Clovis Community College Loses Critical Decision over Free Speech

Clovis Community College in California lost a major ruling in its effort to quash a free speech lawsuit by students censored by the school. U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston  granted a preliminary injunction against the college, which requires a finding of a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The college ordered the removal of flyers promoting Freedom Week in November 2021, a week in which student groups oppose socialism and support conservative causes.

The lawsuit was brought by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) attorney on behalf of three students at Clovis Community College. The students are members of the school’s chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom. They allege that they had received approval to post anti-communist and anti-socialist flyers on bulletin boards inside campus buildings last November. However, Clovis President Dr. Lori Bennett allegedly ordered the flyers taken down.

The defendants in the suit are Clovis Community College President Lori Bennett, Vice President of Student Services Marco De La Garza, Dean of Student Services Gurdeep Sihota Hebert and Senior Student Services Program Specialist Patrick Stumpf.

The college insists that it reserves the right to remove flyers over “inappropriate or [offensive] language or themes.” The lack of any definition for those vague terms would weigh heavily with the court in granting the preliminary injunction.

FIRE produced emails showing that a college administrator offered to “gladly take down” the flyers after “several people” said that they were “very uncomfortable” with the flyers, including a person who allegedly threatened a “harassment claim” if the posters were not taken down.

The lawsuit includes a claim that, in December 2021, the students were denied permission by the dean of student services to post pro-life flyers on bulletin boards inside campus buildings. They were told they could instead post them on a “free speech kiosk,” which is described as “a small box covered in rotting wood planks… at the edge of a walkway students virtually never use because it does not lead to any building entrances or parking lots.”

The court details the conflicting decisions of the college administrators, including the refusal to allow the first pro-life flyer but then a later granting of the posting of a second flyer. The school never explained why the flyers were treated differently. That part of the opinion was particularly striking since the school needed to show that it was not making content-based discriminatory judgments. The failure to clearly explain the difference between the two flyers would seem a glaring failure in such a case.

The college appears to have stressed a threshold and sweeping claim that the bulletin boards are a nonpublic forum and the College has complete editorial discretion over the content of its bulletin boards.  However, the court noted that the college does allow groups to speak through its bulletin boards and thus cannot discriminate on their content in this way.

A school district “may legally preserve the property under its control for the use to which  it is dedicated,” but once it opens a governmental space to non-governmental speakers, that control does not permit viewpoint-based restrictions. …It is undisputed that the College permits students, i.e., non-governmental speakers, to post messages and flyers containing student speech on the bulletin boards in the Academic Center. …Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, because the bulletin boards constitute, at a minimum, a nonpublic forum, the College does not have limitless discretion to determine what student messages are permitted. …Thus, regardless of whether the bulletin boards are a public or nonpublic forum, the prohibition against viewpoint discrimination equally applies. Because Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Flyer Policy depend on viewpoint discrimination, the Court need not determine the precise forum of the bulletin boards.

The court then rejects the standard used to remove the flyers:

[T]he prohibition on “inappropriate or offense language or themes” does not have a core of readily identifiable, constitutionally proscribable speech. The Supreme Court has established that the government may not proscribe speech merely because it offends someone or because it contains an unpopular viewpoint. See, e.g., Papish, 410 U.S. at 670; Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cnty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 509 (1969) (stating that “mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint” is insufficient to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion). Given this irrefutable principle, other courts have found university policies with similar language have no legitimate sweep of constitutionally proscribable speech.

The record shows that there were complaints about the flyers but the court notes that the First Amendment protects speech even when it is viewed as offensive by some individuals.  That is an important element of free speech that is under increasing attack on campus. Faculty and students now routinely object that “words are violence” or that allowing opposing views would be “harmful.”

In its discussion on the vagueness of the standard, the court suggests that the college has been less than honest in its rationalization for censorship:

Defendants’ basis for enforcing the Flyer Policy against Plaintiffs exemplifies the kind of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment that the vagueness doctrine is designed to prevent. Defendants contend they disapproved of Plaintiffs’ flyers because they did not have a local student organization identifier or did not relate to a campus matter. (Doc. 13 at 4, 7.) However, the emails exchanged among the College administrators reveal that their concern about the YAF flyers developed only after receiving complaints from students that the flyers made them “uncomfortable.” (Doc. 6-2 at 2.) After having decided to remove the flyers, Defendant Bennett stated, “If you need a reason, you can let [Plaintiffs] know that Marco and I agreed they aren’t club announcements.” (Doc. 6-7 at 2.) These emails suggest Defendants formalized their justification for banning the YAF flyers after first deciding they needed to be removed. Defendants’ ad hoc decision-making highlights the unpredictable and arbitrary enforcement that the ambiguous Flyer Policy enables. … Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the “inappropriate or offense language or themes” provision of the Flyer Policy is unconstitutionally vague.

The vagueness discussion is particularly notable given the widespread use of vague “microaggression” and speech guidelines using the same or similar language. We have previously discussed microaggression policies and the free speech concerns raised by these vague standards. Courts have also ruled against provisions but universities continue to use them.

What is equally concerning is the expenditure of state funds to fight against free speech protections at this college. There never seems to be an accounting for university presidents and administrators who not only attack free speech but then engage in protracted litigation to defend censorship.

Here is the order: Flores v. Bennett

89 thoughts on “Clovis Community College Loses Critical Decision over Free Speech”

  1. It would be a great article to describe how hard the tax payer bought college fought to prevent free speech on its campus. Might change some minds in town.

    On Desantis, be careful. One would likely not support some of the spoke people for him. There must be a reason so many RINOs support him?

    1. You must live in a blue state, everyone here in the Free State of Florida support him, all races, religions and political ideology. We voted for and got a REAL leader who gets results!

  2. There should be significant criminal penalties for violating people’s constitutional rights. These left-wing fasçists need a couple of years in a federal penitentiary.

  3. The purpose of a “liberal arts” education is to expose students to unaccustomed ways of thinking and living. If a student is “frightened” by the possibility of encountering different ideas, he/she should not be a student. Adminstrators who seek to appease student demands to be left safely alone inside their cacoons of ignorance are traitors to their institutions.

    1. This is my second attempt to post a comment …. why won’t it show up. ….

      Edward, your comment makes the point perfectly … excellent comment.

  4. This Woke ideology and it’s parent DEI, is a relatively new phenomenon. I believe those claiming victimhood status when their feelings are hurt are still a small minority in this country. Is there a root cause as to why it’s so effective across the entire spectrum of government and non-government institutions? My guess is to make sense of it, all we need to do is follow the money. And for that, we should look no further than the World Economic Forum and how ESG scoring is driving policy-making.

    As an example; we all were witness to the mortgage meltdown beginning in 2007. There is no doubt that banks were highly incentivized to lend to borrowers that didn’t meet traditional lending guidelines. Well we were told reforms needed to be made. CFPB and NMLS and other regulatory actions were taken to prevent that insanity from ever happening again. But not so fast. The WEC and ESG have something to say about this. And just like that, lenders now have two additional credit scoring models to meet Fannie and Freddie lending guidelines for borrowers who once again would not normally qualify. Thank you Klaus Schwab.

    This 12 minute video explains how our next financial market collapse has already begun.

  5. This public institution must adhere to the Constitution.

    Private property rights are superior on private property.

  6. Jonathan: It is strange you would endorse the cause of certain student groups at Clovis Community College who “oppose socialism and support conservative causes” but you won’t raise one finger to protest censorship in public schools or book banning demanded by so-called “parental rights” groups. When it comes to protecting “free speech” it appears your only concern is “conservative causes”. When teachers and students protest about censoring what is discussed in classrooms and being told they can’t discuss certain books you are AWOL. So I will move on to other important news.

    Trump made a speech yesterday announcing he will run again in 2024. His speech went over like a lead balloon! Three major networks didn’t cover the speech. Even Fox News cut away after about 25 minutes. Rupert Murdock has made his position clear. The WSJ announced: “”Trump is the Republican Party’s Biggest Loser”. And what is Trump’s campaign pledge for 2024? “Make America Great and Glorious Again”. Big yawn. Perhaps Trump thinks his announcement will inoculate him from prosecution by the DOJ or state prosecutors. He is delusional if he really thinks that.

    And where is Trump to turn to get the money he needs to run? He is losing major donors–like Blackstone co-founder Stephen Swartzman. He says “it is time for the Republican Party to turn to a new generation of leaders…”. Not a good sign. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump came out on his Truth Social and complained that Swartzman’s decision was influenced by the “Jewish lobby”. There goes millions of Jewish votes. Since Trump doesn’t want to use his own money he will have to turn to his well-honed fundraising scams. Get his loyal MAGA supporters to pitch in with $40 or $50 and in exchange get that “gold plated” membership card that guarantees all sorts of perks that are never delivered.

    Personally, I hope Trump gets the nomination. I know, that sounds strange coming from a self described “liberal”. But there is method in my madness. If Trump actually is able to get the nomination, which at this point looks unlikely, it will seal the fate of the GOP. It will end up in the political wilderness for years to come. I know. If Trump is prosecuted and convicted of just some of the crimes he has committed between now and 2024 he can still run for public office. But seeing Trump campaigning from prison wearing an orange jumpsuit is definitely not good optics!

    1. The reason that Turley does not oppose the right wing “censorship” that you want him to oppose – is that it is not censorship.

      Are you demanding that School libraries carry issues of Hustler ?

      If not then you have acknowledged that a school is not a forumn for limitless free speech.
      but an institution for educating children.

      We do not teach particle physics to 2nd graders.

      It is inherent in the nature of a school that we curate for age and for importance what we teach children.
      That is a requirement of education – we do not start with material that is neither age appropriate nor relevant to the task of educating kids.

      If you have a problem with those decisions occuring in a government school – and I do. Then end public education.

    2. According to “the rules” that Democrats claim are sacred – running for president makes Trump unprosecutable.

      All of us had to listen to you left wing nuts Yap that idiocy constantly in 2019.
      If it was not true – why were you saying it ?

      Could it be a complete inability to engage in critical thinking ?

      We have heard this orange jumpsuit nonsense for 6 years.

      I can identify clear crimes for which there is sufficient evidence against Biden to prosecute.
      No one has come up with anything close regarding Trump.

      As to Trump donors – that is their business.
      Fox etc. can cover whatever they want.

      Democrats have donor problems of their own – apparently they received 40m in literally stolen money for the 2022 election.

      Your not a liberal – liberals are people who prize individual liberty. You have no right to that name.

    3. Everyone on this blog can rest assured that every time Dennis McIntyre says that books are being banned I will present a book that Dennis wants Junior High School students to read. Here Dennis is the book that you recommend. Whenever I present this information Dennis McIntyre has no response. Please tell us Dennis McIntyre if this is a book you support for our young people. We await your response informing us of who you are.

      1. Your embarrasment of DM is appreciated.

        However his argument is transparently stupid.

        There is no right for teachers – or anyone else to force ably indoctrinate others.
        Particularly school students.

        A school is not a public forum for free speech.
        Neither students nor teachers are free to say whatever they wish.

        Students are there to learn what is being taught.
        Teachers are there to teach the curricula provided.

        We do not send our children to public schools allowing teachers to indoctrinate them in whatever values they choose.

        Teachers and students do not control public education. They are directed by the state and the state by parents.

    4. Those funding public school should have a say in the curriculum taught to their children (under 18 yrs old, NOT college students [presumably adults] with different rights).

    5. Trump crimes??? Buddy the real criminal and puppet-in-command is Marxist lead Joe Biden. He and his administration, all CPP and WEF accolades, have trashed the Constitution. Biden needs the same lawfare dumped on him that Trump endured for over 5 years.

    6. Your claim of conservative censorship and book banning is nonsensical. A leftist whine, nothing else. If you make a charge then provide details. Teaching grade schoolers how to be tolerant of sexual, deviant behavior has no place in scools. Also, you can not name one crime President Trump has committed other than hurting your childish feelings.

    7. said others thousands of times over the last six years…yet funny how it never happens, eh? you’d think somewhere along the line you elitists would at least get lucky

    8. I see President Trump was found not guilty of having top-secret information. Why would he be wearing an orange jumpsuit? Remember the corrupt DOJ, telling us he had nuclear secrets in his home. Oh my, and they raided MAR-A-LAGO? Turns out the president wanted to have a few souvenirs.

    9. A school limiting what is available in its library is not “censorship” but discrimination. That word has been co-opted by 5e left but it means “making an informed decision.”
      The school is not telling authors they may not write about their love of pedophilia, only that they may not advertise their depravity in the library.
      Clovis, on the other hand, is telling its students that the speech of pedophiles is protected but not that of normal humans. This is censorship.
      Go ahead and red your filth, Dennis, but don’t force it on kids.

    10. Dennis. I didn’t read your all of your long winded comment because if you don’t know the difference between protecting impressionable children from dirty, pornographic material which should have no place in schools, and censorship of people’s freedom of speech, I’m not interested in any of your other thoughts on, well, anything.

    11. Not strange at all. Children are a protected class under our Constitution for a reason. They need to be protected from groomers and indoctrinators like you, and educated in the benefits of our Constitution and the principles on which it is founded in order to become mentally and emotionally healthy, productive citizens.

  7. This issue is just a continuation of the infantile movement now called “WOKE”. Each generation has such movements, but none as dangerous to our fidelity of the Constitution proffered by fragile and afraid minds of the Solipsist’s Left.

    The Woke movement centers its Utopian view on controlled speech and thought and that there is but one absolute, yet they do not recognize the accepted meaning of ‘S’, as examples [they, them]. Woke’s perception of infallibility has created a ‘false consciousness’ which is a leading indicator towards Leninism’.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein, what’s the meaning of ‘S’.

  8. Clearly the school is using the same justification to patrol flyers as you use to censor your blog comments section, Jon.

    1. Apparently some GWU law professors who claim to be free speech defenders are willing to post articles about cases with major First Amendment implications, without mentioning those implications, and relying on vicious smears in the New York Daily News and other media outlets for their information.😉 Then, when the implications become clear and certain statutes are declared unconstitutional, those professors simply stop posting articles on the topic.

    2. If you would read and abide by the Civility and Decorum Policy, you would not have been censored in the first place.
      Yet, by your own making then you play the victim.

  9. Clovis has a history of being an enclave of middle class sanity next to visibly insane Fresno.
    It’s no surprise people there would push back against the collective.

  10. There needs to be a change of leadership. It’s time for a mind change, put a Republican in her office.

  11. “inappropriate or [offensive] language or themes.”

    “Inappropriate theme.” WTH is that?

    In academic-speak, it’s any idea or opinion that makes the Protected Ones feel uncomfortable. After all, the purpose of higher education is not to teach a body of important ideas, or to challenges students’ premises. The purpose is to coddle the sensibilities of the Protected Ones. Then they can graduate and force their sensibilities on the rest of us.

    That is not the “life of the mind.” That is the life of the mob.

    1. Yes. The founding principles of this country by which we have lived for nearly 250 years must now be quashed because they make some feeling “uncomfortable.” That loud sucking noise is our country going down the toilet.

    2. Now, with over 25% of all courses that are taught in 4-year colleges being at a remedial level, the objective is to (besides cash in on their loans) teach them what the terrible K-12 system would not and to indoctrinate these clowns. So challenging the ideas and ideals of a bunch of meatheads has proven to be a shitshow – which is how we got ‘wokeness.’ Stupid people playing with things they can not control, their minds.

      The groupthink that should have waned in middle-school now lasts well into adulthood, like Halloween does.

  12. For Ashcroft’s Zersetzung
    Socialism – a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be “owned” or regulated by the community as a whole. Taken from “Socialism for Dummies”. Using that as a means to attack these students for exercising free speech is nonsensical. It’s more a recognition that there are things and services that the state can do better or more comprehensively than an individual but true socialism would prohibit any private ownership or ability for the private sphere to act in the educational, service or mercantilist arena or anywhere else. So a public college is not a socialist experiment but a common interest set up by the community. It’s a matter of degree. Another point is that political freedom without economic freedom is virtually worthless.
    Besides we are speaking about free speech here and not socialism. I commend the Judge here for being so clear and not administering a wrist slap but full slap across the face to Clovis Community College. Something that is needed throughout the nation.
    A thought-Don’t some of those discussions by the administrators sort of touch on conspiracy to deny basic civil rights. Sounds to me like an FBI SWAT team is called for.
    A Biden appointee also but I complement her decision here

    1. re: GEB

      Good points, what I’m really taking about is “Puritanism” – pure anything is bad. Most successful models have a mix of different systems.

      Pure-Socialism is very bad for the nation, but pure-Capitalism can be bad also. Both can produce evil results if not properly balanced.

      In my view “healthy competition” delivers the best results. Monopolies and cartels (private or government) destroys healthy competition which produces the greatest quality and service to consumers.

      Even many Republicans and Conservatives aren’t totally “Puritan” on free markets and capitalism. Many voters know an American worker can’t compete with a third world nation that pays third world wages or uses free labor (slaves, prison factories). Even most Conservatives support some rules and regulations on free markets.

      For example: many local governments actually create “healthy competition” to benefit consumers. Some localities allow both government and private trash collection, so consumers don’t get price-gouged by private trash companies. The government service doesn’t undercut the free market (by low-balling prices) but keeps the private company in check. Both taxpayers and consumers benefit from overall lower prices and better service.

      Remember the scores of movies and Seinfeld episodes ridiculing cable TV monopolies/cartels (the cable guy will be there sometime between noon and 6pm) so the consumer loses a half-a-day’s pay waiting for them? In some situations the private industry doesn’t solve problems with the free market. Some rural localities simply have too few consumers that only justify one cable/internet provider (monopoly taking away consumer choices).

      The irony is on Obamacare it was actually similar to the trash collection example above. Government didn’t monopolize the free market (socialism) but simply created “healthy competition” to private insurers that has abuses consumers. Republican Richard Nixon actually supported a more socialized healthcare model.

      Most successful models aren’t “Puritan” but a balance of many systems. That was my only point about college students not realizing they were attending a partly subsidized college – almost the exact the model as Obamacare – which they use inaccurate Puritan labels like “socialism” to disparage. Let’s have an honest debate!

      1. “what I’m really taking about is “Puritanism” – pure anything is bad.”
        The extent to which some principle or rule needs to be rigidly adhered to varies based on what is being addressed.

        Or do you think that adults having sex with 7yr olds is sometimes good ?

        “Most successful models have a mix of different systems.
        Pure-Socialism is very bad for the nation”
        Also nonense – please bother to learn the ACTUAL data – ALL socialism is bad for a nation.
        In fact all big government of any form is bad.
        We do not know what the optimal level of govenrment is – but we do know that it is below 20% of GDP.
        Likely significantly below 20%. We know that about 20% of GDP for every additional 10% of GDP government spends the rate of increase in standard of living decreases by 1%. That may not sound like much – but 2% growth is far better than 1% and 3% far batter than 2%.
        Lower rates of growth mean EXPONENTIALLY longer times to double standard of living.

        “but pure-Capitalism can be bad also.”
        I have no idea what that is. I do not use the term capitalism – that was invented by Marx and does not accurately describe anything.

        Regardless, you would be correct to claim that pure free markets does not work – probably, Nearly all of us accept that the rule of law must exist.
        That the social contract requires that government provide for national defense, criminal, civil and torts law, as well as the administration and adjudication of that law. But that is not much else that government should arguably provide – or that it provides well.
        As Robert Barro – the 4th Ranked IDEAS RESPEC economist in the world and one of the top living economists, has found – it is not true that government wastes 50cents of every dollar it takes in – the norm is closer to 75cents wasted. Nor is that limited to the US, but it is true throughout the world. Government is the least efficient means of providing any good or service that can be provided by free markets

        In the real economy over the long run the real price of almost everything has actually declined over time periods of atleast a decade.
        The only execeptions are those parts of the economy that are most controlled by govenrment – education and health.
        We have more than quintupled the cost of healthcare and education in the past 50 years. We have doubled that cost in real dollars – where the price of nearly everything else has declined – in real dollars.

        Yet, we KNOW that neither the cost of education nor the cost of healthcare need rise.

        There are plenty of areas of health that are relatively unregulated that real prices have dropped. Lasik, Plastic Surgery, even sex changes.
        Not only have the price of those dropped in the US, but you can go to brazil and get them for 1/2 the US cost – and the doctors are more skilled, or Thailand for 1/4 the cost and better skill yet.

        The average cost of a public school today is 13K/yr. The average cost of r a private school is 16K/yr. the average cost of a catholic school is 4K/year. 1/3 of private schools students receive financial aide. Private school students perform 50-100% better at each measured grade level than public students. Catholic schools – under perform private school averages by a few percent, but are still 50-100% better than public schools for 1/3 the cost.

        In parts of europe students have the option of attending private school with the state matching the cost of public school. This has improved the quality of both public and private schools.

        In the US Cybercharters cost abit over 1/2 what traditional public schools do. They are publicly funded. Cyber charter students are a mix of parents – both very poor and middle class wanting something better for their kids. special needs students, and public school discipline problems.
        In many places 50% of the cybercharter students are the kids of poor single minority mothers.

        CyberCharters overall match the performance of traditional public schools – at half the cost, and with a mix of students that is biased heavily towards the problem students and low performers.

        Put simply public schools underperform every alternative by value delivered, and in many instances by cost.

        We have th ability to educacate our kids better.

        Recent study by the St Louis Fed, found that for every $1 of Federally guaranteed Student loans issued the price of college has gone up $0.60.
        Put simply the primary effect of federal student loans has been to increase the price of college. Worse still – SOMEONE must pay those loans off, so this is just a pure waste of money

        Similar studies of medicare have found that 1/3 to 2/3 of the cost increase in medicine since 1964 is solely driven by medicare.
        So again massive government social program that has not only required all of us to pay higher taxes – but has increased private medical costs without benefit – and therefor also our insurance costs.

        Conversely the price of nearly everything else has declined. In 1983 I bought a top of the Line Amana Refridgerator wholesale for $1200.
        Today for 999 I can by a far better far more efficient fridge for $999. So the fridge is better and cheaper in nominal dollars.
        But it is dramatically cheaper in real dollars. in 1983 the MW was $2.35, so it took over 1/4 of a year of MW labor to buy that fridge. today it takes about 3 weeks labor to by the fridge.

        You can repeat this on just about everything. Computers, TV’s, cars. milk, gas.
        Alot of things are cheaper today in nominal dollars. The only things that are not cheaper today in real dollars are those govenrment is heavily involved in.

        Whatever the truth of “purity” in markets, the actual data is damning – we would all be much better off with less government.

        “In my view “healthy competition” delivers the best results. Monopolies and cartels (private or government) destroys healthy competition which produces the greatest quality and service to consumers.”
        Monopolies and cartels do not exist for long naturally.

        “Even many Republicans and Conservatives aren’t totally “Puritan” on free markets and capitalism.”
        Yup, many republicans and conservatives are almost as bad on economics as democrats.

        “Many voters know an American worker can’t compete with a third world nation that pays third world wages or uses free labor (slaves, prison factories).”
        Voters do beleive that but it is actually false – and demonstrably so.

        The first massive economic mistake you make is presuming that US workers should directly compete to make identical products.
        I would suggest learning something about “comparative advantage” in economics.
        After that try to understand the laws of supply and demand

        The textile industry has moved from England to New England, to the South to Japan, to China, and is now moving to bangeledesch and Africa.
        As it moves thousands of people lose their jobs, but billions of people have better and cheaper cloths – the WORLD benefits greatly.
        Family spending on cloths today is a fraction of what it was in 1900 and as a result we have more to spend on other things we want.
        Next those thousands of people who lost textile jobs – relatively quickly get other jobs.
        The laws of supply and demand mean that is there is a under utilized resource – such as unemployed textile labot someone will figure out how to use it productively.

        Today the Biden admin is allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the country.
        Is there anyone that thinks they are not getting work ?
        If millions of unskilled laborers exist – the free market will put them to use.

        But finally – and most importantly – standard of living rises when we produce more of what humans value with less human effort.

        The “problem” you are complaining about is NOT a problem, it is one of the means by which standard of living rises.

        “Even most Conservatives support some rules and regulations on free markets.”
        Again the fact that conservatives on the whole are better at economics that progressives, does not mean conservatives are correct.
        Outside the requirements for the rule of law – free markets are self regulating.

        “For example: many local governments actually create “healthy competition” to benefit consumers.”
        No they do not.

        “Some localities allow both government and private trash collection, so consumers don’t get price-gouged by private trash companies.”
        You beleive that works – but it never actually does. I am sure there is one, but I know of know municipality with government employer garbage men. In my state, where allowed – private halluers compete with private haulers under constract to government.
        Ultimatelyt eh government contracted haulers always claim that they can do it all cheaper – if the only permitted trash haulers are government contracotrs – and for a couple of years they do, and then typically prices rise – often rapidly.

        I pay $400/q for a government trash hauler at my apartment building, I used to pay $250 for a private hauler.
        When I was paying $250, that hauler would stop, send people to the back of the building and bring all the cans out and dump them.
        This was better for all, there never garbage cans along the street. But the City shut the private haulers down and I must pay more to a city contracted hauler who charges more – requires garbage cans to be on the street – so I have to pay someone to drag the cans out every week,
        And if they fail to do so – I get fined.
        So the results of a government hauler are poorer service and higher cost.

        You wrote about monopolies and cartels before – this is the perfect example of how monopolies are created by government.
        Also of how we end up with corruption. If the government contracts for trash haulers – and there are two major private haulers serving the same city – only one will get the contract – the other is going to be seriously negatively impacted by the switch.
        Do you honestly think that there is not massive amounts of under the table deal making ?

        Whereas if government stays out – there is no bribery or corruption.

        “The government service doesn’t undercut the free market (by low-balling prices) but keeps the private company in check. Both taxpayers and consumers benefit from overall lower prices and better service.”
        You clearly have no experience with actual govenrment provided or contracted services – because what you are describing NEVER happens in real life.

        “Remember the scores of movies and Seinfeld episodes ridiculing cable TV monopolies/cartels (the cable guy will be there sometime between noon and 6pm) so the consumer loses a half-a-day’s pay waiting for them?”
        TV is not real life – regardless, the cable monopolis exist because of government. In most of the country you need government permission to provide cable service within a community. That is one part of how monopolies are created – and BTW government contracted private services WANT this. They want to be a government protected monopoly.

        “In some situations the private industry doesn’t solve problems with the free market. Some rural localities simply have too few consumers that only justify one cable/internet provider (monopoly taking away consumer choices).”
        So ? Everyone in my community can not afford a 1ct diamond shoudl government provide one.
        I would note that Musk is doing quite well providing High Speed Satelite based internet service anywhere in the world.

        In the real world it is often not possible to do something – for good economic reasons.
        When that is the case it is unwise and expensive for government to forcably solve the problem.
        The free market will eventually do so. Every unserved market is a potential NEW market to someone with the idea no one has thought of.
        But it sometimes takes time.

        We can not cure cancer tomorow – just because we want to and are prepared to spend trillions of dollars to do so.
        Do you doubt that we will eventually be able to cure cancer ?

        “The irony is on Obamacare it was actually similar to the trash collection example above. Government didn’t monopolize the free market (socialism) but simply created “healthy competition” to private insurers that has abuses consumers.”
        Obamacare had ZERO impact on healthcare outcomes – despite the rantings of the left. But increased heatlhcare costs – because govenrment now subsidizes healthcare to the tune of $1T/decade (now closer to $2T).
        So all that has happened is healthcare has gotten more expensive – but some of the cost is hidden in your taxes,
        Beyodn that PPACA has pusshed mass consolidation in healthcare – small providers are disappearing, we now have more massive healthcare chains rather than independent medical providers. This is long term net harmful.
        Any market that does not have a healthy mix of Small, medium and large enterprises stagnates, makes progress slower, has prices increase faster. Has options disappear.

        “Republican Richard Nixon actually supported a more socialized healthcare model.”
        You consider that an endorsement ?

        “Most successful models aren’t “Puritan” but a balance of many systems. ”
        AGAIN to the extent we have data – less government involvement in the economy results in more rapid increase in standard of living.
        So you are incorrect.

        “That was my only point about college students not realizing they were attending a partly subsidized college – almost the exact the model as Obamacare – which they use inaccurate Puritan labels like “socialism” to disparage. Let’s have an honest debate!”

        An honest debate requires actual honesty about the real world.
        As I demonstrated – you made lots of claims that are NOT supported in the real world.

        As I noted in the REAL WORLD the less government involvement in a market the more the cost of a good or service declines in real dollars over the long term.

        Please provide a SINGLE instance in which govenment stepping into an established market did not result in fewer choices, and higher real prices ?

        The relationship of govenrment to the economy may not be perfectly puritan – but it is damn close.
        What you beleive – has not actually happened int he real world.

          1. So pivate healthcare asked for all of administrative work and red tape? Govt. run anythig has no incentive to be efficient.

          2. Based on what factors/criteria? Jim22 makes a valid point that “Govt. run anythi[n]g has no incentive to be efficient.”
            I ask because, while I don’t emphatically disagree with you, I do not agree either. Here’s your chance (and a real service to this blog site) if you can persuade persons to think differently. thanks

          3. Nope.
            Just the claim is idiocy.

            I already noted that Medicare has driven the cost of ALL healthcare up – it is responsible for atleast 35% of ALL healthcare price increases in the past 60 years. That alone establishes your error.

            Medicare is also going in the red in a couple of years. It has always actually been insolvent. It is a ponzi scheme.
            Again alone that proves you are wrong.

            Regardless, it is well documented that Medicare only pays 90-95% of actual costs – the rest is subsidized by private payers.
            That there are higher fraud rates than private payers, and that the quality of care is significantly less than provided private payers.

            Further Medicare does not include in its costs, the price of collecting Meidcare taxes, nor the massive interest on the loans that result.

            In fact many additional costs of medicare are buried elsewhere. That is a common problem with government programs – the actual cost is much greater than the claimed cost.

            Medicare is not nearly as bad as the NHS – where it is generally acknowledge within the UK government that the real costs is about double what is budgeted – the rest being subsidized out of the rest of government.

          4. How do you ever expect to be taken seriously with idiotic claims like that ?

            Several Years ago Vermont promised to try to create the equivalent of M4A for everyone in Vermont.
            The govenor tried to come up with a plan for over 2 years before giving up. It was far too expensive.
            They could not come up with anything that did not cost atleast twice what private insurance did with half the benefits.

            It is highly unlikely you will ever see M4A nationwide either – because everyone including the politiicans know, without the existing private pay clients the healthcare system would collapse.

            Medicare for All should in theory be MORE efficient than medicare – it would cover a younger less unhealthy cohort.

            But it can not be made to work.

          5. “Government run Medicare is far more efficient than private healthcare.”

            AZ, you say that because you aren’t familiar with the details and look at things superficially.

            Start looking at how Medicare is not preventing fraud and then look for what is not included in their calculations. Check out the accounting methods.

            1. There is so much wrong with AZ’s claim.

              At the very least – Medicare costs do not include the costs associated with collecting taxes.

              But the best proof is that every effort to impose something like M4A has failed miserably because of costs.

              We are unfortunately still stick with PPACA – completely ignoring the fact that PPACA has added $1T/decade to the cost of medical care.

              Government does not deliver those services that only government can provide efficiently and cost effectively – and we would not want it to, because nothing is more dangerous to liberty that the efficient and cost effective curtailment of liberty.

              1. AZ talks a lot and says a lot of things, but too frequently he doesn’t know what he is talking about. If you wish more information on the subject refer to Mark Littow.

          6. Government-run Medicare is far less efficient than private care. If you divide the total spending by the number of people served, you’re in for a surprise.

            That result is unavoidable — all those government-mandated gatekeepers and electronic paper-pushers have to be paid to deny people care.

            Also, on top of their already-high outlays for care, Medicare is heavily subsidized by everyone who is not on it. (Since its reimbursements are often significantly below cost, doctors have to make up their losses by charging paying patients considerably more.) For example in 2020, Medicare reimbursed hospitals at just 40% of the rates private insurers paid

            Government is the reason American medical care is over-priced, the cause, not the cure..

        1. Jim22, the current constitution of Chile is as Chicago School free market as exists. The people of Chile have had enough and are attempting to adopt a new constitution.

          1. The current constitution of Chile took it from one of the most impoverished countries in South American to one of the highest standards of living.

            We see in Venezuella and elsewhere the results of left wing nuts taking power.
            In s few years Venezeulla went from the highest standard of living in South American to starving venezeullan refugees flooding into poor countries in south america.

            How many times does this nonsense have to fail before left wing nuts grasp it does not work and it usually ends in bloodshed.

              1. Bzzt wrong.

                DB you have no credibility
                You are constantly spraying Malthusian nonsense.
                You do not know what you are talking about most of the time.

                When you are paying me to write – you can criticize my grammar and spelling.

  13. This is just another example of the obvious, namely, there are highly positioned people in this country (and world) for whom freedom of speech is an afterthought, or not thought of at all. We might think they have at least some sense of the importance of free speech because they want it for themselves, and they do. But the authoritarianism in their personalities allows them to rationalize away the true purpose of F of S: it is the speech you don’t agree with that needs protection. This simple concept is understood but ignored by those who are perfectly happy with this double standard. They are the ones our founders warned us about, and are the ones the present Democratic Party calls “friend.” They will never change and should be treated with extreme suspicion.

      1. HullBobby,
        Ya know, I would have a lot more respect for them if they just came out and said it out loud,
        “Yes, we are fascists. We are trying to squash any and all speech that is not our approved narrative. We are actively against any and all thought that is not our approved narrative.”

  14. Government Censorship is always the wrong solution, but the irony and hypocrisy is rich!

    These are so-called “Conservative” students attending a “socialized” public college – subsidized by taxpayers. These students are actually benefiting from so-called “socialist” programs then using free speech to criticize themselves.

    Most voters, of both parties, support some forms of so-called “socialism”. Americans love public school education K-12, public community colleges (partly subsidized), public colleges (partly subsidized), social security retirement benefits (partly subsidized after about 5 years), public police protection, public fire/EMS protection in many localities.

    Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower built the “socialized” interstate highway system and had a top tax rate exceeding 70% (more liberal than Biden, Obama or Clinton). Richard Nixon supported a more “socialized” healthcare system (more liberal than Obamacare). Nixon wanted Universal Healthcare where everyone was covered.

    Everyone should support free speech and oppose government government censorship. These so-called “Conservative” students are lucky California taxpayers created this “socialized” community college so they could criticize themselves!

      1. re: Jim22

        Most Americans can’t afford private schools, arriving at school in chauffeur driven limousines – like Trump – someone that has probably never seen the inside of school bus.

        Most of us commoners loved our public schools. My public school, in a predominantly Republican area, was excellent with excellent teachers. Most of my former classmates are probably Republican voters and they loved it too!

        1. Anyone with an IQ over 80 should be able to see that the public school system no longer even tries to achieve it’s instructional mission. The US scores compared to the world are pathetic and have been falling for decades and decades. IF the public school system went away over the Summer break, free market schools could easily replace that albatross with an affordable, apolitical, accountable and most importantly; effective way. Parents (the actual customer) should have the ability to purchase education services just like anything else. The .edu cabal has had long enough to prove what and who they are. Pull the plug, the patient has died.

          1. David Norman,
            That right there.
            We have read again and again about how schools that focus on DEI, those students score lower and lower in what used to be traditional (and common sense) subjects like reading, writing, math, the sciences.
            Instead they are focused on a social and political agenda that many parents do not agree or even want taught to their children.
            Meghan Kelly said something to the effect of, “Teach my child how to spell before you try to turn them into an activist.” IIRC at the time her son was 8 years old.

            I have read and heard the argument of those against school choice, those monies pulled from the public education system would leave those children in the lower socio-economic class with a very poor education system. That I do agree with. I think it was a 60 Minutes episode (back when 60 Minutes was a respectable news journal) that compared two school districts, one that had a higher tax base, and the other poverty. What is the solution? I am not sure. What I do know and have witnessed is the Charter school system in the New Orleans area was the best chance for many minority children to get out of poverty.

        2. That’s what makes a good school, good parents of the students – can i say that? It’s true. You cannot have a good school without good parents, but you can have a bad or mediocre school with a large % of good parents. Most K-12 schools are not good, at best. The only people that love K-12 schools are the ones that work there or that crave daycare for their kids and most of them don’t love them.

        3. “Most Americans can’t afford private schools, arriving at school in chauffeur driven limousines – like Trump – someone that has probably never seen the inside of school bus.”

          Most people can’t afford private schools because they are already paying for into the crappy public school monopoly. How about we let people take their school taxes and shop it around? Then we will see just how much people love their public school monopoly.

          I liked my school. But I graduated in the late 80’s. We are along way from that non-woke b.s. time period.

      2. A Gallup survey from September does not support his statement that you highlight. In it only 42% of respondents said they are “satisfied” with government run K-12 education. 23% said, quite rationally, that they are “completely dissatisfied”.

        Leftists often like to portray the Interstate Highway system as socialism. It’s not. The system was created by an act of Congress in 1956 after less ambitious efforts going back to the 1930s had been rejected. Two key features of its financing were: 1) The system would be financed by user fees. That is, the federal government would put a tax on gasoline and diesel to ensure the users of the system paid for it. 2) The fuel taxes were not treated as a source of “general revenue”. Instead, the money the federal government confiscated on fuel purchases went directly to the Highway Trust Fund. That ensured the system was in fact, paid for by the users. Creating a system where those who use it the most pay the most, and ensuring the taxes collected do in fact pay for the system, is hardly a socialist’s wet dream.

        Much is wrong with his “ode to socialism”.

    1. I think everyone is wrong in this case, including the judge, but to a far lesser degree. Your points about the creep of Socialism into our society are valid, but taxation itself is not wholly Socialist. The College should have realized what this dispute provided them: 1) A need to clarify and refine their speech display policies and 2) A valuable teaching moment. Not to rebutt either sides contentions on the topic, but how opposing viewpoints are allowed equal space and time to speak. The pro/con Socialism/Communism issue is secondary to the larger issue of speech rights on campus. The College could use this opportunity to revise campus rules for settling disputes and use that at the first stop in any disagreement, There is plenty to be learned by everyone in this process. long before any litigation is warranted. On the issue of microaggressions, as soon as society caves in to the most fragile among us on every issue, you just set the stage for the next list of demands…….or else. Seeing irrational fears around every corner is a mental health issue and should be addressed that way.

  15. I’d love to know the names of the children on “campus” that said the words were harmful. Their names should be published and maybe they should have been added as defendants, just to awaken them to reality. They think a flyer for capitalism is harmful, show them a subpoena.

    1. I own and help to operate an executive recruiting firm. I need the names to add to our permanent Do Not Interview Or Hire list to protect our clients from frivolous lawsuits.

      1. CurrentSitGuy,
        A few weeks ago, I was out in the fields and did a mental exercise: How to weed out those whom would bring frivolous lawsuits to the company if I owned one.
        Have the candidate come into a large conference room with American flags, posters supporting the military, EMS, LEOs. A framed poster size of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
        Before the actual interview takes place, them all about the various activities the company supports: The bowling team. The BBQ team. The shooting team, both junior and adult teams. Company provided bus trips to the local hockey team.
        Could be fun just to see their reaction.

        1. My wife worked construction for 20 years prior to this. She still talks like she is at the jobsite. It’s a pretty good filter.

  16. I never understand why the conservatives in these colleges don’t demand that LBGQTRZXFD flyers not be taken because they are offensive. It’s probably because they are too busy trying to go to college and get a degree that requires effort.

    1. That’s because the conservatives aren’t the ones trying to stifle speech, they just want the ability to also be heard. Nobody ever tried to ban MSNBC or CNN, but they tried Tucker and Laura many times. We just change the channel, they want it banned.

          1. HullBobby,
            Current I am in the state of shock and horror at the direction the country is going in. Where censorship is good, free speech is bad. Where sexualization of children by exposing them to drag shows is seen as normal. Where teaching children they are the oppressed or the oppressors based off their skin color.

            1. The task facing those of us over 30 to clear this unhinged nonsense from our country is clearly going to be much harder than hoped for.
              But there is light.

              Republicans will win the rust belt – it will just take longer than hoped.
              They will continue to gain with minorities – that will take longer than expected.

              We have not yet reached the point at which the left has clearly gone to far.
              I can not grasp how that can be,
              but voters how overwhelmingly think the country is in deep schiff and blame democrats more than republicans.

              Were actually swayed by the completely idiotic reichstag speech and the subsequent efforts to paint republicans as dangerous.
              Those under 30 were swayed by the fake Biden legalizing Pot – which was completely meaningless.
              As well as the fake Student loan forgiveness.

              Many democratic tactics in 2022 that should not have worked on sane people did work.

              The bad news for the country is we are headed into recession. Anyone with a brain has known that for 9 months.
              We all hope that will be a short mild recession.
              But neither are likely. We have never purged inflation easily before.

              While the left is giddy at the prospect of a DeSantis Trump slug fest.
              Republicans can and should avoid that. Trump must top the ticket in 2024, and DeSantis must be the acknowledge heir aparent.

              DeSantis has clearly won over florida voters in a huge way.
              But he has not been accepted by the core of Trump voters that will have Trump or sit out elections.

              Trump can not win elections alone.
              Republicans can not win without him.
              They are going to have to work that out.

              But despite the giddiness democrats remain in very bad shape.
              They have no post Biden. This election should end the talk of dumping Biden.
              But the fact is that still remains the best choice for democrats. It is just not going to happen.

              Republicans have a deep bench. Democrats do not.

            2. ALWAYS the one bright spot is that leftism is a self punishing act.

              Unfortunately it is not merely the left that must suffer, it is the country.

              The country will have to endure 2 more years of Biden because the last two absymal years were not bad enough to vote democrats out.

Leave a Reply