Bill Ayers Sues Univ of Wyoming (live, lawsuit, safety)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Trouthead

Well folks Bill Ayers spoke yesterday and according to the Casper paper the event was without incident.

Lastly according to the Casper paper only 10 people showed up to demonstrate. 1100 attended the speech.

1100 Wyoming citizens, practiced their right to freely assemble, and hear a man speak primarily about his theories on education. Scary stuff.

[wyolady]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

I fully agree that ones freedom of speech should not be hindered. But I also believe that my casa is my casa. If you come to my house, hold your tongue in accordance with what my house allows. And I feel that the college can do, or say, what they want to allow. Isn't that freedom of speech????

I DO NOT WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT ALPACA"S IN MY HOUSE. Isn't that my choice? But, on the other hand, I DO want you to speak freely. But it's my house. I can control what you talk about, or I can kick your ass out. In this case, we kicked his ass out.

You don't have to let anyone talk about alpaca's in your house, ElkHunter. But your house isn't a public university that is heavily funded with public money. Otherwise, the leaders of a university get to espouse their personal agenda and politcal beliefs. And if those beliefs lean left or right, I wouldn't want them doing it with MY public money.

Now if, say, WyoTech would have been the college in question, that would be different because it is a private college.

You said "we kicked his ass out". Who is the "we" you are referring to? Not Wyoming, because it is obvious not everyone in Wyoming agrees. It may be the University you are referring to. How is that "we"? I'm confused.

[Tyster]

"It is a public facility that belongs equally to all citizens regardless of their political orientation. If Dick Cheney is entitled to speak at the UoW then so is anyone who holds an opposing point of view." -- CptnRn

Nobody is ENTITLED to speak ANYWHERE. That is NOT protected. Only your right to SPEAK is protected. There is no right to a specific venue. I find it odd that you either routinely ignore this essential fact or simply don't understand it.

Further, just as UW had the right to invite him they also had the right to reverse that invitation for any reason they see fit because they are the owners of the venue. The only legal exception to this would be if a formal contract had been signed that stated that if the UW reverses his engagement they would be in breech of contract. As far as I am aware there was no formal contract and, more to the point, the ruling of the judge was not based on contractual grounds. In fact, the grounds on which this judge made his decision can best be summarized as 'vague'. In fact, I'll let the judge himself summarize his own decision: "Mr. Ayers is a citizen who wants to speak. He needn't have any more justification than that." Nice and clear, isn't it? Firmly on Constitutional grounds...

Lastly, the argument that because UW is publicly funded Ayers and anyone else therefore has, a priori, a NATURAL RIGHT to use those facilities is a fallacy. Lots of public places require written permission to speak there. MLK had to get a permit to speak on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to ndeliver the "I Have A Dream" speech. Permits and permission CAN be refused at the discretion of the issuer. In fact, the UW requires and issues written permission, called an acceptance letter, before you can even attend the institution as a student. They can also subsequently ban you from the campus at their discretion, even after you've paid money to attend classes there. In other words, the UW can ban you from the campus (invalidate your student status) even after you've entered into a financial contract with them, and even if you've already fulfilled your financial responsibilities in that contract. The idea that because it's 'public property' any citizen is therefore free to use those facilities for any reason at any time is completely false.

[wyolady]

Originally Posted by Tyster

They can also subsequently ban you from the campus at their discretion, even after you've paid money to attend classes there. In other words, the UW can ban you from the campus (invalidate your student status) even after you've entered into a financial contract with them, and even if you've already fulfilled your financial responsibilities in that contract.

"At their discretion"....for good cause. They can't randomly ban students from campus without reason or cause. Wouldn't hold up in any court unless they can provide reasonable cause.

Ever seen the signs in stores that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I learned in my graduate business law class years ago that these signs are illegal, even though they are up everywhere.

They CAN say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who isn't fully clothed, causes a disturbance, harrasses customers, those who write bad checks, etc. Otherwise, businesses could use personal bias and ban people because of race, religion, gender, age, etc.

[Tyster]

"They can't randomly ban students from campus without reason or cause." - wyolady

And the definition of "reason or cause" is up to the UW. After public and alumnus outcry over Ayers' visit they found "reason or cause". If you object to that object to their definition of "reason or cause", but in doing so you tacitly admit that there is no 1st Amendment NATURAL RIGHT to speak at UW. Now you're debating UW policy, not the meaning of the 1st Amendment.

The signs you cite on business doors are irrelevant because you're debating semantics rather than actual rights. The right of UW to rescind Ayers invitation is what is at issue. There is nothing in the US Constitution or the Wyoming State Constitution that prevents them from legally and constitutionally rescinding his invitation. Nor did the judge argue otherwise.

[wyolady]

Originally Posted by Tyster

"They can't randomly ban students from campus without reason or cause." - wyolady

And the definition of "reason or cause" is up to the UW. After public and alumnus outcry over Ayers' visit they found "reason or cause". If you object to that object to their definition of "reason or cause", but in doing so you tacitly admit that there is no 1st Amendment NATURAL RIGHT to speak at UW. Now you're debating UW policy, not the meaning of the 1st Amendment.

My response was to your comment that UW can ban students from campus......not a public speaker. On this issue, I'm not debating UW policy, I'm debating laws that protect people from discrimination.

Yes....it's a bit off-topic from the 1st Amendment rights issue. But you were the one who brought up the fact that UW can ban students from campus. I just wanted to clarify that they have to have good cause or reason.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Tyster

"It is a public facility that belongs equally to all citizens regardless of their political orientation. If Dick Cheney is entitled to speak at the UoW then so is anyone who holds an opposing point of view." -- CptnRn

Nobody is ENTITLED to speak ANYWHERE. That is NOT protected. Only your right to SPEAK is protected. There is no right to a specific venue. I find it odd that you either routinely ignore this essential fact or simply don't understand it.

Further, just as UW had the right to invite him they also had the right to reverse that invitation for any reason they see fit because they are the owners of the venue. The only legal exception to this would be if a formal contract had been signed that stated that if the UW reverses his engagement they would be in breech of contract. As far as I am aware there was no formal contract and, more to the point, the ruling of the judge was not based on contractual grounds. In fact, the grounds on which this judge made his decision can best be summarized as 'vague'. In fact, I'll let the judge himself summarize his own decision: "Mr. Ayers is a citizen who wants to speak. He needn't have any more justification than that." Nice and clear, isn't it? Firmly on Constitutional grounds...

Lastly, the argument that because UW is publicly funded Ayers and anyone else therefore has, a priori, a NATURAL RIGHT to use those facilities is a fallacy. Lots of public places require written permission to speak there. MLK had to get a permit to speak on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to ndeliver the "I Have A Dream" speech. Permits and permission CAN be refused at the discretion of the issuer. In fact, the UW requires and issues written permission, called an acceptance letter, before you can even attend the institution as a student. They can also subsequently ban you from the campus at their discretion, even after you've paid money to attend classes there. In other words, the UW can ban you from the campus (invalidate your student status) even after you've entered into a financial contract with them, and even if you've already fulfilled your financial responsibilities in that contract. The idea that because it's 'public property' any citizen is therefore free to use those facilities for any reason at any time is completely false.

Clearly the U.S. District Court Judge disagrees with you.

Judge orders UW to allow Ayers speech tomorrow

So that makes your arguement.... how do they say it .... MOOT!

If you want to argue legal technicalities, go argue with the judge!

At present, the judicial system ruled that UW did not have the right to prevent Ayers from speaking. And the UW accepted that and allowed him to speak on campus. Apparantly UW did not hold your opinions to have much value. I'm sure they had plenty of Wyoming's best lawyers advising them in this decision.

[Tyster]

Originally Posted by wyolady

My response was to your comment that UW can ban students from campus......not a public speaker. On this issue, I'm not debating UW policy, I'm debating laws that protect people from discrimination.

Yes....it's a bit off-topic from the 1st Amendment rights issue. But you were the one who brought up the fact that UW can ban students from campus. I just wanted to clarify that they have to have good cause or reason.

UW can ban ANYONE from their campus... not just students. They could even ban Ayers if they found cause to do so. But Ayers wasn't banned. He can walk around the campus all day if he likes. He wasn't banned from speaking either. He could be invited again. On this particular occasion his invitation was rescinded and UW had the legal power and right to do so. There was no violation of Ayers rights in doing so.

[Tyster]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Clearly the U.S. District Court Judge disagrees with you.

Judge orders UW to allow Ayers speech tomorrow

So that makes your arguement.... how do they say it .... MOOT!

If you want to argue legal technicalities, go argue with the judge!

At present, the judicial system ruled that UW did not have the right to prevent Ayers from speaking. And the UW accepted that and allowed him to speak on campus. Apparantly UW did not hold your opinions to have much value. I'm sure they had plenty of Wyoming's best lawyers advising them in this decision.

Both you and the judge are wrong. The judge didn't cite or articulate how Ayers rights were violated. Merely ordering UW to allow him to speak isn't an argument. I ask you: How were Ayers Constitutional rights violated?

[chewysplace]

Bill "the bomber" Ayers is a disgrace to this country. In the sixty's he thought blowing up a police station was a legit way of protesting. The truly sad part is that there are people in Wyoming that care to hear what he has to say.Thankfully we don't have to many Socialists like Miss Wanker in our State who believe the Government should control every aspect of our lives. People like her want the Government to hand them everything because they are to lazy to work for what they get. So PLEASE don't criticize her for her weight, race or religion, criticize her for her desire to destroy everything this country was built on,because that is what Bill Ayers is all about. Hopefully if no one showed up to listen to his crap he won't come back. This is a state where the people work hard to make a living and we don't want to be a nanny state like California. Send Bill and the Wanker girl back to Illinois.