ADVERTISEMENT

Cal's spring game


I would wonder if the ACLU would get back to their "Protect ALL Rights" origins and take care of this law suit for the Cal Republicans.

They used to be a somewhat legitimate organization, which stood for principals rather than a political party.
(though they were extremists and inconsistent)

Seems like a VERY winnable case, which right-leaning media could use to as the center-piece for a "Academia now Opposes Free Speech" movement.

I almost hope that schools like Berkley are dumb enough to walk into this trap and willingly hand their opposition one of the best arguments they could have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOMMY_23
This is not a clear cut winner for the College Republicans. It would be interesting to see if the Federal Court requires a state university to allow unfettered access to speakers of all political beliefs. Would this mean that Cal would have to allow White Supremacists to speak if they were invited by a student club? How about a neo-Nazi speaker?

All I'm saying is that it could be an interesting case for the Courts to address.
 
This is not a clear cut winner for the College Republicans. It would be interesting to see if the Federal Court requires a state university to allow unfettered access to speakers of all political beliefs. Would this mean that Cal would have to allow White Supremacists to speak if they were invited by a student club? How about a neo-Nazi speaker?

All I'm saying is that it could be an interesting case for the Courts to address.

I don't see how it's not a clear cut winner for the College Republicans.

The points you make do absolutely nothing to counter the college's constitutional obligation to avoid suppressing free speech.

The question as to whether this applied to especially objectionable forms of speech (as long as they don't actively induce violence) was answered long ago.

The college would ABSOLUTELY be subject to liability if it openly suppressed free speech because the speech was neo-nazi or anything else.

In a suit, the University would simply argue that they're actions aren't a violation of free speech or are allowed to act in this way for one of a number of reasons

The "it's okay to suppress some speech" argument is definitely not a winner
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOMMY_23
I don't see how it's not a clear cut winner for the College Republicans.

The points you make do absolutely nothing to counter the college's constitutional obligation to avoid suppressing free speech.

The question as to whether this applied to especially objectionable forms of speech (as long as they don't actively induce violence) was answered long ago.

The college would ABSOLUTELY be subject to liability if it openly suppressed free speech because the speech was neo-nazi or anything else.

In a suit, the University would simply argue that they're actions aren't a violation of free speech or are allowed to act in this way for one of a number of reasons

The "it's okay to suppress some speech" argument is definitely not a winner

The question is whether they are actually suppressing free speech or merely declining to give a forum for Coulter's speech. As it is a public university, she can certainly preach on the quad or, as an invitee, go to a dormitory. The question for the courts will be whether it is obligated to, in effect, rent space out to whichever speakers the students request. I just don't know the answer to that.
 
The question is whether they are actually suppressing free speech or merely declining to give a forum for Coulter's speech. As it is a public university, she can certainly preach on the quad or, as an invitee, go to a dormitory. The question for the courts will be whether it is obligated to, in effect, rent space out to whichever speakers the students request. I just don't know the answer to that.

I agree with that.

I was just pointing out that the argument that "do we really want Neo-Nazi's to have this speech right as well" argument is incredibly unlikely to be a persuasive one, should this case actually come about.

I don't know anything about the specifics of the common law regarding 1st amendment rights and "providing a forum" at a public university.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TOMMY_23
Even Bill Maher thinks it's ridiculous that Cal and its cry baby liberal faction are blocking Coulter from giving a speech.

Freedom of speech is protected as long as it's not a threat.
 
This is silly. Ms. Coulter should simply be fully informed of any perceived "threat" against her and if she still wants to give the speech, let her exercise her constitutional freedom and do so. I sincerely struggle with the idea that speech (no matter how politically motivated) should be seen as anything more than simply an opinion. Yes, Ms. Coulter does have some relatively extreme right leaning views, but so what? If you don't like what she has to say, don't attend. Or better yet, do attend, respectfully listen to her speech, take some time to absorb what she's saying, compare and contrast it to your own views and then make up your mind and move forward with your life... A little bit more educated and maybe a little bit more worldly.

I may be in the minority, but I can't understand for the life of me how people are just so easily rattled by people who disagree with their political views... The age old question is this. What happens when you're offended?... Nothing. Unless you choose to take extreme an uneccesary action out of offense. Otherwise, the feeling will subside and you'll move on with your life.

So what if it's a leftist school and she's a right wing speaker?... People who are so stubborn and set in their ways that they won't even tolerate people with differing opinions, sincerely annoy me.

I've twice listened to Ann Coulter speak in a University setting. I think she's utterly obnoxious and I personally think some of her ideas are ludicrous. On the other hand, I actually agree with some of her arguments and I can respect her persuasiveness as a speaker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGI User 1596
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT