LA college sued by student for allegedly curbing his free speech rights

[alexkeren]

Can't wait til he's laughed out of court. The only thing that can infringe your right to free speech is the government. Any business, public or private, can legally decide what you can say or do on their property.

No one is entitled to a platform for their speech. How hard is it to understand what it means to have a right to free speech?

- - - Updated - - -



That constitution says you have to be provided a platform? Please quote that for me.

Pierce College is GOVERNMENT not a business.

[alexkeren]

I asked if students should be allowed to filibuster a class.

You said yes.

Do you know what a filibuster is?

I gave a stipulated yes, because there are laws/policies that don't violate the constitution that would prevent it.

And it's hard to filibuster a class since everyone can leave when class is over (or before). It's not like the end of class is determined by a vote.

- - - Updated - - -

That case wasn't about free speech. Try again.

It certainly wasn't about the Press or Religion, and it WAS about the First Amendment. So what was it about then?

[Deleted]

Isn't America a free speech zone?

Apparently it's no longer obvious in areas where so-called liberal principles rule.

[Tyrianth]

I gave a stipulated yes, because there are laws/policies that don't violate the constitution that would prevent it.

And it's hard to filibuster a class since everyone can leave when class is over (or before). It's not like the end of class is determined by a vote.

You gave a stipulation that the filibuster can't violate any laws and has to be a public campus. It's not hard to give a speech that doesn't violate any laws. It wouldn't be hard to filibuster a class at all. Give a speech until the class is over. In politics a filibuster prevents a vote from occurring, in a classroom it prevents the teacher from teaching.

[alexkeren]

You gave a stipulation that the filibuster can't violate any laws and has to be a public campus. It's not hard to give a speech that doesn't violate any laws. It wouldn't be hard to filibuster a class at all. Give a speech until the class is over. In politics a filibuster prevents a vote from occurring, in a classroom it prevents the teacher from teaching.

Actually it would be, as Endus also pointed out, because there are constitutional laws/policies that prevent it.

The student can be asked to desist or leave, if neither occurs they can be removed by campus police. Those actions are legal and constitutional.

[Tyrianth]

Actually it would be, as Endus also pointed out, because there are constitutional laws/policies that prevent it.

The student can be asked to desist or leave, if neither occurs they can be removed by campus police. Those actions are legal and constitutional.

So then your answer to my question is "No, filibustering a class should not be allowed". And colleges can restrict free speech, in at least, some form.

[alexkeren]

Seems like you don't quote know what the first amendment says. Or what the case said. Maybe read your sources next time.

I wasn't the one who quoted that case, I merely went off what Zoranon posted and you said in response to their post. No need to be snarky.

- - - Updated - - -

So then your answer to my question is "No, filibustering a class should not be allowed". And colleges can restrict free speech, in at least, some form.

A) No, I'm not saying either way absolutely because their could be cases where it could occur.

B) It wouldn't be based upon restricting free speech, also as Endus pointed out.

[Liarparadox]

Good shit. More people should start dropping Lawsuits all over America to bring back their Right to free speech. This current influx of Anti-Free Speech Regressive fascists needs to come to an abrupt end.

The moment anyone starts to deny people the Right to express their ideas is the moment Democracy fails.

It saddens me people haven't clued into this yet and continue to make excuses to be anti-free speech.

[alexkeren]

So, you also don't know what a filibuster is.

If two students are just talking to each other in class and distracting others, your logic implies I would be violating their rights by telling them to be quiet or get out. What about students talking to each other during a test and blatantly cheating? Would my policy of not allowing such an activity violate their rights to free speech?

Reread what you quoted again.

I did say there laws and policies at most campuses that will prevent disruptions.

[A dot Ham]

Maybe he should try reading the constitution himself...



Last I checked the his college isn't congress, and his college policies aren't laws.

First, there are plenty of instances where the supreme court has applied to public and private figures/entities. So I don't know who the "genius" was that taught you guys that it only applies when citizens are speaking to or at the government. But that is demonstrably false.

Second, is a community college public or private? Public

Does that organization receive federal funds? Yes

Is that organization subject to federal law and regulation? Yes

Can that organization make its own laws/policies? Yes

Then it is absolutely subject to rights established by the constitution.

[Tyrianth]

First, there are plenty of instances where the supreme court has applied to public and private figures/entities. So I don't know who the "genius" was that taught you guys that it only applies when citizens are speaking to or at the government. But that is demonstrably false.

Second, is a community college public or private? Public

Does that organization receive federal funds? Yes

Is that organization subject to federal law and regulation? Yes

Can that organization make its own laws/policies? Yes

Then it is absolutely subject to rights established by the constitution.

Maybe you should read the whole conversation before posting. Already admitted that he has a chance of winning.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

People are making a claim that colleges can't limit free speech. Preventing someone from filibustering a class is an example that most people would deem an acceptable violation of free speech on a college campus.

Specifically because its inhibiting learning though. Handing out fliers on the sidewalk isn't even close.

[Deleted]

I remember a few weeks ago when people were saying EU's laws were against free speech and USA has free speech... well, seems you do, in 25x25m areas! Someone trying to spread the Constitution to educate people on their rights outside the 25x25 zone is punishable there... do you seriously think you actually have free speech?

[klogaroth]

You'd most likely need a lawyer well versed in such things to determine exactly what restrictions the uni can and cannot place on students. Not just from the point of view of what the students are allowed to take on as responsibilities and restrictions, but also what restrictions can be placed on people by a publicly funded organisation.

There is certainly a time, a place, and an acceptable way to hand things out on university property. Whether it's promoting a society, handing out copies of the constitution, or advertising an event or product. Universities tend to attract a lot of people handing out flyers, which if nothing else can lead to really bad litter problems, as well as it being really irritating to walk through certain areas if they aren't kept to a reasonable standard. You don't want to end up with this every day: (not that I expect you would with the constitution, but that's not the only thing that such areas would allow)

[A dot Ham]

Which applies to any Public Institution, aka entities that are part of government.

Pierce College is a Public Institution (at least partially funded by the government) and therefore is subject to the US Constitution. There's precedent for what this student is suing for, might behoove you to become informed on the subject before making assumptions..

I only recently started working on grants and grant accounting, specifically Title V funds. But from what I am learning, if a school accepts federal funds be it student aid, or in the form of grants, they can be subject to laws and regulations that may or may not be specifically related to that grant.

Just a quick example some smaller school (like mine) don't have specific procurement laws or policies that dictate how money should be spent, ie bidding, number of bids, formal bids, etc. The moment you take federal funds the expectation is that you are doing things that public schools have been doing all along. This also applies to Title IX.

So even a private school can become subject to federal law and regulation, by simply taking federal funds. Because you aren't 100% private anymore.

[Venant]

He should know better to hand out copies of the constitution, he should have been setting it and flags on fire instead.

On the plus side, when the SJWs take over all the cool kids will get to hang out together in the gulags and re-education camps.

[Hyxi]

So then your answer to my question is "No, filibustering a class should not be allowed". And colleges can restrict free speech, in at least, some form.

Not allowing a filibuster of a class would be a reasonable exception to the 1st Amendment which the courts would be fine with. Disallowing someone from handing out copies of the Constitution outside of class would likely not. The 1st Amendment applies to entities created and/or funded by legislatures because otherwise they'd create goon squads and tell them in private to go out and silence people.

[Deleted]

He'll probably win, but it's going to be centered on the "free speech zone" in question being too small and not located in a primary campus area (it's in a parking lot).

The idea of a "free speech zone" isn't a restriction of speech, it's a restriction of what location you can use on campus for that purpose. Same kind of way that it being a public institution doesn't mean you have access, as a student, to all professor's offices or Account Services offices or whatnot. They're free to restrict that stuff as long as they're providing a reasonable outlet for you to express yourself.

The reason you can't wander into a classroom and hijack the class by claiming "free speech" is the same one backing "free speech zones", it's just extending it further.

Plus, students consent to abide by university regulations as part of their becoming a student, and those regs can provide additional restrictions without violating students' rights. He couldn't be ARRESTED for this stuff, but administrative repercussions, absolutely, if it's clearly detailed in the university regulations.

Ok, you can't wander a classroom and hijack the class... because that's harassment. You know, like, you're harassing everyone and preventing them for learning. Same as if you blocked them entry or threw paint on them. Harassment.

Handing out flyers around without blocking people is not harassment. And handing out copies of the Constitution is not handing out flyers even, it's helping to educate people.

And you'd be surprised, but state/country laws are above university regulations. Don't believe me? Ok, then how about you try, in an university, to segregate white and black people? Have same classes taught to each group, but they'd be separated. All the time. See how that works. And honestly I'm not even sure if this would be against the law as long as both groups get equal treatment... but do you think it would be allowed if it was in a university regulation, even so?

Also, for other posters, someone said that 1st amendment protects you only from the Government making anti-free speech laws. Ok. So... let's say you're in a city where the roads are owned by a company, each building owned by a company... and they all make laws that free speech is forbidden there. Like, all the companies. So, your free speech would be banned in the entire city. Would you still consider that you live in a democracy having free speech because it was not the Government that made the anti-free speech regulations? Come on... use some common sense. And this university isn't even a private one.

[Deleted]

You'd most likely need a lawyer well versed in such things to determine exactly what restrictions the uni can and cannot place on students. Not just from the point of view of what the students are allowed to take on as responsibilities and restrictions, but also what restrictions can be placed on people by a publicly funded organisation.

There is certainly a time, a place, and an acceptable way to hand things out on university property. Whether it's promoting a society, handing out copies of the constitution, or advertising an event or product. Universities tend to attract a lot of people handing out flyers, which if nothing else can lead to really bad litter problems, as well as it being really irritating to walk through certain areas if they aren't kept to a reasonable standard. You don't want to end up with this every day: (not that I expect you would with the constitution, but that's not the only thing that such areas would allow)

That's littering. As far as I know, littering is punishable with a fee. Maybe that should be enforced instead of banning people handing flyers.

[Grimfrost]

A free speech zone? That is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard