That cunt should be fired.
Of course she should. Because nothing says a university stands for free speech than immediately firing someone for saying something outside of class.
No, she should be fired for taking actions which could have easily turned a protest into a dangerous situation. What if some “muscle” had actually arrived? It’s not exactly a slippery slope argument to imagine how easily things might have spiraled out of control had Click had her way.
I learned about this a few days ago watching this commentary on the incident. From that I could see that not only the actions they were taking were objectionable, their demands are BS too.
She apologized? I’m not seeing information about that.
She did. Some found it to be… bullshit.
What I think is more important is that the actual student groups seemed to grasp the mistake pretty quickly (per the original link).
So uh… it’s complicated and I don’t think the student’s were clearly right or anything but…
I don’t think there’s something fundamentally wrong with trying to prevent reporters from recording things you don’t want them to record. Even in public.
Am I supposed to?
It has to do with the freedom of the press to record and report events that happen on a public space, planting a “Media free safe space” cardboard sign doesn’t null that principle.
That and sicking a mob against a journalist.
It depends what you mean by “prevent them.”
If you mean, for example, to stop doing whatever you’re doing until they get bored and go away, then you are perfectly within your rights to do that. If it means stopping your speeches or whatever, so that they can’t record what you’re saying, then that’s fine too. If it means moving yourselves to a private space where you can legally and justifiably exclude the reporters, that also is fine. And if it means concealing, on your person or otherwise out of sight, something that you don’t want reporters to see, then you’re good to go. There is no requirement that you actively cooperate with the press.
But if by “prevent them” you mean actually physically impede them from going somewhere, in public, that they are actually allowed to go, then yes there is something fundamentally wrong with that. And if by “prevent them” you mean using physical force to move them away from where you are, then yes there is something fundamentally wrong with that. It’s not wrong simply because you’re trying to prevent a journalist from getting information; it’s wrong because you’re preventing a citizen from exercising his or her right to move freely on public property.
Do you believe, for example, that a group of eight people have the right to link arms and completely block the sidewalk along, say, Michigan Avenue in Chicago? And that they have the right to say to anyone walking up Michigan Avenue, “We don’t want you walking any further up this road, and we’re going to impede you and prevent you from going any further”?
That’s reasonable. Based on things people have been saying about this, it has seemed like a more far-reaching principle was being used that seemed to actually imply there’s something fundamentally wrong with ‘not letting journalists do their job’ as some have put it.
As to your last question–I don’t think it’s legal, but depending on who is doing it and why it doesn’t seem like a fundamentally wrong.
It should be illegal because if some people are legally allowed to do it, every asshole is legally allowed to do it and that would lead to no good.
But it’s not fundamentally wrong because sometimes some things can be important enough to break social norms in that way. That’s why when I see these videos I don’t automatically think “those people are terrible doing that to those poor reporters!” Instead I think to myself something more like “Not sure what’s going on here. I wonder what is so important that they feel the need to, civil-obedience style, carve out some space like that. I like how it’s clear they’re using the wall to morph around people rather than actively pushing people. Gosh that reporter is also acting pretty admirably. Imagine that–earnest people in a dispute over physical space yet not coming to physical blows. Ain’t America grand!”
That last remains unanswered, to my knowledge. It is particularly curious because the general strategic purpose of a demonstration is to get attention. Having media of various kinds present, taking notes and pictures, doing the work of getting your story out to the world, is the exact point. So what did these people think they were doing, at this moment?
Near as I can tell, they unilaterally declared a particular public area on campus to be a “safe space” where they could rest or have discussions free from the scrutiny of the press. A group of people, including two insanely self righteous university employees formed a ring around the space and illegally blocked access. This was one small area distinct from the overall protest.
As mentioned elsewhere on the boards, it’s something of an unfortunate meme that in the USA the concept of freedom of speech/press/worship/assembly is conflated with the Fisrt Amendment as synonyms – what the First Amendment does is recognize those fredoms as protected from state action, but that they exist is the *premise *of the text. As others have made the comparison with your right to walk down the public street w/o my deciding to not let you, that itself, (freedom of licit movement) is not textually identified but it flows from the *premise *of a right to liberty. Id doesn’t protect me from foreseeable consequences for exerting them but it does mean you can’t impose capricious restrictions on me.
Right. Her vision of what is the purpose of media coverage of public expression is very likely at odds with that of journalists.
And I wonder how she feels now about how her actions had the effect to completely draw away attention from the narrative she was trying to protect. Probably qute a bit of :smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack: the next morning… and remembering that a large part of the population still looks in a quite :dubious: way at the concept of self-proclaimed “safe zones”. You can have your safe zone in a private space or in one that is easily controllable for entry and exit (heck, a tent will do) but if you’re out in the quad, well, you’re out in the quad.
Threats of violence are not covered by the first amendment.
Is she a state employee?
These are not much different than the tactics of occupation-type protests, where protesters impede access to businesses or public spaces to draw attention to their cause. So while they may have no “right” to do so, that sort of action is clearly accepted by many protest movements. Occupy Wall Street had a march across the Brooklyn Bridge, impeding traffic, as one of its demonstrations (protesters were arrested). And St. Louis had a “Moral Monday” march shut down interstate I70 not too long ago (protesters were arrested).
It may not be strictly legal, but is a common tool used by protests. No surprise someone tried similar tactics at MU.
Yes, to draw attention. To make sure the media had to tell the story.
All I was commenting on was the First Amendment/Freedom of Speech conflation.
Though Bricker’s a fair question since depending on contract terms and the charter of the university she may or may not technically be acting as a public employee WRT whether the State of Missouri is on the hook for anything actionable she may do at a given time or place.
On the specific case, as the particular space is in thequad, a public accommodation of a state-owned institution, if her physical and verbal attempts to exclude people and summon muscle were understood to be under colour of being a member of the faculty with some sort of (real or assumed) authority, she could be in fact carrying out (improperly) state action. OTOH, her action could be happening on behalf of the protesting organization - the mere fact that one of the parties in an incident is part of the institution’s staff does not make it an action of the institution. If someone in a picket line at the Department of Motor Vehicles lobby hinders the job of the press, is that an action of the state, the union, or the individual? (and do the customers even notice a change in the DMV waiting time?)
I shall now leave it to friend Bricker to take this down a path of argument over strict legalistic definitions 
Watch the video. She specifically states that she is faculty and when she asks the reporter to leave.
Right, but does that necessarily mean that everything she does while on campus qualifies as a state action, under the legal definition related to first amendment rights? And that’s a genuine question; i am not sure of the answer.
I am a faculty member at a public university. I understand that, when i am in the classroom or in a meeting or holding office hours, i am clearly and unequivocally acting as a sort of agent of the state. I am the university system’s (and, by extension the state’s) representative to my students in my interactions with them, and i have a certain authority over them in matters related to the specifics of my course, and to the general academic mission of the university.
I can require them to attend a certain number of classes. I can require them to perform certain types of work. I can compel them to come to campus at the end of semester for a two-hour exam. I can discipline them with reduced grades or failure of the course if they commit academic misconduct. I can even, if necessary, have the campus police remove a student from the class if the student’s actions are interfering with the broader goal of teaching and the educational purpose of the university.
But once i step outside that classroom, i have no real authority over anyone. Or at least, that’s how i understand my own position. I can’t order a student to do something that is unrelated to one of my classes, even if that student is actually in one of my classes. Similarly, my Department Chair and my Dean and my University President have authority over my job performance and the requirements of my employment, but they can’t tell me that i’m not allowed to sit on the benches in the courtyard, because sitting there is a right that i have as a citizen, not as an employee.
On the public property of the campus, in contexts outside of official classes and meetings and other explicit university business, students and faculty and staff and even people unaffiliated with the university meet as equals, or at least that is how it should be. That’s why my campus periodically has evangelical Christians and anti-abortion activists and other interest groups haranguing students in the open spaces outside the library. The actions people take in those circumstances should, in my opinion, be taken as the actions of individuals unless they explicitly have authority to be speaking for the institution.
The woman in question was an idiot, and i don’t believe that she had the right to block people from moving around on public space, and i certainly don’t believe that she had the right to physically move someone out of the area. But i think, as a matter of principle, that she was being an idiot as an individual, not as an agent of the state. In fact, in my opinion, one of her biggest mistakes was suggesting that, because she was a faculty member, she had authority to control the public space of the courtyard, and that the media should bow to her demands. Being a faculty member does not confer that sort of authority on her.
I admit that this is largely an argument of principle, rather than law, that i’m making here. It could be, if this were taken into court, that the law would define her actions as state actions, but if it does, i believe that the law doesn’t really reflect the reality of the situation.