Say Anything Blog

So the military recruiters weren’t asked to leave by the University, correct?  Instead, they left due to the noise of the protestors, etc., correct?

Where’s the problem?

By the way, welcome back Gary.

You can go back to using your old name/email if you want.  It was unblocked long ago.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

"Storming” an event center and shouting until the people you disagree with leave doesn’t seem to be protected under the “right to peacefully assemble” clause of the constitution.

But legality aside, why can’t both co-exist in the same event center?  Do the military recruiters not have the same right to free speech that the protesters have?

How would you feel about 200 military recruiters swooping down on a group of anti-military activists and shouting at them until they had to go home?

This stuff is wrong.  These leftists need to learn some tolerance.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I see. So the student protesters are allowed to hand out information on alternatives to military careers, but recruiters aren’t allowed to inform student about military careers?

I think its inconsiderate and not very fair, but I still would protect the students’ rights to do what they did.  Its their university and they should have every right to protest whatever they want.

Also, if making noise, banging on windows, verbally demanding someone leave, etc. is thuggery, then the Boston Tea Party must have been terrorism. Sometimes freedom of speech leads to increases in the volume of that speech. 

Don’t confuse my comments as support for either the recruiters or their detractors.

Rob,

Well, the case law doesn’t support your claim.  They were (from what description I have seen of the event) fairly clearly within the bounds of that case law. 

I wouldn’t have a problem the two hundred military recruiters doing such.

Rob,

Actually, it does protect such disruption.  Can you imagine the state actually trying to regulate speech in the way that you posit?  Talk about an administrative nightmare.  Well, that and the chilling of speech that would occur. 

BTW, at the protests outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo was cared for, people screamed at the top of their lungs at each other.  Were you equally disturbed by this behavior as well?  How about protests outside abortion clinics, where Operation Rescue members scream and yell at clinic workers, etc.?  Let’s put your principles into action in other subject matter areas.

I wouldn’t have a problem the two hundred military recruiters doing such.

I would.

The Constitution protects free speech.  It does not protect the disruption of other’s free speech.  Unless, Hus, you’d like me to stand in front of you and scream at the top of my lungs every time you tried to make a point in a conversation.

If the recruiters aren’t wanted on campus, fine.  Let the university make the decision.  But bum-rushing recruiters at an event they had been given permission to attend?

That’s thuggery.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Let the university make the decision.

Federal law states that the recruiters may not be denied access to a state university.  So it wasn’t the university’s decision to make.

Andrew,

Yes, one has to differentiate between what considers “rude” and what is constitutionally permissable.

BTW, at the protests outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo was cared for, people screamed at the top of their lungs at each other. Were you equally disturbed by this behavior as well?

Did they interfere with the hospices ability to perform its function?  If they did (and I heard about no such thing) then yes, I am very much disturbed by it.  If not, then they were merely exercising their right to free speech.

In essence, your free speech rights end where mine begin.  You don’t have the right to shout me down or interfere with what I’m doing any more than I have the right to do the same to you.  And its not all that hard to administer.  Its done all the time.  Protesters are allowed to picket or whatever outside a certain establishment or piece of property, but they aren’t allowed to interfere with the people going to or coming from nor are they allowed (in most instances) to access the property.

Federal law states that the recruiters may not be denied access to a state university. So it wasn’t the university’s decision to make.

Only in cases where the university accepts federal funding.  Which, I think, is a fair trade off.  I’d need to know more about this event (where it took place, etc.) before I could say whether or not this law applied to the situation or not.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The fact of the matter, hus, is that this is an example of double standards. Aside from the fact that UC Berkley is renoun for violent protests, Robs assumption is correct. If anti-war protestors are allowed to behave in this way and give out information on other careers, then why is it legal to turn around and hinder the military from doing the same? As for your posit that you would have no problem with the reverse, sites like protest warrior and the like have shown how “receptive” the left is to republicans when we use their own protest tactics on them.

Bottom line, The anti-war protestors’ vagrant disregard for the career fair was a direct violation of the Military’s right to peaceably assemble. They had EVERY right to express their own opinion, they took it too far when they began oppressing another group’s right to express theirs.

Son of America

Liargate Update: Jadetroll is still a liar.

Gary!!! Welcome back!!!!! I thought those sentence structures looked familiar.

Come on, Gary!! Don’t hide your light under a bushel basket. We won’t pick on you too much. Maybe!

Rob,

BTW, I suggest you actually read some First Amendment speech clause jurisprudence before you start commenting on the nature of that clause.  Start with cases concerning hostile audiences, fighting words, and offensive words.

Did they interfere with the hospices ability to perform its function? If they did (and I heard about no such thing) then yes, I am very much disturbed by it.

Well, in this case there was no interference (from the facts so far presented).  So the quality of speech that you oppose wasn’t present. 

You don’t have the right to shout me down or interfere with what I’m doing any more than I have the right to do the same to you.

And you have not shown that any interference occurred.  Some people were rude; some people were loud; but there difference is between this and and the sort of interference you are talking about.  Unless interference in your worldview simply means that people are bothered by the speech of others.  Given your tendency towards statist solutions, I wouldn’t put it past you. 

Protesters are allowed to picket or whatever outside a certain establishment or piece of property, but they aren’t allowed to interfere with the people going to or coming from nor are they allowed (in most instances) to access the property.

But of course the problem is that this example is inapposite.  (a) This appears to be an open public forum; and (b) you have not shown that any actual interference occurred. 

Only in cases where the university accepts federal funding.

And since it can be assumed that all state universities accept state funding…

The point of my statement was of course that you were wrong when you stated that the university had a choice in the matter. 

Which, I think, is a fair trade off. I’d need to know more about this event (where it took place, etc.) before I could say whether or not this law applied to the situation or not.

If it took place on university controlled property (the Stevenson Event Center appears to be such property), then the university was required to allow their presence.

I don’t support anti-abortion protesters screaming and “intimidating” those going into the clinic.  You speak as though I do.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  Its thuggish behavior on the part of the protesters and I would not support that kind of tactic regardless of who employed it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

Sorry Rob.  That’s not interference.  After all, Operation Rescue screams at clinic personnel, patients, etc.  and sometimes the patients are so intimidated by the screaming, name-calling, etc. that they leave.  Anti-fur protestors similarly scream, cajole, etc. at customers of fur shops.  Now, if the anti-fur protestor were to dump red paint on the would-be customer that would be a different matter.  But merely screaming, making noise, etc. so that the party protested against walks away is not interference.  If it were, we’d be banning all manner of protests in this country.

And you have not shown that any interference occurred.

The screamed until the recruiters left.  What more evidence do you need?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Well, “storming” a hall sounds pretty violent to me.  Another term for “thug” is hoodlum.  That certainly doesn’t neccessarily imply violence.  But whatever.  Semantics.

But what about the students who wanted to attend the career fair but weren’t able to because of the protest?  What about the sponsors of the fair, don’t they have a right to hold their event without being interrupted?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

Thuggery typically refers to violence.

Anyway, I support anyone’s constitutional right to scream their head off.

Rob,

What have you got against the study of language?

Anyway, thuggery is an act, a thug is word used to characterize a person.  Anyway, hoodlum most certainly connotes violence; generally it refers to a violent young criminal. 

The meaning and proper use of terminology is important to me. 

There is no information in the write-up about students who didn’t attend.

As to the sponsors, they created an open public forum (if they didn’t, if it was a limited public forum, then show me where that is the case); open public forums, when they are created (by fiat or tradition), generally allow for very little in the way of government restrictions.

I gotta go with Hus on this one.

Under the circumstances the protesters may have been incredibly childish and unconscionably rude (which they were), but they didn’t violate the recruiters’ right of free speech.  By their withdrawal, the recruiters chose to no longer exercise that right.

Regards…

Oh give me a break.

Fine, next time you’re trying to say something I’m going to stand in front of you and scream so that you can’t say it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

There is no information in the write-up about students who didn’t attend.

From the article:

UC Santa Cruz junior Jonathan Perez dressed in a suit and tie Tuesday, hoping to impress company recruiters at the campus job fair.

But more than 200 student anti-war protesters got there first, storming the Stevenson Event Center, shouting and banging on windows and demanding that military recruiters in the corner of the room leave.

As for the terms, “hoodlum” can be someone who is violent, but that isn’t a requisite.

But then, you’re splitting hairs.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

Did the guy attend the function or not?  The quoted language doesn’t stated that he didn’t go.  Indeed, its basically neutral. 

Actually, it is a requisite of the term: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:hoodlum

The very same ‘leftist thugs’ took part in peaceful protest last night at the California state budget allocation regarding education, and were subjected to what is called ‘pain complaince’ by Santa Cruz police dressed in riot gear. Who’s the thugs now? If there are leftist thugs I take it there are rightists thugs too?

Hus, I agree that the meaning and proper use of terminology is important. That being said, violence is not a requiste quality for the term ‘hoodlum’.

According to Webster’s Unabridged:
”a young rowdy, often the member of a gang; street tough; hooligan”

A ‘rowdy’, by the way is:
”a person whose behavior is rough, disorderly, and quarrelsome; a hoodlum”

Given that first definition, I think Rob’s use of the word is fitting. I’m inclined to treat Webster’s as a more authoratative source than Google.

Seth Williams,

Google isn’t the source of the definition, WordNet is: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/

This is what I found at the Merriam-Webster website:

Main Entry: hood·lum
Pronunciation: ‘hüd-l&m, ‘hud-
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps from German dialect (Swabia) hudelum disorderly
1 : THUG; especially : one who commits acts of violence
2 : a young ruffian
- hood·lum·ish /-l&-mish/ adjective
- hood·lum·ism /-"mi-z&m/ noun

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hoodlum

I dunno where you are getting your definitions from, but it can’t be on-line.

Main Entry: ruf·fi·an
Pronunciation: ‘r&-fE-&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French rufian
: a brutal person : BULLY
- ruffian adjective
- ruf·fi·an·ism /-&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- ruf·fi·an·ly adjective

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ruffian

Main Entry: bru·tal
Pronunciation: ‘brü-t&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French, from Medieval Latin brutalis, from Latin brutus
1 archaic : typical of beasts : ANIMAL
2 : befitting a brute : as a : grossly ruthless or unfeeling b : CRUEL, COLD-BLOODED c : HARSH, SEVERE d : unpleasantly accurate and incisive
- bru·tal·ly /-t&l-E/ adverb
synonyms BRUTAL, BRUTISH, BESTIAL, FERAL mean characteristic of an animal in nature, action, or instinct. BRUTAL applies to people, their acts, or their words and suggests a lack of intelligence, feeling, or humanity . BRUTISH stresses likeness to an animal in low intelligence, in base appetites, and in behavior based on instinct . BESTIAL suggests a state of degradation unworthy of man and fit only for beasts . FERAL suggests the savagery or ferocity of wild animals . 

“>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=brutal

I’m sorry, but screeching, making noise, etc. does not make one a hoodlum.  It may make one a rude, overly emotional, etc. person, but as an important aspect of hooliganism is violence, it does not make them hooligans.

No, my definitions aren’t on-line. I’m using the analog versions. I find them to be preferable for most serious uses. Besides, I enjoy a book more.

The definition you post says we can understand hoodlum to be a thug, ”especailly : one who commits acts of violence”, but that doesn’t exclude one who does not use violence. Also, definition 2 says that we can understand ‘hoodlum’ to be a ruffian.

Using definition 2 that you posted for ‘ruffian’, we can understand that to be a brutal person.

Now, taking a look at your posting for brutal we have: ”BRUTAL applies to people, their acts, or their words...”

It’s worth noting that some dictionaries do strictly define hoodlumism in terms of violent or illegal acts (Longman 1995, 2003; Oxford 2000--these, correct me if I’m wrong, were cheifly designed with students in mind); The Little Oxford Dictonary (1991) simply defines ‘hoodlum’ as ”hooligan; gagnster”, which isn’t very helpful to either argument due to it’s obliqueness.

I normally defer to an unabridged dictonary as being more authoratative in these instances (although my Webster’s is admittedly less contemporary: 1979). Not, as one might be tempted to think, because it’s supports my position in this one instance, but because it tends to be more complete and verbose in it’s definitions (as the name implies).

And this is really much deeper than I normally need to think into this sort of thing…

Seth Williams,

I normally defer to the unabridged OED, but I don’t have a copy at hand at home.

Anyway, I think its pretty clear from the definitions I have laid out here that when one uses the term hoodlum that expectations of violence by the actor called such aren’t created out of someone solipsistic attitude.