Thnaks for the reply... I would like to address a couple of points you make:
Quote:
That Guy - 12/29/2005 8:59 AM
I don't disagree with your point, however if you paid attention to the article you probably would have answered some of your questions.
I did pay attention to the article... I just did not ASSUME he was on public land, nor is it a logical assumption.
Quote:
...likely to be considered public property since it is a state funded school and open to the public (hence doing recruiting)...
"Likely to be considered" implies an assupmtion, addressed above.
Quote:
Second, Khan was not yelling cocksucker or creating aa disturbance but was merely wearing a sign and distributing information to those that approached him for it (as I understand the article) so your examples do not apply in this instance.
True, but I was using them as examples of the responsibility and consequences of free speech, not against what Khan did... Perhaps I would have been better served to offer an analogy closer to Khan's, but I was emphasizing my thesis on free speech, not Khan's actions.
Quote:
His execution of his idea is appropriate as evidenced by the dismissal of the charges. The response he got was what was entirely inappropriate.
This reasoning is like asserting the conclusion... I do not agree he acted appropriately, nor do I think the authorities acted properly. I do believe if he (Khan) wanted to make a difference, he could have gone thru channels. like the follow-up article said, and received a permit, etc. He got exactly what he wanted... Headlines, people talking, etc. Just like us spending bandwidth here...
What he did is no more appropriate than standing in a NCAAP Rally wearing a Klan Outfit, or at a jewish gathering, wearing a swastika... He knew exactly what he was doing, and he got the expected result. The authorities asked him to leave, and he didn't. When we, live in a society, we submit ourselves to the authority of the ruling body, in this case,the campus police, etc. If they err in administration of policy, we can do as Khan did, or we can comply and work thru channels to right the wrong. He choose to "buck" the authorities, and they acted...
Here is the body of my thesis, stated verbatim, rather than implied...
I don't see this event as reported, as suppression of free speech, but as consequences of free speech.
__________________
RM Smith
Where is it again that we are going... And why are we in a handbasket?
What he did is no more appropriate than standing in a NCAAP Rally wearing a Klan Outfit, or at a jewish gathering, wearing a swastika... He knew exactly what he was doing, and he got the expected result.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Free speech is not litteraly "free" speech.
__________________
1989 Mercedes-Benz Euro 560 SEC
1991 BMW 525i
1995 Land Rover Discovery
Debates such as this, serve so good a purpose as to require a question of any man, to the core of his earlier beliefs... That in mind, I navigated over to Findlaw, and did a bit of research. The following exercept was particularily interesting...
Quote:
Findlaw...
Certain expression, oral or written, may incite, urge, counsel, advocate, or importune the commission of criminal conduct; other expression, such as picketing, demonstrating, and engaging in certain forms of ''symbolic'' action may either counsel the commission of criminal conduct or itself constitute criminal conduct. Leaving aside for the moment the problem of ''speech-plus'' communication, it becomes necessary to determine when expression that may be a nexus to criminal conduct is subject to punishment and restraint. At first, the Court seemed disposed in the few cases reaching it to rule that if the conduct could be made criminal, the advocacy of or promotion of the conduct could be made criminal. 77 Then, in Schenck v. United States, 78 in which defendants had been convicted of seeking to disrupt recruitment of military personnel by dissemination of certain leaflets, Justice Holmes formulated the ''clear and present danger'' test which has ever since been the starting point of argument. ''The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.'' 79 The convictions were unanimously affirmed. One week later, the Court again unanimously affirmed convictions under the same Act with Justice Holmes speaking. ''[W]e think it necessary to add to what has been said in Schenck v. United States . . . only that the First Amendment while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such cannot have been, and obviously was not, intended to give immunity for every possible use of language.
A "university" that limits peaceful speech isn't worthy of the name it affects.
Many Universities limit free speech and what ideas can be expressed on Campus. Whether this is by the faculty, students, or university policy varies from one institution to the next.
A "university" that limits peaceful speech isn't worthy of the name it affects.
Many Universities limit free speech and what ideas can be expressed on Campus. Whether this is by the faculty, students, or university policy varies from one institution to the next.
Which means, of course, that all of them have affected a title to which they are...unentitled.
While everyne is decrying what happened as an infringement of his right to free speech, and violation of his civil rights, I have but one question... Was he on private land?
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins! You come into my house and start speechifying against me and my beliefs, etc and you're gonna face dire consequences. Now, if he was on public land...
Free speech has its limits, whether you think so or not. The framers of our constitution tried to protect us against undue censorship, but their intent was not to allow anyone to say whatever he wanted, wherever he wanted. Maybe you do have the "right " to yell, "c***sucker" in the middle of a church service... That does not make it proper use of free speech. Perhaps you think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre? The exercise of free speech comes with consequences, and great responsibility. I encourage anyone to practice it, but realize the responsibility and consequences there of...
I applaud the young Khan for standing his ground; however, I chock it up to the wrong execution of the right idea.
Flame on!
"George Mason University is Virginia state institution"
From: http://www.gmu.edu/vcenter/history.html
The "limits" to the First Amendment are very, very few my friend. It is the First Amendment for a reason, and a freedom held most dear and precious by all the Founders. The person was on public property. he had every right to say what he had to say, which is why the prosecuters dropped it like a hot potato, knowing full well that if it did, it meant that the University was going to get it's ass sued of by the ACLU. They had no choice. The amendment is simple, absolute, and concise:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are no IFS ANDS BUTS or MAYBES in there. You may also want to research a little further, and you find out some 70 years of case law has occurred since your quote of Mr. Holmes, whose reasoning has been for the most part shredded. For years porn was banned on the reasoning it caused rape, using Holmes reasoning. Subsequent courts have found that "The Holmes Test" invalid, since it is subjective in the extreme, and makes no sense.
Linear Mode
