Re:Supreme Court Removes Barrier to Protecting First Amendment
by salawat on Friday March 12, 2021 @10:35PM
(#26443683)
Wooooah...
That's some great precedent there for 2nd Amendment folks if SCOTUS'll ever grant certiorari for a case. Tack on some nominal damage, and you leave one less out for the authorities to wiggle out of having precedent set.
Re:Supreme Court Removes Barrier to Protecting First Amendment
by eschaton on Friday March 12, 2021 @11:00PM
(#26443832)
This ruling isn’t actually a ruling on a speech issue. Rather it’s a ruling on whether changing a policy is sufficient to moot a claim of harm under that policy.
The majority made the common-sense ruling that simply changing a policy does not moot a claim of harm that occurred while the policy in force, which has long been the go-to argument for institutions enacting bad policy.
What this ruling means is that the original suit can proceed. It says nothing about the merits of the original suit, just that the claimants actually do meet the minimum bar of standing after all.
Re:Supreme Court Removes Barrier to Protecting First Amendment
by salawat on Friday March 12, 2021 @10:43PM
(#26443726)
I think that's a bit unfair. There's nothing wrong with a bit of missionnary work and spreading the Word, regardlesd of faith as long as it stays just that. Further, it's a bit disingenuous to accuse or rhetorically couple someone to outright hate speech without proof.
I mean, what? We should censor speech because they may say something we don't like? That's madness, one, and two, antithetical to the mission of the institution as a public University. There should be penalties for incompetent Administrators who overstep or abuse their authority by unilaterally attemptimg to abolish a fundamental civil right.
It seems like, yes, his first amendment right were violated. While I may not like religion, he certainly should be allowed to hand out pamphlets as long as he's not being agressive about it.
Re:Supreme Court Removes Barrier to Protecting First Amendment
by haneefmubarak on Saturday March 13, 2021 @12:28PM
(#26448104)
Often when someone wants to make a point on what they feel are their principles, they seek costs + $1 in symbolic damages, as the intended purpose is to set a precedent and not to actually collect punitive damages.
That's some great precedent there for 2nd Amendment folks if SCOTUS'll ever grant certiorari for a case. Tack on some nominal damage, and you leave one less out for the authorities to wiggle out of having precedent set.
The majority made the common-sense ruling that simply changing a policy does not moot a claim of harm that occurred while the policy in force, which has long been the go-to argument for institutions enacting bad policy.
What this ruling means is that the original suit can proceed. It says nothing about the merits of the original suit, just that the claimants actually do meet the minimum bar of standing after all.
A lot of 'religious' speech, can be straight up hate speech. Something tells me they weren't preaching not to eat meat on fridays?
I mean, what? We should censor speech because they may say something we don't like? That's madness, one, and two, antithetical to the mission of the institution as a public University. There should be penalties for incompetent Administrators who overstep or abuse their authority by unilaterally attemptimg to abolish a fundamental civil right.
When an article neglects to mention what exactly the student was saying, it's a very good indication that it wasn't a kind and gentle message.
It seems like, yes, his first amendment right were violated. While I may not like religion, he certainly should be allowed to hand out pamphlets as long as he's not being agressive about it.
They got to abuse his constitutional rights and they pay his attorneys fees + $1 as recompense?