, accusing the university of “unconstitutional” practices and policies, including the fee assessment, the university’s fee assessment policies, and the alleged failure of university police to protect attendees.
Clearly, there was a disconnect between our people and ISI. Unfortunately, ISI did not raise the issue when they received an estimate prior to the event, or this would have been easily resolved at that time.
In short, “[s]peech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.” . . . Charging security fees based on the content of the speech is exactly the type of “suppression” the First Amendment does not permit. Such security fees are an unconstitutional heckler’s veto.
The university, ADF alleged, incited the crowd by referring to Knowles’ “hate-filled rhetoric” as “toxic” and “repugnant.” The university allegedly tried to indirectly censor Knowles’ talk by characterizing him as an “unwelcome presence on campus,” which ADF alleges “encourag[ed] others to take action to suppress speech [the university] disfavored.”
Nor can an officer sit idly on the sidelines—watching as the crowd imposes, through violence, a tyrannical majoritarian rule—only later to claim that the speaker’s removal was necessary for his or her own protection.The university allegedly failed in this regard because campus police “decided not to intervene against or arrest any of the rioters, choosing instead to allow them to gather right next to the event so that they could threaten and assault the peaceful attendees.
Education Education Latest News, Education Education Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: SooToday - 🏆 8. / 85 Read more »
Source: CBCOttawa - 🏆 68. / 51 Read more »
Source: GlobalCalgary - 🏆 50. / 61 Read more »
Source: DurhamRadioNews - 🏆 70. / 51 Read more »
Source: SaltWire Network - 🏆 45. / 63 Read more »
Source: SaltWire Network - 🏆 45. / 63 Read more »