Why Do Liberals Keep Trying To Control Speech?

[seer]

What is wrong with these people? A speech permit? Why do they feel the need to control?

Judge Rules in Favor of Christian Student Group Against NC State’s ‘Speech Permit’


North Carolina State University infringed on the free speech rights of a student-led Christian group, a federal judge has ruled.

Chief U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III, calling his action “in the public interest,” issued a preliminary injunction Saturday against NC State’s speech permit policy, saying it violates the students’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

“The judge pretty much granted the entire request that we asked for,” a lawyer for the students, Tyson Langhofer, told The Daily Signal. “Essentially, everything in the final order that we requested was granted.”

The group Grace Christian Life, which meets on the NC State campus, sued school administrators on April 26 for requiring they obtain a permit before holding a meeting for fellow students in Talley Student Union.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/06/ju...speech-permit/

Like many groups and clubs across college campuses nationwide, Grace Christian Life used the student union as a place to tell their peers about Grace Christian Life’s mission and to “invite them to attend Grace Christian Life events.”

In order to make students aware of their activities, Grace Christian Life needed to apply for a permit to set up a table and were told that “without a permit, they must stop approaching other students in the Talley Student Union to engage in religious discussions with them,” according to a Wednesday press release by ADF.

“The only permit required for free speech on a public university campus is the First Amendment,” Langhofer said in a statement, adding that the permits are “unconstitutional restrictions on the free speech of students.”

http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/03/st...igious-speech/

[fm93]

I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. The university wasn't trying to control content of speech, but simply the logistics of speech. No matter what you want to speak about, you can't just stand in the middle of an intersection with a megaphone and interfere with traffic, for instance. The officials weren't saying students can't talk about Christianity--they were just saying that you need a permit to stand in that particular area of campus and pass out written material on any subject to other students. Otherwise, anyone could jam up the area and turn it into one big mess. This is standard practice at most universities.

Besides, the university requires every student group to have a permit. It's not like they're making a deliberate effort to ensure that everyone but Christian students has a voice.

[seer]

I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. The university wasn't trying to control content of speech, but simply the logistics of speech. No matter what you want to speak about, you can't just stand in the middle of an intersection with a megaphone and interfere with traffic, for instance. The officials weren't saying students can't talk about Christianity--they were just saying that you need a permit to stand in that particular area of campus and pass out written material on any subject to other students. Otherwise, anyone could jam up the area and turn it into one big mess. This is standard practice at most universities.

Besides, the university requires every student group to have a permit. It's not like they're making a deliberate effort to ensure that everyone but Christian students has a voice.

Then why did the judge say it was unconstitutional?

[Jaecp]

Then why did the judge say it was unconstitutional?

Who cares?

The point is that your conclusion doesn't follow

[firstfloor]

Why do they feel the need to control?

What’s the matter with you seer? Did you marry a liberal? Is that the real issue here?

[seer]

Who cares?

The point is that your conclusion doesn't follow

What doesn't follow? That they were trying to control speech? Of course they were - if you control the time and manner of speech - that is control by definition. That is why the judge explicitly said that it violated the students’ First Amendment right. Leftists hate freedom of speech. Where do you think College speech codes come from? Conservatives?

[seer]

What’s the matter with you seer? Did you marry a liberal? Is that the real issue here?

Actually we were both liberals back then in the 70s. Early financial supporters of NOW and Planned Parenthood. Democratic party activists.

[Jaecp]

What doesn't follow? That they were trying to control speech? Of course they were - if you control the time and manner of speech - that is control by definition. That is why the judge explicitly said that it violated the students’ First Amendment right. Leftists hate freedom of speech. Where do you think College speech codes come from? Conservatives?

As FM said, they weren't controlling what was being said. It was some kind of school fair and they didn't register a table. This is standard, boring admin stuff

[fm93]

What doesn't follow? That they were trying to control speech? Of course they were - if you control the time and manner of speech - that is control by definition.

The First Amendment protects the content of speech (and even that's within certain limits). Nowhere does the constitution say an institution can't control when and where someone says something. You can't be arrested for saying that you think everything bad in the world is due to liberals, but if you barge into a conference uninvited and start blabbering about how you think everything bad in the world is due to liberals, the members have every right to kick you out.

I think I'm beginning to see why some commenters say some people seek to be offended. I still believe that most of the time those commenters are just being unfairly dismissive, but in this case, you apparently actually do seek to be offended.

[Sea of red]

The First Amendment protects the content of speech (and even that's within certain limits). Nowhere does the constitution say an institution can't control when and where someone says something. You can't be arrested for saying that you think everything bad in the world is due to liberals, but if you barge into a conference uninvited and start blabbering about how you think everything bad in the world is due to liberals, the members have every right to kick you out.

I think I'm beginning to see why some commenters say some people seek to be offended. I still believe that most of the time those commenters are just being unfairly dismissive, but in this case, you apparently actually do seek to be offended.

If he can't be offended then he can't be a victim. So he does everything he can to keep this narrative of conservatives/Christians being persecuted for their beliefs going. It's like a competition in America as to who can be a bigger victim, and he wants some of that attention that for himself.

He's all for freedom of religion providing it's HIS religion.

[seer]

If he can't be offended then he can't be a victim. So he does everything he can to keep this narrative of conservatives/Christians being persecuted for their beliefs going. It's like a competition in America as to who can be a bigger victim, and he wants some of that attention that for himself.

He's all for freedom of religion providing it's HIS religion.

Nonsense idiot - this has nothing to do with victimization. I am not a victim - Christians in Iraq and Syria are victims. This is about one thing - the hypocritical, totalitarian left. The liars who constantly cry tolerance when offering no tolerance to those who have opposing views. In case after case, thread after thread, I have clearly shown how really intolerant the leftists are.

[seer]

As FM said, they weren't controlling what was being said. It was some kind of school fair and they didn't register a table. This is standard, boring admin stuff

If it is standard stuff then why would a Federal judge call it a violating of the students rights? Is it possible that he understands the situation better than us?

[Jaecp]

If it is standard stuff then why would a Federal judge call it a violating of the students rights? Is it possible that he understands the situation better than us?

Because as has already been said, they weren't controlling content.

If that kind of "register for a table" is a violation for some other reason so be it, but it is not evidence of your core claim

[seer]

Because as has already been said, they weren't controlling content.

If that kind of "register for a table" is a violation for some other reason so be it, but it is not evidence of your core claim

Then what is the violation? If the Judge said it was a violation of their First Amendment right then what could this other reason possibly be?

[fm93]

If he can't be offended then he can't be a victim. So he does everything he can to keep this narrative of conservatives/Christians being persecuted for their beliefs going. It's like a competition in America as to who can be a bigger victim, and he wants some of that attention that for himself.

He's all for freedom of religion providing it's HIS religion.

Reminds me of when Muhammad Ali passed away a few days ago and some Republican politician on Twitter insulted him for not fighting in the Vietnam War. Ali conscientiously objected to the war on the basis of his religious beliefs. That Republican politician was upholding religious liberty as of utmost importance when Christian bakers and clerks were being asked to provide cakes and licenses to gay people. Yet when it came to a Muslim man refusing to kill people, the Republican all of a sudden believes someone should follow federal law even when it conflicts with his religious and moral beliefs. Interesting.