This Affects All of Us
For anyone reading this blog who has any lingering desire to see us silenced through defunding, however patently illegal that would be, I just thought I’d bring to your attention this court case:
Gay & Lesbian Students Asso. v. Gohn, 850 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1988).
Why this case? Gather round and I’ll tell you. Because this case applied the same First Amendment doctrine that renders unconstitutional any effort to defund the Commentator based on content. And in so doing, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the Student Senate at the University of Arkansas could not deny funding to the school’s Gay & Lesbian Students Association.
Quoth the court: “When funds are made available, they must be distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner.” Shall I go on?
The University contended that it was appropriate to deny funding to the GLSA, as they might advocate homosexual sodomy, which was illegal in Arkansas at the time (pre-Lawrence). To which the court said, and this is good stuff here, so listen well:
True, sodomy is illegal in Arkansas. However, the GLSA does not advocate sodomy, and, even if it did, its speech about an illegal activity would still be protected by the First Amendment. People may extol the virtues of arson or even cannibalism. They simply may not commit the acts . . . Conduct may be prohibited or regulated, within broad limits. But government may not discriminate against people because it dislikes their ideas.
Of course, I must emphasize that the Commentator, like the GLSA, has never advocated illegal activities. (Other than underage drinking.) But, like the GLSA, even if we had . . .
Ah, the refreshing ring of directly applicable reasoning. Quiroz, Kieffer, Le, Cortez: any questions?
‘Tis indeed.
It’s a shame when a college student can’t spell 8th grade words correctly, and he has a word processor at his disposal.
It was pretty clear that casey talked smack to me first, and saying figurativley leaves no question that my remark was in satire also. Fine, no violent remarks….
Seriously, Andy, could you tone it down a bit?
I’m sure that you consider your posts to be sarcastic, but that doesn’t translate well over the internet. If you want to debate someone, please do it intelligently and without resorting to threats of violence.
We have an acceptable use policy. As a guest here, please appreciate that.
Thanks.
Yes Ma’am 🙂
But Melissa, did I help clarify? I really wasn’t trying to be an ass at all with my first post.
Hey, now, that isn’t very nice. Keep it clean, both of you.
The reason I whine about liberal hypocracy is because it has a negative effect on everyones “pathetic existance.” Now if you give me your email or phone number, I can give you a few actionable sugestions.
That snap you hear is the sound of my foot figurativly breaking off in caseys ass for that irrelevant projection.
Oh, snap!
You may try spending more time evaluating your own pathetic existence instead of constantly whining about what you consider “liberal hypocrisy.”
the greater/less than typing symbols dont work, but also i meant to say:
“I was expecting some agreement that yes, thier non-libertarian hypocracy (fighting “hate speech”, supporting affirmative action..) would actually leave them in a less powerfull position (and supposedly less desireable).”
Is that snippet above what you consider race-bating??
woah…
Never have you guys said anything about condoning illegal activity (drinking the exception), but did i say something about illegal activity?
I posted on friday and dont know what it was exactly i said, but i know it had to do with my astoninshment that speech that endorcred illegal activity was protected, and THEN completely non related was a comment that i said i realized that the PFC was over half minority and said something about affirmative action.
a)It was a sarcastic comment about the hypocracy of liberalism
b)If any of you shook my hand and remembered the color of MY skin you would understand that it would only add to the sarcasim of my comment
I was expecting some agreement that yes, thier non-libertarian hypocracy (fighting “hate speech”, supporting affirmative action..) would actually leave them in a less powerfull position (and supposedly less desireable). <– Is THAT race bating??
In no way have I ever endorced affirmative action, judgement on color of skin, let alone any qualities that you have no effect over. That is wrong, and actually I was just having a conversation today with other NCO’s on the very subject of how horrible it is that the government sees people for the color of thier skin. If my comment was so agregious, why would i post it and then say the previous?
Tim, I know what your rights are privatly, and I fully support them! I appreciate time you took to defend your position to delete posts.
The last time you deleted my posts, did I complain? No, I asked you to reconsider and I appologized for lewd, dirty words.
From the UK law annals, somewhat relevant, the reply of the lawyers to a libel claim.:
The legendary satirical magazine Private Eye/ “We refer you to the letter of Pressdram to Arkell” has become a standard response to libel complaints throughout the world.
http://nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm
Whoops, it seems that in my capricious whim, that nigh-on race-baiting comment was deleted.
Before you start:
Andy, this is a private forum paid for and maintained by private funds. As such, we are free to police it as we see fit. That sort of thing ain’t cool with us and it ain’t cool to post here.
Furthermore, I am not an agent of government but rather an agent and stakeholder in the property of sorts used to maintain this website. As such, I have deemed that particularly noxious expression above should not remain on our website.
This is different from the PFC in that 1) The OC site is maintained with private money and we retain ownership of all rights persuant to same. 2) I am not an agent of government, and I in no way think you should be punished for your view, but I do not think it belongs here in a forum we maintain with our own resources.
If this were a government forum paid for with incidental fees, that’d be another thing entirely. Also, before you go off about deleting posts I don’t agree with, just find anything JS has ever posted. It’s still there, in all its assinine glory.
Don’t be an asshole, Andy, is what I’m trying to get at. I don’t want to have to ban every IP from every lab on campus.
Danimal: It’s eerie how closely that resembles our situation. How did you find that? You’ll make the bee’s knees of laywers, dude.
In no way do I endorse that comment, Andy.
I’m glad you guys responded to that message first…
Andy: Didn’t I already ban your IP once for being an asshole? Keep it up and I’ll ban this one too.
No, it wouldn’t, Andy. Not going there. Not cool.
Golden, Dan. Excellent post!