. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Tuesday, April 26, 2005


Does anyone even know what the First amendment says?

Letters whining about how students' first ammendment rights were violated when they were protesting military recruiters on campus. Amber Wise:

The disturbing components I'd like to address are: the excessive police force, barricades, backpack searching, ID scanning and videotaping of the crowd that occurred before, during and after the rally.

This does NOT make me feel welcome to express my opinions. In fact, it is intimidation by the university administration meant to squelch students' voices.


Eh... it's not part of free speech for everyone to make an effort to make you feel welcome to express your opinions. Just because you don't have the balls to state your opinion in front of a camera (which I would think is the point, anyway), that's not a violation of your free speech rights.

I have many friends who think similarly but who would never participate in such an event specifically because of the surveillance, intimidation and utter absurdity that occurred.

Yeah, God forbid you say things when people are paying attention.

Martin Mulvihill:

I suppose you could consider me naive to think that I would be allowed to exercise my right to freedom of speech on a college campus without being intimidated by a police presence and video surveillance.

Which right is that? I can't recall any "without such and such" phrases being tagged onto free speech rights.

By increasing police presence and videotaping protesters at Thursday's career fair the administration is sending the message that these types of events will not be tolerated on campus.

Uh, well, actually it is sending the message that "Sure, these events will be tolerated, but don't break the law, because that won't be tolerated." And if you feel stifled because the government won't tolerate you breaking the law... uh...

Finally, Carol Harris is bitching about being fined for honking her horn for no traffic reason.

An Oakland woman who received a ticket for honking her horn has filed a complaint against Berkeley police, arguing that her First Amendment rights were violated.

Oooh, First Amendment. So, here's my quick intro to the First Amendment's free speech rights:

The point of the amendment is to ensure that people will not be restricted from expressing certain unpopular opinions. It doesn't say that any form of expression is legal. So, while you can opine that "murder is supercool!" you can't actually go about murdering people in conjunction and claiming free speech rights.

Similarly, even if you support protesters, or oppose protesters, or like candy, blowing your horn at night without a traffic reason is still illegal. Having an opinion attached to illegal behavior doesn't suddenly make that behavior legal.

"I had time to observe what they were doing," Harris said in her statement. "And since I am a contract worker and am in that same position ... I could empathize with their cause."

If only she could emphasize with the cause of people trying to just get some fucking sleep.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/26/2005 01:46:00 PM #
Comments (0)
. . .
Comments: Post a Comment


. . .