Skip to comments.ANOTHER university stops students from handing out Constitution
Posted on 04/25/2014 10:44:44 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
Two students are suing the University of Hawaii for violating their First Amendment rights after administrator prevented them from distributing copies of the U.S. Constitution demonstrating a frightening lack of knowledge about the very legal document they were attempting to censor.
Students Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone, members of the Young Americans for Liberty chapter at UH-Hilo, were prevented from handing out copies of the Constitution at a recruitment event in January. A week later, they were again informed by a censorship-minded administrator that their First Amendment-protected activities were in violation of school policy.
The students were told that they could only distribute literature from within UH-Hilos free speech zone, a small, muddy, frequently-flooded area on the edge of campus.
Administrators further clarified their level of respect for students free speech rights, making comments like, This isnt really the 60s anymore, and people cant really protest like that anymore, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
These students should be armed with the fact that the courts have already ruled that these university restrictions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Stick the ruling in the face of the administrators and keep handing out the Constitution!!
> The students were told that they could only distribute literature from within UH-Hilos free speech zone, a small, muddy, frequently-flooded area on the edge of campus.
The socialists are power now so you can shut the f*ck up and sit down...
It is complex.
Every private entity can 100% control speech on its own property.
However if this is a State school (I know it is UH, but, for example, the University of California system is more private than public) different rules com into play (including suppression of free speech for the workers who can’t wear campaign buttons, etc.).
I think this is a righteous suit, but it isn’t a legal slam dunk.
>> These students should be armed with the fact that the courts have already ruled that these university restrictions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!<<
I would be interested to read those rulings...
How in the hell is a designated “free speech zone” promoting free speech. In other words you can say whatever you want as long as you’re locked in a closet.
i’m not a lawyer but first amendment rights means the government can’t make a law to shut you up.
so, that means if you are in a workplace or on a campus, whatever rules are put in place you have to follow, and to use a first amendment argument in that situation is a non sequitur.
What do you think the reasoning would be to prevent students from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution?
Let’s face the fact that the admin staff of most colleges (along with most of the lib arts facilty) really don’t deserve to 1) work for any university and 2) work for anything at all beyond ditch digging.
It would appear that universities (STEM depts excluded), the MSM,and politics are the the refuges of those with no talent and no ability to create value to society.
“The students are being represented by Davis Wright Tremaine, the law firm that recently helped a student who was blocked last year from handing out copies of the Constitution win a $50,000 settlement against Modesto Junior College in California.”
State university, state law. It isn’t private property. Free Speech Zones are tyranny.
>>What do you think the reasoning would be to prevent students from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution?<<
You had me at the first 5 words :)
This isnt really the 60s anymore, and people cant really protest like that anymore,
Says the former 60s protester. Free speech for me but not for thee. This just goes to prove that the 60s movement was nothing about freedom and all about establishing a totalitarian regime with them in charge.
*What do you think the reasoning would be to prevent students from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution?*
Knowledge, especially of your RIGHTS, are a danger in the hands of a subject in a totalitarian dictatorship.
the whole country is a free speech zone
And areas that are designated as “non-free speech zones” are exactly where you need free speech.
What are they worried about? Too many people handing out fliers for everything? Heck that is what college is all about.
I would say if not for the USS Arizona and other WW2 memorials/gravesites I’d say sure. The Missouri can be moved.
So if my employee manual states that blacks must be called the "N" word then that means I have no choice but to address them as such?
I call BS.
The Constitution is unconstitutional
Is this a joke? This is crazy.
As long as you don't violate the "noise" laws...and your topic has been submitted and approved by the "Student Speech Council," at least 96 hours prior to your speech. Unless of course, your speech topic falls under one of the "Always Approved" topics.
“So if my employee manual states that blacks must be called the “N” word then that means I have no choice but to address them as such?
I call BS. “
there are policies that are followed in any establishment. they would have to be within the law, the example you state would be considered hostile in a work environment and therefore wouldn’t be allowed.
This was the first image listed by Bing for "This isn't the 60s anymore."
” ... the University of California system is more private than public”
The UC system is public, despite the fact that it receives less than half of its funding from the state. Restrictions of speech on public property are viewed very skeptically by the courts.
In this case, UH would have to argue compellingly that some important public purpose (safety, for example) is served by the restrictions.
Looks like the Choom Gang has struck again!
>>So if my employee manual states that blacks must be called the “N” word then that means I have no choice but to address them as such?<<
Yes you would, except that would probably be a civil right action on the part of the addressee, not you.
What if you are in a play that uses that word? It is a 100% legitimate demand.
A better example is an employer that won’t allow political posters and buttons. Perfectly acceptable
As long as the rules apply to everyone, an employer has vast control of behaviors on his/her property and/or when you are acting as an employee.
All employment is voluntary on both parties.
Nonsense. When has it ever been illegal to simply offer someone printed material? And no university or other entity should be able to enforce such a rule except on private property, and a state university is not private property and those students were definitely authorized to be on that campus.
Can people "approach people" and ask for directions, or for the time, or to bum a cigarette (or a legal joint some places), or for other mundane reasons people often "approach people"?
And everyone has a right to decline whatever someone might approach and request of them.
>>In this case, UH would have to argue compellingly that some important public purpose (safety, for example) is served by the restrictions.<<
Agreed and I don’t know why UH is fighting this. Do they not have Legal Counsel to tell them they will probably lose?
The only conclusion I can come to is probably every judge in HI is an uber-liberal and will back the up, USC be damned.
I don't care if it's the prettiest garden in the world, the leftist concept of a "free speech zone" sounds like something from George Orwell. Speech that is confined to an approved zone is not free, and those who accept such a restriction accept the loss of freedom.
A public university is private property? Who does it belong to?
>>A public university is private property? Who does it belong to?<<
Unfortunately it isn’t that cut and dried. The administrators of a facility can still set rules of conduct. The example I gave of not allowing political posters, buttons and the like is just one example.
Just as employees can choose to work elsewhere, students can choose to attend another university.
You as a private citizen cannot just walk into a state university campus without a legitimate reason.
This is far from a slam dunk but I think there is probably some meat on the bones in favor of the students.
The school should lose accredidation.
Remember in the 60’s the left DEMANDED entire campuses had to be “free speech zones”. How things change in one or two generations.
As usual, they realized they didn’t like free speech if it disagreed with theirs.
Hypocrites and a-holes all. May they rot in hell.
Not letting me pass out copies of the Constitution are in exactly the same category.
My call stands.
I have walked onto the campus of several universities and no one ever asked me what I was doing there.
And remember, the people passing out copies of the Constitution were students at the university, giving them a “right” to be on campus.
I’m pretty sure the university loses on this.
>>I have walked onto the campus of several universities and no one ever asked me what I was doing there.<<
True but they could and then escort you off the premises. I worked as a manager for a State University and those of the kinds of things you learn.
>>And remember, the people passing out copies of the Constitution were students at the university, giving them a right to be on campus.<<
Not my point. You made it sound as if standing on a state university is the same as standing on a street corner. It is not.
>>Im pretty sure the university loses on this.<<
Theoretically they should but I wanted to note it is not going to be easy. Also just because they should win doesn’t mean they will in uber-left HI. It may have to go all the way to the US Circuit before it gets proper legal treatment.
Where is the 13th Amendment Zone?
In the end, it doesn’t matter. America is lost. When the person living in the White House ignores the Constitution, handing out a copy of it just doesn’t matter.
The socialists are power now so you can shut the f*ck up and sit down...
Maybe the coming provisional government will enact a bounty on democrats.......