Quote:I think they're fair. The supreme court has their own free speech buffer zone. Many politicians have free speech zones set up by secret service as well. Which is far more concerning than a college using one.
For example, you wouldn't want protests to disrupt classes at a university would you?
Quote:Free Speech should be guaranteed everywhere. It's in our Constitution.
Quote:Free Speech should be guaranteed everywhere. It's in our Constitution.
Quote:Not so. College campuses are denying that right.
Quote:Not so. College campuses are denying that right.You guys drug me back in.
Quote:You guys drug me back in.
The military does also do they not?
Quote:The military is a different thing. The military prohibits a member from participating in anything political while in uniform, and they are correct to do so. Regardless of political affiliation, military members are expected to do what they were sworn to do, regardless of which political party is in power or which political party The President is from. That is so much different than a college trying to shut down someone's freedom of expression simply because they don't agree with it.Does that extend to all speech or just political speech. I.E. your example of pro life posters.
Quote:The military is a different thing. The military prohibits a member from participating in anything political while in uniform, and they are correct to do so. Regardless of political affiliation, military members are expected to do what they were sworn to do, regardless of which political party is in power or which political party The President is from. That is so much different than a college trying to shut down someone's freedom of expression simply because they don't agree with it.
Quote:So if a group of students wanted to have posters that they display containing anti-abortion information and want to hand out pamphlets that details such, should they only be allowed to do so in a certain "zone"? Why?The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, but the more I think about it (even over the last few days), the more I begin to understand that certain non-restrictive restrictions on it are, well, needed.
Quote:I will not be participating due to the passive aggressive nature of using lmgtfy.
Quote:The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, but the more I think about it (even over the last few days), the more I begin to understand that certain non-restrictive restrictions on it are, well, needed.
Take the college "free speech zones" for example. On principle, I'm completely opposed to the idea. In practicality though, I understand why they make sense. Consider my alma mater, Arizona State. There are 50,000 students on the main campus, which, while big geographically, isn't unbelievably sprawling. There are/were numerous choke points on campus where, at the right time of day, you could see as many as 10,000 people trying to squeeze down the same walkway or through the same courtyard. If a large protest or demonstration were to be set up right there at that particular time, campus would have been a disaster. In fact, it was once, when an activist group set up a large display booth surrounded by 20-foot tall banners and posters in the main area behind the student union building--perhaps the single busiest area on campus. The office of the president received thousands upon thousands of complaints. Most of them were about the content of the display and its inherently charged nature, which bordered on offensive, and he ignored those. Officially, he approved of the displays because they were good for stimulating discussions. Unofficially, he approved the displays because the college's single biggest benefactor was behind the group that put them up, and he didn't want to risk angering the man who wrote more checks to the college than anyone else.
While the displays were allowed to return for two more days, they were told to move to a different location on campus, a large courtyard that's a little more out of the way but still sees decent foot traffic. The logic behind it was that the presence of the display had absolutely snarled the busiest point on the entire campus, making it impossible to navigate the area. The organizers of the display, of course, complained that they'd been hidden from view, but logistics won out over principle.
Of course, this is all a moot point, because the right of free speech does not extend onto university campuses. Unless, you know, you donate seven figures a year to the school and tell the campus president that he'll be approving your display rather than submitting a formal request.
Or for a second example, a thousand bicyclists decide to ride I-95 to work to protest America's dependence on foreign oil. They're exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, but in the process, they're causing huge inconveniences for everyone else on the road. The same concept could be applied to pedestrians blocking traffic on a downtown thoroughfare for a protest of their own. Does their right to freedom of speech and assembly overrule my need to get to work on time so my boss doesn't dock my pay or fire me?
In principle, the First Amendment should always apply. In practice, though, I can see how saying "don't put your massive display in the busiest point on campus on a Monday afternoon" or "don't shut down a freeway to prove a point" would be worthwhile. As long as there is a clear, stated purpose for relegating someone to a free speech zone, and as long as that free speech zone gives them reasonably similar visibility to where they would otherwise have set up, I'm ok with the concept. "Move your protest from the steps of city hall to the park across the street because you're blocking foot traffic in and out of the building," is reasonable. "Take your protest from the steps to city hall to that dark alley three blocks away because the mayor is sick of looking at you," is not.
Quote:Does that extend to all speech or just political speech. I.E. your example of pro life posters.
Quote:The point is that the military or university has the right to do so. You have the right to not be a part of the military or university.
Quote:The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, but the more I think about it (even over the last few days), the more I begin to understand that certain non-restrictive restrictions on it are, well, needed.
Take the college "free speech zones" for example. On principle, I'm completely opposed to the idea. In practicality though, I understand why they make sense. Consider my alma mater, Arizona State. There are 50,000 students on the main campus, which, while big geographically, isn't unbelievably sprawling. There are/were numerous choke points on campus where, at the right time of day, you could see as many as 10,000 people trying to squeeze down the same walkway or through the same courtyard. If a large protest or demonstration were to be set up right there at that particular time, campus would have been a disaster. In fact, it was once, when an activist group set up a large display booth surrounded by 20-foot tall banners and posters in the main area behind the student union building--perhaps the single busiest area on campus. The office of the president received thousands upon thousands of complaints. Most of them were about the content of the display and its inherently charged nature, which bordered on offensive, and he ignored those. Officially, he approved of the displays because they were good for stimulating discussions. Unofficially, he approved the displays because the college's single biggest benefactor was behind the group that put them up, and he didn't want to risk angering the man who wrote more checks to the college than anyone else.
While the displays were allowed to return for two more days, they were told to move to a different location on campus, a large courtyard that's a little more out of the way but still sees decent foot traffic. The logic behind it was that the presence of the display had absolutely snarled the busiest point on the entire campus, making it impossible to navigate the area. The organizers of the display, of course, complained that they'd been hidden from view, but logistics won out over principle.
Of course, this is all a moot point, because the right of free speech does not extend onto university campuses. Unless, you know, you donate seven figures a year to the school and tell the campus president that he'll be approving your display rather than submitting a formal request.
Or for a second example, a thousand bicyclists decide to ride I-95 to work to protest America's dependence on foreign oil. They're exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, but in the process, they're causing huge inconveniences for everyone else on the road. The same concept could be applied to pedestrians blocking traffic on a downtown thoroughfare for a protest of their own. Does their right to freedom of speech and assembly overrule my need to get to work on time so my boss doesn't dock my pay or fire me?
In principle, the First Amendment should always apply. In practice, though, I can see how saying "don't put your massive display in the busiest point on campus on a Monday afternoon" or "don't shut down a freeway to prove a point" would be worthwhile. As long as there is a clear, stated purpose for relegating someone to a free speech zone, and as long as that free speech zone gives them reasonably similar visibility to where they would otherwise have set up, I'm ok with the concept. "Move your protest from the steps of city hall to the park across the street because you're blocking foot traffic in and out of the building," is reasonable. "Take your protest from the steps to city hall to that dark alley three blocks away because the mayor is sick of looking at you," is not.
Quote:In 2012, FIRE coordinated a legal challenge to an unconstitutional free speech zone policy at the University of Cincinnati (UC) that limited all “demonstrations, pickets, and rallies” to a “Free Speech Area” comprising just 0.1% of the university’s 137-acre West Campus. The policy further required all activity in the free speech zone to be registered ten working days in advance, threatening that “[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing.”
On the surface this seems to be reasonable when it comes to a "demonstration, picket or rally". However, in order to exorcise free speech, a group must be "registered ten working days in advance" or risk being charged wtih trespassing. That seems pretty unconstitutional to me.
Quote:In a major victory for student rights, a federal district court issued a final ruling today prohibiting the University of Cincinnati (UC) from reinstating its tiny “free speech zone.”
“Limiting student expression to just 0.1% of campus was bad enough. Threatening to call the police if students were caught gathering signatures for a petition was even worse. The decision to waste taxpayer money defending such unconstitutional censorship was completely indefensible,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said.
In February, YAL and Morbitzer had sought permission to gather signatures and talk to students across campus in support of a statewide “right to work” ballot initiative, but the request was denied. Morbitzer was told that if any YAL members were seen “walk[ing] around campus” gathering signatures, campus security would be alerted.