Only Reasonably Proper Posts from Me Today

I'm at a conference at a public university, and I'm using the WiFi system; I checked the terms of use, and saw that "By clicking 'Accept'" (as I did) I "agree that … [my] use and activity [related to the network, presumably] will conform to reasonable expectations of propriety." OK then!

I think that WiFi access provided by government bodies, such as public universities, government-owned airports, and the like, is a "limited public forum" in which speech restrictions are constitutional only if they are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable; and a "conform to reasonable expectations of propriety" proviso is too vague to be reasonable (see Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018)). One day I might challenge one such policy, but probably not today ….

Comments

[John F. Carr]

"One day I might challenge one such policy, but probably not today"

Did the terms you clicked to accept require disputes to be resolved by arbitration in Bakhmut?

[Longtobefree]

"conform to reasonable expectations of privacy" proviso is too vague to be reasonable

or

"will conform to reasonable expectations of propriety." ?

[Eugene Volokh]

D'oh! It's "of propriety"; I just mistyped that as "of privacy," corrected now.

[Longtobefree]

Just wanted to be sure before I wasted a good rant about privacy in the current political environment.

[apedad]

Prof. Volokh, does your acceptance of the terms somehow apply to us commenters also?

Or is hoppy025 free to post things like, "Why do semi-retarded black voters have the right to be grouped into a district such that they get to elect an equally retarded black to represent them?"

[ReaderY]

Would commenters be using this particular university’s WiFi? Does the agreement say it applies to 3rd parties (whether or not such an application could be enforced)?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you genuinely expect Prof. Volokh to address that point? His cowardice -- and tolerance (at least) for vile bigotry -- in that regard has been vividly established.

[TheAmazingEmu]

It's irrelevant to the legal discussion raised by the post, though. Although I suspect apedad knows that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What causes you to perceive irrelevance?

[Krychek_2]

hoppy025 would never post anything like that; there isn't a single reference to gay butt sex.

[ReaderY]

That’s true, hoppy025 is always saying you gotta to do the butt sex with proper solemnity. Or is that not a reasonable expectation of propriety?

[Magister]

If Eugene were using that WiFi to explicitly approve individual comments submitted from elsewhere, then a sufficiently improper comment being approved might violate the policy (or maybe be the basis for the challenge he doesn't want to make today).

But racial slurs in posts have been chilled today, so congratulations to the unnamed WiFi system for that.

[Orbital Mechanic]

Suppose the government (any level) provided public telephones that could be used for no charge in some of its buildings. I think most people would agree that they should not be used for criminal purpose but other than that people should be able to say whatever they want over them.

I don't see that public WiFi provided by the government would be treated any differently than that.

[Noscitur a sociis]

There is, I think, a significant amount of space between communications that are criminal, and communciations that are not reasonably proper.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Remember the good old days, Prof. Volokh, when you claimed you were enforcing "civility standards" as you censored liberals and libertarians at this blog for poking fun at conservatives or criticizing right-wingers?

The Volokh Conspiracy is a private playground and you are entitled to establish the rules here, but that point does not diminish your paltry, partisan hypocrisy.

[mydisplayname]

Orwell predicted we'd all be using Newspeak by 2050. I don't think it will take that long! The host of this serial has avoided wrath of The MiniLove, but can he avoid the prangs of The MiniTrue?

On a lighter note, I wonder if the latest country song will pass muster. It begins "It's hard to see you as woman \ With that nine inch dick hanging down" -- and obviously will offend many. While it would meet standards for "reasonable expectations of propriety" in public elementary school classrooms, it would violate the "reasonable expectations of propriety" in most public school board meetings.

[Kazinski]

I hope this doesn't apply to the overnight thread.

[SKofNJ]

If the phrase "reasonable expectations of propriety" is too vague, why isn't the term "reasonable expectations of privacy," as used in search and seizure law, not?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If the phrase “reasonable expectations of propriety” is too vague, why isn’t the term “reasonable expectations of privacy,” as used in search and seizure law, not?

Because "privacy" is a lot easier to define in a legal rights context than is "propriety".

[Bored Lawyer]

"reasonable expectations of propriety"

Well I had my right pinky in the air when I was typing. Isn't that enough?

[AtR]

I suspect you may have violated the terms of service just by reading comments on this blog.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps that explains why the Monday open discussion thread suddenly disappeared.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not withstanding the Right Rev.'s rantings, aren't all of your post
reasonably proper?

[Eugene Volokh]

By my lights, yes ....