So I busted up a political rally this week...

[Translucent Daydream]

I work at a junior college. On Wednesday nights I am the evening administrator, which means I mainly deal with drunk people or malfunctioning things. One time I had to help aprehend a 15 year old prostitute that was giving her services whilst dressed up as Tinkerbell, wings and all. One time, I had to retrieve a stolen Mac laptop from the roof. This time, I busted up a political rally that was about to turn violent because a bus unloaded into the wrong room.

A semi local third party ultra conservative political group had been renting out our conference center to hold its meetings, which have been getting louder and louder. At one point, some of them started to bring guns to the meeting, which is illegal, but they had reverted to the "gun holster chic" look which was fine. We have a basketball team that has some African American and Hatian players on it, and they unloaded their bus for what was to be a team meeting in the small conference room next door.

Well the basketball kids went into the wrong room, and walked into a big huge crowd of people up and cheering and God blessing the American flag. The man with the microphone on the podium said "Who let the niggers in?" followed by a cheer, and other mixed calls of "welfare" and "anti-christ president" and "socialism". So I got called and had to break them up. I had to shut off the AV system and the police got called, and I was told "I was going to get mine commie."



Did we get collectively more retarded as a nation in the past two years? So after lots of paperwork later, we will no longer be able to hold political events on the property besides voting. So in other words, I don't get to watch any more political debates on the big ass 5 foot by 8 foot inch projector.

Did you guys get involved with any crazy political stuff this week on accident?

[campp]

What an ugly and sad story.

[Translucent Daydream]

I was half expecting Fox News to be there filming the whole thing. It was sad.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

The man with the microphone on the podium said "Who let the niggers in?" followed by a cheer, and other mixed calls of "welfare" and "anti-christ president" and "socialism".

Don't worry. I'm sure that someone will be along to tell you that this man at the microphone was in no way representative of his group, and it is incredibly intolerant of you to assume. He probably got up there by accident. And the people cheering simply mis-heard him, and were calling out "we need to look after the common welfare"

"whoever is anti christ must also be anti the president".

"A limited amount of socialism is OK"

Why are you so intolerant of other people Translucent Daydream? Are you some kind of Nazi?

[Translucent Daydream]

I'm just a commie asshole, I guess.

[SleepyDuck]

I wanna hear more about Tinker-hooker.* What does that say about me?

* Kinkerbelle? Help me out here...

[Oslo Ostragoth]

Originally Posted by SleepyDuck

I wanna hear more about Tinker-hooker.* What does that say about me?

* Kinkerbelle? Help me out here...

Yeah. The story went all to hell after that. :-D

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

Well the basketball kids went into the wrong room, and walked into a big huge crowd of people up and cheering and God blessing the American flag. The man with the microphone on the podium said "Who let the niggers in?" followed by a cheer, and other mixed calls of "welfare" and "anti-christ president" and "socialism". So I got called and had to break them up. I had to shut off the AV system and the police got called, and I was told "I was going to get mine commie."

Sorry, but it's not clear exactly what you had to break up. Just the meeting? A scuffle between the two groups?

I can certainly imagine how things could have got physical between these groups, but if that's what happened--and then the police were called--I would have expected several arrests on each side.

On the other hand, if there was no fight, presumably you were just responding to a complaint about the N-word?

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by SleepyDuck

I wanna hear more about Tinker-hooker.

Here she is, plying her wares on the street...

and this is after the bust went down.

[SleepyDuck]

Originally Posted by spark240

Here she is, plying her wares on the street...

and this is after the bust went down.

Thanks, uh, I guess...

(debating whether or not to click on the "See more tinkerbell prostitute pictures" link)

Rule whatever the number* in action, I guess.

Aw hell, I'm gonna click it, I just got some brain bleach at the store; how bad can it be?

34? Am I close?

ETA:Clicked it, big disappointment

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by SleepyDuck

I wanna hear more about Tinker-hooker.* What does that say about me?

* Kinkerbelle? Help me out here...

If you believe in fairy hookers, your hands got clap.

[Patch]

Originally Posted by SleepyDuck

I wanna hear more about Tinker-hooker.* What does that say about me?

* Kinkerbelle? Help me out here...

There's Twinkerbell, but that would be a male hooker.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

I was half expecting Fox News to be there filming the whole thing. It was sad.

You know, Fox News isn't quite as troubling as a public employee shutting down a political rally (with the cops in tow!) in a limited public forum that they had duly reserved because they espoused views you don't care for (and this really seems to be the only offense they committed).

Were I in your shoes, I might have kicked this up to someone who was better informed about the First Amendment rights at issue here (and I wouldn't expect you so to be; that's not your job after all, and the school should have anticipated this eventuality earlier on). But the facts are what they are; and alas, absent an physical intimidation or imminent disorderly conduct, I don't think you made the right call.

[ShibbOleth]

Wow, Kimmy, unless you're a member of that group - and it sounds like you quite possibly are - then you're just Monday morning quarterbacking here. Maybe you should stay under the bench if that's your best judgment.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

[withdrawn]

[Translucent Daydream]

Originally Posted by spark240

Sorry, but it's not clear exactly what you had to break up. Just the meeting? A scuffle between the two groups?

I can certainly imagine how things could have got physical between these groups, but if that's what happened--and then the police were called--I would have expected several arrests on each side.

On the other hand, if there was no fight, presumably you were just responding to a complaint about the N-word?

There wasn't a fight or anything, it was mainly just some middle aged white people going off on a tear about some black kids in basketball uniforms wondering in. We have a strict racially motivated hate speech intolerance policy here.

[Translucent Daydream]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

You know, Fox News isn't quite as troubling as a public employee shutting down a political rally (with the cops in tow!) in a limited public forum that they had duly reserved because they espoused views you don't care for (and this really seems to be the only offense they committed).

Were I in your shoes, I might have kicked this up to someone who was better informed about the First Amendment rights at issue here (and I wouldn't expect you so to be; that's not your job after all, and the school should have anticipated this eventuality earlier on). But the facts are what they are; and alas, absent an physical intimidation or imminent disorderly conduct, I don't think you made the right call.

I probably should have bought them a beer too.



Look I don't care what people do, but they cannot break college policy and the agreement that they signed (which prohibits such behavior) on our campus. THey can sell their hate anywhere they want but not here.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

I probably should have bought them a beer too.



Look I don't care what people do, but they cannot break college policy and the agreement that they signed (which prohibits such behavior) on our campus. THey can sell their hate anywhere they want but not here.

Yeah, I know college policy is important. So is the Constitution. If you don't like it, sweetheart, you could take a job in private enterprise, but if you're going to be a government employee, I'm going to have to insist that you observe the mandates of the First Amendment.

[Translucent Daydream]

So I get up out of my office and go to get a Dr. Pepper. The machine spits out two bottles instead of one, and since I can't get the accounts office to take the soda back, I walk over to the assistant dean of student's office to share the bounty of my Dr. Pepperness. As I bust into his office, Tinkerbell has her back to me, wings out, in handcuffs, getting her rights read aloud to her. I stop, dean waives me off and mouths to me "I will tell you later come back."

Apparently she was getting it on under the security cameras with large groups of men in the atrium of one of the main buildings on campus after 5:00 PM.

Apparently she was also getting paid to visit the back seats of cars in the parking lot.

Apparently she was involved in some sort of sexual tirade with a dude dressed up as William Wallace on the baseball field.


Apparently she was several years underage as well.

I haven't heard anything else about it and that was some years back. There is a large World of Warcraft fanbase here as well, and staged recreactions of epic battles with level 80 warlocks or whatever happen around here on a regular basis often ending in large displays of magical prowess, up to and including food coloring / dish soap in the fountains and cloaks and ponytails flying through the physics labs.

[Translucent Daydream]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Yeah, I know college policy is important. So is the Constitution. If you don't like it, sweetheart, you could take a job in private enterprise, but if you're going to be a government employee, I'm going to have to insist that you observe the mandates of the First Amendment.

I am sorry, I don't follow you here. If you sign paperwork on a legally binding contract saying that you won't engage in prohibited behavior at a particular venue that you have reserved, and you go ahead and engage in that behavior anyway, you can just scream constitution?

That sounds as looney as the people I kicked out.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

I am sorry, I don't follow you here. If you sign paperwork on a legally binding contract saying that you won't engage in prohibited behavior at a particular venue that you have reserved, and you go ahead and engage in that behavior anyway, you can just scream constitution?

That sounds as looney as the people I kicked out.

That's right: it's called viewpoint neutrality and it lies at the heart of the First Amendment. You can't set aside a public forum only for views you approve of. Your contract wasn't restricting behavior--it was restricting a viewpoint, namely, the promotion of racial discord.

I dislike that viewpoint as much as you, but the government is not allowed to tell citizens that they cannot espouse that view or advocate for it in a limited public forum consistent with lawful time-place-and-manner restrictions.

[RealityChuck]

A junior college is not the government. Like any organization, they can set up rules on the use of their facilities.

I suggest you actually read the first amendment before making generalizations about it. It only forbids the government from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

[Translucent Daydream]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

A junior college is not the government. Like any organization, they can set up rules on the use of their facilities.

I suggest you actually read the first amendment before making generalizations about it. It only forbids the government from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

It is not a public forum, and I have to go with Chuck here and disagree with you. If I rent out Blue Ridge Community Center for zero dollars, and in the rental agreement it specifically states that I am not to hold a Klan rally, but I bust out the hoods anyway, I am breaking the terms of the signed contract free speech be damned. I don't think it really works that way.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

A junior college is not the government. Like any organization, they can set up rules on the use of their facilities.

I suggest you actually read the first amendment before making generalizations about it. It only forbids the government from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

Well, let's ask the OP--Is the college you work for a public or private institution? There are, after all, as many as three private junior colleges in Texas, all of which are more than 100 miles from Blue Ridge, so maybe Chuckles here is correct.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

It is not a public forum, and I have to go with Chuck here and disagree with you. If I rent out Blue Ridge Community Center for zero dollars, and in the rental agreement it specifically states that I am not to hold a Klan rally, but I bust out the hoods anyway, I am breaking the terms of the signed contract free speech be damned. I don't think it really works that way.

Wrong. It works that way. Do you seriously think cities would allow the Klan to march in their towns---that Skokie would allow the Illinois Nazis---if all they had to do was add a line in their permit application reading "Rule ___: No Nazis under any circumstances!"

The government can't condition your use of a limited public forum on your acceptance of limitations on the viewpoints you can advocate. That's exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

A junior college is not the government. Like any organization, they can set up rules on the use of their facilities.

I suggest you actually read the first amendment before making generalizations about it. It only forbids the government from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

I think he knows that. He's just baselessly assuming that the junior college is run by the state. It might be, or it might not be. There doesn't seem to be anything indicating one way or the other.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by ShibbOleth

Wow, Kimmy, unless you're a member of that group - and it sounds like you quite possibly are - then you're just Monday morning quarterbacking here. Maybe you should stay under the bench if that's your best judgment.

Nice.

Kimmy obviously failed to establish her liberal bona fides strongly enough; there should have been three or four sentences decrying the hatefulness of the group before daring to suggest that maybe there might possibly be a First Amendment issue in play.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Good News Club v. Milford Central School is also apposite here.

[NicePete]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Nice.

Kimmy obviously failed to establish her liberal bona fides strongly enough;

So distaste for racists is only a liberal thing now? Thanks for clarifying.

[Translucent Daydream]

Regardless, in the paperwork that all must sign, we reserve the right to end hospitality services to anyone at anytime at our sole discrection....

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

Regardless, in the paperwork that all must sign, we reserve the right to end hospitality services to anyone at anytime at our sole discrection....

That may well be. But if you're a public entity, the exercise of your discretion based on the political viewpoint of the group may be violative of the First Amendment.

[Translucent Daydream]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That may well be. But if you're a public entity, the exercise of your discretion based on the political viewpoint of the group may be violative of the First Amendment.

I maybe dense, but I fail to see how someone screaming nigger into a microphone at my students is a political statement.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by NicePete

So distaste for racists is only a liberal thing now? Thanks for clarifying.

No, distaste for racists is an across-the-board thing.

Insisting on displaying your politically correct views before your legitimate criticism is accepted? That just might be a liberal thing.

[NicePete]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No, distaste for racists is an across-the-board thing.

Insisting on displaying your politically correct views before your legitimate criticism is accepted? That just might be a liberal thing.

So it's not a liberal thing, it's a "politically correct" thing to dislike racists? OK.

Does that mean you think anti-racism is not an "actually correct" thing and instead something people say just for political expedience?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

I maybe dense, but I fail to see how someone screaming nigger into a microphone at my students is a political statement.

The government may not regulate use of words based on hostility--or favoritism--towards the underlying message expressed. Of course, it might be argued that this particular usage falls into the "fighting words" exception, but from the overall description it seems to me that this group, a "...semi local third party ultra conservative political group..." that offered up, in addition to the n-word, "...other mixed calls of 'welfare' and 'anti-christ president' and 'socialism.'"

It seems highly unlikely to me that you can now focus myopically on that one word, when the bulk of your complaint obviously came from the whole package.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by NicePete

So it's not a liberal thing, it's a "politically correct" thing to dislike racists? OK.

Wow. Did you not see this line from me:

Originally Posted by Bricker

No, distaste for racists is an across-the-board thing.

Does that mean you think anti-racism is not an "actually correct" thing and instead something people say just for political expedience?

No. But insisting that people announce their dislike for racists before delivering their analysis of the First Amendment issues in play is a political expedience thing.

I suspect you're going to have a hard time comprehending the difference, but try.

[Bricker]

And, Kimmy, I'd look more to R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul than to Good News Club, simply to avoid the distraction of the religious angle.

[SmellMyWort]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Good News Club v. Milford Central School is also apposite here.

The difference I see here is that the group using the space at the junior college was never barred from using the space based on their politics, viewpoint, charter, or something like that. It wasn't even a case where a group is granted access and then access revolked because someone doesn't like their views. The group became confrontational with another group on campus and that's what crossed the line.

So, it sounds like up until now, they've been allowed to use the space and had just this one meeting shut down because things got out of hand; a situation that could easily have turned violent.

You yourself state:

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

But the facts are what they are; and alas, absent an physical intimidation or imminent disorderly conduct...

So to me, it sounds like shutting down that one meeting was the right thing to do.

Now, the complete banning of all political groups might be another matter...

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

But the facts are what they are; and alas, absent an physical intimidation or imminent disorderly conduct, I don't think you made the right call.

Originally Posted by Translucent Daydream

The man with the microphone on the podium said "Who let the niggers in?" followed by a cheer, and other mixed calls of "welfare" and "anti-christ president" and "socialism". So I got called and had to break them up. I had to shut off the AV system and the police got called, and I was told "I was going to get mine commie."

I'd hate to see what you consider disorderly conduct if you think that was perfectly okay.

Racial slurs and namecalling have nothing to do with political views; they were immediate attacks on folks who showed up in the room by an innocent mistake.

[NicePete]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I suspect you're going to have a hard time comprehending the difference, but try.

I suppose what I'm having a hard time with is the snide attitude you take toward people who have an emotional response toward racism. Characterizing their reaction with the buzzwords "political correctness" tends to indicate contempt for their attitude.

Of course, it must be nice as a "conservative" not having any groupthink going on or any platitudes you have to espouse prior to getting to the meat of a discussion, especially in the political arena. You guys can say whatever you want whenever you want! Unless it's critical of Rush.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Racial slurs and namecalling have nothing to do with political views; they were immediate attacks on folks who showed up in the room by an innocent mistake.

No, it's not an attack, it's an insult. And it isn't very pleasant to be on the receiving end of one, and this group picked a particularly reviling one to use to satisfy some base need to be cruel, but insults just aren't the kind of injury the law intervenes to protect people from. And sister, if namecalling is an attack in your world, thank your lucky stars, because plenty of people have it much worse.

Nor do we require political expression to be especially persuasive, presentable, or even well thought-out. One's man vulgarity is another man's lyric, as Harlan, J., noted in Cohen v. California, which overturned a conviction for disturbing the peace of Cohen, who was caught wearing a jacket emblazoned with "Fuck the Draft" in a Los Angeles courthouse. This isn't a particularly cogent argument either, but it's political nature is unmistakable. As it is in an expression of racial rancor. We all know what "Fuck Whitey" means; it's a statement of exasperation with the slow progress of racial minorities in America and a call to do something about it. It is fatuousness, or worse intellectual dishonesty, to pretend a dual to that call doesn't exist for white supremacists.

It is an exceptionally distasteful view. But I suppose I just have enough confidence in my side to believe we don't need to ride roughshod over the First Amendment in order for my side---opposition to racial strife and division---to prevail. Indeed, I actually hold the quaint idea that striving for racial harmony and reconciliation is the majority view and the innate hope of the great many good-hearted people of America.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

And sister, if namecalling is an attack in your world, thank your lucky stars, because plenty of people have it much worse.

If so, then nobody should ever get prosecuted or otherwise punished for anything less than murder. What the hell is with the black and white view?

Look, this is all just hairsplitting. You yourself made an exception for disorderly conduct, and whether or not calling someone nigger constitutes an assault, it most certainly is disorderly conduct.

And sister? Where the hell did that come from?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by NicePete

I suppose what I'm having a hard time with is the snide attitude you take toward people who have an emotional response toward racism. Characterizing their reaction with the buzzwords "political correctness" tends to indicate contempt for their attitude.

Of course, it must be nice as a "conservative" not having any groupthink going on or any platitudes you have to espouse prior to getting to the meat of a discussion, especially in the political arena. You guys can say whatever you want whenever you want! Unless it's critical of Rush.

Of course, a brief search of my posting history would reveal nuggets like:

1:

Originally Posted by Bricker

I can't stand Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

So it seems I didn't get the memo.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Look, this is all just hairsplitting. You yourself made an exception for disorderly conduct, and whether or not calling someone nigger constitutes an assault, it most certainly is disorderly conduct.

So you believe that someone can be arrested and convicted merely for calling another person that word?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So you believe that someone can be arrested and convicted merely for calling another person that word?

It's called "context" Bricker. What would a reasonable person think who wandered into that meeting to be confronted by

a man with the microphone on the podium said "Who let the niggers in?" followed by a cheer, and other mixed calls of "welfare" and "anti-christ president" and "socialism".

This was not a random insult on the street.

note also that the man calling out "nigger" was not arrested or convicted. He was asked to leave the premises for causing a disturbance. Hardly the same thing.

[NicePete]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So it seems I didn't get the memo.

Nor did Michael Steele.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So you believe that someone can be arrested and convicted merely for calling another person that word?

You can be arrested for "merely" saying the word fire...in certain contexts.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

It's called "context" Bricker. What would a reasonable person think who wandered into that meeting to be confronted by

This was not a random insult on the street.

Excellent point! In context, uttered contemporaneously with remarks about the President and various socioeconomic systems, the offensive epithet's political nature is plainly revealed, and therefore its use is well protected by long settled First Amendment jurisprudence as core political speech.

[Marley23]

It seems to me that Translucent Daydream's primary responsibility was preventing a fight, seeing as how if you have a crowd of people who start yelling racial slurs at another group in the same room, it's probably going to get ugly.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

Excellent point! In context, uttered contemporaneously with remarks about the President and various socioeconomic systems, the offensive epithet's political nature is plainly revealed, and therefore its use is well protected by long settled First Amendment jurisprudence as core political speech.

Not quite. The people who wandered into the meeting by mistake did not hear "remarks about the President and various socioeconomic systems" etc... and what had transpired before their arrival. What they heard was:

a man with the microphone on the podium said "Who let the niggers in?" followed by a cheer, and other mixed calls of "welfare" and "anti-christ president" and "socialism".

In this context, the man with the microphone was using words that were potentially an incitement to riot, and was thus committing a disturbance. He was inflaming a situation (that being, black people mistakenly coming into the room), and inciting a potentially hostile situation with his words.

Because the group was then causing a disturbance, they were asked to leave. They were not asked to leave at other meetings (when they were presumably also espousing noxious views) because they were not causing a disturbance then.