TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77, you have an interesting way of twisting words. For the most part, I'll just leave it at that.

But to fine-tune my point a bit more, exercising your rights (free speech, RKBA, whatever) is fine ... until someone in authority tells you to stop or risk consequences. Whether they have the power to do so is always up for debate. But in the case of an employee at a university - using current law as my guide, not utopian wish-it-were-so idealism - yes, he can be told to not repeat such speech or risk consequences. You and I both agree the consequence of criminal charges goes too far, but termination might be appropriate if he refused.

Free speech is only free from GOVERNMENT interference. You have NO RIGHT to say whatever you want on someone else's private property or when functioning within the confines of an employee-employer relationship. Certainly a taxpayer funded university greys the area a bit, but it's still an employee-employer relationship. And yes - other than government authority - any other authority can prohibit your speech just because they find it troubling or offensive. I don't necessarily like this, and I agree with you that OWNERSHIP and WEALTH should not be prerequisites for God-given rights. But in the real world - short of an infringement by the Government - this just isn't so. People who own things do have a lot of power to tell you what you can and can't do while existing within the confines of what they own (be it a business they own or property they own - or have authority from ownership to manage).

Again, I think our thoughts are passing in the night because I've taken your posts to mean the guy should be free to say (or post for all to see) whatever he wants - which I realize now may not have been your point, though I'm still not entirely sure. And you've taken my posts as defending an over-reach by the campus police in threatening criminal charges, though admittedly I've written and stand by my assertion that it is understandable (though not agreeable) why police would take a closer look if they received complaints about some professor posting "death threats" on his office door. Again, I'm not defending the police over-reaction, just saying I can understand how/why it happened.

Neither side - the professor, nor the campus police - handled this as well as they could/should have. But I just don't see this situation as the next drop down the slippery slope to thought control by our overlords. Heck, Larry Flynt had a more compelling First Amendment case.

A-R wrote:VMI77, you have an interesting way of twisting words. For the most part, I'll just leave it at that.

I don't think I've twisted any words so I'd be interested in seeing just what you're talking about. Since you've made an accusation --essentially calling me dishonest-- I'd like to see you back it up.

A-R wrote:And yes - other than government authority - any other authority can prohibit your speech just because they find it troubling or offensive.

Just to be crystal clear, when I've mentioned troubling or offensive speech, I've been speaking to the issue of criminal charges for speech --in this case, criminal charges for posters placed on an office door, neither of which are illegal. While I don't entirely agree with your view of speech limitations outside that context, that debate is far too complicated to engage in here.

A-R wrote:Again, I think our thoughts are passing in the night because I've taken your posts to mean the guy should be free to say (or post for all to see) whatever he wants - which I realize now may not have been your point, though I'm still not entirely sure. And you've taken my posts as defending an over-reach by the campus police in threatening criminal charges, though admittedly I've written and stand by my assertion that it is understandable (though not agreeable) why police would take a closer look if they received complaints about some professor posting "death threats" on his office door. Again, I'm not defending the police over-reaction, just saying I can understand how/why it happened.

First, I haven't taken your posts as defending over-reach in threatening criminal charges. Second, I didn't say, or suggest, he should be free to say or post whatever he wants. I thought my distinction between presenting the quote in the context in which it was made (a TV show) and posting the same quote without any context made that clear. Third, I agree with you that situations like this are a matter of institutional policy and the employer/employee relationship. Fourth, I'm not making a "slippery slope" argument --more specifically, what I said is that the leftists ruling universities use their authority to suppress certain kinds of speech --not in the public interest, but in the interest of serving their own political agenda. I could point out further that this is less of a free speech issue than it is part of a disturbing trend of criminalizing all kinds of conduct, from children in public schools drawing pictures, to four year old boys kissing girls, to people consuming raw milk.

Where I disagree entirely is your characterization that the poster was a threat of any kind, much less a death threat, or that, if someone complained, it warranted more than a look and a dismissal by the police. So I guess a further point of disagreement is that unlike you, I can't understand how or why he could be charged with a crime, except as an abuse of authority, because it seems pretty clear cut to me that he didn't violate any law. It can't be written off as just a mistake because it happened twice, and there is no reasonable way to construe the second poster as constituting a threat.

The school administration, under the auspices of school policy and the employer/employee relationship is a different matter. I can't speak to that matter because I don't know anything about it --the school policy, how it is enforced, or how or if it was applied in this particular case.

I could maybe see someone taking this out of context if they had NO idea that it was a quote from a show. But to put it in perspective, it isn't any worse than some quotes from Shakesphere:
Cry Havoc! And slip loose the dogs of war!
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

It wasn't about the quote. It was about office politics.