Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nathanbedford

Sounds like a rather vague “disorderly conduct” situation.


14 posted on 08/13/2009 1:44:18 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Liberals drink the kool-aid that Obama has puked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: HiTech RedNeck; cashless; DB; donna
Under whose auspices was this meeting conducted? Was it conducted under the auspices of Case Western Reserve University? Did they make up the rules about free speech? Were the rules published and made available to all before the meeting? Were the rules ad hoc and that the cops simply operate at the direction of Congresswoman Fudge?

Case must be some sort of a public or at least a quasi public institution. When it opens its doors to the public it operates as a public institution to some degree. Can you imagine the University opening itself to lawsuits for false arrest because it improperly ejected a citizen at the direction of Congresswoman Fudge? Did the authorities within the university pass on this? Did they set up procedures? Do they instruct the police? Did they make the public aware? Did they advise the Congresswoman of the limits of her powers?

Seems to me that Case Western Reserve University owes a duty to the public at least as much as it does consideration to Congresswoman Fudge. What evidence does the public have that a public institution is operating in a responsible way in its conduct of a public forum?

Is it improper to ask whether a publicly funded institution has given over its public facilities to a meeting to be controlled by brownshirts? Does not that institution have a commensurate duty to protect the public from union thugs if it has a duty to provide police to see to the orderly conduct of the meeting. Is the university liable for the physical security of the citizens there if it assumes the responsibility of preventing the speaker from being interrupted by ejecting citizens who interrupt? Is the only value to be protected by police action the right of the speaker not to be interrupted?

Somewhere a line is created beyond which a citizen's participation by way of speech crosses the line and becomes disorderly enough for the police to eject him and perhaps even arrest or prosecute him. This is a very delicate and difficult area of constitutional law. Why are we abdicating the entire control and definition of free speech to forces which are neither defined nor seemingly responsible? We cannot force a member of the House of Representatives to participate in a town hall meeting. But neither should we permit that Member of Congress to define speech as criminal conduct in a public place on an ad hoc basis.

At least the rules of the game should be defined and published before the events.


23 posted on 08/13/2009 2:11:09 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: HiTech RedNeck

The civil war continues.

We are civil and they are warring.


49 posted on 08/13/2009 6:58:40 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson