vietnam War.

Kilkrazy wrote:The National Guard shot a number of students who were protesting against the Vietnam War.

I know that, I'm just wondering what you were trying to show with the example.

An example of the government repressing free speech.

Kilkrazy wrote:An example of the government repressing free speech.

I guess in the broadest possible sense. It's a terrible example, as the protesters were more than a little violent and were impeding the ability of the college to function.

A democratically elected superintendent did not want the school system to support the meeting of an event that was going to be clearly bigoted towards a religious and ethnic group.

Good!

They can still meet elsewhere. They can still pay for facilities. This is a blatant instance in which people are conflating freedom of speech with the notion that speech can never be censored, stopped, or otherwise stifled in various venues or locales.

I'm sure if these modern day Paul and Paulette Reveres want to dress up and LARP as slave holding old white dudes while complaining about the Kenyan in the White House they can do that at the school whenever they want. When that speech becomes hate speech, which is what these discussions about Islam always come down to, I don't see why the school must support and shoulder the costs of that speech.

Kilkrazy wrote:This case sounds to me like a minor error by a low-level school district employee, being blown up to seem like concerted political repression.

Actually, I was more interested in the question of "how much of a threat should it take to stop free speech?"

Obviously if someone is in possession of a bomb, the cops can't stop him, and he's going to blow up the school (a well founded threat), the school should (IMO) stop the speech.

But if all that exists is a vague idea that someone might get violent because of the content of the speech, the school should not (IMO) stop the speech.

In the former, there is a significant risk, investment, and commitment to the person threatening. In the latter, there is little risk (who is going to get arrested?), investment (how much effort does it take to shoot off an angry email?) and commitment (a few minutes out of your day to send an email vs. constructing a bomb, avoiding the cops, etc.).

This all makes the former case less likely, and therefore less intrusive on free speech.

The present case is more like the latter than the former.