http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/2...s-threaten-to-sue-over-ann-coulter-visit.html
Sadly, their game isn't on the field.
Sadly, their game isn't on the field.
Thanks for posting this. This is one of the best things I have seen in awhilehttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/2...s-threaten-to-sue-over-ann-coulter-visit.html
Sadly, their game isn't on the field.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/2...s-threaten-to-sue-over-ann-coulter-visit.html
Sadly, their game isn't on the field.
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
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.