What I really want to know is: what did you think about the dissent?
 

Well, there are some very large differences between the CUNY-SI situation and similar scenarios that could arise in Berkeley. This case focuses most intently on free speech rights, as opposed to the question of who is and isn't a state actor. Additionally, the Daily Californian is not sponsored by the ASUC or the university. However, a few years ago, Satellite (an ASUC-sponsored PUB) lost its funding for publicly endorsing a slate, and only recently had its sponsorship re-established. The major difference here is that in the CUNY case, the actor was an administrator, as opposed to the student union acting internally against its own publication.

The "state actor" section of the decision does re-affirm my position, which is that simply because a privately formed institution, such as a union, is formed under constricting circumstances and state regulation (such as the UC Code of Conduct) does not mean that the institution is a state agency. This is a huge blow to the "Felarca"s of the world as well as any "opportunists" who would use this claim to further their own personal interests and corrupt what little integrity the ASUC still has.

In response to Boalt3L... the dissent, imho, smells of the same tantrum-throwing that Judge Jacobs condemns in his arguments. This case might seem petty with its miniscule financial damages and minimal court remedy, but the decision truly could have long-lasting and far-reaching implications regarding the treatment of student unions (and other unionized groups), and it also affirms important student free speech rights, which could be important as well, especially on the heels of the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" decision. If anything, the judge's anger should be reserved for the school administrators, who felt it important to meddle in a student body election, rather than individuals who thought it important to protect their rights.