Univerity of Texas bars students...

Been a long time since I posted a thread instead of just lurking in the shadows, but I had to get this out there.

Two students at the University of Texas have been barred from registering until they remove a political sign from their dorm room window. The students, who are renting the room from the University, are now calling this a violation of their free speech.

So let me get this straight:
1. You don't own the property
2. You don't own the room/window
3. The institution that does own it has a 10 year old policy of no political signs in dorm windows

Why is this news? Why is this an issue? Why are people calling this a violation of their rights? Does the University not have the "right" to enforce it's own policies?

Am I the only one bewildered here?

(story (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-09-texas-campaign-signs_N.htm))

This just in: Also in that link is the story of a parking lot owner who isn't allowing cars with Obama bumper stickers park there. Hilarious free speech double-standard whining ensues.

Well if the lot owner isn't banning all bumper stickers, but just ones he doesn't like then he's just a stupid asshole.

But since the university isn't allowing any signs (supposedly) then they're not really acting unfairly.

Well if the lot owner isn't banning all bumper stickers, but just ones he doesn't like then he's just a stupid asshole.


Maybe. But since when did being a "stupid asshole" become a breach of civil liberties? As far as I'm concerned he can say no blue cars are allowed on Tuesdays and that's his right as the owner of the property.

This is a common theme in American societal/political issues. Many people are unable to differentiate between things that are unfair/immoral/stupid and things that are (or should be) illegal. (not referring to you personally fyi)

Is this man stupid for refusing business from Obama supporters? I think so.
Is he entitled to his stupidity? Certainly. Often the people who cry "first amendment foul" are the first ones to try and squash the free speech of another individual.

I'll stop laughing when someone makes it a race issue.

If you aren't allowed a "Vote for Obama" sticker, are you allowed a "Don't Vote For McCain" one?

Is this man stupid for refusing business from Obama supporters? I think so.
Is he entitled to his stupidity? Certainly. Often the people who cry "first amendment foul" are the first ones to try and squash the free speech of another individual.

You don't have to break any laws to be a stupid asshole, you just have to do stupid asshole things.:iceslolan
And it might not be as stupid a business move as it first appears, because while he's refusing customers (in theory) and therefore money - how many people put stickers on their car and chance upon his lot in the first place? Not many - but now think of how much publicity he's getting for free, for nothing more than being a stupid asshole?

I'll stop laughing when someone makes it a race issue

+1 not really an Obama issue for me but to take his actions a step further would be picking and choosing the type of people he lets in.

Freedom of speech, as outlined in the FIRST amendment (which would rank it pretty high) is a covenant between all citizens and all the governments in the United States of America. The University of Texas is a government entity and is obliged to follow the constitution.

The parking lot owner has no such obligations and as a private owner is allowed the discretion of requiring certain conditions for the use of his property as long as they are not proscribed by legislation.

One time I saw a hillbilly screaming “I know my rights” as the cops took him down. I'll never forget when one of the cops said “this guy wouldn't know a granted right from an inalienable right”.

I think the discrepancy here is ownership versus censorship.

A homeowner can choose to put the sign of whatever political statement he wishes under his 1st ammendment right. What the successive laws have done is censorship; choosing how those freedoms are controlled. Then, you have local attitudes toward certain things which further cloud how those laws get enforced.

An example: In 1955, you had the right to wear a button on your lapel stating your party's propoganda for the upcoming election. "Vote for smith." That is protected by the 1st amm. If, however you have a button that says, "Vote for smith, asshole," in 1955 it would be censored for the indecent profanity. Today, if you have a button that says, "Vote for smith, asshole," it may be censored in DC, SD, WV, IN, and FL, but it mightn't be censored in CA, parts of NV, Austin TX, or Baltimore MD. All of those buttons are protected under the first ammendment, but lesser laws may censor some of them. Whether or not the censorship is unconstitutional is up to the supreme court and is tried on a case by case basis.

The first ammendment is fixed. We have over the years drawn up laws to censor indecent things in the media. Whether or not those censorship constructs are constitutional or not is debatable by the supreme court.

So, regardless of whether or not the UT owners want those posters there is pretty irrelevant. All they can do is make a rule, not even a law. The first ammendment right is pretty strong in that argument, and I think any impartial court would rule in favor of the posters being constitutional. I think what is far more pertinent to this situation is that UT is a decidedly conservative organization seated in the capitol of the largest red state in the union. But, the county of Travis in which Austin sits is a decidedly (if not militantly) blue county. I think the struggle here is not so much that they don't want political signs in the windows. The struggle here is that the conservative UT organization doesn't want to allow democratic propganda to be so prevalent as a representation of the state of texas.

Bottom line is this: UT doesn't want Obama posters because they are counterproductive to the furthering of the Republican cause in the state's capitol. So, in a wise move they banned all political posters. Unfortunately that falls squarely into potential violation of constitutional rights. What they should have done is to say "no posters at all." and cite the reasons as being a fire hazard or a potential for falling out the window. True... that censors all freedom of speech in dorm windows, but it doesn't incite tempestuous anger in a few small, well-organized groups. Jyp them all equally and they won't revolt. If they made a rule that says, "no posters in windows," that's not censorship. Its damage prevention. If they say "no political posters in windows," that implies that you can post anything you want as long as its not political. That is censorship.

At any rate, the way UT handled it was censorship, regardless of ownership

This whole thing was a bunch of B.S. and was quickly rendered moot by UT Austin officials within a day or two after the disciplinary action was taken. Due to the overall student body complaining and a bi-partisan effort by both Democrat and Republican students the school suspended enforcement of the rule which went back at least 10 years. This is an old issue with the University of Texas system. We had similar issues at UTEP in El Paso and at my alma mater Texas Tech. My youngest brother got his postgraduate degree at UT Austin and I remember seeing people hanging their underwear out to dry at the dorms and other questionable things that made the campus look bad. Of course, he had sense enough to live off campus.

Although I question the ulterior motive of the students which obviously were seeking their 15 minutes of short lived fame IMO the issue with UT was a 1st Amendment right to free speech and an equal protection cause issue. Other Texas universities primarily public do not have these ridiculous rules and even promote politics on the campuses. There are free areas set aside for the student political activists and voter registration drives.

What were the school officials going to do next? Start banning cars that have bumper stickers either supporting Obama or McCain parked in the student or faculty parking lots? :screwy: Slippery slope. :shakehead