• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Bush Arrested For Protesting Outside Free Speech Zone At U.T. Austin

Orion said:
That has nothing to do with it. Big protests in major cities have required permits for a long time for real public safety reasons, but it's quite another thing to deny individuals the right to protest at will unless they are in free speech zones.

The reason why it's still happening is because people are just sitting back and taking it. Not enough people are willing to stand up and reaffirm their rights to their governments, so their governments will just keep getting bolder and bolder. The Constitution doesn't mean anything if citizens don't fight for its recognition.
Click to expand...

Damn...... I keep forgetting the [/sarcasm] :3oops:
 
As a property owners, they have the complete right to kick this guy out and have him arrested for trespassing. There is a difference between the government making you obey some stupid, unconstitutional "free speech zone" rules and someone not letting you trespass, which this guy was doing. This guy, who isn't a student, is a self-righteous douchebag, and I don't feel sorry for him.

However, this does bring up a good point. It is troubling how people on college campuses are often the victims of asinine, hyper-pc, restrictive speech codes. They are private institutions who should be allowed to make their own rules, but they are also supposed to be centers of free discourse. What someone finds offensive should be up to the individual, not the institution.
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
This is nothing new. When I was in college 15 years ago, we had a free expression area where demonstrations were limited to in order to not disrupt classes.

However, our actual speech was never curbed. We could still say what we wanted anywhere on campus at any time. It looks like this campus has a similar policy...demonstrations in one area, free speech everywhere.
Click to expand...

I think there policy also restricts handing out fliers.
It has to be done in the "free speech zone" and people have to ask for them.

That was the old policy, I believe they eventually changed it.

The problem I have is that as long as you aren't interrupting classes and movement of teachers/students, you should be able to stand anywhere, handing out fliers to anyone.

It is an institution that is state and federally funded, they must abide by the Constitution.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
As a property owners, they have the complete right to kick this guy out and have him arrested for trespassing. There is a difference between the government making you obey some stupid, unconstitutional "free speech zone" rules and someone not letting you trespass, which this guy was doing. This guy, who isn't a student, is a self-righteous douchebag, and I don't feel sorry for him.

However, this does bring up a good point. It is troubling how people on college campuses are often the victims of asinine, hyper-pc, restrictive speech codes. They are private institutions who should be allowed to make their own rules, but they are also supposed to be centers of free discourse. What someone finds offensive should be up to the individual, not the institution.
Click to expand...

If they are completely privately owned and take no public funds, then yes, they have a right to limit who enters their property, who can say what, and who can say it where. If they take one single penny of public funds, the 1st amendment rules.

Free speech zones anywhere on public property violates the 1st amendment.... I can see the need for a permit to hold a rally, protest, etc. but the permit has to be free, and it has to be issued immediately, or it violates our rights under the Constitution.

BTW....... It's our right to "freedom of speech", not "free speech".

BTW 2.…. The first amendment only restricts Congress from passing laws that restrict Freedom of speech….. It says nothing about the States.
 
Crunch said:
It's what we get for letting the courts change the definition of the words in the Constitution to be whatever they want them to mean.

We still have "free speech"..... nobody is chargeing us for any words.
Click to expand...

SO I should have the right to come to your house...unannounced, and stand there with a bullhorn and say whatever I want...on your lawn...for a s long as I want, to whoever I want?

Reiterate...he was not a student of the UT. He IS a professional agitator. they were on the UT grounds protesting on a day when they knew they would have lots of people there. He refused to move 100 yards to public property. It wasnt about any 'free speech zones'. Start with that.
 
Crunch said:
If they are completely privately owned and take no public funds, then yes, they have a right to limit who enters their property, who can say what, and who can say it where. If they take one single penny of public funds, the 1st amendment rules.

Free speech zones anywhere on public property violates the 1st amendment.... I can see the need for a permit to hold a rally, protest, etc. but the permit has to be free, and it has to be issued immediately, or it violates our rights under the Constitution.

BTW....... It's our right to "freedom of speech", not "free speech".

BTW 2.…. The first amendment only restricts Congress from passing laws that restrict Freedom of speech….. It says nothing about the States.
Click to expand...

Thats what you call "your opinion". Apparently "your opinion" and Texas law differs.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think there policy also restricts handing out fliers.
It has to be done in the "free speech zone" and people have to ask for them.

That was the old policy, I believe they eventually changed it.

The problem I have is that as long as you aren't interrupting classes and movement of teachers/students, you should be able to stand anywhere, handing out fliers to anyone.

It is an institution that is state and federally funded, they must abide by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It might have had something to do with the fact they were walking up to people leaving a speaking event and in their faces with posters, cameras, and a bullhorn. There is a 10 minute long version of the video that shows the event for much more of what it actually was.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think there policy also restricts handing out fliers.
It has to be done in the "free speech zone" and people have to ask for them.

That was the old policy, I believe they eventually changed it.

The problem I have is that as long as you aren't interrupting classes and movement of teachers/students, you should be able to stand anywhere, handing out fliers to anyone.

It is an institution that is state and federally funded, they must abide by the Constitution.
Click to expand...
nope
assume i wanted to assert my right to freely practice my religion and to engage in free speech in order to proselytize those on campus. say i wanted to win the students over to become islamic extremists. the university - as property owner/administrator - has the right to limit my activities, even tho those activities would be my attempts to express freedom of speech and religion and association ... my rights do not offset those rights of the property owner/administrator

let me note that as an institution of higher learning, it is disappointing that the university officials would so limit the exercise of its students, squelching dissent or views contrary to those espoused by the administration
 
justabubba said:
nope
assume i wanted to assert my right to freely practice my religion and to engage in free speech in order to proselytize those on campus. say i wanted to win the students over to become islamic extremists. the university - as property owner/administrator - has the right to limit my activities, even tho those activities would be my attempts to express freedom of speech and religion and association ... my rights do not offset those rights of the property owner/administrator

let me note that as an institution of higher learning, it is disappointing that the university officials would so limit the exercise of its students, squelching dissent or views contrary to those espoused by the administration
Click to expand...

I can see them limiting solicitation by handing out flier and such but I can't see a university actually winning out if they were sued for telling students they topics they could and could not discuss with each other.
 
VanceMack said:
SO I should have the right to come to your house...unannounced, and stand there with a bullhorn and say whatever I want...on your lawn...for a s long as I want, to whoever I want?
Click to expand...

Well actually, if you were on his lawn you'd be on private property and he could probably shoot you. If you were on the public side walk that would be a different story, though I think police could remove you for public disturbance if you were in a residential area.

VanceMack said:
Reiterate...he was not a student of the UT. He IS a professional agitator. they were on the UT grounds protesting on a day when they knew they would have lots of people there. He refused to move 100 yards to public property. It wasnt about any 'free speech zones'. Start with that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what he is. As long as tax dollars are partially funding the school, it falls under the protection of the Constitution and anyone can go on campus as long as they are not threatening the safety of the people there.
 
jallman said:
I can see them limiting solicitation by handing out flier and such but I can't see a university actually winning out if they were sued for telling students they topics they could and could not discuss with each other.
Click to expand...
they cannot prevent students from conversing about whatever they chose to. that would be unenforceable
however, they can - and as we have seen, will - prohibit campus activities they find against the interests of the university
 
justabubba said:
nope
assume i wanted to assert my right to freely practice my religion and to engage in free speech in order to proselytize those on campus. say i wanted to win the students over to become islamic extremists. the university - as property owner/administrator - has the right to limit my activities, even tho those activities would be my attempts to express freedom of speech and religion and association ... my rights do not offset those rights of the property owner/administrator

let me note that as an institution of higher learning, it is disappointing that the university officials would so limit the exercise of its students, squelching dissent or views contrary to those espoused by the administration
Click to expand...

If the state is the property owner, the rights reside with the students first.
 
Orion said:
Well actually, if you were on his lawn you'd be on private property and he could probably shoot you. If you were on the public side walk that would be a different story, though I think police could remove you for public disturbance if you were in a residential area.



It doesn't matter what he is. As long as tax dollars are partially funding the school, it falls under the protection of the Constitution and anyone can go on campus as long as they are not threatening the safety of the people there.
Click to expand...

You are again expressing your opinion as it pertains to this case and obviously not Texas Law. The board requested the police remove him.They did. Obviously you dont understand Texas law and private property as it relates to Universities NEAR as much as you think you do. And even on a public street he would need to have a permit to assemble.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If the state is the property owner, the rights reside with the students first.
Click to expand...

that it is state owned gives no right to the citizen to exercise its rights thereon as if it were their own property for their own use
the government will administer it as the state sees fit

now if you insist that i am wrong, i want you to test your theory when the closest public elementary school soon opens for the school year, and go personally pass out literature that would be inappropriate for school children even tho it would not be inappropriate for adult citizens
when we quit seeing your posts, we will all find out your theory was found wrong
 
VanceMack said:
As usual, there is more to the story then the edited version they want you to see on UTube.

Doood was arrested because he was NOT a student of UT and was protesting on campus. The school board of trustees representative and the police both asked him 3 times politely to take their protest 100 yards to MLK blvd on public land and then by all means carry on. This was far from just a bunch of students having a discussion (see the link attached). http://www.blip.tv/file/3998011\ John Bush is a professional political agitator. And he did what he do...he agitated. So...he got removed.

Think about this logically and not emotionally for a second. Can you walk onto any public school property and start protesting freely without getting arrested? Of course not. And even on public lands when you have a planned assembly you have to file for permits.

As a libertarian I find his actions repugnant. And BTW...read a little about doood...and watch some of his videos. He's a shameless self-promoting asshole.

He lied about his press credentials. He lied about his intent. And when asked to leave...politely...3 times...he was finally arrested and removed. Yay.
Click to expand...

It was a PUBLIC university. It was PUBLIC property. Therefore he had every right to be there. If this had occurred at a PRIVATE university on PRIVATE property, then sure I would have no problem. If people want to protest at a public high school, middle school etc., then go for it. Who's old enough to care or listen besides the 100 faculty?

justabubba said:
his right to free speech does not trump the property owner's right to determine what activities do or do not occur on its property

which is why he was arrested for trespassing

he possesses the right of free speech
he possesses the right to assemble
but not if the property owner where he plans to present his speech or create an assembly says otherwise
Click to expand...

I've never heard of trespassing on public property :^/
 
They are not property owners. It is a PUBLIC university funded FEDERALLY with PUBLIC funds and therefore PUBLIC property. Like I said I don't care for the guy, but the fact that he was arressted on public property, well within his constitutional right bothers me.

DrunkenAsparagus said:
As a property owners, they have the complete right to kick this guy out and have him arrested for trespassing. There is a difference between the government making you obey some stupid, unconstitutional "free speech zone" rules and someone not letting you trespass, which this guy was doing. This guy, who isn't a student, is a self-righteous douchebag, and I don't feel sorry for him.

However, this does bring up a good point. It is troubling how people on college campuses are often the victims of asinine, hyper-pc, restrictive speech codes. They are private institutions who should be allowed to make their own rules, but they are also supposed to be centers of free discourse. What someone finds offensive should be up to the individual, not the institution.
Click to expand...
 
No, but you have the right to stand on the public curb outside of my house and do the same thing.

VanceMack said:
SO I should have the right to come to your house...unannounced, and stand there with a bullhorn and say whatever I want...on your lawn...for a s long as I want, to whoever I want?

Reiterate...he was not a student of the UT. He IS a professional agitator. they were on the UT grounds protesting on a day when they knew they would have lots of people there. He refused to move 100 yards to public property. It wasnt about any 'free speech zones'. Start with that.
Click to expand...
 
I'm really baffled that some of you (even a libertarian :0 ) don't understand that a public university is PUBLIC property. It is NOT private property. It is NOT owned by the administrators. It is NOT owned by the police. Though I don't care for John Bush or his views, he had a right to stand there on PUBLIC property and express his opinions.
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
I'm really baffled that some of you (even a libertarian :0 ) don't understand that a public university is PUBLIC property. It is NOT private property. It is NOT owned by the administrators. It is NOT owned by the police. Though I don't care for John Bush or his views, he had a right to stand there on PUBLIC property and express his opinions.
Click to expand...

he had as much right to do that on that PUBLIC campus as you have to distribute near-porno at your nearby PUBLIC elementary school
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
It was a PUBLIC university. It was PUBLIC property. Therefore he had every right to be there. If this had occurred at a PRIVATE university on PRIVATE property, then sure I would have no problem. If people want to protest at a public high school, middle school etc., then go for it. Who's old enough to care or listen besides the 100 faculty?



I've never heard of trespassing on public property :^/
Click to expand...
really? you think you have a right to walk onto any public elementary school campus and conduct your personal business?


how about the FBI building ... it's public. why should you not be able to gain immediate access there, too
 
justabubba said:
he had as much right to do that on that PUBLIC campus as you have to distribute near-porno at your nearby PUBLIC elementary school
Click to expand...

Completely different. Lets stick with apples and leave oranges out of this.
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
Completely different. Lets stick with apples and leave oranges out of this.
Click to expand...

nope. both are PUBLICLY owned and operated facilities
it speaks right to your example
and destroys it
 
justabubba said:
really? you think you have a right to walk onto any public elementary school campus and conduct your personal business?


how about the FBI building ... it's public. why should you not be able to gain immediate access there, too
Click to expand...

You have your rights so long as you don't infring on another's rights or safety. Having everybody poking around an FBI building could compromise a lot of people safety. Again, stick with apples and leave other fruits out of this.
 
justabubba said:
nope. both are PUBLICLY owned and operated facilities
it speaks right to your example
and destroys it
Click to expand...

One deals with explicit material and children. The other deals with material a child could see on a PUBLIC campus comprised of adults. Completely different.
 
Rightwingnutjob said:
One deals with explicit material and children. The other deals with material a child could see on a PUBLIC campus comprised of adults. Completely different.
Click to expand...

exactly on target
both are public facilities on public property
just as you do not get to openly distribute near-porno on a public college campus quad
neither do you on a public elementary school playground
just as you do not get to create unsanctioned public assemblies on the public college campus
neither do you get to on a public elementary school campus
the only difference is the age of the students and the curriculum being taught
but try again ... i enjoy the easy target practice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom