Student Sues College After Being Told Not To Exercise His First Amendment Rights Without The School's Permission

from the students-shouldn't-be-seen-or-heard dept

Another public university is getting sued over its unconstitutional speech policies. While schools can place some restrictions on students' speech, they can't just carve out blanket exceptions that allow them to treat the First Amendment as a privilege it might extend to students if they've filled out all the proper paperwork.

Jones County Junior College student Mike Brown managed to First Amendment his way right into a conversation with the campus police chief. At this school, you have to ask permission before you can speak to other students, apparently. Here's the write-up from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), which is representing Brown in his lawsuit against the college.

In April, Brown and two other individuals held up a sign designed to poll students on the legalization of recreational marijuana. But Jones College administrators quickly summoned campus police because the group hadn’t filled out the proper paperwork — which requires administrative approval and a minimum three-day waiting period before “gathering for any purpose” anywhere on campus.

Brown and another student were taken to the police chief’s office while their friend, a non-student, was escorted to his car and told to leave immediately and not return, or he’d face arrest. Back in the chief’s office, the police chief told Brown he should have known better than to blatantly exercise his free speech rights on campus without administrative approval.

Ah, to be young and living in the Land of the Free, being told by law enforcement that your protected speech needs to be approved ahead of time by a public institution's administrators. Here's the policy that Jones JC has written -- the one being challenged in court. According to this, on-campus speech has a three-day waiting period.

Any student parade, serenade, demonstration, rally, and/or other meeting or gathering for any purpose, conducted on the campus of the institution must be scheduled with the President or Vice President of Student Affairs at least 72 hours in advance of the event. (Forms available in Student Affairs) Names of the responsible leaders of the groups must be submitted to the institution at the time of scheduling.

While schools can place a few restrictions on speech to ensure classes aren't interrupted and campus traffic isn't impeded, they cannot simply create blanket prohibitions that require student speech to be pre-approved. As the lawsuit points out, the campus is large and contains many areas where students could gather without disrupting the school day.

JCJC’s property is made up of several hundred acres and its Ellisville campus has many open, publicly accessible areas, outdoor green spaces, sidewalks, and pedestrian plazas and thoroughfares where student speech and expressive activity would not interfere with or disturb access to college buildings or sidewalks, impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or disrupt campus operations or the college’s educational functions. Yet, the entire campus is off-limits to any student expression without the prior approval of JCJC administrators at least three to five days ahead of time through an undefined scheduling process that grants JCJC unfettered and arbitrary discretion to prohibit student expression on the basis of content or viewpoint.

As an added bonus, the student handbook also prohibits "public profanity" on campus, which is about as ridiculous an imposition on free speech as requiring students to ask the school's permission to speak freely. That restriction comes into play in this complaint because a prior run-in with the campus' speech police (who were also literally police officers) involved a "free speech ball" being thrown around by a bunch of adults that administrators claimed was "covered with profanities" during its earlier foray into First Amendment violations.

The lawsuit asks for the court to give the students of JCJC back their First Amendment rights by declaring the school's speech policy unconstitutional. This step was taken because the college decided to ignore FIRE's earlier offering to help it write a more constitutional policy. Now, it gets to defend it in court and explain to judges why it feels it doesn't need to respect students' rights. That should be fun.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, mike brown
Companies: jones county junior college


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Berenerd (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 4:05am

    There I was, right, proposing to the love of my life where we met at the book store on campus and we get arrested because we didn't get approval first. Now they wont talk to me because this went on their permanent record and can no longer join the police force after college!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 4:50am

    I suppose we can call this a “learning experience” for both sides. The students got to learn how fascism works, and now the school gets to learn how the First Amendment and the courts work.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Prof. Anna T. Laced, 12 Sep 2019 @ 5:45am

      Re: physical aspects are not same as limiting speech.

      Please read my comment below and respond with your rabid ankle-biter yapipng and inimitable stupidity, vulgar as possible, pllease, 'cause that's True Techdirt.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 8:24am

        Re: Re:

        Just because you choose not to use lube when Ajit Pai bends you over doesn't mean the rest of us have to go without. Or let Ajit Pai bend us over.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 1:22pm

        Re: Re: physical aspects are not same as limiting speech.

        Please read my comment below

        No.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:11am

      Re:

      To be fair, both political extremities dislike free speech and personal freedoms.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 5:33am

    Honest questions (as a foreigner I'm trying to understand US free speech rights):

    Isn't the first amendment only binding for the government? Or is a public college considered part of that government?

    Also, isn't it possible for (for example) a company to restrict free speech in it's offices? And if so, how is that different from a college restricting free speech on it's campus?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 5:45am

      Re:

      Yes - that is what a public college means. Part of the conditions of receiving the funding means they must operate like the government. There are very good historical reasons for that - usually involving bigotted assholes engaged in shenanigans to try to backdoor segregation by funding a "private" college. No - if they receive the funds for an educational purpose they are a public college period.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Prof. Anna T. Laced, 12 Sep 2019 @ 5:48am

        Re: Re: Corporations under CDA 230 have "gov't-conferred"...

        immunity and power, SO are in fact NOT strictly private entities.

        The same STATUTE that authorizes BINDS them to observe Constitutional protections -- "free speech" is fairly well-defined by SC cases -- NO MATTER what masnicks and other neo-fascist legalists say.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:12am

          The same STATUTE that authorizes BINDS them to observe Constitutional protections

          Yes, this is true: Public, government-owned/operated colleges are bound to observe the protections of the First Amendment.

          Privately owned corporations and their platforms for speech, however, are not.

          If you can cite a single law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says otherwise, well, it’d be a nice change of pace from you running away with your tail between your legs whenever someone asks you to make that citation.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Matthew Cline (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:42am

            Re:

            If you can cite a single ... “common law” court ruling that says otherwise,

            According to him, "common law" isn't past court rulings but (and I quote) "the ancient customs of We The People". You could ask him for a citation of these "ancient customs", but (from what I recall) he thinks that we probably already know what he's talking about and that we only ask these questions to waste his time.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 7:31am

              Re: Re:

              According to him, "common law" isn't past court rulings but (and I quote) "the ancient customs of We The People".

              Isn't that just a way of saying whatever I want it to be?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 12:23am

                Re: Re: Re:

                It just means, that as usual, reality is something that he finds hard to deal with and has to invent things to cope with life, and that for some reason his mental illness demands he spends all his time here venting.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Gary (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 10:27am

              Re: Re:

              According to him, "common law" isn't past court rulings but (and I quote) "the ancient customs of We The People".

              We ask him all the time. But since he's just copying bits and pieces of other people's ideas he can't answer, eh?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Matthew Cline (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 11:07am

                Re: Re: Re:

                But since he's just copying bits and pieces of other people's ideas he can't answer, eh?

                I haven't seen that variant of weird "common law" (having done some reading on SovCits), and a Google search for the exact phrase "traditions of We The People" gave no results, so this seems to be his own spin on things.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Gary (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 12:27pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I haven't seen that variant of weird "common law" (having done some reading on SovCits), and a Google search for the exact phrase "traditions of We The People" gave no results, so this seems to be his own spin on things.

                  Since Blue Balls can't use Google, he can't look things up I guess? Maybe he has a stack of SovCit comic books in his room that he cribs from?

                  Lacking a rebuttal from the source, I'll go with that.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2019 @ 1:59am

            Re:

            Is something right just because it isn't against the law?

            Is it okay to question laws?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 2:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: Corporations under CDA 230 have "gov't-conferred"...

          First, “gov’t-conferred” immunity is just saying that the government interfere with something. It’s the equivalent of a company whose (binding) EULA explicitly state that they cannot and will not sue Let’s Players, critics, commenters, or parodists for copyright infringement or defamation based on the use of their copyrighted works. That doesn’t make those people the company is explicitly saying it can’t sue part of that company; nor does it mean that those people couldn’t sue other Let’s Players, critics, commenters, or parodists for copyright infringement or defamation based on the use of their works.

          Also, there is no “gov’t-conferred” power involved in §230. They are immune from suit for 3rd-party content (outside certain exceptions) and for moderating decisions of 3rd-party content. The power to moderate was one the companies already had without §230 or any law or government intervention. §230 just means that they can’t be sued for exercising the power they already had.

          Having “gov’t-conferred” immunity does not make one a government entity for FA purposes. After all, everyone has “‘gov’t-conferred’ immunity” thanks to the First Amendment. In fact, every right can be seen as an immunity conferred by the government. The question of whether one is a government entity is based on a combination of whether public/government funding is used and what functions the entity performs. Being given immunity from suit has nothing to do with it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        AnonyCog, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:42am

        Re: Re:

        In a public private partnership the latter gets to rule the roost until the public becomes aware of how much freedom they lost.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 5:55am

      Re:

      Public colleges are funded (in the main) by the government, and are considered governmental in nature.

      There are indeed some exceptions to free first amendment rights on public college campuses. For instance, in the College's role as an employer, it can limit the free speech of its employees in some specific employer-ish ways.

      You'd do better to look up the ACLU or FIRE than have me go on, though. They've had longer to look at the issue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 8:56am

        Re: Re:

        "Public colleges are funded (in the main) by the government"
        Not so much anymore. The main reason for the rising cost of education, in the us, is the continual decline of government funding at both fed & state level.

        "There are indeed some exceptions to free first amendment rights on public college campuses. "
        Free speech zone - lol

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      David (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:12am

      Re:

      The amendments apply to everyone.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    blademan9999 (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 5:41am

    "Any student parade, serenade, demonstration, rally, and/or other meeting or gathering for any purpose "

    So if I'm understanding this right, you need 3 days notice to do things like go on a date, return a borrowed item or help someone else study, WTF!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:16am

      Re:

      You are not allowed to do anything without the permission of the permission culture elite.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 9:51am

      Re:

      Yeah; according to their handbook, I would have been breaking the rules whenever I wasn't in class but was on campus. My friends and I always arranged where we'd meet between classes, and sometimes we'd even <gasp> go for lunch!

      Since I was living on campus, this also meant that I wouldn't have been allowed to invite friends over or organize study groups.

      But the block parties with heavy drinking would have been OK, as they always provided 3 days notice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 9:59am

        Re: Re:

        Study groups are just a bunch of pirates stealing from the Intellectual Property Owners. All that learning, exchanging ideas, discussing issues - well it's all just a ruse to cover their pirate activites.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 10:20am

      Re:

      I'm intrigued by "serenade" being listed. Was there a big problem with unauthorized serenading in the past? It would be hilarious if everyone protesting this did so in serenade form.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Prof. Anna T. Laced, 12 Sep 2019 @ 5:41am

    So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?

    Techdirt constantly claims that corporations have near absolute power to arbitrarily control speech on their "platforms" -- actually meaning the part they voluntarily allowed The Public to use -- even if it's "constitutionally protected" speech.

    But here you go on about requiring permission for a gathering -- if are any restrictions on topic, you don't mention.

    But physical aspects -- even if only potential -- are not same as limiting speech.

    While Techdirt advocates, just yesterday, that corporations are empowered to arbitrarily control ALL speech on "platforms".

    HOW can both those be claimed on ONE site within 24 hours?

    Now, since is ME -- I just read over comments to the 230 piece of yesterday, which any new reader should look at to get Techdirt's view that off-topic vulgarity is allowable while on-topic dissent should be "hidden" as euphemized -- I can't expect any actual attempt at answer, so just another one of the pieces here that raise inexplicable contradictions.

    Bottom line is that Techdirt is for "free speech" which it likes -- the mega-corporations enforce "political correctness" and neo-liberalism -- and in this piece, not coincidentally, Techdirt is exercised by someone not being able to advocate drug use without getting permission for a physical venue. No real conflict if know Techdirt and its pro-corporate and drug-using biases.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:03am

      Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

      Who wishes to control other people the most, this site which allows the community to hide comments, or you who wish to force other people to publish your words and keep them in front of other people for free when you want to force your views on others?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:10am

      A public college is nominally a government institution and is thus bound by law to follow the First Amendment and any related jurisprudence. Facebook is a privately-owned company, so it does not face the same restriction.

      And yes, the law empowers Facebook to moderate speech on Facebook, which can (and does) include the right to ban certain kinds of speech and people who violate the Facebook TOS. If the law required Facebook to host all constitutionally protected speech, Facebook would be overrun with spam, bigoted slurs, and racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic propaganda — all of which is constitutionally protected speech.¹


      ¹ — Feel free to replace every instance of “Facebook” in those sentences with Twitter, Tumblr, or the name of any other privately-owned social interaction network. The song will remain the same.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Berenerd (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:11am

      Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

      Facebook has rules you need to abide by which also are mitigated by government laws. Is this child safe? No? it goes! Is this discussing illegal activities? Yes? Gone. Is this promoting hate with graphic images and other requirements that the user agreed to when they made this account? Yes? Banned.

      Colleges, especially public schools, have the same responsibilities.The issue here is, a very broad rule, that can cover 2 people talking to one another, and not locking all of the people up having a general conversation, as their rule applies, means a bias. These students were not doing anything that anyone can do on public land. They did nothing to the point of blocking passage, interrupting the normal functions of the school. They were arrested because someone disagreed with a sign they had and felt that was a legit reason to arrest them.

      What the college did was the equivalent of a white lady calling the cops because a black family next door was having a family BBQ. No laws were being broken, the family were just different.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:18am

        FYI: So-called “hate speech” (e.g., White supremacist propaganda, homophobic slurs) is 100% legal in the United States unless it openly and directly advocates for illegal activity. The Klan can say all the racial slurs in the world so long as they aren’t calling for the deaths of Black people; the government can’t do shit about that. And if a platform’s owners/operators want to allow that speech on said platform, the government can’t do shit about that, either.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Matthew Cline (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:48am

          Re:

          FYI: So-called “hate speech” (e.g., White supremacist propaganda, homophobic slurs) is 100% legal in the United States unless it openly and directly advocates for illegal activity.

          IIRC, hate speech can be used as evidence of a hate crime, something that was already a crime but was given a harsher penalty than normal because of the motive (homophobia/racism/etc). Some take the fact that hate speech can be used as evidence of motive in a hate crime and misremember it as the hate speech in-and-of itself being illegal.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 8:27am

          Re:

          I find it interesting that in the UK, racist speech is actually illegal. You can get arrested and imprisoned just for saying something deemed racist. Not that I want to say any such thing, but I'm glad we have a guarantee of free speech.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 2:35am

            Re: Re:

            You can't make off-colour jokes any more, either. One chap nearly went to jail for mouthing off about an airport.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 5:47am

              Re: Re: Re:

              If you mean joking about attacking an airport, that seems more reasonable, even though in that particular case (if I remember what you're talking about) it shouldn't have gone that far.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 6:11am

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I suspect she's referring to this case:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial

                If so, it's worth noting that the man was first convicted, then successfully appealed and had the conviction quashed, with enough agreement that it was a miscarriage of justice that future cases are likely to need more evidence to get to the same stage.

                It's also worth noting that while jail was mentioned as a possible consequence by the press at the time, the actual penalty applied by the court was only a fine, although the man also lost his job as a consequence of the conviction.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      OldMugwump (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:18am

      Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

      My dearest Anna,

      A public college is considered by the law to be an arm of the government - the same rules apply there as in the public square. Speech there is protected by the 1st Amendment.

      A platform run by a corporation is a private venue - like a private home. Within a private venue, the owner is entitled to make and enforce whatever rules she likes - people who don't like those rules are free to leave or setup their own venue. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply, because it's not the the government that is making the rules.

      And therein lies the difference. There is no contradiction in Techdirt's position.

      The difference between the rules for private vs. public venues exists for the good reason that it's far more difficult to leave a country (or setup a new one) than it is to leave (or create) a private venue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Sep 2019 @ 2:04am

        Re: Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook

        "...the same rules apply there as in the public square."

        Meaning you need to apply for a permit?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:37am

      Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

      While Techdirt advocates, just yesterday, that corporations are empowered to arbitrarily control ALL speech on "platforms".

      Techdirt doesn't advocate that at all, TD only points out that what the law says. If you think that is in error, please cite the relevant law that forbids anyone from moderating speech on their private property?

      HOW can both those be claimed on ONE site within 24 hours?

      If you don't know the difference between a private entity and a government entity there is no hope for you at all.

      Bottom line is that Techdirt is for "free speech" which it likes -- the mega-corporations enforce "political correctness" and neo-liberalism -- and in this piece, not coincidentally, Techdirt is exercised by someone not being able to advocate drug use without getting permission for a physical venue. No real conflict if know Techdirt and its pro-corporate and drug-using biases.

      Bottom line is that you make a lot of claims what Techdirt like and don't like, but when someone points out WITH citations that you are wrong you never seem to want to rebut it - instead you slink off since your whole argumentative technique is based on dishonesty and cowardliness.

      And in this piece, you didn't even take the time to read and comprehend what was written. Perhaps you can answer me this, what where the students doing when they where carted off by the police?

      I don't expect an answer but it would be fun to see you squirm and distort what really happened to avoid looking like an ass.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AnonyCog, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:46am

      Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

      "So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?" ---Prof. Anna T. Laced

      Facebook is not subsidized by the government and the college is a physical manifested form of government.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 8:26am

      Re:

      Try not to choke on that Verizon-flavored corporate cock, blue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2019 @ 6:47pm

        Re: Re:

        Why was this truth censored?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 16 Sep 2019 @ 12:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It wasn't, but the community who prefer conversations to be a little more mature and civilised asked for it to be hidden. If it was censored, you wouldn't have been able to read it and decide you thought it was true.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Sep 2019 @ 12:58am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh, don't worry. I get that it was "hidden". I just use blue's own insistence against him, that he calls "hidden" comments "censored" and, based on his criteria, "the only comments worth reading".

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 8:59am

      Re: So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook pag

      [Blue offers no facts in his Complaints to support his propositions ]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 12:27am

      "So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?"

      It's fun to see you fail with even the most basic ideas.

      College campus = a physical location often funded at least partially with government money, where people who pay to access are usually bound to attend for several years, and is difficult/expensive to transfer

      Facebook = a virtual space where nobody pays directly, nobody is bound to stay for any length of time and can leave without penalty at any time without penalty

      If you fail to understand fundamental aspects of the discussions, you are bound to fail with all your argument.

      "I just read over comments to the 230 piece of yesterday"

      But, sadly, you did not understand them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 12:29am

        Re:

        Oh, and of course, Facebook is not government funded, which is one of the fundamental facts that our basket case here chooses to ignore when demanding that they have their free freedom of association removed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 5:57am

    So what's the diff between college campus and a Facebook page?

    To address your headline question, one's a government institution, one's a private corporation. The fact that the first amendment doesn't work the way you think it does isn't really our fault.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    David (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:10am

    "gathering for any purpose"

    Every student should fill out a form for every meal they eat at a campus dinning room (unless they eat alone). Every time students meet to study, play games or just hang out, a form should be submitted. Overwhelm the school with paperwork. Let them reap the rewards for their stupidity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Zof (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:11am

    Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.

    That's why Tulsi is suing Google. We all have to stop this censorship and cancel culture. Just remember 3 years ago when you weren't called a "nazi" for advocating for free speech. Free speech wasn't a "right leaning" issue. It was important to everyone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:24am

      You can advocate for the right to speak freely without condoning/defending the actual speech of bigots or thinking they deserve an audience. I believe a Klan member should have the right to shout his racist bullshit on a street corner — but that doesn’t mean I have to listen, and it doesn’t mean I can’t counter their speech with my own.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:29am

      Re: Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.

      Free speech means that the government cannot stop you from publishing your speech ate your expense. It also means that the government cannot force a company to publish your speech at the companies expense, and neither can you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 7:03am

      Re: Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.

      Zof,why is the first amendment so hard for you to understand?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 9:01am

      Re: Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.

      [Zof the Liar asserts facts not in evidence]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 7:49pm

      Re: Or are you a coward?

      I’ll bet you keeping you promise to leave forever to buying you the anime body pillow of your choice that she loses bro.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 12:34am

      Re: Lawsuits are the only thing censors understand.

      "Just remember 3 years ago when you weren't called a "nazi" for advocating for free speech."

      That's not why you're being called a Nazi.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:24am

    It is amazing how some folk can be told many many times exactly how they are wrong about the First Amendment and yet they refuse to accept the fact. What so these trolls hope to accomplish, if anything at all.

    Most rational people, upon facing the facts, will change their attack vector(s) to coincide with reality thus producing arguments that address the facts rather than their fantasies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:48am

      Re:

      You are right, most rational people will realize this - but AFAIK trolls aren't rational unless we are talking about the pure trolls that just want to rile people up for their own lulz.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonyCog, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:38am

    This must be China's model of education. What's next social credit system on campuses? I shouldn't give them any ideas.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Beefcake (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:44am

    From the settlement will be born a new campus tradition, the annual Profanity Ball.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Sep 2019 @ 8:23am

    Three day waiting period

    Waiting periods are fine for firearms, so why can't we have them for speeches too? The wrong speech could incite far more violence than a single gun.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 10:31am

    Careful What You Wish For

    Seriously... "gathering for any purpose"

    This is kinda begging for a DDOS attack. Flood the office with a request for every meeting, party, meal, date, class, practice, sleepover, and handshake.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 12 Sep 2019 @ 12:05pm

    Collage? free speech?? BACK to the 60's..

    What is considered a GROUP?

    A collage that doesnt ALLOW the ability to have FREE speech??
    Wow, this hasnt happened since the 60's...

    AND..you really have a Police base INSIDE the School?
    http://www.jcjc.edu/campuspolice/
    There is no info here saying they are REAL police.
    And as for kicking someone Off the grounds, they can ASK, but the best recourse is to call the cops and has to restrict them..You can not DEMAND he stay away.

    Jones County Agricultural High School
    Jones County Junior College
    In 2018, the college was rebranded as Jones College. The school is still legally called Jones County Junior College.
    I will bet this is a State college. as its only a 2 year and an Asc. degree.
    Its not privately Owned..
    So they have to follow State laws, really well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 12:36am

      Re:

      "Collage? free speech?? BACK to the 60's.."

      "A collage that doesnt ALLOW the ability to have FREE speech??"

      I take it you didn't go to college, then? Or, are you actually whining about the free speech attitude of a method of art?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Qrex (profile), 13 Sep 2019 @ 11:00am

    Only the first amendment matters?

    I can't help but wonder how different the comments would be if it was the second amendment instead of the first.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Monatyks, 19 Sep 2019 @ 6:00am

    Thanks for the interesting post. This article is very important, and I want to publish it at https://partridgehillmedia.com/. Since this resource is engaged in the dissemination of news.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.