Tuesday, May 15, 2007
I guess there was still a Judicial Council decision floating around about posting and public access and bulletin boards and such.
It's written by three justices. Was three ever quorum? Who knows (or cares)?
Update: Whoa, my bad. There was a dissent. Read to the ends of documents, kids.
Actually, reading the two opinions makes me wonder if they were at the same hearing. The issue was fliering in the wrong place. From the majority (saying there wasn't enough evidence of a violation):
As evidence of these alleged violations, ECC Wren submits a photograph making clear that one campaign flier for each member of the accused was posted in a classroom. However, ECC Wren enters no further evidence demonstrating that the fliers were not posted on a "public access bulletin board," in violation of §12.6.5 of the ASUC By-Laws. Whether or not the surface upon which the fliers were posted fits the definition of a §12.6.5 "public access bulletin board" is not clear.From the dissent:
First, it is not clear if the surface was a "bulletin board." The surface appears to be a clothlike board, like those often used for such posting. The posting surface is distinct from the surrounding walls and is positioned right above a chalk board, suggesting its shared display purpose.
Further, it is not clear whether the surface was "public access." No clear indication that the posting surface was for public access posting was ascertainable in the photos. Nor do the by-laws specify whether such a "public access bulletin board" identifying label is required or should be expected.
A picture of a classroom in Evans Hall was offered as evidence in this case. Within this evidence, it is apparent that the area on which the fliers were posted was not a board, but a wall. If it is a wall, then posting on it is a violation of Title IV, Article 12 Section 6.5 of the By-Laws. The minority feels that there is no reasonable way to believe that this wall, while it may "be conducive to posting" as the defense put it, is a public access bulletin board and not a wall within a classroom on which it is prohibited to post. Also in the evidence submitted is proof of a strip of cork above the chalkboard which indicates that there is a difference in where someone is allowed to post. There was an area which is obviously available for posting as it is a cork strip, yet the defendants and/or their agents chose to post on an area which could be objectionable. One of the defendants, Winnie Kuo, also stated that she knew that there was a cork strip above the chalkboard which would be an acceptable place for posting while the wall may not be. However, postings were still done in this area. This seems to provide yet another distinction between the wall and the cork strip, making postings on the wall illegal according to the By-Laws.
. . .
. . .