We have been discussing how colleges and universities have been using security concerns as a way to bar conservative and libertarian speakers. Another barrier has been the imposition of prohibitive security fees as a condition for such speakers to appear on campus, fees generally not required for liberal speakers. Now, in a significant free speech victory, U.S. District Judge David Urias has enjoined the University of New Mexico from imposing a $5,400 security fee for former collegiate swimmer and activist Riley Gaines after speaking on campus.
UNM has a history of cancellation campaigns against conservative and libertarian speakers, as previously discussed on this blog.
Gaines has become a national figure in her campaign against biologically male students competing in women’s sports. While it is a position that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, faculty and students have repeatedly targeted Gaines with cancel campaigns and disruptive protests.
In this case, UNM originally demanded over $10,000. The lawsuit brought by the Leadership Institute named UNM President Garnett Stokes and other UNM officials as defendants. Judge Urias was legitimately suspicious of the demand and found that it violated the First Amendment.
In his 16-page order in Leadership Institute v. Stokes (D.N.M.), Judge Urias noted that Gaines travels with her own security (itself a sad statement about this Age of Rage). The court noted the rather fluid standard applied to Gaines:
[T]he quote of over $10,000 was for every officer UNM employed—thirty-three officers; nearly one for every three attendees the students expected. When TP-UNM asked why Defendant Stump intended to assign every officer to the Gaines event, and whether it was because of the speaker or the inviting organization, he responded that “it’s all based on individual assessments,” that they were looking at the “individual,” and that “there is not a criteria [sic].”
He also told the students that if an organization were to screen the Barbie movie in a venue on campus, he likely would not require even a single officer because the UNM police were “not worried about the Barbie movie.” He then said that security was “consistent” in how it assessed fees “to Turning Point” in the past. He described past TP-UNM events featuring other conservative speakers that generated protests at UNM. A few times during the meeting, he reiterated that UNM assesses security fees on a “case-by-case basis.” …
Notably, the court detailed how fewer than 10 protesters actually showed up and demonstrated outside of the room. Nevertheless, UNM hit Turning Point with the fee for twenty-seven officers at the event who charged for a total of 95.25 hours.
The court applied the holding in Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992) in which the Supreme Court held that the government can impose extra security fees due to the controversial status of speakers or groups. In writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Henry Blackmun held that “Nothing in the law or its application prevents the official from encouraging some views and discouraging others through the arbitrary application of fees. The First Amendment prohibits the vesting of such unbridled discretion in a government official.”
Judge Urias found precisely such a barrier imposed by the UNM:
When a policy allows “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion by the licensing authority, the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great to be permitted[.]” Forsyth County.… Although the question in this case is closer than that in Forsyth, the Court nonetheless finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the security fee policy in this case is similar enough to render it overly broad. Although the policy lists criteria for officials to consider when assessing event security, such as venue size and location, the list ultimately leaves the decision of how much to charge for security up to the whim of university officials. For example, the policy does not explain a method for determining how much more security is required for a small venue as compared to a large one, or for a daytime event as compared to a nighttime event.
Significantly, the policy states that the “basic cost of security … will be charged to all groups” based on a schedule of charges that the UNM Police Department has on its website, but despite this, the department does not actually delineate the amount of this “basic cost of security.” Though the security fee policy also states that the police department “regularly” updates the “schedule of charges based on the factors” and that “[t]he basic cost of security according to this schedule will be charged to all groups,” there is no schedule of charges.
Additionally, the preamble to the policy indicates that university officials “may” assess security fees but does not provide guidance for when they may or may not assess these fees, which contributes to the problem of allowing university officials overly broad discretion. In sum, Plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their overbreadth claim because the security fee policy does not contain limiting language that includes “narrowly drawn, reasonable and definite standards[,]” and it does not include anything to prevent UNM administrators from exercising their discretion in a content-based manner….
The ruling is a notable victory for free speech in creating additional precedent against the use of security fees as a deterrent to groups in inviting targeted speakers like Riley Gaines. Conservative groups have long complained that far left speakers are rarely targeted by cancel campaigns and even more rarely hit with these security fees. In past cases, a security deposit is demanded upfront, creating a barrier for many groups.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
If you can’t cancel them by force just charge exorbitant fees to keep them quiet. John Kerry has said that if necessary the hammer must be brought down to keep people silent. This is nothing new. In the south fines and incarceration were used to silence those who spoke in favor of freedom for the slave. The hammer that stops free speech as Kerry suggests has been the favored instrument of tyrants throughout history. In the South they did their best to stop Martin Luther King Jr. from speaking. Both Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have expressed the exact same sentiment as Mr. Kerry. Their hammer stands at the ready. Next comes the sickle. President Lincoln said this will not stand even if the nation must go to war to stop it. Harris, Walz and at one time Robert E. Lee are of the same mindset on speech control.
https://www.realclearhistory.com/articles/2024/09/30/why_slaveholders_restricted_free_speech_1061697.html
A bit of a jumbled timeline there, but it’s not a certainty IMO that President Lincoln stands as a monumental defender of free speech in as much as his suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus on April 27, 1861, was eventually applied Nationwide and led to an estimated 10,000 unlawful detentions (at least until mid-1863 when what was left of a Congress retro-actively approved it – note the Constitution prohibits laws enacted retroactively), by the Federal military without warrants and without trial. Which included news paper editors and publishers, anti-draft activists, and in some cases, political party activists, though Lincoln expressed some slight regret regarding the arrests of political party activists at least.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
As the phrase “ex post facto” (“after the fact”) suggests, the Ex Post Facto Clauses apply only to legislation that imposes or increases a punishment retroactively.
Only Congress has the Article 1 (i.e. Legislative Power) power to suspend habeas corpus, exclusive of secession, which is not prohibited and is fully constitutional.
Lincoln had no power to deny secession, commence a war, confiscate private property, fail to enforce existing immigration law, or suspend habeas corpus.
Every act of Lincoln was unconstitutional and must be struck down and overturned retroactively as was the case with Dobbs with reference to Roe v. Wade.
John Kerry sang a different tune when he was throwing someone else’s medals over the fence at the White House.
@Robert
I voted for that asshat. We all learn our lessons, some sooner than others, and thank god I did (*cough*Gigi, Anonymous, George/Svelaz, ‘Oliver’, ad nauseam). 🙄
James,
Eh, we all make mistakes. The upside, after Biden/Harris/Waltz disaster of a response to hurricane Helene and Trump’s show of strength by actually going to hard hit areas, bringing supplies with, he is surging in polls.
OT, but related to the hurricane saw a meme going around:
Things that helped me during hurricane Helene:
A gas car
A gas stove
A gas hot water heater
A gas chainsaw
Cash
Things that are/were useless during hurricane Helene:
Electric cars
Electric appliances
Debit cards
The city bus
The government
Diversity
My tax dollars in the Ukraine
Uh, Upstate–just WHAT polls is Trump “surging” in? I’ve yet to see any in which he is leading, much less “surging”; and, please, EXPLAIN just HOW Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota, has any responsibility for responding to Hurricane Helene. In fact, what FACTS do you have to indicate that the response to Helene was a “disaster”, much less inadequate, given the extent of the damage, the extensive flooding and numbers of unaccounted for people? Just HOW fast can state, local and federal governments respond to such overwhelming damage, especially when there are still flood waters covering roads and bridges are washed out, power lines and cell towers out? How many telephone poles and wires are down, and how can workers get in to replace these when there is still standing water? Just HOW fast can any of these problems be remedied–and why do you listen to the lies spread by MAGA media that will criticize anything and everying possible for political gain? So, before you accuse state, local and federal officials of not doing enough fast enough, I want to know just what FACTS you have that more could have been done quickly. Lies by Donald Trump don’t count. There are first responders and electrical repair crews from all over the country descending on the areas of devastation, but until the waters recede, it’s not safe. Until power and cell service are restored, people can’t check on loved ones. So, where the hell do you get off blaming Biden, Harris, and especially Governor Walz for not doing enough fast enough?
Here’s one take I have on this: how many local officials in states like Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, etc, told people that the storm was predicted to be as bad as a Category 4, that if that came to pass, that power would be out, there would be a massive storm surge plus several feet of rain, that roads and bridges would get washed out and they could get stuck in their homes, which could get flooded along with their vehicles, leaving them with no way out, and no way to get groceriers or prescriptions? Just how many of these people disbelieved what they were told, thanks to the MAGA theme of instilling distrust in government officials, especially educated people, like meterologists? Just how many of these people died believing in the MAGA lie that the government and educated people cannot be trusted? I personally believe a lot of those who died did so because they believed lies.
And, it bears repeating–Trump is an actor–he doesn’t care about anyone or anything other than himself. By going to hard-hit areas where people haven’t even all been rescued, roads and bridges are washed out and there’s no running water, electricity or cell service, this was nothing but a political stunt. Going there diverted resources of local law enforcement to protecting his fat axx, which is why Harris and Biden are waiting to go. It was stupid and disrespectful.
$5000 is “exorbitant fees”? Really?
Jonathan: Sorry to break in but there is breaking news. DJT was in Valdosta, Georgia yesterday to “survey” the devasting destruction caused by Hurricane Helene. And he lied again. He falsely claimed Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp had been “calling the president and hadn’t been able to get him”. Kemp said DJT’s claim was categorically false–that he had talked to Pres. Biden.
The Q is why would the would-be leader lie about something like that? Well, it’s not just hurricane season but the political season and DJT is desperate to find anything to shore up his faltering campaign. So he falsely claims the Biden/Harris administration is intentionally denying relief to the victims of the worst hurricane to strike Southern states.
DJT also falsely claimed that “It’s so extensive, nobody thought this would be happening, especially now it’s late in the season for the hurricane”. FALSE again! September is the HEIGHT of the hurricane season and NOAA has predicted more intense hurricanes due primarily to climate change.
DJT has been a long-time climate change denier. His Project 2025 calls for the dismantling of NOAA and privatizing the weather service–forcing citizens to pay for weather subscriptions to help them deal with emergencies like flashing flooding from hurricanes. And DJT’s MAGA supporters in Congress are doing his bidding. House Speaker Mike Johnson just forced through a stop-gap spending bill. But MAGA Republicans refused to include disaster relief funds–right at the onset of Hurricane Helene!
DJT was in Georgia for one purpose. Not to express sympathy for the 130 people who have already died and the communities that were swept away by Helene but to shore of his struggling campaign by attacking Biden/Harris. And this is the guy who wants to be the leader of the free world again?
Jonathan: Sorry to break in but there is breaking news. DJT was in Valdosta, Georgia yesterday to “survey” the devasting destruction caused by Hurricane Helene.
Jonathan, Dennis is not sorry that he’s freaking out and lying to you off topic yet again because Trump went to the scene of the disaster, while President First Babysitter Jill and the child she is caring for, Joe Biden, slept peacefully on the beach. While The Border Czar mumbled an inanity while once again announcing she is The Last One In The Oval Office for every presidential decision.
Dennis McIntyre, here’s the breaking news you clearly haven’t heard in the last week – you have certainly not even attempted to deny or explain it:
ICE Director Admits To Releasing over 435,000 Illegal Aliens with criminal
https://www.borderreport.com/immigration/border-crime/ice-released-over-435000-migrants-with-criminal-convictions-data-shows/
ICE Deputy Director Patrick Lechleitner sent a letter Wednesday to U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, saying as of July 21, there were 662,566 Illegal Aliens with criminal histories on the agency’s non-detained docket (NDD), meaning they free in American communities while they await ICE court proceedings.
@Dennis
Trust me, on this one, you are a complete and total idiot. And very, very, indisputably, likely a very white, privileged idiot. Go blow. We are taking our country back from you whether you like it or not, and it doesn’t matter how much money you or your handlers spend. Go. Blow.
I attended Riley Gaines presentation at UNM. UNM Police did an excellent and professional job with the event and 10 “protestors” would be a stretch. I really admired how Riley stayed after her presentation and spoke with all of the mothers who brought their young daughters to personally meet and speak with her. Very impressive.
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
I wonder what the Framers who signed the Declaration of Independence would think about George if they were able to read the crap he posts here that is his original personal thoughts, rather than quotes?
This is leadership. One woman, not a group of secret handlers, fiercely patriotic not a hater of the West, celebrates cultural traditions instead of destroying them.
Italy’s Prime Minster, Giorgia Meloni puts Obama/Biden/Kamala/DNC Handlers to shame. Perhaps a new Renaissance is starting in Italy.
As a politician, you basically have two options: being a leader or a follower, to point a course or not, to act for the good of your people, or to act only driven by polls. Well, my ambition is to lead, and not to follow…..However, I know that we should not be ashamed to use and defend words and concepts like nation and patriotism, because they mean more than a physical place; they mean a state of mind to which one belongs in sharing culture, traditions, and values. When we see our flag, if we feel proud, it means that we feel the pride to be part of a community, and that we are ready to do our part to make its fate better……The West is a system of values in which the person is central, men and women are equal and free, and therefore the systems are democratic, life is sacred, the state is secular, and based on the rule of law.
Above all, we need to recover awareness of who we are. As Western peoples, we have a duty to keep this promise and seek the answer to the problems of the future by having faith in our values: a synthesis born out of the meeting of Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian humanism.
https://www.youtube.com/live/L4rrbSgbMg8?t=144s
Meloni’s entire speech is available at FP
Italy’s Giorgia Meloni: Why the West Is Worth Defending
https://www.thefp.com/p/giorgia-meloni-western-values-global-citizen
Meloni focuses on who we are, which differentiates us from the chaos of fascists who wish the West harm while installing authoritarian regimes without individual freedom. She says the West is a “system of values… based on rule of law.” This is “who we are. ” We will stand for our values. We should fight for our people and our families. Vote Trump!
S. Meyer,
Well said.
Something’s weird about her
Estovir,
Thank you for posting that. She is an impressive leader. I do find it interesting how more and more of what MSM calls right wing or far right people getting elected in countries like Italy, Germany, Sweden. The EU’s liberal or as some call it, illiberal, governments are getting the boot from their own people. As a result, we are seeing them call for everything from censorship to attempts to make some political parties illegal. Not very democratic of them.
Part of the reason I ignore the umpteen Anonymous and usual DNC sock puppets is that I find them incredibly boring and less interesting than watching grass grow. There was a time when one engaged debate or discussions in public forums to persuade the other, expand one’s personal thinking and to be exposed to exciting, novel ideas. I’ve known for sometime that the West was slouching toward the Left due to a lack of intellectually stimulating ideas in the pubic forum.
Giorgia Meloni isn’t an intellectual but her statements were in line with classical Western thinking. Given its roots in classical Greek and Roman intellectuals, that have nutured the Western World for 2000+ years, Meloni’s comments were incredibly refreshing and courageous. Compare her to our US leaders today. UK’s leaders? Canada’s leaders? French leaders? Meloni really shamed all of them, most of which are men.
The DNC trolls and umpteen Anonymous don’t have an original thought in their DNA. Meloni may have borrowed from Western thinking but the fact that she articulated them to an ultra left organization like the Atlantic Council was fearless. We should all be fearless in leading, which should not be difficult considering the DNC trolls are a microcosm of what the Left offers: word salad gibberish.
She is so refreshing to listen to. She is certainly a defender of what the world sees when they look at western leaders. After all, she was the one that prevented Biden from embarrassing the rest of the G7 leaders during that photo op with the parachuters.
Trudeau wasn’t enough embarrassment?
Olly, that lady is so much more than refreshing. Lei è fantastica
Conservative groups often argue that cancel campaigns rarely target far-left speakers and that they are seldom required to pay security fees. They claim that demanding a security deposit upfront creates a barrier for many conservative groups. However, being targeted results from exercising free speech and expressing controversial views. Conservatives seem to struggle with accepting this reality and often feel unfairly treated for expressing offensive ideas. They choose to portray themselves as victims and complain about being treated unfairly even though facing opposition and criticism is a part of the free speech package. Exercising free speech comes with consequences and risks, and it’s up to the speaker to stand their ground and face adversity with more speech.
Far-left speakers are rarely targeted because they often speak in places where their views are less controversial or offensive. Additionally, there may not be enough conservative students to pose a significant opposition to left-leaning speakers in liberal colleges and universities, resulting in less need for security and calls for cancellation.
For example, Charlie Kirk speaks at liberal colleges and universities without encountering issues. He engages in controversial conversations and challenges students to debate, yet he does not face cancellations or excessive security fees. He records every event for his security, and although discussions with students may become heated and angry at times, most events are peaceful.
Contrary to Turley’s claims, there aren’t severe barriers for conservative speakers to engage in free speech on campus. Turley tends to exaggerate isolated incidents and portray them as the norm while overlooking instances where conservative speakers have been able to speak without facing issues. For example, Gaines got to speak, and protesters got to protest without any problems at the UNM event. Turley’s arguments do not align with reality, as he selectively emphasizes extreme or isolated incidents to support his claims or arguments.
George, you have no comprehension or context skills, –your projection sinks you everytime.
Defendant Stump agreed to dismiss excess security, so the $5400 or whatever it was had that understanding attached.
Less than ten protesters showed up, and they were relatively peaceful and outside the event–no interruptions. But Stump kept 27 security personnel –to handle LESS THAN 10 peaceful protesters?
So says the idiot.
Shaddup
Davey (Anonynous, DDC) is having triggered episode to my post. HIlarious. He still thinks I’m svelaz. That guy or gal must have really done a number on him.
George attempts to convince himself he’s meaningful by telling himself he triggers people.
When everybody else knows those responding to him are either mocking him. Or calling him a pathetic liar.
George’s word salad rivals that of Harris as he defends the Border Czar-Big Guy Woke hatred of normal Americans.
At the same time watching him attempt to cosplay as being an intellectual reminds viewers of men cosplaying as women to get into little girls’ bathrooms.
It seems that there is no limit to the chicanery and malfeasance to which the prog/left dem party will go in order to maintain their hold on power. Power with which they need to maintain their steady climb to communism. Boy – what I would give to see the dumbfounded faces of all those so-called republicans of the 50’s who did not stand behind the indications brought by Joe McCarthy about communist infiltration into our government. The tragedy is that Joe was at least one war too late since this all began with progressive President woodrow wilson and intensified under fdr. And do not think that there is any limit on what they will do – just like any other cult-driven jihadi terrorist – they will do what they can until they are stopped. We should be taking a great lesson from what Israel is doing to stop the cult maniacs wherever they may be. You cannot debate nor negotiate with fanatics.
‘Notably, the court detailed how fewer than 10 protesters actually showed up and demonstrated outside of the room. Nevertheless, UNM hit Turning Point with the fee for twenty-seven officers at the event who charged for a total of 95.25 hours.’
That paragraph perfectly sums up NM (I was born there, I’m allowed 😂).
Sad. It was once actually a semi-decent school, though those days are long gone. Should be telling that this stuff is hitting even the more obscure places. Tim Keller and Michelle Lujan are both lefty idjits that have thoroughly destroyed the state. To be fair though, the people there have by and large let them.
“Sad. It was once actually a semi-decent school, though those days are long gone.” I think we can safely assume that 99% of all schooling is in this sorry state – and this includes every institution from daycare through universities and even in to boardrooms (see Netflix) and, sadly, churches and synagogues.
It is turning against those that would hold free speech hostage. Interesting a Judge is throwing the dead fish flag on extra fees. I wonder if the school would have the same fees for all would that hold up? The fact that there is not a set fee schedule leaves these institutions open to large payouts. Maybe if those that would cause damage be arrested and made to pay for the damages, fees would not be needed. Using fees to prevent speech is just wrong. To easy to provide one side of an argument an unfair advantage.
How is it in this day of sweeping liberal extension of rights characteristics we are yet unable to include political speech, expression, or projection in public accommodations in anti-discrimination statutes? Elon Musk has called ‘X’/ Twitter the nation’s public square, an apt analogy, yet such online forums are not lawfully considered a “public accommodation”? I don’t see any way to reconcile the left’s desire to limit speech, to so discriminate, with its desire to extend human rights legislation beyond its origins of “race, color, creed, and religion.” How do we reconcile free speech, the omission of political characteristic in rights legislation, and this desire to strike the online forum from our list or definition of public accommodations? If consistency is the measure of our sanity it would appear there are now tens of millions of decidedly less sane individuals out there, but why? Are they the product of our prosperity? Or of our drug culture? Or simply an evolutionary element in the cyclical recasting of power? Are we all to yet become “cynics come undone”? Battle, ultimately, the definitive statement?
As long as government is left in charge of education, the economy, or medicine, we should expect nothing but bad news and totalitarianism. See “The Nature of Evil: Centuries of Parasitic Philosophy” on Amazon.
Professor Turley’s argument doesn’t seem entirely honest. TP-UNM is essentially claiming that they shouldn’t have to pay the security fee after the event took place because doing so would violate their free speech rights. The university’s policy dictates that failure to pay the fee could result in the revocation of privileges to schedule future events, including loss of scholarships.
Initially, TP-UNM negotiated the security fee down from $10,202 to $7,420 and agreed to the terms. However, the final invoice for the event, which included twice the expected number of attendees, was $5,384. It appears that TP-UNM is simply refusing to pay after the event took place, and the conservative speaker was able to speak without any issues. Their right to free speech doesn’t seem to have been infringed. The issue seems to be that TP-UNM is being unwilling to pay and is using free speech rights as an excuse, even though they previously agreed to the reduced estimate of $7,420 before the event.
While TP-UNM has obtained a preliminary injunction against being compelled to pay the fee, this doesn’t guarantee success on the merits. The judge did mention that they have a reasonable chance of success in court, but TP-UNM’s claim of being harmed by the “excessive” fee and its impact on their free speech rights seems dubious. It’s important to note that they agreed to the $7,420 estimate prior to the event. It’s questionable why they weren’t concerned about their speech being chilled when the estimate was $7,420, but suddenly became concerned when it was reduced to $5,384.
It appears that TP-UNM may be trying to avoid paying the fee after previously agreeing to it, and is now using free speech violations as an excuse not to pay.
Georges’ comment dosen’t seem entirely honest.
Georges (Svelaz) comments are never honest nor can he defend what he says. He has had many (perhaps the most of anyone on the blog) names before George, but was slapped down so hard he kept changing them. Today he seems immune from embarrassment and posts lies along with conflicting statements frequently plagiarized.
In the past he made all sorts of arguments but when asked to defend them he ran away. An example follows
———
———
Along with being ignorant, a liar, and arrogant, Svelaz is also a plagiarist—hat tip to Davey. https://jonathanturley.org/2024/09/16/teaching-joy-l-a-school-district-opts-for-educational-enjoyment-over-standardized-tests/comment-page-2/#comment-2444784
Every word copied and pasted from HERE:
https://fairtest.org/facts-whatwron-htm/
…
Svelaz, I am still waiting.
When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?
Time for you to respond, but you don’t. You can’t. You are too stupid to do so.
S. Meyer,
Thank you for pointing that out.
That is why I never read his comments. Not worth the time. Just scroll past.
Upstate, thank you. You are correct about not reading many of the posters’ comments, and I follow what you do. I mostly read the comments of others that might link me to an anonymous or George comment like Fran K. did in this case. That way, I eliminate a lot of reading with minimal focus on the numerous stupid, racist and unconstitutional comments from these fools. I link to you so I can see a very few of those replies.
“ You are correct about not reading many of the posters’ comments, and I follow what you do.”
HAHAHAHA! You don’t follow anything. It’s impossible not to read posts. Especially when you’re following a discussion or argument. I read all of your posts. Even the other George.
“HAHAHAHA! You don’t follow anything. It’s impossible not to read posts. Especially when you’re following a discussion or argument. I read all of your posts. Even the other George.”
Svelaz, you are such a dummy. No I don’t read the majority of posts. Are you too stupid to know that email has search parameters? I guess you are that stupid.
S, Meyer, you too? Who was this svelaz that seems to have triggered so many? You still post incoherent rants and nonsensical statements about the Ottoman empire. You really are stuck on that. I suspect that is why you don’t make much sense, it occupies your mind quite a lot. Captain Ahab would be proud.
“S, Meyer, you too? Who was this svelaz that seems to have triggered so many?”
Svelaz, it is you. I have been using that name for a long time, but I know who you are even longer. Others came out using your Svealz alias quite a while before I did, with excellent reasons, but I saw it on or close to day one. You screwed up, but I wanted you to have a chance to reform and didn’t want to engage in the old garbage. There is no doubt you are Svelaz. You couldn’t stand the stench of your other names, so you name changed.
You can change your name. You cannot change what you are.
“You still post incoherent rants and nonsensical statements about the Ottoman empire. “
That statement regarding the breakup of the Ottoman Empire was in response to your many ignorant comments on the subject. I provide that snippet so you remember you are clueless and run away. You now have a chance to tell us about the British Mandate or correct your statements before you last ran away. People can look at the links posted in my earlier comment and then find all your stupid statements in that and the surrounding daily Turley postings. I also included a link to one of many responses that were plagiarized.
You think people are dumb because you look at yourself. The average person is far more intelligent than you, and many are above average.
S. Meyer, demonstrating your insanity again, I see.
David, I have tried to treat you with dignity since you entered the nursing home (ALF), but it appears your dementia forces me to respond in a way I usually don’t when talking to the demented. You are repeating the same statement with frequency. Change the set of cards you use to communicate.
David B. Bensen… once again displaying your affinity for your fellow Woke idiots, we see.
You and George both Woke Birthing Brothers from different communist mothers?
Georges’ comment dosen’t seem entirely honest.
Fran, George (Svelaz) will use squishy words like “seem” and “entirely” in his oft-used method of arguing against fact and reason. This is one of JT’s posts that sane people will read as a breath of fresh air for the cause of defending the 1st amendment. It doesn’t really require much commentary. And yet George does what George does and before you know it, we have 150 comments. I know JT has very rarely commented in his own blog, but what a great way to generate views and comments than participating in your own blog as your alter-eqo.
Olly, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Gaines was able to speak without issue, and the protesters were peaceful. The only issue in the article is about an organization that agreed in writing to a reduced estimate from the original, then got a much lower bill and refused to pay.
They argue that these “excessive” security fees violate their free speech rights AFTER the event without a problem. Even before the bill came due, they had no issue with the cost. They agreed to the estimate they negotiated and refused to pay the fee that ended up being lower than the one they agreed to in writing before the event. How did the security fee prevent Gaines from speaking?
Olly, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
They argue that these “excessive” security fees violate their free speech rights AFTER the event without a problem.
Brilliant! You managed to prove your first statement as false by your second. Well done!
What is apparently lost on you is that being charged any fee to speak is by definition not free speech.
Olly, no, being charged any fee is not a violation of free speech. They charge a security fee to everyone. Their free speech was not prevented and they negotiated a lower fee and AGREED in writing to the lower fee. They estimated they would have had to pay $7,420 and ended up paying less, $5,384.
The fee was not hindering their right to free speech. If they didn’t want to pay the fee they had the option of holding the event somewhere else outside the campus.
Gaines already spent two hours speaking at a crowd of 200. She was not pevented from speaking because of the fee. The issue pertains to a refusal to pay AFTER the event, AFTER security was provided. The host is simply refusing to pay after agreeing to pay in advance and in writing. Now tell me how is that a violation of their free speech rights?
* Evidence of fees for everyone? The fees have a range beginning at 0. Find to top fee charged and we’ll proceed. The idea is not everyone pays fees. Gaines was also paid as a speaker. Just get the facts..
When a policy allows “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion by the licensing authority, the danger of censorship and of abridgment of our precious First Amendment freedoms is too great to be permitted.
I realize you are loathe to accept this as fundamentally a 1st amendment issue, but the judge in this case has a completely different opinion and more importantly, one that matters.
OLLY,
“. . . the judge in this case has a completely different opinion and more importantly, one that matters.
That is the truth!
@George
You might as well just be making indecipherable sounds with your online mouth. Be-deep-be-doop-be-DNC-marching orders. For the love of Pete: spare us. Nobody, and I mean nobody, cares. 🙄 Migrate to Russia or China, if you don’t already live and ‘work’ there, and give the rest of us a break from your ignorant ramblings. 🙄 You can shake your tiny, ineffectual, and weak fist at us all you want over there, at least then you’d get filtered out as a foreign and utterly stupid IP. This is America, mofo, and you can really just stop wasting your time. The rest of us believe in freedom.
I will stand by our 1A until my death, but it should be clear to you unless you are insane that nobody gives a sheet about your stupid comments, day, after day, after day, after day. You are either high or pathological or both. 🤷🏻♂️ Go away, nobody here cares. Really.
James,
Just scroll past. None of its comments are worth reading or responding to.
And yet George does what George does and before you know it, we have 150 comments.
🤣
Perhaps we should start a GoFundMe account for Peter Shill/Enoch/Svelaz/George/Wally/Ralph/Gigi to buy xim/xer an inflatable auto pilot
Estovir,
HA! Great movie! Up there with Blazing Saddles.
“I am serious… and don’t call me Shirley.”
😎 Any one of us could write their comments. Just think like a conservative and then take away reason and logic to write the exact opposite.
OLLY,
Thank you. You actually made me LOL!
I’m glad you got a laugh. I took a spin on a quote from the movie As Good As It Gets.
Receptionist : How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall : I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
OLLY,
I was tracking on the As Good As It Gets reference.
Too bad George has no reading comprehension or understanding of context. He either did not understand, or worse, deliberately left out the that LI (ONE of the plaintiffs) only agreed to pay “reasonable fees.” Second, George left out the fact that THERE WERE “LESS THAN 10,” yes, less than 10 PEACEFUL PROTESTERS standing OUTSIDE the event, while the Defendants insisted to fill their pockets by keeping 27, yes, 27, security personnel hanging around. Defendant had previously agreed to DISMISS excess security if not needed.
I could go on, there’s more, but you get the point:
“[George’s] argument doesn’t seem entirely honest.”
That’s not reading comprehension, dum dum. That’s a lack of detail.
LI agreed to a reduced fee of $7,420, which shows that they did not have an issue. They had the event with no problems. So why sue over a much lower amount, $5,384, after the event? It makes no sense.
Yeah, the defendant (University) agreed to reduce the number of personnel, which led to the renegotiated $7,420 estimate. LI and TP-UNM also stated the expected 100 people, but 200 showed up.
They agreed to the reduced estimate and proceeded with the event. It was only after the event that they refused to pay, even when the amount was far less than what they agreed to. Something isn’t adding up, and I suspect they are just suing to put this case before a court, cry victim, and claim victory over the far-left anti-free speech tyrants if they win. Turley seems to be gladly assisting with the scheme.
NO, dum dum. The agreement was based on a tentative reality that there would be disruption.
There was NOT, but Stump left the 27 security people there.
You clearly do not understand.
Tentative reality? No, it was based on an estimate of time and staffing based on the parameters provided by the event host and the school’s assessment based on past events. The agreement was based on a negotiated change in hours worked, and Stump offered to take security staff off the event as needed to reduce the cost further. The reduced personnel and hours resulted in the final bill IL and TP-UNM refused to pay AFTER agreeing in writing and ahead of the event to the $7,420 estimate.
They negotiated the estimated fee, and the IL and TP-UNM accepted the estimate, proceeded to have their event without incident, and then refused to pay the fee when they were given the invoice, which turned out to be lower than they were already willing to accept. How is this a free speech violation? How does this violate their free speech rights in the future when they can negotiate the fee anyway? They claim they will be harmed by the excessive security fee, but they managed to negotiated an acceptable amount and then the hosts refused to pay. Seems IL and TP-UNM negotiated in bad faith.
HAHAHAHA. Talking about proving a point. Looks like Georgie eliminated part of Anon’s sentence, which read IN WHOLE,”
“Too bad George has no reading comprehension or understanding of context.” (Anon didn’t know which was related to George’s confusion and lack of understanding)
So George conveniently deleted the “…or understanding of context,” THEN says, “that’s a lack of detail.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Unconstitutional limits of free speech are just that. Even if a fee was agreed to in writing, it is not exempt from constitutional challenge. Sorry.
What limts? Gaines got to speak without a problem. They held the event as intended. Speech CAN be limited by time, place and manner. Not paying a security fee after agreeing on an estimate has nothing to do with free speech.
What was the violation? They got to speak, did they not? The fee was lower than what they agreed to. They can’t argue that it was unreasonable or excessive. Plus, the school was willing to accommodate them to obtain a lower agreement.
Clearly the fee did not prevent them from holding their event.
* think poll tax
What’s the difference between the college charging a security fee and a thug charging a street vendor a “protection” fee in case he might have an “accident”? The leftist protesters are thugs, hired thugs.
Turning Point-UNM initially anticipated that 100 people would attend their event, with an original security cost estimate of $10,202. However, the event ended up attracting 200 people, and the University only charged the organizers $5,384 for security, as fewer security personnel were utilized despite the larger crowd. Surprisingly, Turning Point-UNM contested the reduced fee, claiming it was excessive, even though it dropped from $10,202 to $5,384.
Despite the dispute over security fees, the event proceeded smoothly, with Gaines delivering her speech and no disruptions from peaceful protesters. Turning Point-UNM’s decision not to pay the security fees after the event raises the question of how it relates to a free speech issue, especially when Gaines was able to speak and the event unfolded as intended.
The situation becomes more perplexing considering that Turning Point-UNM filed a lawsuit alleging violation of their free speech rights, despite the event proceeding without any issues. Gaines delivered her speech as planned. So, how can they claim that their free speech rights were violated?
It appears that Turning Point-UNM was reluctant to fulfill their financial obligations after the event had taken place. According to University policy, failure to pay would result in the revocation of scheduling privileges and other benefits, as well as potential legal action. It seems reasonable that if they fail to pay for services rendered, they would forfeit the privilege of hosting another speaker.
“. . . raises the question of how it relates to a free speech issue . . .”
Speaking of problems with “reading comprehension:” You really should learn how to read your own comments, before hitting “reply.”
You answered your own question: “. . . failure to pay would result in the revocation of scheduling privileges . . .”
Or as the Court noted in its Judgment:
“Plaintiffs’ shared concern that these fees will be required in the future and will prevent them from speaking or hosting speakers on UNM’s campus.”
Why would they sue on free speech grounds when they had agreed to a reduced estimate before the event? They held the event without any issues, and the final cost was even less than the reduced estimate. It doesn’t make sense for them to refuse to pay a lower fee than expected for a bigger crowd than they had anticipated.
It’s puzzling that they are concerned about future fees when they didn’t raise the issue of the reduced estimate before. The university initially estimated the fee to be $10,202, but after a third meeting with the plaintiffs, they agreed to a reduced estimate of $7,420. The event went smoothly, and the school invoiced them for security for $5,384, which is significantly less than the $7,420 estimate they had agreed to before the event.
The fact that they were able to negotiate a lower amount proves that the high fees they are worried about in the future are also negotiable. The initial $10,202 fee didn’t stop them from speaking or hosting speakers. It seems like the case is an excuse to play the victim in court, claiming that the possibility of a future fee will prevent them from exercising their free speech rights. They were able to negotiate the fee, but ended up with a much lower amount than they expected. Instead of cooperating, they are only resorting to suing. As a result, they are subject to disciplinary action and the revocation of certain benefits because they refuse to pay after the event and security has been provided.
“Turning Point-UNM contested the reduced fee, claiming it was excessive, even though it dropped from $10,202 to $5,384.”
Something about your logic doesn’t seem logical George.
The correct security fee is zero
Public schools can not burden speech based on viewpoints not directly
As in this case
Not indirectly
If I were a LEO in the area, I would of volunteered for free or for a buck. If she were to speak in my area I would offer to provided security for free. Have to look up the law on that one. Maybe me and a few hundred other alpha males show up, wearing “I support women’s rights!” tee-shirts might be enough.
(OT)
“Kamala Harris’ Blue Wall Is Cracking”
Among the reasons Morris cites for Harris’ precipitous drop in the polls: She’s ditzy —
“Her vacuous answers on the economy, endlessly repeating her canned line that she ‘grew up in a middle-class home’.”
(https://www.newsmax.com/morris/michigan-wisconsin-pennsylvania/2024/09/30/id/1182238/)
Sam,
And that is why our enemies want to see her win the election.
I will say it again….We need to end Federal Aid and loan backing to colleges, cities, states, non-profits
I shouldn’t have to pay for democrats failures!
“. . . the imposition of prohibitive security fees . . .” (JT)
Here’s an idea:
Dump one of your “studies programs” or a DEI dean (or two). Then use that money to do your job.
(Save the BS about different budgets. Money is fungible — especially at universities.)
UNC just saved millions doing exactly that.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/report-unc-system-eliminates-59-positions-in-diversity-policy-change/ar-AA1qpCs2
OldManFromKS,
Correct.
And corporations are doing the same, cutting DEI divisions and firing useless DEI hires. They do not add anything to their bottom line, a useless expense and only creates a hostile work environment. We can expect to see more cuts and layoffs but all those DEI grads will have no problem returning to their previous positions as baristas.
How marvelous!
Anything that does not contribute to greater productivity ultimately reduces standard of living
Or….event hosts can negotiate security fees with the school like IL and TP-UNM did. What a crazy idea.
If you provide a public forum for free speech
You can not impose more than deminimus fees
You certainly can not vary fees based on viewpoints
The college braintrust at this university is having a meeting this morning. The topic: What other extra legal means are available to quash conservative speakers. Present will be the university police director, lawyers for the university, and, of course, “student activists,” who are negatively affected by having to listen to conservative ideas.
Yesterday, John Kerry controversially criticized the First Amendment as a barrier to prohibiting misinformation. It raises the question of whether figures like Kerry should gracefully retire from the public discourse. As the value, relevance, and utility of a college degree diminish, the pronouncements of college administrators and their progressive professors seem increasingly out of touch. It is refreshing when a judge demonstrates a true understanding and respect for the First Amendment.
Totalitarian a’h0les like Kerry never gracefully retire.
None of this will change until these public university fascists are held personally liable and assessed treble damages. Otherwise it’s all window dressing and all fees and damages will be picked up by taxpayers
* What about a fee schedule for various free speech speakers. Would that be free, free speech? Isn’t it really commerce? What is Hillary Clinton paid or an Obama etc. What is Gaines paid? When a former or current government official is paid the taxpayer needs reimbursement including the cost of taxpayers security details. What is “free” speech when it’s paid work.
* Elon Musk fee is 2,500, 000 to 6 million, Gaines is 10 to 20 thou, Bill Gates is a bargain at 100, 000 to 200 thou etc. Make the rounds and sell a book on your own dime. What you have to say is the free portion.
* Use mean, median,mode and range and determine a flat security fee spreading the cost. Ask Albert.
While we’re at it use longitude and latitude and stop gerrymandering.
There is absolutely no means to create voting districts that does not have political effects
The means to regulate gerrymandering is via voters
I would further remind you there are two forms of gerrymandering
The first and most common crests safe seats for important members of your party
But doing so also creates vulnerable seats at the expense of your party
The other form of gerrymandering increases the odds of winning larger majorities
At the risk of being wiped out by a small swing in voter preferences
Statistical analysis of real world gerrymandering is that both parties do both forms and the net effect on congress never exceeds 4 seats
But again gerrymandering to increase you majority by a few seats comes with a significant risk of being wiped out in a swing election
More simply
Gerrymandering meandering is not an actual problem worth wasting time on
Free speech is about freedom
Not price
Free software as an example is software that you can not restrict the use or modification of
It is not software that you can not charge for
Free speech is free speech whether it is paid for or not
The free in free speech means free from government restrictions