Shouldn't that be "More Proof..."?

It's not like there's been a shortage of evidence that many in academia are lunatics.

Here are some places that need to have their piggie banks taken away and see how they like that SCREW LIBERAL PLACES OF LOWER LEARNING

"Yuba College even directs students to where on campus they are allowed to exhibit free speech. In this case, it's the school theater."

Well, as long as the theater isn't crowded, and no one is yelling "fire," then everything is okay ... isn't it?

Bush literally invented the free speech zone. Reap what you sow.

And your Ashley-Todd-sense should be telling you that there's more to the College of Alameda story than is being reported in the Christian press.

Shorter Cassy.

Brian,
Bush did not invent Free Speech Zones. The first Free Speech Zone was created by Andrew Young (D) in Atlanta for the 1988 Democratic National Convention. Ironically, the Republican candidate in 1988 was Bush's father.

Even shorter Brian.

Actually, Eric, we're both wrong. Free speech zones were apparently used during Vietnam-era protests. Regardless, Bush has been a regular supporter and the largest presidential user of free speech zones since. Again, reap what you sow.

Hmm, I went looking for a new image for a "standard Marc" post, but I couldn't find anything that indicates someone standing around awkwardly waiting for someone else to make a point, and then droolingly pulling out his one tired, repetitive signature line in an attempt to appear involved in some way. So this will have to do.

"lawyer"marc couldn't make a point with a sharp stick. They really ought to have an asshat of the month award here and he'd win it every single one of them.

Brian,

I find it interesting how the free speech argument is one directional. Is it considered fine for the protesters to violate Bush's right to free speech? He does share that right you know. These protesters can demonstrate for the news anytime they want. The fact that they are held a distance from the place where Bush has come to speak is not suppression of free speech. Quite the contrary. These same protesters can hold a conference or some such, invite the press and bad mouth Bush all they want on their own dime.

The issue on campus is not about preventing an organized speech from being disrupted. It's about students free speech on campus. And it's about equal opportunity for the expression of different opinions. I don't think a school should be able to filter who gets to speak on the basis of political alignment. Not a publicly funded organization anyway. If an organized speech is under way I don't think any group has the right to try and disrupt it. Regardless of who's opinion is being expressed. That's just rude and uncivilized. If you have a different opinion, by all means challenge the other to an organized debate or hold your own speech. Personal conversations on a campus should not generally be grounds for arresting people. Saying a prayer for someone with their consent shouldn't either. You say there is more to that story. Possibly, but you failed to state what made the school's position excusable.

I don't want anyone's right to free speech trampled on. Be that President Bush or that guy in high school I never got along with. If you have a real example of Bush violating someone's freedom of speech, I'm more than willing to agree he has if I can verify the claim. But screaming that Bush did it does not make the other incidents excusable in any way. It's not right for liberal or conservative to violate those rights set down in the constitution.

Enough said.

Is it considered fine for the protesters to violate Bush's right to free speech?

Thus demonstrating that you don't understand what "right to free speech" even means.

If you have a real example of Bush violating someone's freedom of speech, I'm more than willing to agree he has if I can verify the claim.

How generous of you. You're incapable of making a determination on your own, but you're more than willing to agree if someone else tells you about it. How about a district court?

At Bill's trial, a Pittsburgh detective testified that the Secret Service had instructed local police to confine "people that were making a statement pretty much against the President and his views." The district court judge not only tossed out the silly charges against Neel but scolded the prosecution: "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

One of the few to go to trial, because the prosecutors usually drop it once the people are whisked away.

Read on. And here's a good one.

It's worth you getting a little more educated about the roles of the government and the people regarding free speech issues.

Brian,

I understand the right to free speech just fine. I stated my position quite well. I am also quite able to make the determination on my own.

In your original post you made claims without giving specific backup information. Also, as I was pointing out, Bush's actions one way or another do not make the schools action excusable. Therefore your original post did not even properly address the issue of the blog entry. Your follow up post does present information that leads me to agree that the Bush administration did violate people's right to free speech. Thank you.

As for your insulting tone, grow up. Your original post was pitiful. Bush didn't event FSZ. They've been used for many years by both parties. As for there being more to the Almeda story, perhaps. But that's just speculation and in no way relevant.