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

Nap Time!!!

Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Existence reported, denied

Yes, probably unconstitutional. (Here's Volokh on the topic) But whenever animal rights activists try to defend their actions, it's a laugh.
Other UC campuses have seen similar incidents. In one, a UC Santa Cruz researcher's husband was injured after fighting off six masked protesters. A UCLA researcher stopped doing research on primates due to the activists.

However, [Christine Garcia] said the demonstrators are not violent against the faculty.

"The animal rights movement has not harmed any living being," she said. "The only thing that the animal rights activists have been involved in is speech, and then there is a fringe group that is involved in property damage."
Well, except for that guy. I love how the "only thing" they do is speech, and then they also do something else.

Someone find out where she lives and chalk "terrorist" on her sidewalk or something. It seems like a fun way to kill some time.
It is really sad, especially since the forefathers of the UC system, UC Berkeley, was founded on and has such a rich tradition and history of free speech.
Was it really? When Congress passed the Land Grant Act because they needed people who were better at growing things, building stuff, and killing people, were they really thinking about free speech first?

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 4/15/2008 12:19:00 AM #
Comments (0)
. . .
Comments: Post a Comment

. . .