So as usual you can't explain but you know it to be true! Go back to playing with tranny and leave meaningful discussion to the adults.
Once again anonymous sources influence civil rights
- Thread starter limblips
- Start date
Spitfire
Active Member
Greetings:
As I’ve said. It’s here in the thread. Explain why you disagree and instead insist this is a 1st amendment violation.
While you’re at it, chase down relevant case law and post here.
There is nothing in this thread that proves this is not a 1st violation. But you just keep on believing spanky.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Most colleges you just can't "form a group" and be active or do anything g on campus, you must get permission and be recognized or ALL of your activities have to be off campus.
Spitfire
Active Member
You made a statement, you back it up. And it isn't a good idea to try to tell me what to do.
Spitfire
Active Member
Greetings:
I’m just guiding you to knowledge, leading a horse to water and all that. I’m quite comfortable with my understanding of this.
I’m done with you now and your “I’m such a victim thread” you little slime mold. Be sure to keep this thread updated with the progress of the lawsuit that is sure to follow, mkay?
And I will tell you whatever I want. How you like them apples tuff guy?
Damn, how old are you? 12?
gemma_rae
Well-Known Member
When you force him to drink, if you push his head too deep you'll just suck up all the mud.
Spitfire
Active Member
gemma_rae
Well-Known Member
Bring her back? From where? I never brought her in the first place.
Smokey1
Well-Known Member
Apparently not.
Spitfire
Active Member
Why? You made the claim you know it. F-loser
Smokey1
Well-Known Member
Simple. If the college accepts federal funds of any kind they become actors of the state and are bound by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Spitfire
Active Member
Greetings:
I mean it's OK to opine that you wish this is the way things worked. I think your opinion would be the wrong one, but no matter. The reality is that this is not the way things are. If a private university is taking money from Uncle Sugar understand that they are doing so VOLUNTARILY, and most assuredly with a full understanding the terms attached. The government may place all sorts of rules based on your acceptance of that money, and the worst that will happen is, "Hey university, cut that out or we will cut your funding." Keep in mind, we are talking about a private university here. Coe is a private university.
In these cases, you need to understand that private universities are not required to protect speech the way public ones are. As far as free speech when giving research grants, for example, the way it typically works is that the government will say, "We'll give you this grant, but you have to design your own institutional rules for how you're going to protect free speech." Absent is any methodology for how that is monitored. Absent is any approval process for the institutional rules laid out. Absent is any concept of what does and does not violate free speech. You just have to say you're going to do it, get your research grants, and find bright PhD prospects to fund.
In a situation like this, if a violation of free speech is suspected, the government will say, "OK. You're not getting any more money." The university will usually back down because research grants are fairly coveted and in many cases lucrative. I hope you understand that backing down because of the fear of losing money doesn't mean a violation of free speech was committed. It simply means the university doesn't wanna lose that cash. You understand that, yes?
"Bound by the Bill of Rights and Constitution" merely for accepting the federal funds? Nope, not the way it works. Not even a smidgeon. If this is your position, surely you can back it up with court cases which have been adjudicated against the university using this logic.
Free Speech only counts when criticizing the Gov. in the public square, you do not have a right to stand up in Burger King and spew your nonsense ... nor on web forums .... IMHO some digital media platforms are becoming a ' public space ' it will be intersting to see how the landscapes change in the next couple decades
Smokey1
Well-Known Member
That is the point I was making and results in the same affect. They have to honor the 1st amendment or they lose their money.
The rest of your post was just a bunch of pompous verbosity.
Spitfire
Active Member
Greetings:
Stop it.
You were making the case this was a violation of constitutional rights. It wasn’t.
But hey, if you feel like you need the internet win for the day have at it.