The Volokh Conspiracy

Liberal tolerance at it’s finest.

"Since it's a right, you don't have the right to challenge it.... Do not put this [display] in front of all of us ... it is not your right."

That's right, you little simpleton. A better icon of the Angry Left would be hard to conjure up.

ugggggggghh.

I'd just like to say, as a strong progressive who's also pro-choice, pro-separation of church and state, etc: this guy is an idiot. And I would hope that the intelligent readers of this blog wouldn't lump him in with any particular political group, except morons.

People "don't have the right [to put that display in front of him]"? Gag me with a spoon.

jake:

I'd just like to say, as a strong progressive who's also pro-choice, pro-separation of church and state, etc: this guy is an idiot. And I would hope that the intelligent readers of this blog wouldn't lump him in with any particular political group, except morons.

Agreed. And as someone who is definitely not a strong progressive, let me add that intolerance of differing viewpoints is not a condition unique to the left or right. It's a condition unique to bigots and the closed-minded.

There's something that my mother always used to tell me that this student could stand to learn: you can disagree without being disagreeable. If you disagree with the sentiment of the display, then create your own or peacefully inform those who view it why you believe that it's wrong. But then, it is always easier to use violence than reason to get one's way.

AntonK "A better caricature of the Angry Left would be hard to conjure up."

Fixed that for you.

I'd say I was amazed that someone this dumb managed to get elected student senator if I didn't know how little students care about that sort of thing.

J.F. Thomas: What is the stricter sense of vandalism?

What is the stricter sense of vandalism?

If they actually broke, rather than just pulled up, the crosses. Or even if they removed the crosses at night when nobody was around to confront them about it.

I see strong disagreement. He was a very upset and emotional, granted, and the statement about not having a right to challenge it was over the top. But he was not being violent. He confronted the pro-lifers publicly and openly (they didn't do this in the dead of night) and freely gave his name and his student ID number.

If you watch the video again he clearly gets angry with the students who put the crosses into the ground particularly when they try to defend what they are doing. He says at that point they have no right to challenge the issue or him.

That guy is not going to find a lot of in Stevens Point. It is a very Catholic part of the state.

JF Thomas - I'm betting that Sasha assumed you were trolling because he assumed that the statement that the student was just using his first amendment right is a load of horse hockey. He didn't think you actually believed that.

I hereby denounce both DG's defining-down of trollery, and JF Thomas' defining-down of outright vandalism.

I imagine that the "vandal" understood himself to be engaging in counter-speech (display as speech), like shouting down the opposing viewpoint in a public forum.

Leaving aside the poor articulation of his legal position, can we cut the undergrad a little slack for not getting a somewhat subtle constitutional rights issue quite right?

As far as discipline, he should make restitution of the value of the property harmed. Maybe write "The only cure for bad speech is more speech" a hundred times on a blackboard, and post it to YouTube. Would EV suggest something more?

It's just some guy, who cares

insert support above.

I totally meant DG, not Sasha. Got posts confused.

And the problem is? Sorry I don't see it. Both groups are expressing their First Amendment rights. It may be messy, but there it is.

The guy in the video is trying to suppress First Amendment rights, not exercise his own. That is a big difference.

The university should have anticipated exactly this when they approved the display and could hardly grant free speech rights to one group and yet deny it to another.

What group did the university deny free speech rights to?

Roundhead, be careful with those standards. Columbia Law needs that tuition money.

J.F. Thomas,

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard you say.

organizing speeches vs. deliberately making noise that keeps the speech from being heard

So are you claiming that arguing with or even shouting at a speaker is not protected speech?

And of course, my point is that he did not damage the crosses or throw them out, the group (and there were more than one) merely pulled them out of the ground. They were willing and able to confront and debate the pro-lifers about what they were doing and why. At that point, I think their actions fall into the realm of protected speech. As I indicated it would be an entirely different matter if they had done it late at night surreptitiously.

But if the pro-life speakers properly reserved the space, then no matter how "expressive" the Senator's removal of the display might be, it's vandalism, and properly prohibited.

Are you saying that since the University had a content neutral policy, the Senator's only mistake was not given explicit University permission to pull all the crosses up. Such permission must theoretically have been given since it would have been content neutral protected speech. Then of course the pro-lifers would have to go back and get permission to replant the crosses.

Roundhead

There is of course no subtlety in tearing down crosses put up for protest purposes... anyone who believes that vandalism is "counter-speech" scarcely deserves to sit in a student Student - scarcely deserves admission to a university

In my state, if the crosses themselves weren't damaged I don't think you'd get to "criminal mischief". It isn't likely disorderly conduct, as that relies on an intent to annoy or harass, which wouldn't seem to apply here any more than when a speaker shouts down another speaker.

Are you getting worked up because they're crosses instead of flowerpots?

Two quick points:

1) Vandalism can be speech. It may not be protected speech, but it is a form of expression. This shouldn't be a debate over whether this should be classified as speech or vandalism, in my view it's both.

2) This isn't a First Amendment issue, as far as I can tell. Unless his position as student government senator makes him a government actor for the purposes of demonstration, this is an issue of freedom of speech as a philosophical issue, and university policy.

J. F. Thomas is a troll; please stop indulging him.

This guy King is not only an idiot, he might also be a little crazy. He appears completely unhinged in the video.

Second to Meh's 3:11PM. JFT has a long history of claiming to be, at various times, a lawyer, an engineer, and knowledgeable about the military. Other posters usually spend a good portion of the thread dispelling the factual validity of whatever he says, with the usual result being that the thread turns down a rat hole. Please ignore him, and move along.

What do you suppose happens to someone who graduates from college, applies for a job and the first thing the employer gets when they run your name through google is a video of them yelling and desecrating a cross? Or applies for law school and the bar and someone finds out and sends this to the admissions committee?

I’m not saying it would necessarily prevent him from getting a job or becoming an attorney but did he really stop to think that he might have to spend the next few years of his life having to explain this? You hear about people who lose jobs because they put pictures of themselves drinking on myspace or facebook but this has to look just as bad (if not worse) to a lot of people he may want a job from some point in the future.

What do you suppose happens to someone who graduates from college, applies for a job and the first thing the employer gets when they run your name through google is a video of them yelling and desecrating a cross?

If he has made through the interview I doubt the employer would care and would probably agree with him.

Time, place, and manner restrictions are extremely common and uncontroversial.

And since this time, place and manner is appropriate for this display, this issue is moot.

Third, even saying that permits were not required, the right to speak has always been limited. It does not include the right to prevent others from speaking.

By the same token, free speech does not mean that extremely provocative speech has to be tolerated in silence.

College student off meds does something dumb. Film at 11 Youtube.

Somehow I find it difficult to get too worked up about it.


There was some incident where a bunch of frat boys were being rude in front of a women's dorm a couple of weeks ago, to the point where it may have been
harassment. (I haven't followed the story.) I look forward to the comments declaring that the actions of those idiots clearly reflect on all frat boys.

Am I misremembering or did Mari Matsuda (in a law review article about 20 years ago) make a similar argument for limiting free speech as to racist epithets?

Gee, haven't you ever heard of time place and manner restrictions.

Sure. But that's not what you were proposing at all. Or have you already forgotten what you wrote:

If I were running University policy my content-neutral policy would prohibit all such displays other than ones that were class credit.

Emphasis added, and here's a tip: snark doesn't work very well when your own post contradicts the attempted joke.

Railroad Gin.
You think he'd learn anything different in a college basic civics course?
Colleges have more restrictions on free speech than anyplace in the country. And they all have good reasons, about as good as this clown's reasoning. And they all lean one way.
How on earth would a required course get away with teaching students that the university is wrong?

Fishbane: Word.

This is some nutjob losing the plot. And for this, liberals stand condemned? Please.

I'd like to here from J.F. Thomas what exactly makes this display especially "provocative."

EV writes:

When there are conflicting uses of government property, and the government sets up content-neutral rules providing that a speaker may reserve the property, then distinguishing the speaker from the vandal is especially easy.

This assumes that everyone is on notice that such (1) a set of rules exists and (2) applies to the particular case, which I don't think is obvious. I have no idea whether the college I attended permitted or required students to reserve public space for small displays, assuming that the displays didn't involve blocking public ways or present other public safety concerns. In any event, certainly it's imaginable that some students might put up such a display without seeking permission to do it.

The linked Wausau Daily Herald article indicates that there was no notice on the display indicating that it was put up with permission of the university, and when the university's security personnel advised the student that he could not interfere with the display, he stopped. (Some kind of notice was later put up by the group sponsoring the display.)

EV further writes:

If the policies did not allow the pro-life group to use the property this way, then the matter might be different. Thus, for instance, if I see a bunch of leaflets deliberately placed on a university sidewalk, I'm free to throw them out, precisely because the people placing the leaflets there had no license from the university to place the leaflets.

How does EV know those students didn't have a license from the university to place leaflets on the sidewalk? THIEF! VANDAL!

The serious answer is that EV knows this precisely because the rules regarding printed material are common knowledge. If we were talking about leaflets placed in an area where student publications are available on a free/take-one basis -- or if we were talking about some very dry, windless university where such sidewalks were customarily used for that purpose -- I expect EV would consider it improper to throw away a whole stack of them. I don't know that there exists a comparable set of rules about public displays that is common knowledge.

individual who believes one person's right to freedom of speech stops when it infringes on another person's right to a secular education.

Opposing baby murder is so Religious, and of course blocks a persons right to a secular education.

So JFT, any display involving a viewpoint on abortion is especially provocative?

Look at the comment before yours to the answer to that question.

If I were running University policy my content-neutral policy would prohibit all such displays other than ones that were class credit.

How can a "content neutral policy" ban something based on content? "Content neutral" means all content is the same.

Look at the comment before yours to the answer to that question.

As you were referring to my comment. Please tell me how abortion is not murder? How is a victims memorial like the one at UWSP provocative?

Conspirators who desire can further partake of the wit and wisdom of JF Thomas on the Althouse blog where he posts under the name of Freder Frederson.

The news story says the following (at EV's link):

The display, sponsored by Pointers for Life and planted on Isadore Street outside the Health Enhancement Center, is called "Cemetery of the Innocents" and features crosses and anti-abortion and religious signs, one of which reads "Seek Jesus."

I'm not taking the side of the guy who tore down the crosses, I think he's a nitwit, but is this not a religious display on public property? I'm asking EV -- can the school's administration authorize a religious display on the university's (public) property?

J. F. Thomas is a troll; please stop indulging him.

Yep.

It would sure be helpful to know when the First Amendment applies and doesn't apply.

Where did I say the 1st amendment doesn't apply? I am just stating a simple fact. Abortion is a topic that gets people very upset. Any display that takes a side in the abortion debate, and I imagine many that tried to be neutral, are going to controversial.

Look at Sea Lawyer, he wants to get into a debate about whether or not abortion is murder when I am sure he can recite all sides of the debate in his sleep (although I am sure that he is certain that his point of view is the only correct one).

J.F., it's not a perfect heuristic, but if you get called a troll all the time (and, let's face it, you do), you just might be a troll.

Or it might be that you don't like my opinion. I never get called a troll on the liberal sites I post on.

I never get called a troll on the liberal sites I post on.

I'd wager that's because it takes less restraint and civility to avoid being sucked into massive flame wars all the time when you're around birds of a feather.

Arkady: A public university indeed may authorize student groups to erect religious displays on its property. What's more, if it creates a "designated public forum" by generally allowing speakers access to its property for their own speech -- or if the property fits within the category of "traditional public forum" -- the public university must allow religious speakers the same access as it gives to other speakers. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette. (It generally could, however, require speakers to expressly mention that the display is a private group's, and not the university's.)

JF, I'm strongly pro-choice, as I believe most of the posters here probably are, and I think you're a troll. By vandalizing this display, this foolish person had given the pro-life demonstrators a chance to be victims, as well as suppressing their freedom of expression - remember that great liberal value? The answer to speech you don't like is more speech.

EH.
What people are you talking about? The posters here, or the nutcase at the U?
Or the people who oppose the crosses representing dead soldiers?

BTW, do the latter pull up those crosses? Or is "opposing" some kind of censorship?

...Once again, for the umpteenth time, Mr. Thomas perverts the thread and changes the subject to : J.F. Thomas. You'd think the punch bowl would tire of it.

Anon!

I spent the next half hour collecting all of the newsletters and depositing them in the dumpster. And I don't feel bad about it.

You should have left them up to let people know that there are White Supremacists in their neighborhood. People are more active when they don't think that "racism is dead."

Everyone thinks their town is Pleasantville until the Klan rally makes the evening news.

Well, Professor, it looks like you're not hurting for comments with this post. (Cf. the Pakistani divorce disappointment.)

I mean, you really found the elements for a perfect storm here: abortion, free speech on campus, fundamentalist Christians, leftist "counterspeech" of the shouting-down variety, and most importantly, Wisconsin.

Thanks, Eugene.

Seems to me the people who are making the thread about me are those of you who are attacking me just because you don't like my point of view.

Chris Bell

You should have left them up to let people know that there are White Supremacists in their neighborhood.

It could mean that there are White Supremacists in the neighborhood. Or, it could be one Chris Bell with a printer thinking that "people are more active when they don't think 'racism is dead.'"

It would be deliciously ironic if this angry and misguided fellow were forced to take some sort of sensitivity training as a result of his intolerant behavior towards those who are different than he is. Bah, I should stop my dreaming...

He should pay the costs of his vandalism and, assuming a clean record, be put on probation by his school. In addition to being required to take a civics class.

Sounds about right, Anderson.

Maybe a con law course. I don't think any pro-lifer says that SCOTUS made a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade-isn't that the argument of the opposition? Besides, his complete misunderstanding of what a right entails is scary.

I don't think any pro-lifer says that SCOTUS made a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade-isn't that the argument of the opposition?

That was the other funny part. "What seven justices have ordained, let no man set asunder."

Though I think the "rights never reversed" theory has been argued respectably in the field of habeas corpus, whose scope is said to ratchet only outwards.

--- Btw, I always have to look that up: given the later controversy, it's remarkable that Roe was a 7-2 decision. Weren't there only 2 Democratic appointees on the Court?

I was a college student once also, and some maturity kicks in during and after the college process. Eventually Roderick Eugene King will learn that, even if you don't agree with different points of view, you should allow them to be heard.

based on what i read, what this "senator" admitted to doing is not (criminal) vandalism - my state calls it "Malicious Mischief". iow, not a crime. that's because the code requires PHYSICAL DAMAGE. there apparently were SOME crosses physically damaged and signs torn up, but not that this guy admitted to. he supposedly only admitted to pulling up the signs. so, you can call it "vandalism" in the layman's sense, but it's not a crime. except being a total jerk.

iirc, there is some sort of law in my state that specifically criminalizes messing with real estate signs in any way, and some sort of federal law that references messing with campaign signs, even if you don't damage them. not sure about that, but that's what i hear.

clearly, regardless if what he did was criminal, it was clearly unacceptable and totally in violation of the pro-lifers right to exercise free speech.

there was a case a while ago that was much more serious, where a university professor was caught actually vandalizing a pro-life display. needless to say she was finally dealt with.

the kid should certainly not be expelled. i could see some minor punishment being justified though, imo.

i strongly disagree with the "he's a college student, so how could he be expected to know about free speech" argument, though. talk about "soft bigotry".

Some arguments have little appeal, JFT. Yours seems to fit that category at least on this thread.

Have you paused to consider why that might be?

Here is a suggestion. Whether or not King's actions were vandalism (you imply the answer should turn on whether King destroyed or damaged the crosses) his actions clearly destroyed the impact of the anti abortion folks' display. Destroying anothers' speech does not seem to be the kind of counter speech contemplated by the First Amendment, does it?

To take it one step further, you argued:

By the same token, free speech does not mean that extremely provocative speech has to be tolerated in silence.

I have no problem with those offended by the provocative speech engaging the provocative speakers in debate, or peacefully (and even provocatively) counterprotesting the display.

But I draw the line between protected free speech at destruction of the other persons' chosen communication.

Organized disruption to shout down a speaker is not speech which is "free" and need not be tolerated, whereas walking out or turning one's back, or silently raising fists with armbands should be "free" and must be tolerated.

JF Thomas, we have a reverse precedent. I remember students creating shacks on campus to serve as shantytowns in solidarity with South African blacks under apartheid.

A couple of times, kids, apparently from a frat, came and took them down and took them away. That was considered to be wrong, as I recall, at the time.

It is kind of impressive that the guy did this so openly but that doesn't make it his right or free speech

I was a college student once also, and some maturity kicks in during and after the college process. Eventually Roderick Eugene King will learn that, even if you don't agree with different points of view, you should allow them to be heard.

You hope. There appear to be a lot of examples to the contrary.

I'm not sure what people see themselves as gaining by dragging Jacobowitz into this discussion. He, like King, was the one trying to suppress the free speech of others, King by ripping up their signs, Jacobowitz by shouting them down.

When you do it by shouting at them out the window, yes.

What their sobriety or the hour has to do with whether their speech is protected, I don't know.

If the campus has content-neutral rules about noise levels at certain hours (and I'm sure it does), there are more appropriate ways to handle it than shouting out the window--just as there were more appropriate ways for Roderick King to handle the apparent vandalism of the campus green by an unidentified group.

I'm also sure the university has rules about noise levels, which means that Jacobowitz was surely trying (however ineptly and rudely) to enforce perfectly valid restrictions, which means that the womens' speech was not "free speech" in the usual sense of speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

...I've suppressed the free speech of many loudmouth, early morning, public drunks. I've suppressed their freedom, period. But I never thought to call them Water Buffalo's.

I'm also sure the university has rules about noise levels, which means that Jacobowitz was surely trying (however ineptly and rudely) to enforce perfectly valid restrictions, which means that the womens' speech was not "free speech" in the usual sense of speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

Or to put it another way, what Jacobowitz was doing was analogous to a content-neutral regulation of time, place, and manner of communications. That, Climaxx, is "[w]hat their sobriety [manner] or the hour [time] has to do with whether their speech is protected" (to which I might add place [underneath Jacobowitz's window]).

It appears Mr. Thomas has left the building.

And no one here called him a dipstick, either.

JF Thomas = Freder Frederson? That makes perfect sense. He was a schmuck over on becker-posner-blog as well.

This sort of oppressive, illiberal behavior makes my blood boil. I realize the kid is young and clearly comes from a sheltered environment where his ideas are not challenged, but he is paradigmatic, and to that end I would love him to be disciplined. He will rant and rave and feel victimized, but hopefully the experience will do him some good, and perhaps one day he will look back on his actions with embarrassment. Of course.... in all likelihood someone will suggest a lawsuit, the university will back down, and he will learn nothing.

Man, though, where was this kid when Lochner was still good law?

"But is there a better caricature of back-to-the-stone-age Right than such pro-life groups? "

you are kidding me, right. im pro-choice but i don't see any evidence these guys are stone-age at all. that's just mindless rhetoric imo. sure, some pro-lifers are stone age. so, are some pro-choicers. but these?

"Besides, if the Angry Left has a constitutional right to burn the flag, surely their rights to stomp on others' symbols of religious expression are equally protected. "

you have the right to stomp on any SYMBOL you want. as long as you OWN it. burn a flag? fine. dunk a koran in urine? go nuts. cross in a jar of urine? knock yourself out.

as other's posted, the problem is not the act of smashing a symbol, it's that it wasn't HIS symbol to smash.

and as for the double standard. i have yet to hear of one incident (maybe it's happened, but i haven't heard of it) of anybody in the US publically defacing a koran.

apparently, credible threats of violence are a much better deterrence to certain behaviors than The Law(tm).

anybody who lives in a heavy mafia neighborhood knows this. old (and young) ladies in many of these areas can walk completely unmolested at 2 am alone. not because the perps fear the police. but because they fear the mafia enforcers. near certainty of swift violence is a strong deterrent.

"I'd just like to say, as a strong progressive who's also pro-choice, pro-separation of church and state, etc: this guy is an idiot. And I would hope that the intelligent readers of this blog wouldn't lump him in with any particular political group, except morons."

Amen. I must say his defenders have not done credit to themselves.

Anderson,

Thank you. I think the school was going to expel him until he went on national TV. Your memory appears to be much better than mine, so I certainly won't argue the point.

As to abridging a drunk's free speech by yelling at them from the window, as someone suggested, i think that is the only sensible place to yell from. Most drunks have a habit of not being too rational and of being agressive. Could get your nose bloodied with a personal encounter. One may be dumb, but plum dumb is not advisable.

Thanks, Dave N -- Byron White always seems Republican to me ....

Your memory appears to be much better than mine, so I certainly won't argue the point.

Memory? Ha! If only I could use Google to figure out what my wife wanted from the store ....

This situation is similar to what happened at Dartmouth College in 1986. I remember it well, as I was a freshman there at the time. Some students protesting Dartmouth's unwillingness to divest its South African investments built a mock shantytown on the central green of the college. This was not permitted in advance by Dartmouth, but Dartmouth took no action to cause the shanties to be removed. If I recall correctly they were there for about a month. Some of the protesters were sleeping in them overnight, one night, when a group of students, some of whom were affiliated with the conservative newspaper The Dartmouth Review, knocked down the shanties with slegehammers. Nobody was injured. An exacerbating circumstance is that the knockdown took place on Martin Luther King's birthday. It's debated whether the shanty-knockers actually knew it was MLK's birthday -- not typically a day they would focus on. A campus uproar ensued, and classes were suspended for a day in order to have auditorium "forums" on the subject (many of us spent the day off partying, if I recall correctly, not in celebration of the knockdown but in celebration of the day off).

Of course Dartmouth is private not public so the same free speech laws don't apply as at UW, and anyway in neither case was there any state action, but there was still the nagging issue that it's not acceptable in civil society to exercise your own speech by denying someone else their speech. [That's the whole point, J.F. Thomas -- IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO EXERCISE YOUR OWN SPEECH BY DENYING SOMEONE ELSE THEIR SPEECH -- and if you don't get that, then I have to agree with everyone else on your character as a troll.]

At Dartmouth, the shanty knockers (ok, shanty vandals) were suspended but most eventually returned and graduated as far as I know. Had there been violence against persons, I think they would not have been invited back. I thought suspension was the appropriate punishment for the offense.

GG

GG:

Some of the protesters were sleeping in [Apartheid-divestiture protest shantys] overnight, one night, when a group of students, some of whom were affiliated with the conservative newspaper The Dartmouth Review, knocked down the shanties with slegehammers. An exacerbating circumstance is that the knockdown took place on Martin Luther King's birthday. It's debated whether the shanty-knockers actually knew it was MLK's birthday -- not typically a day they would focus on.

If ignorance of MLK day is an excuse there, the Wisconsin Mr. King gets a bit more slack for ignorance of the legal import of his actions (which in whit's and my states is a summary offense/non-crime at worst).

Orson Buggeigh:

Especially to the people who are supposedly mature, adult people who understand the difference between legitimate exercise of free speech and the heckler's veto.

I don't think that means what you think it means. The "heckler's veto" is more like a prior restraint by government officials fearing the outcome of counter-speech.

It still seems--from his comments in the video, from the fact that he stopped when college security told him the display was legitimate, from his later demand that the student organization behind the display be identified at the site of the display--that he initially thought it was an off-campus group vandalizing the campus green. That still doesn't excuse his actions--he should have contacted campus security or the appropriate dean rather than ripping them up himself--but it does make his actions more along the lines of Jacobowitz's: definitely boneheaded and worthy of some sanction but not the crime against freedom of speech some here would like to make it out to be.