[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant



I will add:    http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993 

May schools limit the time, place, and manner of student _expression_?
Yes, as long as the time, place, and manner regulations are reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "laws regulating the time, place or manner of speech stand on a different footing than laws prohibiting speech altogether."1First Amendment jurisprudence provides that time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutional if (1) they are content neutral (i.e., they do not treat speech differently based on content); (2) they are narrowly tailored to serve a governmental interest; and (3) they leave open ample alternative means of _expression_.
Courts will generally grant even more deference to time, place, and manner restrictions in public schools because students do not possess the same level of rights as adults in a public forum. However, the time, place, and manner regulations must still be reasonable. This means that school officials could limit student distribution of material to certain locations and at certain times, but those regulations would need to be both reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
Notes
1 Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977).






From: jim bell <jdb10987 AT yahoo.com>
To: Joshua Case <jwcase AT gmail.com>; "cypherpunks AT lists.cpunks.org" <cypherpunks AT lists.cpunks.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant

If you are claiming that it is okay for an agent of the State of California (University of California at Berkeley is such an agent) to discriminatorally deny a person the right to use a venue which is regularly offered to others, discrimination which is on the basis of the content of that speech,  then I feel free to cite the U.S. Constitution to challenge that assertion.  The State employees are legally required to adhere to their own rules, and that includes letting Milo Y. have access to the location which was already commonly offered to many others for public assembly and speeches.

          Jim Bell



From: Joshua Case <jwcase AT gmail.com>


Jim- come on It's only confusing or vague if you're pretending to be in a court. I know you did your time in the system, as did I, but out here you don't have to defend your opinion from statute. -Joshua

> On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:47 PM, juan <juan.g71 AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:47:49 -0800
> Razer <g2s AT riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> "Free speech means you have legal right to _expression_; not entitlement
>> to huge public platform or to be a racist in public w/o being
>> punched."
>
>
>    LMAO at the sick piece of shit being quoted and the sick piece
>    of shit who quotes him..Notice also 'anarcho' turd rayzer
>    invoking yet again US government doctrine.
>
>    Here's the deal though : rayzer IS a fully fledged national
>    socialist or national communist or fascist, who promotes the
>    existence of concentration camps like cuba. He's an apologist
>    of slavey and the murdering of dissenters.
>
>    Following his own lunatic (fascist) views regarding free speech,
>    he should be shot on sight. If rayzer wants to enslave millions
>    of people in commie concentration camps he should be treated
>    like a wild dangerous animal.
>