Campus Free Speech

Students Attack 'Triggering' Anti-Abortion Sign, Cop Says Free Speech Has Limits on Campus

'What I'm here to tell you is that on campus we have additional rules other than just freedom of speech,' said the cop.

|

Abortion
Youtube

Students at the University of Oregon clashed with an adult anti-abortion preacher earlier this week, eventually grabbing his graphic sign, tearing it, and stomping on it. One student told him, "this is not part of your First Amendment right."

But the students weren't the only ones with a faulty grasp of what the First Amendment entails. A campus police officer initially told the preacher that he could continue to speak about his views only if he put away the sign and refrained from making incendiary statements comparing abortion to the Holocaust.

"What I'm here to tell you is that on campus we have additional rules other than just freedom of speech," the officer told the preacher. When pressed, the officer maintained that university administrative ordinances prohibited offensive and demeaning public expressions.

Obviously, the cop was wrong—something that a second officer realized immediately after appearing on the scene. This cop, a sergeant, demonstrated a much stronger awareness of the law. He calmly put the other officer in his place, stating, "My only concern is that there is no physical violence. If everybody is going to stay and yell and scream, that's fine. As long as there's no violence, we're done."

Later, a mob of students approached the preacher and damaged his sign.

The frightening and frustrating exchange was captured on video. According to The Daily Emerald:

History major Allison Rutledge was the first to damage the anti-abortion activist's poster. She stood on it and claimed that the activist didn't have a right to display the graphic imagery. The video doesn't make it clear when the anti-abortion activist's sign ends up on the ground (it cuts before the action happens).

"This is my property," the activist said as Rutledge stood on his sign. "Just leave us alone."

The video cuts after a while, but Rutledge is later seen leading a chant in order to get the anti-abortion activist to leave University of Oregon property.

"All I'd like to say about why I decided to actually take the sign from him is I realized it was his property, but it was a piece of paper. I considered the sign obscene and offensive and intending to anger and start a scene," Rutledge said when contacted for comment. "I didn't want to look at that obscenity."

She called the incident a tussle before saying that she felt emotionally threatened by the anti-abortion activist's sign.

"There's a limit to what people should be forced to look at," Rutledge said. "We didn't like it and we actually made him put his sign away. We had no problem with his opinion, but it was his sign. You can't just show whatever you want."

This is a sentiment one encounters often on public university campuses: You can't just show/say/think whatever you want. There's just one problem with it: it's wrong in a very precise legal sense. People have an explicit, Court-recognized right to engage in very offensive and disturbing speech on public property. Even if that speech is "triggering" (a claim made by the student-protesters, who wanted to shield others from the emotional harm of seeing the sign). Even if that speech is deeply racist and contemptible, as it was on the SAE bus at the University of Oklahoma.

Something to note: As Reason's Stephanie Slade and Katherine Mangu-Ward have both pointed out, people who would like to live in a world with stricter parameters on acceptable speech should actually be in favor of more privatization and fewer government-run or government-owned spheres of influence. The First Amendment prevents public institutions from taking punitive actions against people for possessing abhorrent views. If students want to live on a campus where offensive speech can result in institutional punishment, they should check out those greedy, profit-driven (or religiously-motivated) private colleges—and demand more of them.

NEXT: Texas Legislator Proposes Criminalizing Filming Police Up Close

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I considered the sign obscene and offensive and intending to anger and start a scene,” Rutledge said when contacted for comment.

    She was right. She was offended and angered, and then she started a scene. She is her own worst possible outcome. This Rutledge lady has the emotional maturity of a baboon.

    1. I really have to ask, why is Ms. Rutledge in college? She obviously doesn’t have the wherewithal to succeed in an academic career.

      1. No, Bill, she is perfectly suited for a career in academia. And I suspect that after this she’ll be given one. The real world would have been a harsh, cruel place for her.

        1. Indeed, she would appear to be headed, at the very least, towards a departmental chairmanship in one of our major American universities. In fact, the “faulty understanding” of the First Amendment is today shared by most of the nation, and particularly by the academic community. We are no longer living in the 1960s, as anyone can see by taking a look at the documentation of America’s leading criminal satire case at:

          http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          It’s interesting to read in some of the trial testimony gathered there, that NYU officials preferred to call in the police to silence an anonymous whistle-blower rather than investigate charges of plagiarism involving a department chairman who, according to them, had a “reputation for honesty.” This same “honesty” then led the chairman himself to testify that “nobody reads” NYU’s academic code of conduct. What an extraordinary comment on First Amendment values and academic ethics in America today!

        2. Exactly. She reminds me of virtually every graduate Teaching Assistant who graded my papers at U-of-Mich.

      2. Her toilet training was swift and brutal. And then, as she grew, she was told she was a Special Snowflake — over and over again.

      3. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
        http://www.jobfinder247.com

        1. Fuck off, already, troll….

          http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin…..ything.jpg

    2. That guy looked like he was trying to start a fight, so I punched him.

      1. That is the exact logic used by this idiot student. +1.

      2. Hand her a loaded gun, a pension and a Union card and she can be another of America’s Finest.

    3. The idea that things can be inherently offensive is part of the problem. People say “this is offensive” when they really mean “I am offended by it”.

      1. Also that if the sight of it offends her she must destroy it rather than simply look away.
        The ‘if it offends me it must be bad for you too’ way of thinking.

      2. The proper response to “This is offensive” is “Then let’s hear your counter-argument.”. And if that get the response “You can’t say that here”, the reply is “Then, you don’t HAVE an argument?”.

        twits

        I am for abortion being legal, within broad limits. That said, the Pro-Choice side of the argument really needs to come to grips with certain issues;

        1) Regardless of intent, the effect of legal abortion appears to have been pretty much the realization of the eugenics agenda of Margaret Sanger, at least where “inferior races” were concerned. That has to be delta with. Shouting down people who bring it up does not count as “dealing” with it.

        2) Regardless of when YOU think human life begins, there are going to be people who disagree with you. While I have encountered arguments for one point or another in pregnancy that pro ported to be ‘scientific’, most of them struck me as boiling down to “I believe this”. I am not persuaded that those arguments are better than any other faith based answers, and I am pro-abortion. Again, this has to be delta with.

        1. Cntd.

          3) The people who think that abortion is child-murder are rightfully horrified by the numbers of abortions that happen every day. Attempting to silence them merely convinces them that they are right, and may convince other people. Asserting that the “merely” want to control women’s bodies is an unconvincing lie. There may be a very few of whom this is true. They aren’t the majority, or even the leadership. Telling the lie may make the Pro-Choice side feel all righteous and swell. TWO sides that feel righteous and swell is just what this situation DOESN’T need.

          4) The fact that Kermit Gossnell was allowed to continue for as long as he did, after there had been complaints, is proof that the Pro-Choice establishment isn’t doing its job. WE should have shut that sonofabitch down. That we didn’t makes it look like the Pro-Choice establishment doesn’t care what happens to poor brown women, no matter how often we say we want them to have access to reproductive care. WE dug ourselves a veery deep hole there. We are going to be paying the political price for a long time.

          1. IMO, these last two couldn’t be heard loud enough within the pro-Choice community.

            There’s a distinct element of if you don’t want ire, quit earning it.

            I’m okay with pill-level abortion or a one-off later term and I fully acknowledge the reality of converting every abortion into an adoption would probably be impossible. However, I think a significant portion of that burden falls on the people who willingly trade the easy choice abstinence v. sex for abortion v. adoption.

            While it may be (religious) moralizing, there’s also good portions of political, legal, and economic moralizing in there as well.

            1. Certain political elements of our society are far too accustomed to living in an echo chamber. Then they bump into some element of our society that doesn’t agree with their every prejudice, and they competely lose their minds. Ot doesn’t speak well for their grasp of the issues.

            2. acknowledge the reality of converting every abortion into an adoption would probably be impossible.

              There are many more couples waiting for a child to adopt than there are children available.

              1. But there almost certainly AREN’T as many couples waiting as there are abortions performed. And that doesn’t even touch on the race issue, which last I heard the race pimps like Sharpton were causing a fuss over.

    4. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
      http://www.jobfinder247.com

  2. “Cop Says Free Speech Has Limits on Campus”

    I’m quite sure these guys are not hired based on IQ rankings.

    1. Oh they are. They weed out the high IQ applicants.

    2. The worst rent-a-cop police wannabes I’ve ever encountered (amd I’m in my 50’s) have all been campus cops. Even the storied Downtown Detective Agency of Cleveland, which was justifiably know as the Clowntown Defective Agency, had a better ratio of assholes to buttocks.

    3. Cop? He looked more like campus security. Barely a step above mall cop……

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUPOkHJpjQ

  3. Wasn’t John just pointing out in another thread how the fascists like to get their way through mob thuggery? This is a nice example of how we are heading down that road.

    1. Yes we are. They got away with this, give it time and they will start beating people up and doing real harm to people.

      1. And what do you want to bet that if the pastor had used force to defend himself and his property, he is the one who would have been arrested?

        1. If a man used force against a woman for any reason other than to protect his life he’d go to jail. And sometimes even then.

          1. Unless he is a star football recruit at OU. Then he is just dealing fairly with a white women who got lippy.

            1. Yes, and God how I hate that. I won’t lie, I have a fairly romanticized view of the sport. But shit like that and all the other crap in college and pro ball really piss me off. Also on the hate list: fucking adults who make bets on little league games. God damn why do these people have to shit in my pond?

              1. fucking adults who make bets on little league games

                That’s actually a thing? What the fuck is wrong with people?

                1. I just googled it and am disappointed to find out that Vegas doesn’t take bets on the Little League World Series. And why not, don’t see how that’s any different than gambling on any other televised sport.

                  1. Vegas doesn’t make odds for the LLWS because the Little League is so corrupt, that Vegas can’t handicap the teams. The outcome is too unpredictable.

                2. @WTF. Yes, I’ve read a few stories on it. Seems to be really big in south FL. Fairly large bets too, people betting a few grand on kids football games. IIRC, at least one was arrested for bribing a star player to throw a game. Fucking disgusting.

              2. Also on the hate list: fucking adults who make bets on little league games.

                Huh?

                Why would you care?

                1. I am kind of with Frank on this. There is something deeply subversive about betting on little league games and that makes me kind want to do it.

              3. Because humans have been betting on things since betting was invented.
                You think little league games are special or something?
                They’re not.

                1. I remember an episode of ‘Seinfeld’ where Kramer is at the airport waiting for Jerry and ends up betting on arrival times with some Texan. People will bet on anything.

        2. All joking aside, if you are a man and you are ever attacked by a female, of if she smashes your headlights or windshield, or she threatens to set your house on fire and lights torch, do not call the police. They will arrest you.

      2. Not to go all Godwin or anything, but I watched The Goebbels Experiment on Netflix this week. It is unnerving to see how Germany progressed into a fascist dictatorship and to recognize patterns that are developing in modern America. Mob violence.

        1. The only thing that saves us is gun ownership. Mob violence is a contact sport in the US. And it breaks the left’s heart that they can’t terrorize and threaten people with impunity.

        2. Mob violence against speakers people don’t like is nothing new in the US. If anything, I’d bet there’s much less of it nowadays. Remember the construction workers beating up on the hippies or the American Legion beating up on labor protesters?

          1. On a much larger scale, consider the way the Mormons were treated in New York and Missouri. Or many incidents involving indigenous peoples or freed slaves after the Civil War.

            1. Tomorrow is a bigger badder latter day, a happy ending on a platter day.

          2. Let’s not forget the mob scene at the Wisconsin capitol a few years ago.

            Or the assaults on people at Tea Party gatherings by SEIU goons.

            1. Which makes me want to go to those events. AlthoughI I doubt those union punks would have the guts to get in my face.

          3. Remember the construction workers beating up on the hippies

            Ironically enough, considering the follow-up example, the AFL-CIO-organized construction workers.

            or the American Legion beating up on labor protesters

            … 96 years ago.

            No doubt, the relentless victimization of the humble labor racketeer by the barbarian hordes is one of our true national shames.

            You’re entering sub-Tony levels of shitposting.

            On the other hand, somebody seems to have written a song about you!

            1. THAT WAS AWESOME! I was tapping my feet by the end.

            2. I’m conflicted on beating hippies. On one hand, civil liberties. On the other hand, beating the crap out of smelly commie scum hippies is always the right call.

          4. But violence against hippies has long been an acceptable exception to the NAP.

        3. I reread Shirer not too long ago, and I was struck numerous times by distressing parallels between pre-war Germany and the U.S. today. Nowhere near an exact analogue, but too close for comfort.

          1. Leonard Peikoff’s “The Ominous Parallels” really tells the story on a fundamental, integrated, philosophical level.

        4. The Nazis didn’t take Germany overnight, it was a gradual process over many years. Part of the process is to see what they can get away with, and then keep moving the line. When people say they can’t understand how a civilized nation could do such things, well, just look around and think about the boiling frog.

        5. Goebbels?

          The guy Richard Gere had shoved up his ass?

            1. *Hands rotten tomatoes to Tonio*

          1. Goebbels?

            The guy Richard Gere had shoved up his ass?

            You’ve been channeling Grand Moff Serious Man, haven’t you?

              1. OK I didn’t watch your link, but was it:

                “You must choose the lesser of two weevils”? Because I love that movie, and the books (that scene about the lesser of two weevils is drawn word for word from the books).

      3. I just had thought. Why is it the first amendment is guaranteed on public property but not the second amendment. If you want to restrict the 1A you need private property and to practice the 2A you need private property. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

        1. I agree. Really, any reasonable reading of the Second Amendment would result in universities being unable to ban firearms.

          1. Any reasonable reading of the Second Amendment would result in constitutional carry like in Vermont. Yet “reasonable restrictions” are widely allowed for the Second Amendment. Because guns are icky.

            1. Yes. And we have a whole slew of rights, including limits on government power, that are just as blatantly ignored.

            2. “Because guns are icky.” More like “because judges let their personal politics influence their rulings to the point of re-interpreting the Constitution.”

            3. Correct. We don’t need a license to exercise our 1st amendment rights, and we shouldn’t a license to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. Beyond silly it is.

          2. About the only place we can’t carry is federal buildings. How is that constitutional?

          3. Public ones, anyway.

        2. Because, then thugs like Ms. Rutledge would have to think twice before trampling on icky people’s first amendment rights. And we can’t have that.

          1. I favor abortion if they develop a prenatal screening for fetuses like her.

        3. Honestly? Because unarmed people are easier to arrest, and in the case of government buildings there’s a huge fear of elected officials and/or government employees being killed at work. That’s why, to be quite frank. Speech is nice and all, but when the cops come to move you along because they’ve had quite enough of your protest they sure as fuck don’t want to negotiate with armed demonstrators when they can just mace a crowd and shove ’em in the paddy-wagon. And, yeah, because government employees live in fear of being killed by angry gun-toting tax protesters. Which says a bit about the quality of government.

      4. If the President of the University had any integrity (which he clearly doesn’t) he would have started expulsion proceedings against all the students involved that very day.

  4. Get the police to look the other way while the mob attacks and terrorizes someone with an opposing view. How very 1930s of them.

    All I’d like to say about why I decided to actually take the sign from him is I realized it was his property, but it was a piece of paper. I considered the sign obscene and offensive and intending to anger and start a scene,” Rutledge said when contacted for comment. “I didn’t want to look at that obscenity.”

    What a pathetic, spoiled tyrannical child Ms Rutledge is. If she were my daughter, I would cut her off and disown her upon hearing of this. As much blame as she deserves for being that way, her parents and the university share in that blame for failing to teach her to be any better.

    1. I considered the sign obscene and offensive and intending to anger and start a scene

      So naturally she fulfilled those supposed intentions

    2. If she was your daughter she would, presumably, understand that what she did was wrong. Allison Rutledge has no clue that living in a free society means other people are free to do things she disapproves of. She weighed the amount of offense she felt against the pastor’s free speech rights and decided her feelings were of greater importance. She’s going to be one of those people who is very surprised when the restrictions she would put on other people’s rights are also put on her.

      1. She’s going to be one of those people who is very surprised when the restrictions she would put on other people’s rights are also put on her.

        The proggies always assume they will be the ones in control.

    3. “I didn’t want to look at that obscenity.”

      Of course there was no other choice than physical assault, like maybe turning around and not looking at that obscenity? When I see something obscene (usually on the H&R blog, and usually involving cops) I page down or switch tabs or something. I guess I should be hunting down the H&R servers and stomping on them.

    4. I didn’t want to look at that obscenity

      Yep. Closing your eyes or looking someplace else is something that top scientists hope to crack in the next 30 years. Maybe before fusion.

    5. I’m sure her parents agree completely. If they’d raised her with any common sense or manners, she wouldn’t have done this in the first place. So it’s reasonable to assume her parents – had they been there – would have cheered her on.

      1. The She-spawn is heading down that road, despite my best efforts. There is still hope…

        This will come as a shocker to some of you, but kids sometimes do the exact opposite of what their parents tell them to do. And, if you can believe it, they can out of spite or some weird sense of rebellion, rejecting the values of their parent’s generation!

    6. Disowning her is probably excessive. What she needs is a spanking.

      1. What she needs is the remedial Government class she obviously flunked in high school.

        1. You forget how monumentaly Progressively screwed up the schools are. She was doubtless TAUGHT this by some mouth-breathing ed school graduate.

  5. It really is one of the most bizarre/chilling/infuriating things about higher ed in the US: a cadre of people, whose very livelihood depends on freedom of expression, cast around for ways to build theoretical constructs which allow them to inhibit the free speech of others without actually calling for a blanket restriction on speech which would affect themselves.

    And, on top of that, the constructs allow them to live calmly without ever considering they are hypocrites or engaged in a double standard.

    1. That is called evil. The nature of evil is convincing people that up is down and they are doing good by committing evil acts.

      1. Except, in this case, most of those doing the convincing (i.e. the faculty) also believe in the innocence of what they are saying.

        1. So they’re evil and deluded.

          Not, IMO, an improvement.

          1. No, not an improvement. My point was just that faculty today are true believers, not cynical manipulators. Remember, we’re at about third generation of people taught to think this way.

    2. The professors in the ‘political advocacy masquerading as scholarship’ majors are the ones directing it. The staff in the English, history, and social science departments are probably more aware of it than others.

      People in STEM fields, probably not so much.

      I’ve long suspected that one of the reasons the Russians were always so prominent in math was because they were relatively insulated from politics. I don’t think it’s possible to teach counter-revolutionary mathematics.

      Although I had a Russian math professor who had fled the Soviet Union as a dissident.

      1. I’ve long suspected that one of the reasons the Russians were always so prominent in math was because they were relatively insulated from politics. I don’t think it’s possible to teach counter-revolutionary mathematics.

        That is pretty much the truth. Russian universities put a lot of emphasis on those things because they were good for national standing and thus liked by the communists and were largely apolitical and thus created less opportunity to fall out of favor politically. Also, smart Russians choose those fields for the same reasons. Spending your life doing mathematical proofs was a good way to keep your head down and stay out of the Gulag. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why Russians dominated mathematics so much in the 20th Century. It was one field that was so abstract even the Communists couldn’t politicize it or fuck it up. So a lot of very smart Russians took it up as a way to avoid political prosecution. Then once they started doing well, the communists encouraged it as a way to show the superiority of communism in the field.

        1. -1 Sakharov

          1. He didn’t get in trouble over his work in mathematics.

            1. No, but it just goes to show not all scientists/mathematicians were apolitical.

              1. Like I said, my Russian math professor was a dissident.

                But we’re talking about the trend here.

                If you’re smart, and you want to do great work and not be persecuted for telling the truth, math is a great way to go.

        1. In the STEM fields, there is the example of Lysenkoism ? a Communist answer to the Capitalist Theory of Evolution. Dmitri Belyeav was fired from his job in animal breeding for his counter-revolutionary belief in Mendelian genetics and risk his life starting a Darwinist experiment in the domestication of the silver fox under the guise of studying animal physiology.

          1. They also tried it in linguistics–a guy named Nikolas Marr tried to show all languages were descended from a common ancestor, and did a bunch of abstract theoretical stuff that was rubbish, but got Stalin interested enough that he wrote a linguistics paper attacking it (shortly before he died).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Marr

          2. The silver fox experiment is still going, I believe. I’ve seen a documentary recently that showed some of these domesticated foxes in Russia.

            And yes, I totally wanted one.

        2. Fascinating story. Thanks for the link.

      2. I was amazed when I first read that there was a Soviet-communist version of biology.

        1. Well, when your goal is to create “New Soviet Man”, Lysoenkoism is the shit, because it actually makes it sound possible.

          Mendelian? No. It shows that it is impossible.

        2. There is a communist version of economics, too?

          1. Really? Tell me more…seriously, since economics has a philosophical component, I can see why there would be different versions. To have a deviant version of science embraced as ideologically correct to the extent of locking up dissenters, seemed odd.

            1. It’s a joke, son…

      3. This is very true.
        Another point. Every philosophy, history, “social science” book published in the Soviet Union had to acknowledge the guiding role of the Communist Party and Marxism-Leninism. Obviously some authors, especially those who wrote about the issues not directly related to the communist dogma, could afford to mention the commie stuff only in the preface and then focus on what mattered. But I can think of only one philosophy book that didn’t mention the 26th (or whatever) Congress of the Communist Party or any other stuff like this in the preface. That was a book on philosophy of mathematics.

      4. One of the reasons that the Soviet-era Russians focused on mathematics is that it didn’t require much of a research budget or high-tech equipment, unlike, say, particle physics.

    3. Joe McCarthy recognized that, and tried to do something constructive about it.

  6. Isn’t the FBI in charge of investigating civil rights violations?

  7. The appropriate response would be to show up at the preacher’s church with signs depicting graphic gay sex.

    1. Unfortunately the courts have carved out an ‘obscenity’ exception for the kind of speech that tends to upset social conservatives.

      1. Oh yes how silly of me. Pictures of sex, unlike dead fetuses, are obscene.

        1. See? You get it.

          1. Careful. He’s referring to gerbils.

        2. “Pictures of sex, unlike dead fetuses, are obscene.”

          You know very well that this is untrue. But then again, when has truth been an obstacle for you?

      2. What are you talking about, Bo?

        You got a link for that?

          1. Yeah, I know about obscenity…

            Are you or aren’t you saying that the courts have upheld the arrests and convictions of people for protesting churches with signs that contain pornography?

            Incidentally, I’ve seen anti-abortion protestors bearing huge photographic images of babies with their heads chopped off or up in various ways–that would make ANY gay pornography look tame.

            I do not believe the courts have upheld arresting or convicting protestors for signs that contain pornography.

            Not all pornography is necessarily obscene. Those images of chopped up babies (which I wish I’d never seen) probably were obscene by any court’s or jury’s definition–but they weren’t pornography.

            Claiming that you can’t protest a church with gay porn images becasue of past Court rulings on obscenity is bogus.

            1. “Bo” is short for “bogus.” Nothing new to see here, except for the Tard Convention that is any dialogue b/t Bo and Tony.

      3. “I didn’t want to look at that obscenity.” – from the article.

        That’s funny Bo, because it seems the social liberals don’t like ‘obscenity’ either.

    2. Perfectly fine as long as they stay on public property.

      1. There’s an exception for ‘obscene’ speech. If it violates the community standards where the church is it could be a criminal offense.

        It’s silly, but there it is.

        1. If progs were smart they would adopt the obscenity rule for “triggers”. They are essentially the same.

          1. They’ve tried, but SCOTUS has started to say that while they will allow the traditional exceptions to the 1st Amendment to continue they are not going to create new ones.

          2. Please don’t give them ideas.

            There should be LESS speech that is considered obscene, not more.

    3. then do that. Have fun. As long as you don’t assault or trespass that is your right. But why do that when you are free to assault and terrorize him right there. He is one of the other. It is not like he is a human being or anything or even should be allowed to live.

      1. You people really need to stop projecting your violent tribal impulses onto me.

        1. Do you even read what you write? Progs are the ones that are inherently violent. Their ideology requires it. It is you that needs to stop projecting your inadequacies on to us.

        2. Re: Tony,

          You people really need to stop projecting your violent tribal impulses onto me.

          You forgot to take your Thorazine again, Tony. I’m not your mother, you know.

        3. When you start defining the needs of others you’ve already lost your audience.

    4. As long as they remain on public property and don’t physically impeded anyone, that would be fine. Although I’m not sure how that ‘responds’ to an anti-abortion position.

    5. If you mean outside the church on a public sidewalk, sure that’s appropriate from a free speech standpoint.

      But you would be just as loony as the sidewalk preachers.

      1. And as offensive as the Westboro Baptist Church.

      2. I’m surprised there aren’t *more* protests of churches.

        Maybe progressives are still in bed on Sunday morning.

        1. Churches don’t make policy. What would protesting them accomplish?

    6. The church is private property and they would be within their rights to remove such protesters from their property.

    7. Re: Tony,

      The appropriate response would be to show up at the preacher’s church with signs depicting graphic gay sex.

      I would’ve said that the appropriate and reasonable response is to ignore them but I guess I don’t have the excess free time of a welfare queen to show up in front of a church with a big photo of gays kissing.

      1. So, kissing is graphic sex. You’ve really gone off the rails, OM. A lot of that going around, recently.

        1. I’d wager that kissing is graphic to that audience.

    8. Is that private or public property?

  8. Students at the University of Oregon clashed with an adult anti-abortion preacher earlier this week

    Come on Robby, are the students not adults as well?

    1. Some of them clearly are not acting like it.

      1. Well by that standard neither is the preacher. I haven’t seen a sidewalk preacher who wasn’t a loon.

        1. He was the only one (apart from the sergeant) who accurately articulated First Amendment principles.

        2. Well, technically Jesus was a sidewalk preacher, so….

    2. Not until they’re 26, the new age of majority.

        1. w00t! I’m an adult!!!!!

    3. Well, you do get some 17 yo freshmen, plus the students under 21 are arguably not full adults since they aren’t allowed to drink. But I took that as snark on Robby’s part. Normally I’d say that sort of snark was beneath the dignity of Reason, but this is a particularly egregious case.

      1. I was a 17 yo freshman so I know that but we were rather rare. I’m sure it was snark but I just don’t like the idea of distinguishing them from other adults because it implies they are less responsible for their actions.

        1. Keep in mind that if you are 18 and black and shot, you are a mere “teenager.”

          1. A small boy in fact. After the media selectively displays photos from six years earlier, before puberty.

  9. “We have other rules than just freedom of speech”

    Oh, right. The “fuck you, that’s why” clause – is there ANYTHING it can’t do!

    1. “We have other rules than just freedom of speech”

      Its a shame those other rules don’t seem to include any prohibitions on theft and assault.

  10. This is a privately owned institution, even though it’s a public school.

    The one honest man at Nike U.

    1. I don’t think he thinks Phil Knight owns it either. They are such self entitled assholes, they honestly think they own the place even though it wasn’t built for them and was built with other people’s money. They are just so fucking important that they own it anyway.

      God I hate these people.

  11. “What I’m here to tell you is that on campus we have additional rules other than just freedom of speech,” the officer told the preacher. When pressed, the officer maintained that university administrative ordinances prohibited offensive and demeaning public expressions.

    Sorry. You are a public University. You don’t get to make rules that infringe upon constitutional rights any more than any other part of government does.

    If that is your goal, might I suggest privatizing and not taking a dime of government money? Then, you see, you may make attendance contingent upon waiving constitutional rights.

    Until then:

    FUCK OFF SLAVER!

    1. Also:
      I considered the sign obscene and offensive and intending to anger and start a scene

      This is exactly why we have a first amendment, so individuals don’t get to make that kind of judgment about others. AND, embarrassingly, she’s a history major.

      1. Probably loves her some Zinn

        1. History is among the first disciplines to be politicized under the sort of regime she’s promoting.

          1. Who am I kidding – it’s *already* being politicized by govt, they just haven’t gotten around to censoring private historians yet.

      2. Important hidden fact. She’s a history major. Now, close your eyes and imagine the witlessness her future students will surely face.

  12. I think it is perfectly simple: if you cannot control your behavior when exposed to visual or verbal stimuli, you are not a civilized adult worthy of respect or consideration.

    “Triggering” is the basest, most dehumanizing example of modern leftist misanthropy. It’s also flagrantly sexist to assume a woman can’t look at an abortion sign without flying off the handle in a hysterical, emotional rage.

    1. It really is. What is remarkable about it is that it is them debasing themselves. Say what you want about the Nazis but they at least only thought other people were less than human. These people seem happy to debase themselves to something less than human.

      The idea of something triggering bad behavior is one of the oldest and worst racist and sexist slanders there is. When people used to say that black men couldn’t be trusted alone with white women, they were just saying white women triggered black men to rape. These people are so stupid they are putting themselves on the same level that the most vile racist put black people. They will do anything to justify acting on their base urges and avoiding rational thought. These people are really scary.

      1. Yep. Perfectly easy to justify enslaving your fellow man if you regard most of them as little better than animals who need to be controlled by rigid social and political orders.

        But even so, most of the people who believe in this triggerring nonsense are white. They then have the audacity to project that onto persons of color.

        It’s insanely racist and much more perverse than whatever those idiots in that OU frat were chanting.

      2. +1 Mandingo

      3. Progressives have always been racist. They just changed from an antagonistic form to a patronizing one.

        1. +1 million.

          Exactly. Progressives are the most racist people ever.

      4. These people seem happy to debase themselves to something less than human.

        I knew there must be something I could agree with the proggies on. I think this is it.

      5. Good point. “Put on a burka, Miss Rutledge, before you trigger some vulnerable man’s urges.”

    2. “Triggering” is the basest, most dehumanizing example of modern leftist misanthropy.

      And it should be noted that triggering, properly understood is a feature of abnormal psychology. If you claim you can be “triggered”, you’re basically saying you suffer from mental illness.

      1. Hey, they know a trigger when they see it.

      2. If you claim you can be “triggered”, you’re basically saying you suffer from mental illness.

        Yes, but that opens up a whole ‘nother can or worms in post-ADA America. Ever since ADA I’ve seen businesses tiptoe around obviously disturbed employees for fear of ADA reprisals. This sort of thing kills morale and productivity; inevitably the productive, competent employees get penalized if the disturbed employee goes off on them.

      3. If you claim you can be “triggered”, you’re basically saying you suffer from mental illness.

        Feature, not bug. If you are suffering from mental illness, you can’t be held responsible for your actions.

      4. Just another argument for rounding up the progs and depositng them face down in landfills. Although I’m open to humanely stripping the, of all wealth and possessions and deporting them to marxist countries.

  13. Does anyone know if FIRE takes cases like this, where a public university violates the free speech rights of non-students?

    My contempt for anti-abortion religious nutjobs is well-known, but I’d gladly contribute to whoever sues the university on his behalf (as long as it’s not an anti-abortion shop).

    1. Since the other cop arrived and straightened out the first I’m not sure this case would warrant a lawsuit.

      There could be assault charges against the students who took the placard from the preacher and messed with it though.

      1. “My only concern is that there is no physical violence. If everybody is going to stay and yell and scream, that’s fine. As long as there’s no violence, we’re done.”

        and then:

        “All I’d like to say about why I decided to actually take the sign from him is I realized it was his property,

        Sounds like an open and shut case for the officer to apply his standard that physical violence is not allowed.

        1. Never a cop when you need one.

          Wait, there was a lady cop nearby after the vandalism, but she was just jacking off (jilling off?)

      2. She attempted to take his property by force. Whether or not her intent was to take it permanently, or destroy it, would be a jury question. That’s a lot more serious crime than simple assault.

  14. “…forced to look at…”??? How exactly does that work?

    1. You’re expecting logically from people like her?

    2. A Clockwork Orange?

  15. “this is not part of your First Amendment right.”

    “You can only have free speech if you agree with me.”
    Again, a prog, who would no doubt refer to libertarians and/or conservatives as children, is acting like a petulant toddler.

    1. When pressed, the officer maintained that university administrative ordinances prohibited offensive and demeaning public expressions

      These terms are relative.

      My only concern is that there is no physical violence. If everybody is going to stay and yell and scream, that’s fine. As long as there’s no violence, we’re done.

      Hm. He should get a raise.

    2. “I didn’t want to look at that obscenity.

      “So instead of turning my panzi-assed face to look in another direction I decided to assault someone else’s property.”

      You guy, progs are TOTALLY non-violent.

    3. There’s a limit to what people should be forced to look at

      That word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

      1. Yeah, well you didn’t suffer the indignities to which I and others were subjected to by Derpy on the AM links. Hmmmph.

  16. When I was in Tallahassee my first couple of years of undergrad, there were a couple of preachers that would go around, usually with a sandwich board and stupid leaflets. They’d say everything from “abortion is evil” to “pre-marital hugging is evil” (yes, the latter is actually something said).

    We mostly just laughed at them.

    Of course, that was 20 years ago. I hate to be one of those “get off my lawn” type people, but what the fuck is wrong with today’s kids? And how do I make sure mine doesn’t end up like that?

    1. To be fair, these sandwich board preachers are out there on tons of college campuses every day without something like this occurring. As you said they are mostly laughed at and mocked so this isn’t really a problem with “today’s kids” but rather a few of them.

    2. Yeah, those guys are everywhere. At UC Irvine a few would show up every now and then with a “God Hates Homo Sex” sign or something along those lines.

      At most the students there would shout back at them. No one ever flew off the handle like the nutjob in the story.

    3. They used to come to OSU. OSU is full of evangelicals. Yet these people managed to be laughing stocks anyway. And yeah, it was just entertainment. No one took it seriously. It was almost like we were adults or something.

    4. We used to get hounded by the commies and their pamphlets. Really wish I had been more politically aware back then, I could have had some fun.

      1. I was always tempted to grab some of the Marxist literature displayed from vendors peddling the stuff at my undergrad U, and ask them what the problem was. After all, they didn’t NEED 10 books on Marx, when I had none!

  17. Rutledge was simply displaying tolerance by not tolerating intolerance.

    1. Repressive Tolerance

      http://www.marcuse.org/herbert…..erance.htm

  18. Silly preacher. Free speech is for progressives!

    1. Progs are pretty consistent about one thing: they either don’t think our rights exist or they’re antagonistic to them.

      There used to be honest liberals who were all about civil rights, but they were drowned out of the conversation by progressives a long time ago.

      The left is defining itself as being coherently against individuals making choices for themselves, and they’re pushing the right to defend individual rights against them more and more all the time.

      I bet there are more pro-choice Republicans out there than there are Democrats who think especially unpopular speech should be protected

      1. Civil rights are less important to liberals now that the culture has shifted in their favor.

        1. Exactly

  19. “You ever notice at those anti-abortion rallies? You wouldn’t want to fuck any of them anyway!”
    -George Carlin

      1. *psst*

        That’s fiction.

    1. Lately, at least, it seems to apply to almost everyone that shows up at abortion rallies, regardless of pro or anti status.

    2. I don’t want to have sex with Lila Rose, but that’s because I’m not married to her, not because she’s ugly.

      http://liveaction.org/lilarose/

      1. More ugly hags:

        http://dailysignal.com/2015/01…..-life-get/

        1. Hit with the ugly stick:

          http://ow.ly/KiUzH

          (disclaimer: not intended as fapping material, simply dealing with the meme that prolifers are embittered ugly people)

  20. Megan: What’s that?
    Mac: That’s the list of doctors I’m going to kill.
    Megan: There’s two already crossed out.
    Mac: Yeah, I know.

  21. I’m a few years out of undergrad. We used to have religious protestors come and visit Tuscaloosa. They’d set up right outside the Ferguson Center, which I rarely visited during the weekday.

    However, if I did run across them, or a Gideon on the sidewalk, I’d usually chat them up. I appreciated the Christian demonstrators more than the other religious groups. The Christians were willing to discuss ideas and give you a free Bible. I still have every single Bible that was given to me.

    However, the Buddhists(?) wanted to charge you for their scripture.

    1. When I was a senior, and already very tired of the college scene, I was very appreciative of hearing a viewpoint that is almost non-existent in academia.

  22. Dismembered fetus
    Triggers feminist students
    Bill of Rights withers

  23. SEE!! PRO-LIFE LIBERTARIANS!! YOU’RE ALL SOCON FAKES!!! WARMONGERING RACIST RAPE-APOLOGISTS!! RIGHT-LEANING NON-DENUNCIATORS!

    /tard

    really, the question i have – is the threat of a religious-right revival which undermines pro-choice Oregon politics so frighteningly imminent that this kind of repression of minority views is treated as ‘justified’?

    Meaning = WTF. Oregon? Is the bible-beating set really that much of a ‘threat’ that they feel compelled to attack them on sight?

    Or are they just offended by the pro-lifer’s hubris, daring to hold an opinion that is inconsistent with accepted progressive wisdom? Is it pure contempt for the idea of “dialogue” itself?

    1. It’s social signaling. By drawing attention to herself in this confrontation, she gains cred among her peers.

      1. I buy that.

        What i find amusing is the great lengths lefties go to convince themselves they are by-definition ‘dispassionate, open-minded, rational, etc”

        Because Party of Science, you see =

        “Liberals are more likely to respond to “informational complexity, ambiguity, and novelty”. …Liberals, according to this model, would be likely to engage in more flexible thinking, working through alternate possibilities before committing to a choice. Even after committing, if alternate contradicting data comes along, they would be more likely to consider it. Sound familiar? This is how science works……for liberals to make a case for an idea or cause, they come armed with data, research studies, and experts. They are convinced of an idea if all the data checks out?basically they assign meaning and value to ideas that fit within the scientific method, because that’s their primary thinking style. Emotion doesn’t play as big of a role in validation

        Not to say that liberals are unfeeling, but just more likely to set emotion aside when judging an idea initially, and factor it in later. Checks out scientifically = valuable. Liberals can get just as emotionally attached to an idea, but it’s usually not the primary trigger for acceptance of an idea….”

        1. I’d buy that description for actual liberals. Progressives, on the other hand….

          1. I don’t think this “Study” had quite that level of segmentation nuance

            Ron covered this fad with “combining neuroscience with politics” way back when. I went to see him speak at a panel debate in NY about it. It was complete horseshit from the get go AFAIK which is why no one seems to have breathed a word about it since 2008 or so.

            (* i think a lot of the liberal self-congratulation fads come from being a ‘opposition party’ – when they’ve got power, there is no appeal to explaining ‘why they’re superior’, because it is simply self-evident at that point)

        2. So basically they’ve reinvented phrenology. Good to know.

    2. I think it’s the other way around. If the religious right were seen as a true threat, she wouldn’t have had the balls to go through with it. It’s precisely because they are so marginalized that she felt confident enough to go through with it.

  24. FUCK that’s a gruesome poster.

    1. Yeah, I’ve seen those pictures before, and honestly, if I’d posted them in this story–I’d provide a trigger warning.

      Whether obscenity needs to be policed by the government is a separate question–but those photographs are undoubtedly obscene.

      They are being used in a political context to persuade people that abortion is wrong and should be illegal, though.

      Even if they weren’t, I don’t think the government should need to get involved. But just because the government doesn’t need to get involved, doesn’t mean those images aren’t obscene either.

      If some kids saw those images and were disturbed by them, I think their parents should be free to drag the people bearing those images in front of a civil jury.

      1. If some kids saw those images and were disturbed by them, I think their parents should be free to drag the people bearing those images in front of a civil jury.

        If the parents are seeking to protect their kids from being disturbed by punishing a visual offender through court I’m positive that taking something like this to trial would in no way assist them in this effort.

        1. I bet it’s more effective than using the government to ban obscenity in criminal law.

          There is a role for government in facilitating justice and making sure people compensate you when they violate your rights.

          It’s called civil court.

          If you can prove by a preponderance of the evidence to a jury’s satisfaction that your children were harmed by seeing those images, then by all means–you should be welcome to sue.

          Much more effective at making people responsible for parading around with obscene images than criminal obscenity laws–and much more effective at alleviating whatever damage might be done to children by such obscene images, too.

          1. Open the floodgates…

          2. Open the floodgates…

      2. Why did the parents put their children in a position to be exposed to those images they find so disturbing ?

        Maybe those parents should expalin their actions to CPS.

        For the children of course.

    2. Yeah, and that’s what they’re counting on – the emotional appeal. For me, lying and emotionalism are the hallmarks of the anti-abortion people. Much like progressives.

      1. What’s the lie in that picture?

      2. Photographs of a parasitic clump of cells after it has been extracted from its host in a constitutionally-protected exercise of a woman’s right to privacy and reproductive health care shouldn’t elicit an emotional response from anyone except hardcore pro-lifers. If it does, it says more about the viewer than the photo. Hard to argue it’s dishonest either, unless they’re fabricating the images.

        Not the least bit ironic for the same folks calling for the most gruesome public executions possible in order to shock the bloodthirsty public into recognition of their own barbarism vis-a-vis the death penalty to be calling images from a safe and legal medical abortion “obscene”, either.

    3. What’s so gruesome about a clump of cells?

      1. Nothing,, really. Ultrasounds can actually catch the clumps sucking their little clump thumbs sometimes.

  25. As Reason’s Stephanie Slade and Katherine Mangu-Ward have both pointed out, people who would like to live in a world with stricter parameters on acceptable speech should actually be in favor of more privatization and fewer government-run or government-owned spheres of influence.

    This is only true if such people genuinely acknowledge the individual right of free expression.

    The problem is that they do not: they wish to eviscerate the 1st Amendment to prohibition of expression that they do not like, and they want the prohibition to be binding in both public and private spaces.

  26. “…We had no problem with his opinion, but it was his sign. You can’t just show whatever you want.”

    But if he had a large poster showcasing far more unsettling imagery of brutally-battered or murdered women with the title Stop Domestic Abuse nobody would’ve had a single problem with it.

    Additionally, how one accepts a potentially offensive image does depend on the message being promoted with that image. For example, the violent image of Christ practically naked and bleeding slowly to death on a cross hangs in almost all Christian churches with reverence while many Christians find offense over the mere ‘presence’ of an adult sex shop in their town.

    No fucking way can free speech survive being strangled by the ‘offended’.

  27. ah more pants shitting paranoid overreactions over a pantshitting overreaction from my favorite band of irony-blind loonies. you are seriously equating systemic oppression by a dictatorship to one nutjobs hysteria. i didnt miss the question mark because i dont need to ask. everytime you invoked the nazis or the commies to whine about every little slight and inconvienience you spit in the face of every holocaust or gulag victim.

    heres a clue – “reasonable does not mean “somethng i agree with”.

    1. ah more pants shitting paranoid overreactions

      Offended White Guy Brigade, reporting for duty!

      1. IS THAT A PLEDGE PIN ON YOUR UNIFORM!?

    2. I am sensing…..hostility.

      Try a couple of deep breaths and remember to take your lithium.

      1. Just because these people acted like Nazis doesn’t give you offended white guys the right to get all uppity or anything. Really, if the worst thing we have to complain about is some nasty fundie getting run off a college campus by some excitable college students, we are doing pretty well.

        Signed
        Prog troll.

        1. read a history book the nezis didnt begin with some oversensitive ninny. it was a broad pervasive movement based based on deep cultural biases. the soviet gulag and secret police systems were similarly a longstanding institutions. the commies changed the names thats all

          if you want to claim that theres some principle that means that minor slights against white christians are the same as systematic state abuse against everyone else as an excuse to ignore everyone else then dont expect to be taken seriously

          1. You are a living example of someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. First, Germany was the least anti-Semitic country in Europe before the 30s. That is one of the reasons why no one took Hitler seriously and why so many Jews didn’t try to flee until it was too late. No one could believe such a thing could happen in Germany. So your understanding of Nazism is incredibly shallow.

            Second, no matter what you think of Germany, that doesn’t change the nature of fascist politics. Fascist politics in all countries was based on the use of mob violence and terror. The mob attacks political enemies while the police look the other way or arrest the victim if they try and fight back. What we saw here was nothing but a mini play of how fascist violence and politics works. The only difference is they didn’t break the guy’s legs. Give them time and let them feel more emboldened and they will do that too.

            Lastly, an assault is an assault. They assaulted the guy and destroyed his property. The fact that he is a white Christian or a black atheist or a brown Hindu makes no difference. You only throw out the white Christian line because you are a fascist who thinks violence against the right groups is okay. You are just not honest enough to admit it outright and instead pretend it wasn’t really violence. Yes it was and that is the point that you are too dishonest to admit because you think what happened here was good and want to see more of it.

            1. john anti-semitism is one piece of the puzzle. you have to take into account the deeply entrenched attitudes towards authoritiariansm in german and european culture. the state needed an enemy and jews were an easy target. enough to worry about but not enought to leave a big hole in the german fabric. there was also a rise in a fascination with a bastardized version of darwinism which made it all the easier. hitler and his pals wanted power and they picked a target and ran with it. germans, being good little unquestionng authoritarians went along.

              an essential part of state violence is that it is orchestrated by the state. unless you can show that obama slipped that crackpot some benjamins to do some dirty work, then it’s just the work of a crank with the addition of a wimpy school administration.

              lastly she should be punsihed for the assault. since shes a private citizen then she’s not in a postion to abridge anyones speech (shes not congress passing a law, or are you going to stop being originalists for this incident?)

              1. Of course the state became a part of it. It did not however start like that. Democracy died in Germany in the 1920s when the authorities allowed mobs of brown shirts were allowed to terrorize people. That is how the Nazis were able to take power and then turn the state into an instrument of murder.

                That is why this sort of behavior cannot and should not be in any way tolerated or ignored. Her actions were nothing but political violence. And once you allow or excuse political violence it does nothing but escalate.

      2. im on th ambien now. seriously dont you think theres a little bit of drama queening going on here? imagine going up to a holocaust surivivor and saying “we have common cause. you were subjected to years of systematic, state sponsored discrimiation, torture, imprisonment and systematic execution and i read a story about one guy losing a sign. we’re in the same boat..”

        1. Because it’s less in magnitude, doesn’t mean it’s not the same thing.

          1. but is it the same thing? is there truly no difference between officers of the state killing a man with no consequence and someone being a petty jerk?

            1. It is government claiming powers it is prohibited from having and using that power to oppress the rights of the citizenry.

              Yes, same EXACT thing, to a lesser degree. And once it is allowed by the citizenry, they will take more.

              But, go ahead, be the sheep. You’ll be one of the first against the wall.

            2. Um, the Nazi violence started before they were in power. It started with vandalism and minor assaults (shoving, pushing) and quickly escalated to beatings.

              1. I fail to see any difference between Nazis and progtards. Some of the names have changed, but the game remains the same. Strike them down while we can.

          2. and even if i concede your point should the more extreme incidents be given priortiy?

            1. maybe you should ask Bo.

    3. Here is a clue, you are a fucking moron who doesn’t understand that there is a such a thing a principle or that a single act can be illustrative of a larger very bad principle. Here the point is not that one idiot in Oregon tore up a sign. The point is that attacking someone for unpopular speech is apparently considered okay on the campus of the University of Oregon. The fact that she only tore up his sign is immaterial.

    4. You might want to pour water on that flaming ballsack. Or retardant. Wait, maybe you don’t need any more retardant.

    5. One thing I love about Flaming Ballsack is that he thinks throwing temper tantrums is an effective debate tactic. When really it just exposed him as the emotional overgrown child that he is.

      1. Much like the enlightened, tolerant students.

  28. Oh man, these proggies simply have no clue what’s going to happen if they ever go feral in the wrong place. If that had been the south there would be about a dozen dead undergrads and rightly so.

    1. At some point they are going to get their asses kicked pulling this shit. When that happens, flaming ballsack is going to be on here demanding martial law.

      That is the strategy here; keep attacking your enemies with increased ferocity until one of them fights back. When that happens, immediately claim to be the victim and that it is your enemy who was the violent one. If they don’t do anything, you win by getting to attack and terrorize them. If they fight back, you win by making them into criminals and yourself into a victim.

    2. dozen dead undergrads and rightly so.

      Jesus Christ, liz.

      1. Yeah, that was pretty over-the-top on Liz’s part. Also obnoxiously anti-southern. Nobody would have shot those undergraduates, or even beaten them up. Certainly not the women. They might have been shamed, shouted, counter-protested or at the worst had their cars vandalized.

    3. Let’s not insult Southerners. I mean, yeah, they’re much more violent than Chicagoans or the NYPD.

    4. “If that had been the south there would be about a dozen dead undergrads and rightly so.”

      I went to school in the south in the 1990s.

      It was a comparatively ‘conservative’ campus …

      (not really so much IMHO, but we did win some so-con street-cred by throwing out some students who tried chaining themselves to dormitory doors until the Confederate Flags were banned from campus. yeah, that didn’t happen.)

      …and the general reaction to the ever-present rabble-rousers that appeared on campus was “yawn”

      There were always N.O.W. & pro-life people battling in the quad (the 90s was all-abortion, all the time), and the lambda people always flying the rainbow flags, virtually *begging* someone to give them a hard time so they’d have something to complain about…and the Meat Is Murder lady… and the Jesus Is Coming Repent or Burn dude…. Basically, the same “PCU” world as you’d find at any other college campus in the 1990s, with the notable difference that 99% of students *didn’t give a flying fuck about any of it*.

      What made ‘conservatives’ conservative, to the great surprise of many urban transplants like myself, was they didn’t seem all that interested in parading their beliefs around like a fashion statement.

      which is why the more-common occurrence would be when you discovered that your physics study partner was actually a young-earth creationist. “No shit?” And the depressing part was that you needed to copy his/her notes.

      1. My point being = ‘political violence’ seems to me to be the least likely thing you’d find among southern ‘religious right’ conservatives. Its just not their style. They’re much more about “patronizing dismissal” and steadfastly ignoring people they disagree with.

      2. “which is why the more-common occurrence would be when you discovered that your physics study partner was actually a young-earth creationist. “No shit?” And the depressing part was that you needed to copy his/her notes.”

        That there is funnier that most of what I hear from professional comedians. Not because of the politics, but because it’s funny.

        On an admittedly liberal Southern campus, I encountered avowed Communists selling their commie literature. The students either didn’t care, or they went and bought copies. (Yes, bought, just because you’re commies doesn’t mean you can’t make a profit.)

        1. The smartest guys I knew in high school and college were both fundy Christians. The high school one was a young earth creationist. The college one was featured on a local news channel because he had never got a grade lower than an A on any assignment in his entire life.

          1. Just to be clear, my reaction was “funny because it’s true,” not “ha ha, such a creative story!”

      3. Right there with you. Went to college in the mid-late 90s, southern ‘somewhat conservative campus’, with all the attendant PCU-style protestors and the occasional preacher from off-campus. And my experience was the same: 99% of folks ignored everybody, because we were too busy going to class. For some reason in the last 20 years, it seems like kids can’t walk past a fundie preacher or a commie activist without having to give their opinion or make a decision to be offended. ‘Sticks and stones…’ was probably the best advice anyone ever gave me. Sadly, in the last 20-30 years parents have apparently replaced that with “get in the face of anyone that offends you until they go away, and if they don’t go away start damaging their property or asking the government to lock them up.” Well, progressive parents anyway.

      4. virtually *begging* someone to give them a hard time so they’d have something to complain about…

        So, that was before the wave of progtards faking attacks on themselves for attention?

        -jcr

        1. actually, yes.

          people in the “good old days” actually believed ‘credibility’ was actually a ‘real thing’ you needed to earn and protect.

  29. What is this guy complaining about? They just grabbed his sign, they didn’t attempt to run over him and his prolife colleagues with a car.

    http://christiannews.net/2015/…..-facility/

  30. A few points:

    1. Flaming Ballsack is Mary Stack.

    2. Aren’t things like gay pride parades meant at least in part to shock conservatives? What goes around comes around.

    3. Why do progs think yelling and dropping lots of f bombs make an argument? They always do this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6rCbqpq6d0

  31. Incidentally, on one campus I saw explicit animal-rights photos – on large placards – you know what I’m referring to. Yet nobody was surrounding the demonstrators and demanding that they leave, or tearing up the posters. At least not when I was there. Maybe the mob and the cops came by later.

  32. I find it especially cowardly among women when they use the fact that they know a man won’t get physical with him in order to destroy his property or get physical with him.

    Someone commented here a while back that feminists are particularly cowardly in that they never ever take on a real fight. It’s always something BS like Ban Bossy, the mythical wage gap, STEM careers, etc. I think that’s why I always thought they were full of shit.

  33. For people who regard themselves as being superior in every way, especially intellectually, progs are certainly a fearful and fragile bunch. I see and hear offensive things all the time; I’ve never felt the need to go postal about. Mature adults understand that this happens sometimes and maintain their dignity when it does.

    But the progs have jettisoned dignity so I suppose that path isn’t open to them. Hysterical emotional mob violence seems to be all they’ve got. And they still think they’re the adults in the room? Jesus crackers.

    1. “progs are certainly a fearful and fragile bunch”

      this is similar to Scruffy’s point above

      My thinking is that said ‘triggered’ person would never have acted out in this violent fashion if they didn’t feel entirely *comfortable that their actions would have no consequences*… other than their own Social-Status being elevated for their public demonstration of indignation.

      i.e. if this had been an environment where the popular views on campus were ‘evenly divided’, they’d never have dared act so petulantly. As per my own comment re: it being “Oregon”… their violent over-reaction was directly commensurate to the degree to which their own Pro-Choice views were *entirely unthreatened* by opposition.

      noting

      = “In 1969, Oregon became the first state to legalize abortion, and in 1994, the first government in the world to legalize physician?assisted suicide. Currently, there are no restrictions on abortion in Oregon, and taxpayer dollars fund both abortion and assisted suicide….

      Not exactly a place where “Choice” is in grave danger, now, is it?

      The point was = They felt entirely entitled to treat opposing views with contempt, disrespect, and throw out any pretense of support for free speech.

      1. Agreed. it’s amazing how progressive will frequently make these displays of extreme outrage over things that they know they will face ZERO social consequences for. And then they pat themselves on the back and brag about how “brave” they are, how they are speaking truth to power, blah blah. As if this lone preacher and his sign represent “power”.

        Seriously. They are a bunch of total fucking cowards. They go out and loudly protest racism and sexism as if that was daring and expect to be congratuated on their courage.

        Meanwhile, libertarians are the people who are actually out there taking unpopular but correct positions that need defenders. We’re the ones actually risking social sanctions for saying things that need to be said, and taking all sorts of shit for it all the time. Mostly from assholes like them who think themselves brave for uttering the conventional wisdom loudly at the top of their lungs and damning anyone who dares deviate from the bien-pensant norms.

  34. Folks like this preacher were on my college campus 20 years ago. While I didn’t agree with them per se, it didn’t ‘offend’ me that they were there, nor did it seem to offend anyone else on campus. When they stand around spouting about end-times and whatnot, the students I saw simply looked amused more than anything. And in hindsight, that was the appropriate response. Nobody freaked out. Nobody got into a shouting match with the guy. People either listened for a minute before shaking their heads and moving off, or they ignored him.

    You make a choice to be offended by someone’s words, which gives you the power in such a situation to be the bigger person. When you choose to be offended, though, you relinquish your power. People like this are simply internet trolls in real life. On the Net, you ignore trolls. The same advice holds in real life.

  35. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    http://www.jobs-check.com

  36. before I looked at the check which said $6684 , I be certain …that…my cousin was like they say actualey taking home money parttime at there labtop. . there mums best friend has done this 4 less than seventeen months and just repayed the debts on their place and bourt Ford Mustang . have a peek at this website …….

    http://www.netjob70.com

  37. If she finds the signs “offensive”, then maybe she should consider taking a stand against the fact that the atrocities they depict are legal.

    Of course, that would require intellectual consistency on her part.

    1. There are lots of things that I don’t want to see that should nevertheless be legal. For example, I have no interest in seeing people shit on each other for sexual pleasure, but it shouldn’t be against the law.

      1. Hey, let’s leave the Clintons out of this, OK?

        -jcr

    2. She’d probably find it equally offensive if, the next day, someone showed up with a sign showing a photo of her ruining the first sign. Offensive = anything that contradicts progressivism, even if it’s true.

    3. What if the sign depicted an autopsy?

  38. Liberals — especially militant secularists and libertines — believe everyone should be free to think as they think, do as they do, and say what they say. That’s as far as freedom goes for them.

  39. It believe I found her on facebook.

    She’s a hyphenated name person: Allison Rutledge-Staubach. A clear sign of special snowflake status (if anyone remembers the discussion around the girl from Oberlin who couldn’t handle a professor telling her “no”).

  40. Something tells me she does this for ‘a living’ the constant use of the word ‘obscene’ is fairly clever since that would in fact make the speech unacceptable. Ms. Rutledge should be ashamed of herself in either event. Regardless of how you fall on the abortion debate, there is no place for physical acts of violence.

  41. Is the abortion protester a student? And if not, do they allow non students to protest on school property? That aside, there is something terribly wrong with people who hold up signs with the most offensive images they can find, and scream at passers by. What happened to civility? I agree that free speech is the cornerstone of our civilization. But just because you legally can say something offensive, that does not mean that you should constantly do so.

    1. ‘Allow’? You’re joking, right? This is a public campus, not private property. Watch what the 2nd cop says about the pastor’s right to be there. He was remarkably sane.

      1. I assumed that there were rules, even on a public school campus. Could the street preacher take his protest into a college library or into a lecture hall? Can the homeless build a shanty town on the quad?

    2. ” there is something terribly wrong with people who hold up signs with the most offensive images they can find, and scream at passers by.”

      Do you find the sign in question offensive?

      Perhaps you should question the law that makes the picture on the sign llegal instead of the making the sign illegal..

  42. “People have an explicit, Court-recognized right to engage in very offensive and disturbing speech on public property. ”

    Really?

    Tell that to those kids who just got expelled from college for making a racist chant in a private venue.

    There are no rights today simply because we choose to ignore them when people do offensive or unpopular things

  43. “There’s a limit to what people should be forced to look at,” Rutledge said.

    …and who was forcing her to look at it?

    Stupid self-absorbed twat.

    -jcr

  44. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week………………

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  45. I’m all for right-to-lifers displaying gory signs. These signs disgust people and turn people away from right-to-lifism. Also, when right-to-lifers picket abortion clinics, their presence is sometimes helpful to people who are trying to find the clinic.

  46. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.work-mill.com

  47. It seems like a history major would have a better grasp of the freedom of speech.

  48. I can’t promise u will get rich over night with my program but i can promise you one thing and that is my opportunities are free and legit..
    if you want to make money without spending a dime Sign up here
    +++++++++++++++ http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  49. Notice how cop #1 used the pronoun “we” over & over when addressing the students, to gratuitously communicate that he sided with them… the big stupid I-crave-approval weenie.

  50. ‘Pro-choicers’ are especially hostile to pro-lifer’s visual aids because photos easily demolish the “clump of cells” narrative.

  51. In fact, public universities want to regulate themselves the way private colleges do. They would like, and have claimed, the same privileges and regulatory authority that private colleges have. So far, they have defended those claims pretty well. As long as we regard colleges and universities as places set apart from other institutions, we will have arguments about the rights that people do or do not have there.

  52. my neighbor’s step-sister makes $68 an hour on the internet . She has been fired for 8 months but last month her pay check was $12106 just working on the internet for a few hours. check here…………………..

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  53. At IU in 1977 we had the Jeb and Ted show…two fire brand street preachers who regaled us are the devils step children. It was fun and we lunched there was often as our schedules permitted.

    Now these whistle D’s have their panties in a wad over someone looking cross-eyed at them. Probably think that they are demeaning those with disabilities.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.