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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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…
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.
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.