ANOTHER university stops students from handing out Constitution

a reply to: WhiteAlice

I highly doubt it's the same people who protested in the 60's setting up free speech zones. Academia has fallen victim to privatization (yep even the public ones) as much as everything else has.

If not on a college campus, then where??!

Back in the old days these heads of the school would be rolling down the steps into a basket. But things are not civilized like they used to be. I find it funny that there is a small "free speech zone" apart of the school.

Great. So the kids can be indoctrinated in the classroom then they can go skulk around the "muddy free speech zone" where they realize that they just dropped 90 grand on a education that is no different from a high school education. The only difference is that you pay for your own textbook.

College and University in America will always remain a complete joke full of ironic musings and hypocrisy. The best part about it, you can educate yourself far greater in a library or Amazon than some College full of inflated ego's and half wits.

This college in a civilized world would be burned to the ground and the people in charge in prison for treason against the State.

Day by day this country and it's citizens are being bred for complete complacency and obedience. And holy # is it working far greater then the masters of this Fascist Oligarchy ever intended.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is nothing political about this. Leftist=Rightist. Republican=Democrat.

It shouldn't be about them? Then how do act on their actions and stop what they are doing? These "Liberal Communists" which is a correct term by the way, will never stop until everyone in this country is sucking from the tit of State while Big Brother's boot is mashed in their face.

The best slave is a slave who thinks he is free.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

"... Free speech zones? ..."

Universities have 'always' been free speech zones, so the U of Hawaii creating a “free speech zone,” in a small, muddy, frequently-flooded area on the edge of campus unconstitutionally goes against the right to free speech...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I highly doubt it's the same people who protested in the 60's setting up free speech zones. Academia has fallen victim to privatization (yep even the public ones) as much as everything else has.

So I took a look at the Board of Regents for the University of Hawaii and it's interesting. I think you're right--none of these people would've likely to have been involved in any of the movements back in the day though there are a couple "Peace Corps" types that are possibles (many went into other forms of activism after Kent State). The CVs of these people are really pretty interesting. I'm not surprised at all that there are free speech zones on the campus. www.hawaii.edu...

As far as what TDawg and I are saying, it's simply acknowledging that many of those former protesters ended up going to work within the university system. That is true. (Savio, himself, became an university professor of mathematics.) During the Occupy protests, some of which involved a whole lot of students, many professors showed up to act as mediators solely to protect the students like this one: www.nytimes.com...

Fears of another Kent State developing are probably in the forefront of any university directorship's minds. The same movements at the University of Hawaii were as volatile as they were on the continent apparently. The University of Hawaii did have its own Occupy and so one has to wonder if the establishment of these "free speech zones" was created in response. I know that the "free speech zone" federal law in regards to politicians with secret service guards came soon after Occupy Washington DC. Again, thinking about those CVs of the BOR for UoH (lol acronym central), it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

University of Hawaii in the 60's: www2.hawaii.edu...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

“The First Amendment is not optional at public colleges—it’s the law. Enforcing restrictive ‘free speech zone’ policies that prevent students from passing out copies of the Constitution is impossible to justify," Lukianoff said in a statement.

Well said.

And you couldn't see this one coming?

It's because the First Amendment contains "Freedom of religious expression". Once freedom of religious expression is removed then speech and press follow suit. People need to read exactly what the First Amendment actually says...

AMENDMENT I

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.

Do you really think it is about peaceful assembly? You hear it every day on ATS, how "organized religions" are terrible, but it is always about Christianity.

But look at the wording, first of all is religious expression. That means first and foremost speech and press are dependent upon religious expression. Take that away, you lose speech and press. And this was a surprise to you?

If you remove the rights of any religion, you abridge their freedom of speech and press and then remove their right to protest about it. So much for separation of church and state. Yes, the people shouting separation are removing from themselves the right to free speech. Do you think the government would allow people to protest after that?

Perhaps people should think twice about how all of this is interlinked. People might disagree with a religion, and that's your right, but the moment you demand all religion to no longer be respected or recognized and never mentioned again, you have just allowed the abridgment of someone else's right to free speech and press.

And you seem surprised.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I highly doubt it's the same people who protested in the 60's setting up free speech zones. Academia has fallen victim to privatization (yep even the public ones) as much as everything else has.

So I took a look at the Board of Regents for the University of Hawaii and it's interesting. I think you're right--none of these people would've likely to have been involved in any of the movements back in the day though there are a couple "Peace Corps" types that are possibles (many went into other forms of activism after Kent State). The CVs of these people are really pretty interesting. I'm not surprised at all that there are free speech zones on the campus. www.hawaii.edu...

As far as what TDawg and I are saying, it's simply acknowledging that many of those former protesters ended up going to work within the university system. That is true. (Savio, himself, became an university professor of mathematics.) During the Occupy protests, some of which involved a whole lot of students, many professors showed up to act as mediators solely to protect the students like this one: www.nytimes.com...

Fears of another Kent State developing are probably in the forefront of any university directorship's minds. The same movements at the University of Hawaii were as volatile as they were on the continent apparently. The University of Hawaii did have its own Occupy and so one has to wonder if the establishment of these "free speech zones" was created in response. I know that the "free speech zone" federal law in regards to politicians with secret service guards came soon after Occupy Washington DC. Again, thinking about those CVs of the BOR for UoH (lol acronym central), it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

University of Hawaii in the 60's: www2.hawaii.edu...

David Lassner is the President of University of Hawaii.

Lassner plays an active leadership role in a number of local, national and international organizations. He currently serves on the Boards of Directors of the Kuali Foundation, the first community/open source project in higher education to address administrative information systems, and EDUCAUSE, the premiere organization for information technology in higher education, where he is a past chair. Lassner is also a past-chair of the Pacific Telecommunications Council and the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies (WCET), and has also served on the board of Internet2 and coordinated a variety of education projects for the Internet Society internationally. Locally, he has served on the Boards of Hawai‘i Public Television, the Hawai‘i High Technology Development Corporation where he chaired the Federal Relations Committee, and he chaired the Hawai‘i Broadband Task Force. Lassner was recently reappointed to the State of Hawai‘i Information Technology Steering Committee. Lassner has been recognized for his contributions by WCET with the Richard Jonsen Award and by Internet2 with the Richard Rose Award.

Lassner serves as principal investigator (PI) for Maui High Performance Computing Center and for the Pacific Disaster Center. He has been an active National Science Foundation PI for almost 20 years, leading projects beginning with the Hawai‘i Education and Research Network (HERN), a demonstration project to apply networking technologies in K12 and higher education in the 1990s. HERN was followed by major networking projects to keep Hawai‘i connected to its national and global counterparts, collaborative international networking initiatives, and outreach into the Pacific Islands. Lassner is also PI for several major Department of Commerce projects that are bringing fiber optic cabling and gigabit speed networks to public schools, public libraries and UH sites throughout the Hawai‘i and supporting public access to broadband at public centers on all islands. The extramural funding productivity of Lassner and his teams at the University of Hawai‘i exceeds $300m. Lassner has written two book chapters and speaks frequently to local, national and international audiences.

Hmm, I wonder what he thinks about Net Neutrality?

He's a glorified cable guy.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Mhmmm. There's a DARPA guy in the BOR as well as a fellow for the National Defense University, an university that people don't talk much about, I find.

Whole slew of interesting characters though, notably, the younger ones are different but are also outnumbered.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: WarminIndy

Mhmmm. There's a DARPA guy in the BOR as well as a fellow for the National Defense University, an university that people don't talk much about, I find.

Whole slew of interesting characters though, notably, the younger ones are different but are also outnumbered.

Well see, I didn't even know about the NDU. Does one get Federal Pell Grants and Student Aid for the NDU? Bill Clinton signed the bill for NDU to offer Master's Degrees.

This is what DARPA's MTO mission

The Microsystems Technology Office (MTO) supports DARPA’s mission of creating and preventing strategic surprise by investing in areas such as microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), electronics, computing, photonics and biotechnology.

Strategic surprise? Oh, so the people here won't take them by surprise when they attempt the Revolution? I always say brains beats brawn every time. The current under-rumbling of revolution isn't going anywhere unless people know exactly what technology the other side has. I think we would be shocked if we knew what they were using. That's why I tell people they need to read more and learn things like Morse Code. Why do I say that? Because the DoD knows it.

How many people know what this means? ... - - ...

originally posted by: Kaploink
It doesn't matter what they were handing out. Unless you are prepared to allow every nutbag cult and political group to roam the campus while harassing the students, you have to have restrictions. I would wager that many outraged over this would have a different view if it was Scientology harassing the students and handing out material.

Of course, Scientology is a religion and shouldn't be anywhere near a public institution thanks to Separation of Church and state. You should have picked a better example, like the KKK.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I, personally, wasn't trying to create a left/right argument that's why I didn't mention either of those words in my op. Who cares if it is the left or the right that is destroying our Constitution? I just care that it is being destroyed.

a reply to: Revelations29

Because those labels allows you to shift the blame of the actions of these administrators to a larger group of people when it should be only these people blamed for this. Gryphon posted some good info to show that this is a bipartisan issue anyways. You should read it.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I really don't see what this has to do with religion and why free speech is precipitated on freedom of religious expression. While I recognize that freedom of religious expression is in the amendment even as an agnostic, I don't think this issue has anything to do with that clause of the amendment.

In fact, you are reading the amendment wrong. If you notice, there is a semi-colon after the clause "the free exercise thereof". I can forgive you for this misunderstanding since most people don't know what semi-colons are supposed to be used for. Semi-colons are a way to separate two distinct sentences with out using a conjunction, or as in this case they are used to separate multiple distinct things in a sentence when commas are also present. The semi-colons are letting you know what each distinct item in that list is:

"respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

One doesn't require or lead to the next. They are all separate things that the 1st amendment is addressing. So please don't try to derail this thread into a rant about religious freedoms.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

I really don't see what this has to do with religion and why free speech is precipitated on freedom of religious expression. While I recognize that freedom of religious expression is in the amendment even as an agnostic, I don't think this issue has anything to do with that clause of the amendment.

In fact, you are reading the amendment wrong. If you notice, there is a semi-colon after the clause "the free exercise thereof". I can forgive you for this misunderstanding since most people don't know what semi-colons are supposed to be used for. Semi-colons are a way to separate two distinct sentences with out using a conjunction, or as in this case they are used to separate multiple distinct things in a sentence when commas are also present. The semi-colons are letting you know what each distinct item in that list is:

"respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

One doesn't require or lead to the next. They are all separate things that the 1st amendment is addressing. So please don't try to derail this thread into a rant about religious freedoms.

Hey, what do I know, I'm just a member of the Constitution Party.

All three are listed in order, whether you use a period, a semi-colon or whatever. I was not trying to derail, but there is no true separation of church and state, as the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution both mention where the founding fathers believed the government and the people derived their freedoms and rights from.

Congress doesn't establish religion, neither does it take it away. If a student that has a religious view is prevented from speaking about their religious views, then their freedom of speech and press have been taken away. You don't have to agree with religions, but as We The People, we have to defend their right to express it.

Are WE We the People, or is the government We the People? Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg Address stated

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

When you say it is no longer under God (depending on who is God to you), then it is no longer a government of the people,by the people and for the people. Abraham Lincoln couldn't see the separation of church and state.

Here's something ironic though, the University of Hawaii class on the polity of state

The state, however, should not be confused with a specific balance of powers a particular status quo, a government. Governments may effect massive change in laws and roles while the state remains the same. Changed are the civil order, the polity, the particular law norms and authoritative roles through which the elite manifest their interest.

And here

Or, as in the United States, the mass may have the power to control the elite through the right to elect or reject their incumbency and by opposition to elite-policies, as through interest groups. In some states, such as Spain, the people can only produce change or opposition through communal groups like the church, which are participants in the political system.

Do we have the power as the mass to control the elite? Have we been doing that or rolling over on our backs so the elites will throw us a bone and pat our bellies? Like I said, you don't have to agree with someone else's religion but must allow their free exercise thereof and if you remove from them their right to express it, then you are prohibiting their free speech and press. And Universities may be public institutions, but they are also privately funded.

Argue colon, semi-colon, comma or period all you want, but as all three are listed together within the same amendment and no separate amendment has been made for religion, the founding fathers created that because the British crown that was the Church of England was prohibiting other forms of religious expression, even agnosticism. This isn't a religious rant, it is the recognition that religious expression is the very first, fundamental right of a people. If you concede that speech and press are independent because of a semi-colon, then you have to concede the Constitution provides religious expression first and foremost, and if you want to defend the rest of the Bill of Rights, you must see that the state provided that very right and defend it. I might not agree with other forms of religion, but the Bill of Rights is clear that I must defend even the Satanist's right to freedom of religious expression.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Check your pms in a few as I don't want to derail the thread too much. In short, I learned of the NDU through my grandfather's service record. Before that, I didn't know it existed either. It was apparently established by Congress in 1976, is located in Washington DC and is fully funded by the DoD. Doubt that Pell Grants have much play there as the purpose of the university is for "national security". My grandfather attended what became the Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy. As for what he learned there, I have no freaking clue. He never mentioned any of that ever and we found out about it post-mortem.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: WarminIndy

Ok let ne try this one more time. This issue has nothing to do with religious expression. This issue is about students handing out a secular document and being prevented from doing so. If you want to debate religious freedoms, we can do that. But you need to make a thread on it first. I already participate in enough Christian persecution threads, I'm not about to let this one become one.

Eta: is being in the constitution party supposed to impress me? Obama is a constitution lawyer and look how he interprets the document.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Ok let ne try this one more time. This issue has nothing to do with religious expression. This issue is about students handing out a secular document and being prevented from doing so. If you want to debate religious freedoms, we can do that. But you need to make a thread on it first. I already participate in enough Christian persecution threads, I'm not about to let this one become one.

I think I fairly responded with defense for all religions, I didn't imply Christianity as the first and foremost, sorry you took it that way.

How secular is the document in question? It is the prevailing document of law for the United States. It should be revered as something more than just a simple document. Were it merely secular, then it wouldn't be cased in glass at our Capitol.

But as you express outrage for the actions of the university, I am simply asking about why they would do this. Think about the motives behind it. Think critically about all aspects, but if you don't like the defense of one part of the Bill of Rights, then why defend the rest?

They've already got you divided and non-defensive of the very first amendment, what does that say for your stance about the importance of the Bill of Rights? I think you shouldn't therefore get upset by my argument because you don't seem willing to defend that one part.

See, I am asked to defend the rights of women by the Constitution to have an abortion against my own conscience, but if I defend the Constitution then I have to defend it. I can say I don't agree with it, but ultimately I have to defend it. That goes against my convictions.

There was a huge debate over two threads over this, but no one asked me if I am willing to uphold their Constitutional rights, only their freedom of choice. How many young women who were not permitted to see the Constitution know about their Constitutional rights? It's not just about religion, but every aspect of our lives.

How often do you hear a young person say "They are violating my Constitutional right" when they don't even know what the Constitution offers? And rights can be amended at any time, like Prohibition.

I think you and I have a very different view about the Constitution, for you it seems only certain things are worthy of defending, whereas I believe that it must all be defended. That's what our soldiers are fighting for, our politicians are forgetting and who wants that old document any more? I do.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Ok let ne try this one more time. This issue has nothing to do with religious expression. This issue is about students handing out a secular document and being prevented from doing so. If you want to debate religious freedoms, we can do that. But you need to make a thread on it first. I already participate in enough Christian persecution threads, I'm not about to let this one become one.

I think I fairly responded with defense for all religions, I didn't imply Christianity as the first and foremost, sorry you took it that way.

How secular is the document in question? It is the prevailing document of law for the United States. It should be revered as something more than just a simple document. Were it merely secular, then it wouldn't be cased in glass at our Capitol.

You can respect a document without worshiping it. Hence the secular status.

But as you express outrage for the actions of the university, I am simply asking about why they would do this. Think about the motives behind it. Think critically about all aspects, but if you don't like the defense of one part of the Bill of Rights, then why defend the rest?

I NEVER said that I don't support the right to religious expression. I SAID that this thread has nothing to do with it. You can speak about the 1st amendment without speaking about all of it. This particular case is an example of that.

They've already got you divided and non-defensive of the very first amendment, what does that say for your stance about the importance of the Bill of Rights? I think you shouldn't therefore get upset by my argument because you don't seem willing to defend that one part.

No they don't. You are just trying to talk about religion in a thread that has nothing to do with religion. That's all.

See, I am asked to defend the rights of women by the Constitution to have an abortion against my own conscience, but if I defend the Constitution then I have to defend it. I can say I don't agree with it, but ultimately I have to defend it. That goes against my convictions.

There was a huge debate over two threads over this, but no one asked me if I am willing to uphold their Constitutional rights, only their freedom of choice. How many young women who were not permitted to see the Constitution know about their Constitutional rights? It's not just about religion, but every aspect of our lives.

How often do you hear a young person say "They are violating my Constitutional right" when they don't even know what the Constitution offers? And rights can be amended at any time, like Prohibition.

I think you and I have a very different view about the Constitution, for you it seems only certain things are worthy of defending, whereas I believe that it must all be defended. That's what our soldiers are fighting for, our politicians are forgetting and who wants that old document any more? I do.

I don't know why you think I only support one part of the Constitution. I don't. I have a perfectly valid response to freedom of religious expression which pretty much mirrors Thomas Jefferson's opinion on it. Basically if you are going to allow public places to honor one religion, then it must also honor ALL religions. Since this is patently impossible (since new religions pop up all the time and some are incompatible together), then that means that NO religion should be honored in a public place. All or none, and since all cannot be achieved then the only remaining answer is none. In other words, separation of church and state.

Just because it isn't written in the Constitution, doesn't mean that they didn't write the document with separation of church and state in mind. It's quite obvious if you infer out what religious expression exactly means for EVERYBODY, not just the Christians. Now can we drop this topic of religion and get back to the matter at hand?

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information