First Amendment Debate at University of Wyoming

Post Reply New Topic

Rally denounces ban on William Ayers - Casper Star Tribune

I was totally at this rally. I was supposed to be there filming for student media from an objective standpoint, but I still believed in what they were trying to stay.

Basically, if you don't know the backstory, William Ayers, 1960's domestic-terrorist-turned-academic who is now a professor at the University of Illinois, was supposed to give a speech on education theory at UW. Of course, once people got wind he was coming we had protests and outrage on all channels, including possible loss of funding and even threats of violence. So Tom Buchanan, the university president (who in my personal opinion has the smallest cajones of any person I've met when it comes to dealing with controversy) decided to "disinvite" him. Well later one of our student organizations was pissed that they cancelled his speech, and invited him to come and speak anyways under their SO budget. That's when they were contacted by UW's resident attorney who essentially told them that Ayers was banned from all campus areas. Now there is a lawsuit filed against the university by the organizers of the rally in the above article, attempting to force UW to allow Ayers to speak.

I don't really care too much for Ayers myself, what with all the stuff he pulled back when he was leading the Weather Underground. However, I still believe we have the right to hear what he has to say if we so choose. And since UW gets most of its funding from the state, it is essentially a public forum where the 1st Amendment must be upheld. If they decide to censor Ayers, who's to say that other potentially educational voices would be silenced as well? Isn't this what college is all about, making your own choices and formulating your own opinions?

I leave the debate to you.

that's why i hate politics.

Reminds me of the documentary, The Divided State. It was basically the same situation but with Michael Moore before the 2004 election.

I believe in freedom of speech.

I don't care if the speaker is a Nazi or a Communist, pro or anti abortion, or believes the world is flat.

As far as I am concerned they can have their say without thugs trying to stop them.

Ayers doesn't do anything for free (funny how leftists decry money, but are always willing to accept it). If he was at the University, he was paid to be there by the University, as well as his travel, lodging, and meals paid for by the University.

I live in Pittsburgh, and he was recently hired to speak at the University of Pittsburgh. A lot of people protested. Not about denying his right to speak, but rather about the University spending money that could have done a lot more good elsewhere being diverted to a leftists with whom the protesters didn't agree.

This is NOT a First Amendment issue. It is a money issue. Ayers can stand on the rooftops and scream whatever he wants, but I don't want my dime going to pay him to do so.

I agree, it would be a money issue, or the first half of it, when the university was paying for it. However, according to the opening post, the SO were more than willing to pay the money needed for him to speak, so the issue with money does appear to be more or less resolved, and the University, unless I am missing something, does not have to pay a cent, yet they are banning Ayers from the campus anyways.



That said, I'm not sure whether this is actually a first amendment issue, I mean, they are still allowed to rent a building off-campus to hear him speak, if they so desired, but it is the university's property. To be honest, I wouldn't want this guy shouting from my rooftop. At the same time, the university isn't making it easy for this man to come, but I still suspect the university, constitutionally, is not in the wrong.

The "right" of free speech is nowhere granted in the U.S. constitution. The only mention of it is in the first Amendment which restricts the powers of Congress. In a private domain there is no "right" of free speech. In my house there is only speech that I permit under my roof. The First Amendment does not extend to private owners of private property. If you want Free Speech go into a public area or a public park with your soapbox. As long as you are not trying to whip up a lynch mob or foment a riot you can say anything do damned well please -- in public. Not in private.

ruveyn

William Ayres was a left-wing radical in the 1960s.

Why is it so readily assumed that he must still hold those exact same views going on fifty years later??? Heck, by those criteria, the Republicans should have been falling all over themselves to endorse the Obama health-care plan - almost word-for-word the same plan proposed by the Republican Party, under Newt Gingrich's leadership, in 1993.

If I had to hold the same views I held in the Sixties, I suppose I'd have to be psychotic - after all, I was only six years old when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon...

Sounds about right.

Hmmm, ruveyn's definition somehow makes more sense. And explains a lot.

Point taken, but does the University of Wyoming campus qualify as private property when the college itself is mostly funded by the State of Wyoming? Our governor dropped some nasty hints about what could happen to that state funding should Ayers come anywhere near Laramie. Sounds a lot like government censorship to me.

And to answer a few other questions, it was originally the Education department that was sponsoring Ayers, but once that got shot down, the Secular Student Alliance took up the flag, intending to use their own money gained from donations and fundraisers. So it's not the university paying for Ayers' visit, it's merely a university SO.

I really don't give a hoot for Ayers either, but I still believe that not allowing him to speak on campus sets a dangerous precedent for future controversial speakers. I believe that it should be up to each individual student whether or not to listen to what someone else has to say. We're university students and adults, we can make our own choices, and all this is really about is the university administration thinking that Ayers will indoctrinate us into radicalism. What a load of bull[word-im-not-allowed-to-say-on-WP].

Here's a video filmed by myself and one of my coworkers at Student Media, about the free speech rally that was held at UW last Thursday:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZkZFgXIpo[/youtube]

(Matter of fact, you can see me at about the 1:20 mark. Look for a redhead holding a camera)

Also, the hearing for the Ayers/Lanker v. UW case is scheduled for tomorrow. Will post the verdict when I get a chance.

This is a variant of the "one drop rule". If an organization receives as little as one cent from the government, does that make it a government entity? I think not. Was the University of Wyoming chartered as a private institution under the laws of Wyoming or was it chartered as a government owned school? If you use the "one cent rule" then everything in the nation is controlled by Congress. Kiss your rights goodbye.

ruveyn

Well, it would appear that free speech won out in the end.

Judge orders UW to allow Ayers speech - Casper Star-Tribune

I will be attending this guy's speech, at the very least for the sake of press coverage.