California College Tells Student He Can't Hand Out Copies Of The Constitution On Constitution Day

from the SHUT-UP-AND-RETURN-TO-THE-DESIGNATED-'FREE-SPEECH-ZONE' dept

Thu, Sep 19th 2013 11:48am — Tim Cushing

As an American with First Amendment rights, you'd probably assume that a "Free Speech Zone" would look something like this:

The blue on that map should represent areas where you can exercise your right to free speech. Unfortunately, for many college students, their "Free Speech Zone" shrinks considerably when on campus. One out of every six major colleges have designated "Free Speech Zones" where students are "permitted" to "enjoy" this Constitutional right, and even then there are restrictions. In these colleges, exercising your right to free speech means asking permission at least a couple of days in advance as well as having the administration "approve" your speech.

The latest example of confined and controlled speech comes to us courtesy of Modesto Junior College. As FIRE.org reports, a student found his exercise of free speech shut down on one of the worst days of the year for a college to assert its negative attitude towards the First Amendment.

In a stunning illustration of the attitude taken towards free speech by too many colleges across the United States, Modesto Junior College in California told a student that he could not pass out copies of the United States Constitution outside the student center on September 17, 2013—Constitution Day. Captured on video, college police and administrators demanded that Robert Van Tuinen stop passing out Constitution pamphlets and told him that he would only be allowed to pass them out in the college’s tiny free speech zone, and only after scheduling it several days or weeks ahead of time.

After 10 minutes of handing out these pamphlets, Van Tuinen was approached by a campus police officer. After some discussion regarding the ridiculousness of shutting down free speech on Constitution Day and Van Tuinen's repeated assertion of his rights, the campus cop tells him to take it up with administration.

[The officer sends out a little cheap shot before Van Tuinen moves on, telling him, "Look at you. You're shaking." This is a common cop tactic designed to both a) cast suspicion on the person and b) assert the officer's control of the situation. The fact that it's a byproduct of the fight-or-flight response is ignored. People speaking to armed authority figures will often appear nervous because that's how the human brain works. It's not solely a byproduct of fear or guilt. It's adrenaline being pumped with no available outlet.]

The response he receives from administration is no less ridiculous, considering it relies heavily on quoting policy rather than acknowledging the absurdity of shutting down free speech on Constitution Day. (As if it would be any less ridiculous on any other day of the year, but Constitution Day?)

Upon arriving at that office, Van Tuinen talks with administrator Christine Serrano, who tells him that because of “a time, place, and manner,” he can only pass out literature inside the “free speech area,” which she informs him is “in front of the student center, in that little cement area.” She asks him to fill out an application and asks to photocopy his student ID. Hauling out a binder, Serrano says that she has “two people on campus right now, so you’d have to wait until either the 20th, 27th, or you can go into October.” Van Tuinen protests that he wants to pass out the Constitution on Constitution Day, at which point Serrano dismissively tells him “you really don’t need to keep going on.”

So, now everything's clear. In a nation where free speech is one of the foundations of society, an American in a public American college (founded by legislation and infused with public money via grants) is restricted to "that little cement area" (see below) -- and then only with advance notice and permission. Free speech possibly available in October -- get your reservation in now!

As FIRE's Robert Shibley points out, there's really no way Modesto Junior College could have handled this situation any worse than it did.

“Virtually everything that Modesto Junior College could do wrong, it did do wrong. It sent police to enforce an unconstitutional rule, said that students could not freely distribute literature, placed a waiting period on free speech, produced an artificial scarcity of room for free speech with a tiny ‘free speech area,’ and limited the number of speakers on campus to two at a time. This was outrageous from start to finish. Every single person at Modesto responsible for enforcing this policy should have known better.”

Free speech isn't something you box up and dole out. It's the right of all citizens. Modesto Junior College should know this, being a public college, but has apparently decided it's much easier to avoid uncomfortable or unpopular speech by violating its students' First Amendment rights.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: colleges, constitution, free speech, free speech zone, modesto junior college, robert van tuinen

128 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 11:58am

Can we complain to the college about this? We need to shame them, big time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JS, 20 Sep 2013 @ 12:25am
  
  Contacting MJC
  This is the link to FIRE's website to submit a complaint directly to the president of the school.
  http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/5896/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15382
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
S. T. Stone, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:00pm

Okay, I�m just gonna say what everyone�s thinking right now.

WHAT IN THE ABSOLUTE FUCK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:00pm

I say every person who watches that video should email the administration and demand that police officer sign his resignation tomorrow for his gross behavior and intimidation tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:18pm
  
  police just doing his job
  He is just doing his job.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TheLastCzarnian (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:22pm
    
    Re: police just doing his job
    So were the guards in the concentration camps.
    Your profession does not entitle you to abdicate your moral and ethical duties as a human being.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:19pm
      
      Re: Re: police just doing his job
      I agree with you that the guards in the concentration camps were "Just doing their jobs" (Such as the after mentioned security officer), but I like to look at it this way:
      
      What would have been the repercussions to the officer if he didn't enforce the colleges policy?
      
      He's in a tough spot (Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't) we shouldn't go around attacking the messenger as you know. We should instead be pushing to remove the colleges "Free Speech" zoning. Besides, there's no saying that he DIDN'T also think that the rule was ridiculous cause any sensible human being can see that quite clearly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: police just doing his job
        I agree that the root problem if the administration not the cop, but...
        
        Besides, there's no saying that he DIDN'T also think that the rule was ridiculous cause any sensible human being can see that quite clearly.
        
        If he did think the rule was ridiculous, then enforcing it speaks very poorly for his character. Someone with integrity would have refused to do so and been relieved that they no longer have to work for a bunch of scumbags.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ComputerAddict (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: police just doing his job
        Some people cant afford to lose their jobs, and he could have been assigned to deal with this kid from higher ups... not enough details...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 9:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: police just doing his job
        Some people cant afford to lose their jobs
        
        That's no excuse. I understand it -- believe me, I've been in that position quite a few times in my life -- but it's rarely actually true in an absolute sense.
        
        What may be true is that losing a job is a tremendous sacrifice and leads to struggle and strife. But, nonetheless, doing something that you consider immoral just because you can't afford to lose the paycheck makes you a hypocrite at best, and equally culpable at worst.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: police just doing his job
        What you do as the guard is tell the kid the rules, as him if he understands the said rule you recited to him and move on to secure the rest of campus. Then he'd have at least enough time to do what he's doing until the next round. But I might end up distracted taking care of some other matter and not get back to making sure that kid isn't still expressing his constitutional rights.
        
        I've use similar tactics in my job as a security officer. I eventually moved on to jobs with less opportunities for me to work as an extension for oppressive institutions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 8:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: police just doing his job
        This is america, I would of thought he should let the student exercise their constitutional rights, and if punnished by the university, sue them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 1:15am
        
        Why should we not attack the messenger?
        Enough many attacked, there won't be any wanting the job any more. The price will rise. At some point it will be too expensive.
        Besides, he's not just a messenger, he plays a vital role in this - he is in fact enforcing the policy. Which leaves even fewer reasons not to attack him...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 8:51am
      
      N�rnberg 1946
      Your profession does not entitle you to abdicate your moral and ethical duties as a human being.
      
      If you're in uniform, it does, because you're taught that your moral and ethical duties as a human being are secondary to The Law.
      
      And in third-world dictatorial hellholes, the laws only apply to the guys who don't wear the uniform. Like in the People's Democratic Republic of Free America.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: police just doing his job
    Not an excuse. Police officers are (or should be if they're not) trained/educated in US law, including the Constitution. While I don't know exactly to what degree, I'd expect for them to, ya know, be familiar with the First Amendment and the freedom to make speech. A US cop arresting someone or threatening to arrest someone when EVERY SINGLE piece of evidence and data available to them at the time points to the person not committing a crime is a cop who should himself be jailed for abuse of power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:08am
      
      Re: Re: police just doing his job
      This is an attempt by the school/state to intimidate and bully students such as this one into giving up their Constitutional rights. It's something taken directly out of a communist playbook, because the people who put forth such measures clearly have an agenda to silence any speech they find undesirable.
      
      On a related subject, should the thoroughly unconstitutional, anti-American Shield Law go into effect, the state will use its unchecked authority to intimidate and bully so-called independent journalists (who don't act in lockstep with state and corporate-owned MSM propaganda) in much the same way.
      
      Allowing the state to define things such as "free speech zones," journalism or anything else forebodes trouble.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - CB, 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:58pm
    
    Re: police just doing his job
    Police just doing his job can also be police just being sued for everything he now owns and everything he ever will own for violating the students human rights and natural rights. Just following orders does not exempt one from liability. Carrying out unlawful orders makes one even more culpable than those issuing the orders.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 1:09am
    
    Re: police just doing his job
    And so he can ignore the law and turn off his brain? Then maybe just replace him with a mindless drone?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Harley, 20 Sep 2013 @ 5:03am
    
    Re: police just doing his job
    That is exactly what the Nazi soldier at Auschwitz that turned on the gas said at the Nuremberg War Trials, "I was just doing my job." Just dumbed-down, brain-washed, terrible excuses for human beings that will do anything for a paycheck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FREE Speech means not having to jump thru hoops, 25 Sep 2013 @ 10:07pm
    
    Re: police just doing his job
    Some of the most evil things in all history were done by people who were "just doing their job." Think of Germany in the 1940s, if you want an example.
    
    By the way, free speech means not having to jump through hoops to reply on a blog post about free speech (having to give name, email, and MAYBE get added to an unwanted email list -- even if you didn't check the box?)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Davey, 19 Sep 2013 @ 5:53pm
  
  Re:
  Police? What's a "campus police officer", anyway? Does he have any legal authority or is he just a rent a cop hired by the so-called college?
  
  More to the point, it's the school administration that should be subject to investigation and loss of their jobs. They have no business in academia, since they have zero understanding or interest in little things like history, law, and government. And especially in basic Constitutional rights. If we're going to direct scorn on anyone, it should be the top administration. Nothing less will do.
  
  BTW, great intro to the story with the map and all. Makes the point beautifully.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 8:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    They used to sing off color songs about the Wells Fargo Guards who policed the Drexel Campus. IMS (it was the eighties) they were always guards not campus Police. The University of Pennsylvania had police.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Arthur Moore (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Campus police are state troopers, and thanks to federal and state law campus property is treated differently than private property. Campus administration normally takes this to mean they can do whatever they want, and if you disagree then you get fined or arrested. Don't pay the fine, don't get your transcript. So you can't transfer and you can't graduate.
    
    While this is the first time I've heard of such blatant disregard of free speech issues, my Uni required us to fill out "party permits" or the cops would bust in and kick everyone out. What constitutes a "Party" is up to the officer. Too many people, well that's a party.
    
    That's a violation of the First Amendment, but the reason no one does anything is because they would find something else to charge everyone with. That friend of a friend that you don't know, but is there. If he's under 21 and brought a flask, everyone's screwed. It doesn't matter if the flask was in a backpack and no one knew it was there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Digger, 20 Sep 2013 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ahh, but that officer has no right to intervene or to incite issues.
      
      So, if the asshat starts something, he needs to lose his status as an officer of the law and be turned into
      a criminal, and deal with him as such by throwing him to the glass-shard covered ground and arresting him with fuzzy hand-cuffs.
      
      That's what he would do once he wound you up and incited you to riot. Cops seem to feel they have power, power to do whatever the fuck they want - disabuse them of this fantasy, in the strongest way possible. Take them down, arrest them via citizens arrest, with full video, explaining why you are arresting them (for inciting to riot) and refusal to act in a manner consistent with being an officer of the law.
      
      Next step, talk to your congress-critters about re-working the laws to turn cops/feds that break the law into criminals. Any laws - this includes the full constitution.
      
      Cops/Feds/Judges/Attornies General/Elected Officials/Administrators that violate the constitution deserve a one way ticket to gitmo, there to stay until the day they die.
      
      College level peons that violate the constitution just need to be blacklisted, publicly tarred, feathered, tied to the back of an ass and driven out of town.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digger, 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:59am
  
  Uhh - Fuck that - the entire administration needs to resign
  Period.
  
  Every college administrator of every college that even attempts to restrict freedom of speech in any way has to have an immediate cessation of all federal, state and local funds.
  
  All grants, terminated.
  All loans, terminated.
  
  Every administrator fired, blacklisted and never able to work in education ever again.
  
  Period.
  
  Anything less and well, maybe we should just enforce our right to bear arms and stand outside these colleges and use our rights of citizen arrest to take them in ourselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Falindraun (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:12pm

i would be finding every rights group on the planet and sueing this school right out of existance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:23pm

staged
I've seen this complaint over and over on my campus. At my University anyone handing out literature etc must be sponsored.

He obviously knew that and that is why he was recording things.

All he would have needed to do was register and the would have let him do what ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:32pm
  
  Re: staged
  So what if it was staged? That doesn't change anything.
  
  The First Amendment does not say Freedom of Speech requires you to register ahead of time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: Re: staged
    Since we require registration "ahead of time" for firearms in direct contravention of the 2nd, why not just do it for the 1st? If you think "guns are a different issue & don't compare" then you have no right to complain when the government or publicly funded orgs encroach upon other rights the Constitution was written to prevent the government from interfering with.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: staged
      Lesse... The difference between speech, religion, free press and organizing vs the right to bear arms...
      
      Free speech doesn't kill people directly, though it can incite people to kill. Religion, if done by moderates and not extremists doesn't kill, as seen by the billions of people who practice religion and don't kill others, free press, so long as it's the truth, doesn't seem to kill anything, other than a politicians career, and organizing protests/marches, so long as they're not violent, doesn't hurt anyone.
      
      And... Guns, guns injure, maim, paralyze, and kill, a gun's only purpose is to bring harm to others.
      
      I think there *IS* a big difference between the 1st (most important amendment) and the 2nd (nowhere near as important amendment) amendments.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rekrul, 19 Sep 2013 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        And... Guns, guns injure, maim, paralyze, and kill, a gun's only purpose is to bring harm to others.
        
        Well, other than when the display of a gun causes a criminal to flee. Or it stops them from hurting someone else...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 8:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        >>And... Guns, guns injure, maim, paralyze, and kill, a gun's only purpose is to bring harm to others.
        
        >Well, other than when the display of a gun causes a criminal to flee. Or it stops them from hurting someone else...
        
        Or to pull out a bigger gun to return fire.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 4:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        wow, this logic is in the lines of:
        I don't want to be hurt in a car crash so I'll drive an bigass armored car, that will probably hurt others in a crash... but not me!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rekrul, 27 Sep 2013 @ 11:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        wow, this logic is in the lines of:
        I don't want to be hurt in a car crash so I'll drive an bigass armored car, that will probably hurt others in a crash... but not me!
        
        So I assume that you support the total disarmament of the police?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 7 Sep 2015 @ 4:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Yes, you probably so assume. It's wrong but hey, assume away. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 2:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        I would challenge you to cite a single war throughout all of history that did not begin with political speech of some sort. Words are dangerous.
        
        Guns don't have to do any of the things you describe, it's all about how they're used. I don't understand the disconnect with people who share your viewpoint.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 6:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Words are dangerous, they can start stuff, I never denied that.
        
        But guns, really, what is the primary thing a gun does? It fires bullets. What do those bullets do? Strike things. If it strikes a living thing, it causes harm.
        
        The primary purpose of words is to communicate.
        
        I don't understand the disconnect with people who share your viewpoint.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Far more people are killed in motor vehicle accidents, medical mistakes, and by various other means than by guns on an annual basis. In fact, murders caused by firearms has dropped drastically over the past decade. Should the law-abiding citizens, the 99%, be punished for the actions of less than .01%, the criminals who, for the most part, acquire their guns illegally and target mostly innocent people in primarily gun control-heavy cities and "gun-free zones"?
        
        All of this notwithstanding, the 2nd Amendment was written so as to prevent government from infringing upon your inalienable right to self-defense. The 2nd Amendment is the bedrock of the Constitution, the most important of all, as it ensures all other rights -- if it goes, kiss the rest of your Constitutional rights goodbye forever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        And what rights has the 2nd amendment protected lately?
        
        Right to privacy and the 4th Amendment? Torn to shreds by the NSA. Sure glad we have guns!
        
        5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments? Huh, heard Manning was in solitary confinement for over 2 years before sentenced to 35 years. Sure glad we have guns! Oh! And let's not forget all the settlements out of court that prevent many trials from happening. Sure am glad that guns are protecting us!
        
        *flat stare*
        
        seriously, I'm not saying take away all the guns, but the 2nd amendment is NOT that fucking important of an amendment.
        
        I would rather take the guns away if it meant giving us back full access to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments.
        
        And I'm someone who lives in an area where you can take time off from school or work to go hunting legally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 9:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        And I'm someone who lives in an area where you can take time off from school or work to go hunting legally.
        
        Its too bad you don't excersize that priviledge.. just guessing. Ah, but then, you might get mauled by a constitutionalist excersizing constitutionalism in the woods!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Nice strawman. *Thumbs up* You'll be great at convincing people when you get out of diapers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 21 Sep 2013 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Are you putting forth the notion that the government can hold the rest of our Constitutionally-protected rights as ransom in exchange for our 2nd Amendment rights? Such an absurd notion. If the people willfully handed over their guns, the very first thing the government would do is eliminate both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
        
        All power is derived from the people, not the other way around. As was once said, the 2A won't become necessary until they try and take it away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 21 Sep 2013 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        I find it weird that you keep harping on the fact that one of the less useful amendments, one that has so many supporters, if it was gone, would mean that all other amendments and the constitution would be gone.
        
        *Deep breath*
        
        Well... Tell me, what has the 2nd Amendment protected lately?
        
        Other countries, France, Germany, Japan, Britain, Poland, they don't have the 2nd Amendment, they don't have the government going around left and right taking away their freedoms and becoming a fascist police state any faster than the U.S. is becoming.
        
        Look, I'm not saying "take away the guns" like you seem to THINK I'm saying.
        
        What I'm saying is that the 2nd Amendment is NOWHERE near as important as the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 21 Sep 2013 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        They're all important, and none should be trivialized.
        
        And if we didn't have access to arms, it's safe to say our rights would be far more erroded than they currently are. You mention various European nations, yet all of them have greater restrictions on personal freedoms than the US, especially that Orwellian shithole known as the United Kingdom.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 6:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Just so you know, I'm not saying "take away the guns", I'm merely pointing out that the 2nd amendment isn't as important as the 1st, 4th-8th amendments are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Larry, 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        The 2nd amendment is the one that protects all of the others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Harley, 20 Sep 2013 @ 5:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: staged
      Anonymous Coward, there presently is NO firearms registration in the United States. This is what the Leftists are promoting for our future by way of the Obama administration and the Leftist Democrat Senate. There IS an FBI background check for the purchaser of a firearm from a Federally licensed firearms dealer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - I'm_Having_None_Of_It, 20 Sep 2013 @ 5:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Wait... you want to make it easier for criminals to get hold of guns?
        
        Or use stolen guns to commit crimes?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2013 @ 2:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Strawman.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re: staged
  Yes, he obviously knew that he was violating an unconstitutional and illegal rule, which means it's his fault and not the people who instituted that unconstitutional and illegal rule.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DOlz (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:25pm
    
    Re: Re: staged
    Please tell me you're trolling and don't believe what you wrote. Seriously, "not (the fault of) the people who instituted that unconstitutional and illegal rule"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: staged
      I am not the original AC that wrote it but keep in mind... your government officials believe exactly this. Obama, Holder, & vast majority of law enforcement believes exactly this.
      
      Whether or not the original AC believes it or not... it is important to understand that more than enough of the 'relevant' people do believe exactly this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - GamerEdie, 20 Sep 2013 @ 4:34pm
    
    Re: Re: staged
    Yah. I mean, that meddlesome Rosa Parks was just another example of uppity troublemakers intentionally breaking the law for attention. Seriously, what's wrong with these people!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re: staged
  All he would have needed to do was register and the would have let him do what ever.
  
  Says someone, who like me, is exercising their right to speak anonymously, and without prior permission. Oh the irony!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re: staged
  "All he would have needed to do was register and the would have let him do what ever."
  
  I'm sorry. Did you just condone what happened here? All he had to do was register? I'm sorry, that's not how the inalienable right of free speech works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re: staged
    Obviously he wasn't in an alien costume thus his "inalienable" rights didn't apply...
    
    bada bing, bada boom....
    
    If we can't laugh at ourselves we may as well just surrender to the Nazi's now... yes I goodwin'd it for good measure
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Harley, 20 Sep 2013 @ 5:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: staged
      Anonymous Coward, this is NOT funny. Our Constitutional rights are being attacked, violated, and walked upon by people that wish this country did not exist - and you want to laugh about it. Well comedian, laugh about this: In the previous century, after their firearms were confiscated via gun control laws, 60 million people were rounded up and exterminated by THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS. Are you laughing NOW?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - I'm_Having_None_Of_It, 20 Sep 2013 @ 5:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        Right... so it had nothing to do with antisemitism or racial purity policies?
        
        In Great Britain, you have to have a license to own a gun. We have very little gun crime, despite the frantic assertions I hear from right wingers from across the pond who only read the Murdoch and libertarian press.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." - William J Brennan Jr.
        
        You may have little gun crime but you also have far more assault crimes than we do per capita and no means of self-defense should your government decide to turn the screws and take away whatever freedoms you have left.
        
        Besides, gun crime here isn't the epidemic that the MSM portrays it as being. There are an est. 15,000 deaths by fireamrs per year, down from about 28,000 a couple decades ago. What of the tens of millions of responsible gun owners who don't commit crimes? Do you advocate for disarming them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DNY (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 6:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: staged
        You do realize that "gun crime" is a specious category created for propaganda reasons. The murder victim is just as dead and his or her friends and relatives just as bereaved if the crime was committed with a knife or poison or the assailant's fists and booted feet than if it was done with a firearm. The unarmed pensioner menaced by a young tough with a knife is just as endangered and just as likely to turn over the money she is carrying as the same old woman menaced with a handgun.
        
        The murder rate in the U.K. was lower than in the U.S. generally in the early 1900's when neither had significant legal impediments to firearms ownership, and, tellingly, than it was in New York state from 1911 onward when the Sullivan Act restricted gun ownership in New York, but His Majesty's subjects were free to own guns.
        
        Likewise the murder rate in Russia is much higher than in the U.S. even though per capita private firearms ownership is about 1/10th that in the U.S. I suppose it's a great comfort to the relative of murdered Russians that it wasn't "gun crime".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re: staged
    All the admin needed to do was to acknowledge he was passing out copies of the US Constitution on Constitution Day and not attempting to sway someone with some kind of morality or religious pamphlet on (their) campus. Its not as if he was trying to start a riot over the US Constitution either, albeit maybe trying to get someone fired up over the greatest American document ever written in the world! Can I get an Amen, people? COME ON!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DNY (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: staged
      And why do you think that "attempting to sway someone with some kind of morality or religious pamphlet" should be treated differently than passing out Constitutions?
      
      Freedom of speech and freedom of the press (pamphlets and copies of the Constitution are printed) only work when the protect speech and writing that someone objects to (as you evidently object to printed advocacy of morality or religion). I think the Framers of the Constitution thought it protected the advocacy of immorality and irreligion, even though they objected to those every bit as much as the biens pensants of turn of 21st century America object to morality and religion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re: staged
  Of course it was staged. And the college helpfully did everything it could to make his point for him.
  
  More reading here:
  
  http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/19/modesto-junior-college-obligingly-beclowns-itself-to-make -a-point-about-censorship/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re: staged
  The point your apparently missing is that exercise of a Constitutional right can not be limited by a requirement of prior consent, i.e. he never needed the permission of the administration or anyone else to exercise a right which he, and every other American citizen, has (or should have) by right of birth.
  
  Did he stage the confrontation as you suggest? Perhaps. But whether he did or didn't is completely irrelevant and doesn't in any way alter the behavior of the administration or its' offensiveness.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 7:55pm
  
  Re: staged
  If true the fact that it's that easy to stage the suppression of speech makes it worse not better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DNY (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re: staged
  Oh, all he needed to do was register? Did you read the article? Maybe at your university registration lets a student exercise their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press un-molested by the campus "authorities", but evidently at Modesto, it does so only if you confine your activities to a tiny "free speech area" and to a time-window some at some future date when the limit of two free-speakers per day isn't yet used up.
  
  Private universities and colleges which limit free speech that is not disrupting classes deserve to be mocked and shamed. Public universities which do the same deserve to be mocked, shamed, *and* sued into submission to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, since their administrators and campus security personnel are agents of the state, and as such subject to the limits the Constitution places on the government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheLastCzarnian (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:26pm

This is how democracy dies: the death of a thousand cuts.
And we're already 500 in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re:
  So should someone that is not associated with the university be allowed to had out literature.
  
  I'm sure if it security stopped the Westboro Baptist from handing out literature. No one would be complaining.
  
  For for pete's sake all he needed to do was follow proper procedures.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure if it security stopped the Westboro Baptist from handing out literature. No one would be complaining.
    
    I would complain. Loudly.
    
    "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm sure if it security stopped the Westboro Baptist from handing out literature. No one would be complaining.
    
    No, no using that.
    
    Because I will counter with this...
    
    "First they came for speech I didn't like, so I said nothing. Then they came for speech that didn't affect me, so I said nothing. Now they come for my speech, but now no one can say anything."
    
    For for pete's sake all he needed to do was follow proper procedures.
    
    Middle of the day, not causing a riot, not endangering anyone's life, not saying anything cruel or mean...
    
    I'd say he did.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "For for pete's sake all he needed to do was follow proper procedures."
    
    The procedures you refer to are NOT "proper".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So should someone that is not associated with the university be allowed to had out literature.
    
    Yes.
    
    I'm sure if it security stopped the Westboro Baptist from handing out literature. No one would be complaining
    
    I absolutely would. What the literature says is irrelevant.
    
    For for pete's sake all he needed to do was follow proper procedures
    
    You mean the procedures designed to limit his ability to speak? He did the right thing here -- his whole point was to put the institutions unconstitutional policies in the spotlight.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are any of you old enough to remember when Hare Krischna followers danced and passed out literature, draped with their orange robes through American airports? That they were allowed to do that for so long was really amazing! That's a different can of worms though!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am, yes. And I know firsthand that, at least in some airports, they're still there!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aerilus, 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Pretty sure there are some rulings on hate speech not being considered under the first amendment
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Andrew F (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 5:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Incorrect. There are, however, some rulings that would suggest the contrary:
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie (neo-Nazi march in a Jewish community protected)
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul (law against cross burning unconstitutional)
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps (Westboro's picketing a funeral protected)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 20 Sep 2013 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And therein lies the slippery slope towards fascism. The state cannot legislate *hate crime* (or more aptly *thought crime*) because then it's given carte blache to codify its own version of morals and ethics into law, violating the 1A.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I am sue that Torquamada would agree with you. Burning was his solution to heretics.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 5:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So because you might disagree with what someone says, nobody should be allowed to say anything? That's explicitly one of the reasons why the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution exists. Because someone like you might make statement like the one you did and enforce it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jason Calley, 19 Sep 2013 @ 5:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    " for pete's sake all he needed to do was follow proper procedures."
    
    Yes, and that is exactly what he did, he followed procedure for exercising his right to free speech. He stood there and spoke and handed out literature without anyone's permission. That IS proper procedure under our Constitutional government. What the college and the police officer did was the violation of proper procedure. The college and the police were also not "just doing their job." Part of their job includes obeying the law, and the law (in the Constitution) says that the student had every right to freely speak WITHOUT requiring anyone's permission.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sunhawk (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 7:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, the WBC would complain joyously through a lawsuit.
    
    Which they are quite likely to win (free money!).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Applegate, 20 Sep 2013 @ 2:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow!
    
    How short sighted and ignorant.
    
    Might I suggest a class or two in history?
    
    "So should someone that is not associated with the university be allowed to had out literature. "
    Yes!
    
    "I'm sure if it security stopped the Westboro Baptist from handing out literature. No one would be complaining."
    Then you would be wrong! I despise the Westboro Baptist Church, but if you take away their rights today, you can be sure someone will be taking your rights away tomorrow.
    
    "For for pete's sake all he needed to do was follow proper procedures."
    Yeah, I think that has been said somewhere before as well. Just register, that is all we ask... Well wear this yellow star... ... ...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Nemesh, 19 Sep 2013 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re:
  500? 5,000,000 maybe! Between the erosion of Constitutional Rights, pick an Amendment, it's been eroded...the Government wants to decide who gets to be a "journalist", eroding 1st Amendment rights, limiting importation of those scary black guns, eroding our 2nd, they pretty much tossed the 4th Amendment entirely, because, you know, TERRORISM! The NSA is well on the way to just redacting the whole 4th wholesale as well! Then you have courts ruling that the 5th Amendment only works if you actually ask for it by name...so you better have your copy of the Bill of Rights handy if you ever get arrested! And heaven help those ignorant of the 5th or forget to ask! I could go on, but I get more enraged with each sentence here.
  
  No, our very core, the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been under attack for DECADES, and we just let it happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:29pm

Colleges, showing you how the real world really works, kind of like having secret interpretations of the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonoymus, 19 Sep 2013 @ 12:48pm

Contact Administration
You can email the administartion through the website at http://people.mjc.edu/find.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Davey, 19 Sep 2013 @ 6:05pm
  
  Re: Contact Administration
  Why would you even bother contacting this gang of aholes? The ones that need to be contacted are those who can investigate, prosecute, and fire them. They abused their authority in violation of the Constitution. It's that simple. They have no right to rule a public-supported educational institution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
EroticReader, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:07pm

my reactions to this article
The only way to get the eggheads up top to listen to us is to sue them for violating a constitutional right (not just any constitutional right, but the FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT one.There was a good reason why it was made the very first constitutional right.) I'm pretty sure that the university could be held liable for such a policy and would have to compensate the students for their censored speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:14pm

I laugh because I don't want to cry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:20pm

Just another day in dystopia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:21pm

I just notified the local Tea Party group here - the Modesto Bee (local paper) had nothing about this, of course. Methinks we might need to have a rally at the campus where we all pass out copies of the Constitution - to any administrators we run across.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re:
  They should have a succession of people stand in different areas of the campus one at a time to pass out copies of the constitution. When one person gets told to leave the next person can start in another area of the campus and claim no knowledge of the others if confronted on this. There's only so much security on campus and they can't be everywhere at once.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiley Q, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:32pm

I'm surprised the documents weren't redacted and classified by a secret court interpretation of a secret law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re:
  Which documents? The Constitution itself?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Travis, 19 Sep 2013 @ 5:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It does seem to be the MO of the Government.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:48pm

Up next...
get on the trains.......

Ah the wonders of our sellout politicians both repubilcats and democons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wec, 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:50pm

Do you think there now may be secret amendments to the Constitution nullifing all previous amendments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 1:54pm

Strangely enough
The college I'm currently attending as part of my education for my future econ degree actually had a literal box for its free speech zone at one point.

The zone's old location is a large courtyard that was sandwiched between the ground level of cafeteria/student union building and the current location of the social science division's office. Today there's a rather nice looking fountain in front this courtyard. There are several concrete barriers dividing the area in half, not to mention the outdoor hallways on the second floor that look down on the courtyard below.

I've actually stopped in that area a few times before heading up to the room for my stat course and taken a quick look around. There's sort of an intimidating "obey the rules or else!" vibe lingering in the atmosphere.

It should be noted that this courtyard was specifically set up as the college's Free speech/protest zone during the 1960s during the protests over the Vietnam war, and now it's simply an outdoor area for people who want to eat outside the cafeteria (they've got some nice concrete picnic tables and benches now).

Based on what I've witnessed over past few years, if my college still has a designated free speech area, it's currently located in front of the fountain which sits in front of the old courtyard. This means that a group exercising the right to free speech, that the area the college wants them to do it is located in the center of the campus, so it's pretty much guaranteed that if you're trying to get from one side of the college to the other, you'll at least see the folks who are exercising their First Amendment rights, if nothing else. Although the only groups I've seen in the area in front of the fountain that were handing out pamphlets of any kind were a bunch of student from the college's local Democrat group, and some nice folks (probably) from the Mormon/LDS Temple across the street from campus.

But I digress.

Looking at the map of MJC's campus, it looks like the "Free Speech area" was placed in the middle of campus, but situated so that it's effectively out of the way and students passing through the middle of campus to get to classes won't pay any attention to folks exercising their free speech. Maybe it's some kind of "seen but not heard" type deal by the college.

Should be interesting to see where this goes.

As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:20pm

what a shame the USG isn't as fast or as keen on upholding the Constitution and the rights of the people as it is on helping all the so-called security agencies taking them away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Jonz, 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:26pm

I guess it's not the 60's anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mr. Jonz, 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re: I guess it's not the 60's anymore
  We would have burned that shithole down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
loaderboy (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 3:51pm

Nip it in the bud.
The school is obviously trying to avoid another Kent State.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: Nip it in the bud.
  Because nothing provokes a violent reaction by the national guard as quickly as handing out copies of the Constitution?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 4:15pm

Ridiculous. It may be a "time/place/manner" restriction but it's not a reasonable one. The college is going to lose this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 8:01pm
  
  Re:
  It's like cargo cult legalese. "Well we've seen people use the phrase 'time/place/manner' to restrict speech so as long as we say 'time/place/manner' before restricting speech anything goes!."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowards Anonymous, 19 Sep 2013 @ 4:36pm

Didn't realize that Modesto Junior College was a Constitution Free Zone (except for one tiny cement area, part time).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew D. Todd, 19 Sep 2013 @ 4:37pm

The Boundaries of Tolerance of Actively Unpopular Free Speech.
When I was at the University of Cincinnati (1977-1986), there was a man named Max Lynch, otherwise known as Brother Max, who went preaching on college campuses across the Midwest. The website cited below is written by a sympathizer (Brother Jed), of course, but it will be correct about things like dates and places. What happened during a Brother Max appearance is more disputable, being subject to the eye of the beholder. I would say that Brother Max was undoubtedly crazy. At any rate, during his appearances at Cincinnati, he took up his stand on a wide pedestrian bridge leading from the student union towards the university president's office, and began telling the students, in an oddly genial manner, that they were all fornicators, and that God was going to blast them to hell with his "Super Cosmic Ray Gun." The students naturally stayed and howled back at him, but it didn't occur to anyone to toss Brother Max over the side of the bridge (*). It was not quite a riot, but in an odd limbo. The campus police observed, but refrained from action, while of course being instantly available if the argument should turn physical. On the fringes of the crowd, I recall the Hillel House pantomime-camel walking by, looking like an outsize moth-eaten children's toy. I vaguely remember Brother Jed-- he was an acolyte, more or less subsumed in Brother Max's personality. Brother Max had a female sidekick on some visits. I don't remember her name, but she wore a long dress and a sun-hat. She didn't have the same magnetism as Brother Max. She sounded obviously lower class, and what came across was her personal resentment of the female students. All in all, it was a pretty enlivening performance.

The University of Cincinnati has recently got caught up in its own "free speech zone" controversy. If Cincinnati could take Brother Max in its stride, it can surely manage something better than a "free speech zone." How are the mighty fallen!

(*) About twenty feet down, onto a concrete driveway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.brojed.org/maxlynch.php

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/terre-haute-in/TN76H0FETRON NS2FP

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/12/dont-cage-my-speech-univ-of-cincinnati-s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FM Hilton, 19 Sep 2013 @ 6:47pm

Free what? Popcorn?
Don't you know?

The US Constitution is old, and not any good any more.

Besides, who cares what you want to say? We'll let you have your say when we think you're fit to say it, and not any sooner.

Now go back to your seat and take more notes on Fascism.

Exam tomorrow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
william (profile), 19 Sep 2013 @ 7:09pm

Takedown notice using _______________(copyright/wire tapping law/secrect recording law...etc) in 3...2...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2013 @ 8:52pm

So the obvious fix here is to just tell the university "Sure, you can limit free speach.... but you can't have any money from the government if you do so."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abe Vigoda, 20 Sep 2013 @ 1:51am

Free Speech Zones at College
The writer of the article had better learn what the tight to free speech is. It is the freedom we have from the federal government not allowing us to declare our opinion anywhere. Any private institution has no obligation whatsoever to provide free speech. Even if we believe that, because of the subject, free speech should be allowed, it is not. If it were, a student would likewise have the right to dispense obscene or hateful material under the same guise. Sorry, but I suggest you reread the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 4:59am
  
  Re: Free Speech Zones at College
  Can't tell if you are serious or not (guessing serious) but you might want to be the one brushing up on law here.
  
  There are already laws in place for disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. You may want to read the comments here again and the comments on the post at Popehat for more about this particular subject and how this applies. Theose comments better tackle this point specifcally.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew D. Todd, 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:03am
  
  Re: Free Speech Zones at College
  Well, here's the keyword: "The college is part of the Yosemite Community College District within the California Community Colleges System". We are talking about a portion of the state government of California. We are not talking about Harvard, and still less about Hillsdale College in Michigan, which really is sticky about taking government money.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modesto_Junior_College
  
  In addition, we are talking about a _college_, which is not supposed to treat students as children, and therefore does not have the kinds of prerogatives of exclusion that, say, a middle school might have. As a general principle, a community college campus is open to the public. A stranger is welcome to go to any of the academic departments and ask to talk to someone about something, and, within reason, he can get a free scientific consultation. Modesto Junior College is not proposing to go into lock-down, issuing passes over the internet, which would be required to come on campus, via a check-point. It is merely proposing to ration political free-speech, to cease to provide an Agora. Like a shopping center, the college has apparently decided that unauthorized political speech is bad. Look at the "campus clubs" list. See in particular the entry for the College Republicans. Also, see the "film and lecture" list.... and the performing arts advertisement.
  
  http://www.mjc.edu/current/activities/clubs.html
  http://www.mjc.edu/community/res ources/cep/filmlecture/index.html
  http://arts.events.mjc.edu/
  
  You can do almost anything at Modesto Junior College-- provided that you have an official adviser, a professor willing to sponsor and supervise you. The man who sponsors the College Republicans teaches electronics.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shon Gale (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 6:30am

Good Lawsuit. That's gonna cost them. Take their Money honey, they understand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shon Gale (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 6:32am

I no longer live in my home state. After Cantor got elected I left. California has turned into an expensive armpit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 6:48am

This Is All Backwards
The "little cement area" should be the NO free speech zone, and we should be arguing about whether that much restriction was constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 8:50am

New World Order
Is it now no wonder that this is really showing its teeth? The US Constitution has, in fact, been a severe encumberbrance of an obstacle for the proliferation of a new world order that has been running higher education among a lot of things for their single mindset. This is absolutely sickening. This student should write this off to education on the highest level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Richard (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 9:29am

Higher Learning
This is an example of a place of higher learning? Have none of the "professors" read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights? This sounds like what we would expect in mother Russia, not in the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W.D., 20 Sep 2013 @ 9:36am

Constitution Handout
I Support the End to all Funding of this Institution of so called Higher Learning!!!

Go pedal your propaganda in some other country.

JD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Richard (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 9:47am

Constitutional Rights
Our forefathers gave us the Constitution and Amendments and we have seen them being eroded by swarmey politicians for their own self serving interests. The second amendment was to protect the people from its own too strong federal government. How insightful of them to realize how perpetual politicians would attempt to congregate power to be used against the citizenry. Professional political parties are the bane of representative government. They are more interested in the power of the party than the power of the people the are elected to represent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 20 Sep 2013 @ 11:18am

It's not just California.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:26pm

But the RIAA and MPAA can teach Copyright in schools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2013 @ 7:29pm

But allowing copies of the Constitution is stealing... It's wrong! And what if they were terrorists giving bombs to students? We saved lives!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crusty the Ex-Clown, 21 Sep 2013 @ 10:50am

MJC is......
....just an overgrown high school, like a lot of community colleges across America. I'd expect most of their administration has about the same level of professionalism as a lunch lady.( I apologize should this offend any lunch ladies.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Retired Community College Teacher, 21 Sep 2013 @ 5:39pm

Modesto JC Anti-Constitutional Behavior
The "Perp" should have referenced the Officer's Oath of Office wherein he has sworn to uphold the Constitution. And then he should have shown the Constitution to the officer and asked why he was being harassed, by an officer "just doing his duty." Had he not enforced the egregious school rule, he would have been subject to disciplinary action by the administration. As for the administrator--she's typical of the ignoramuses who make such policies.

We need more "confrontations" like this to shine light on the cockroaches who under the guise of preventing "bullying" and other acts, have turned colleges into iron curtain age protectorates allowing speech to those who have the "permission" of the authorities!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon Y. Mous, 22 Sep 2013 @ 2:17pm

Whole Country is a Free Speech Zone
The whole fucking country is a free speech zone.

It should be fairly easy to recognize who the domestic enemies of the Constitution are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amburn Hague, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:59pm

Free speech
Please tell Modesto JC: As a taxpayer I don't like to fund fascist institutions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 3:01pm

Turn it around
Have every student protest by going everywhere on campus, except that one tiny area, with gags covering their mouths. The college can't restrict them to the 'Free Speech Area' while doing this because it doesn't require speech of any kind!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frederic Christie, 23 Oct 2015 @ 7:52am

Just... Just Learn Some Law
"Free speech zones" are an outcome of repeatedly upheld standards about time, place and manner that the Supreme Court has declared over and over again. You can't distribute copies of the Constitution in a classroom or a private residence either, nor can you yell at a teacher during a class. Why is it fair that these students break the rules for legitimate protest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]