Bill Ayers Sues Univ of Wyoming (Casper: to rent, how much, to buy)

[yyz1]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

The University of Wyoming is subject to the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Quotes from the Wyoming State Constitution:



Moreover as a publicly funded facility, all citizens have the right to avail themselves of its facilities.

Nowhere in the text you quote does it say that anyone shall be forced to provide a microphone and a stage.

[swagger]

Originally Posted by Tyster

Ayers has every right to free speech. But he does not have a right to a specific venue from which he can exercise that right.

Nailed it.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by yyz1

Nowhere in the text you quote does it say that anyone shall be forced to provide a microphone and a stage.

I wouldn't count in it, you need to see the full orders from the court. They will be expected to provide the same accommodations they have to past speakers.

http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2010/04/27/breaking_news/doc4bd74c954d978771432721.txt (broken link)

Downes ordered UW to coordinate with the plaintiffs, Ayers and UW students Meg Lanker, as well as provide adequate security for event.

Downes also ordered that UW couldn’t put any unreasonable contractual obligations on the plaintiffs.

And UoW has to pay his court costs.



More quotes from the judge:

Downes cited a four-part test in his decision, ruling that Ayers's free speech had been violated, that the university's decision to bar him would cause irreparable harm, that his speech would be in the public interest, and that he can speak in the campus's multipurpose gym. Although he said it's unclear if the gym is a designated free speech area or a limited public forum, he determined that the point is moot because the school has no written policy establishing its status.

Regarding the security concerns, Downes said, "These fears were based on, at best, veiled or indirect threats and apprehension" -- calling it a "heckler's veto." He stressed that "fear is not enough to override the First Amendment."

Downes added, "The Bill of Rights is a document for all seasons... Mr. Ayers is a citizen who wants to speak. He needn't have any more justification than that." He ordered the university to work with the plaintiffs, led by student Meg Lanker, to organize Ayers' speech, which is slated to take place at the multi-purpose gym on campus tomorrow at a time to be determined.

Lane's take? "Judge Downes acted in a very courageous fashion," he says. "This should send a message to universities across the country that they can't use security as an excuse to stifle free speech."

[Froggie Legs]

Interesting video:
Free Speech or Hate Speech? - Video - FoxNews.com

Freedom of speech also allows one, if so inclined, to peaceably protest...so if you are against him being there, invite the media and hold a protest outside.

or voice your opinion on places such as this. (http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/guess-who-is-going-to-wyoming/ - broken link)

As Glenn Beck is fond of quoting " Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it."

I just hope that violence doesn't happen, because it will give the radical nuts who support Ayers the reason to say , see, it's those "conservative loons who are violent..not us."

[Tyster]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Apparantly the judge disagrees with you.

Judge orders UW to allow Ayers speech tomorrow

If the judge made this decision based on the notion that Ayers, in addition to a right to free speech itself, also has a right to any venue he chooses, the judge is wrong. My guess is there is some other reason... probably contractual.

[Tyster]

"Downes cited a four-part test in his decision, ruling that Ayers's free speech had been violated, that the university's decision to bar him would cause irreparable harm, that his speech would be in the public interest, and that he can speak in the campus's multipurpose gym."


Downes added, "The Bill of Rights is a document for all seasons... Mr. Ayers is a citizen who wants to speak. He needn't have any more justification than that." He ordered the university to work with the plaintiffs, led by student Meg Lanker, to organize Ayers' speech, which is slated to take place at the multi-purpose gym on campus tomorrow at a time to be determined."


As I stated: The judge is wrong. Under his rules anyone could demand to speak at any public venue and, by merely making the demand ("He needn't have any more justification than that."), would have to be accommodated. Therefore, since the White House is a public venue (taxpayer funded) any of us could demand the right to give a speech from the Oval Office and that demand would have to be met. But that's never going to happen, is it? This judge is on very shaky ground and should be challenged in an appeal.

[whynot66]

What's he gonna talk about, the BOMBS, he made, the people he in put in danger? Nice to have a criminal come and give a talk! He's lucky, he's not in prison! Has he ever apologized? I don't think so? no remorse either.

[wyolady]

Originally Posted by Tyster

As I stated: The judge is wrong. Under his rules anyone could demand to speak at any public venue and, by merely making the demand ("He needn't have any more justification than that."), would have to be accommodated. Therefore, since the White House is a public venue (taxpayer funded) any of us could demand the right to give a speech from the Oval Office and that demand would have to be met. But that's never going to happen, is it? This judge is on very shaky ground and should be challenged in an appeal.

I just gotta point out....UW invited and hosted Dick Cheney to speak. UW invited and then recanted Ayers. How is the judge wrong? On what grounds will an appeal prevail?

When Dick Cheney came, many didn't want him, including Lanker. I do find this quite ironic for her (perhaps karmic?!?!?)

I just see it as very problematic when a public university invites someone with a right perspective, but refuses someone with a left perspective. I know, I know....the security thing. But from a free speech issue? My personal belief? And this is my opinion, not fact (so please allow me my opinion) From what I've read and friends who work at UW, the withdrawl of donations weighed much heavier than the threat to security.

[jody_wy]

Dick Cheney also donated allot of money to UW, Ayers is taking money.... also taking away more donations.... think I can find another non profit to give too. Thing was he should not have been invited to start with, There other speakers probably more qualified them him in the field anyway.

[Tyster]

"I just see it as very problematic when a public university invites someone with a right perspective, but refuses someone with a left perspective."

I don't view this as a right or left issue. The issue is whether, outside of any contractual agreement between UW and Ayers, UW can be compelled by a judge to host him on the claim that because he has a 1st Amendment right to free speech he therefore also has a right to a venue from which to exercise that right. That is where I see the problem.