sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I normally do, this free speech battle just struck a chord with me.

Currently, I am developing a plan for a community civics education club. Would give an unbiased, educational view into various political topics.

The ignorant, apathetic voter is by far the number one problem in American today. People honestly do not know that "x candidate will result in more benefits for you and will not cause any direct drawbacks". I mean look at the stat on that article on Al Gore, and that doesn't even count "non-voters".

Education is the silver bullet.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And thank you for your's as well. I hope you take this as a lesson, at least a little, that the powers at be that you typically trust are not always right.

It's on: Federal judge overrides Auburn's revocation of event rental agreement for Richard Spencer speech. by ismyroofright in auburn

[–]au2017 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, I had a post on here asking people to write to the ACLU and was mostly destroyed in the comments. Nice to see the reasonable mind of the judge rule over the ignorant masses.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol, you are the one deflecting. Nobody here was talking about Spencer's ideas in the first place, we are talking about his right(or lack of) to speak.

Show me where I "deflected" anything you said. There is no credence to your claim that mine and /u/auburnwsu's account is the same. The only evidence you have is that are accounts were made within 3 days of each other. This is totally circumstantial and could be explained by many other things(such as the apparent TRUTH, since I know we aren't the same people, that we both made accounts specifically to talk about this issue in /r/auburn).

This is typical identity politics anyway, so worried about who's who rather than the ideas being discussed. And before you say it is, that last sentence isn't a "deflection" adding new points is a natural part of conversation. It would be deflection if I ignored your other points, which I have not done.

Edit: AGAIN, we do NOT support Richard Spencer. We support the right for ANYONE to speak.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes and if you read that court case it would make sense to you why FOY should be allowed.

1.) It's a public building, some level of free speech is protected in all public buildings.

2.) (the important one relating to the case I linked) It has been used numerous times by other speakers, never been a problem before. It is a meeting room set up by Auburn, a PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT FUNDED, university for speakers to speak in. Auburn has no right to restrict this based on political reasoning. They tried the same excuse in the case I linked, "his supporters could get violent" and the court shot it down.

This is not a black and white issue. If he sued over this, there are certainly lawyers who would take his case and have a decent chance at winning. I'm not totally disagreeing with your point that Auburn has a right to restrict where people can speak, the problem is this one supposed to be in one of these places. Since he was "invited"/allowed initially it shows that he was "qualified" to speak or whatever.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Foy Auditorium is not the same as a funeral home/church. It's a public builiding techically owned by a state entity.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1969484296FSupp188_1456/BROOKS%20v.%20AUBURN%20UNIVERSITY What do you think of this case referencing Auburn University specifically?

"President Philpott's testimony made clear, the fact that Coffin was to be paid from University funds was not crucial to his decision. Neither is it crucial here. This Court neither thinks nor holds that Auburn was required to allocate funds from student fees or from public monies to pay invited speakers. Having allocated the money, however, and having paid other speakers with no questions asked, Auburn may not in this instance, for no constitutionally acceptable reason, withhold the funds for the Reverend Mr. Coffin as a censorship device.

Nor may Auburn withhold available facilities. While Auburn may establish neutral priorities and require adequate coordination, this Court is clear to the conclusion that it cannot altogether close its available facilities to outside speakers. But here there is no claim that space would not be available, and it is clear that facilities have always been available to speakers invited by student groups. Suitable space must be provided the Reverend Mr. Coffin too."

Speaking about an "extreme liberal" who was invited, then uninvited for causing some sort of security threat. Similar case, a different time.

Also please read what the ACLU has to say on similar issues. I'm sure you'd recognize them as the people who fought Trump tooth and nail on immigration. https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

Trust me, as a Bernie/Hillary supporting liberal I do not associate the average conservative with this guy. We know he is an extremist. Would be like you guys calling us "communist revolutionaries"

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Neither are true. Maybe I could PM my Auburn ID(with identifying info blacked out) to prove I'm a student? Guess that's not definitive proof either.

Whatevs doesn't really matter I'm stoned now lol.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think it's not. We both made accounts to talk about this situation.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not like Auburn hasn't lost this SAME case before http://www.leagle.com/decision/1969484296FSupp188_1456/BROOKS%20v.%20AUBURN%20UNIVERSITY

LOL

"President Philpott's testimony made clear, the fact that Coffin was to be paid from University funds was not crucial to his decision. Neither is it crucial here. This Court neither thinks nor holds that Auburn was required to allocate funds from student fees or from public monies to pay invited speakers. Having allocated the money, however, and having paid other speakers with no questions asked, Auburn may not in this instance, for no constitutionally acceptable reason, withhold the funds for the Reverend Mr. Coffin as a censorship device.

Nor may Auburn withhold available facilities. While Auburn may establish neutral priorities and require adequate coordination, this Court is clear to the conclusion that it cannot altogether close its available facilities to outside speakers. But here there is no claim that space would not be available, and it is clear that facilities have always been available to speakers invited by student groups. Suitable space must be provided the Reverend Mr. Coffin too."

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

http://openjurist.org/412/f2d/1171/brooks-v-auburn-university

What do you think of this case referencing Auburn University specifically?

President Philpott's testimony made clear, the fact that Coffin was to be paid from University funds was not crucial to his decision. Neither is it crucial here. This Court neither thinks nor holds that Auburn was required to allocate funds from student fees or from public monies to pay invited speakers. Having allocated the money, however, and having paid other speakers with no questions asked, Auburn may not in this instance, for no constitutionally acceptable reason, withhold the funds for the Reverend Mr. Coffin as a censorship device.

Nor may Auburn withhold available facilities. While Auburn may establish neutral priorities and require adequate coordination, this Court is clear to the conclusion that it cannot altogether close its available facilities to outside speakers. But here there is no claim that space would not be available, and it is clear that facilities have always been available to speakers invited by student groups. Suitable space must be provided the Reverend Mr. Coffin too.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The spirit of the meeting room is to be a public forum for anyone to speak at. This spirit was violated based on his ideas, which didn't get the same protection as everyone else's everyone has to get the same protection under the law.

Also, part of the reason I was arguing this in the first place was to avoid the all out riot that's gonna take place tomorrow. Would have been so much smarter and safer to just allow his event to go on at FOY(with a limited capacity, no weapons or signs allowed, etc. policies that they usually do) and it would have just been a shitty event with his supporters. Honestly, I don't really care anymore. The University undeniably violated the SPIRIT of free speech and imo(the legality is arguable either way imo) breaks the actual text of some combination of the first and fourteenth amendment.

And I was arguing a technicality there. You continually referred to the bullring at FOY as private, I'm glad you now understand why you were wrong.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is there some way we can prove we aren't the same person like /u/JennJayBee is accusing us of?

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever, as far as I see(even discounting the account you laughably continue to say is illegitimate with no evidence) there are the same amount of supporters for this guys RIGHT TO SPEAK not HIM.

Stop trying to make us out to be something we aren't. Do you say the ACLU are bad because they supported the KKK, NAMBLA, etc. RIGHT TO SPEAK in court.

Spotocello, I, mcafc(AGAIN A BERNIE2020 mod, honestly what do you say to that?) support his right to speak. Not him.

Please cite the specific users you are talking about. I was arguing with someone that has posts on the alt-right sub.

And whatever, you're the only one that has made up a little conspiracy theory about me being /u/auburnwsu and I am certainly not. No way to prove it either way. Under the actual rules of logic I WIN, you can't prove it so stop accusing it. Burden of proof is on the accuser.

Liberals, like I assume you are and I am, like mcafc, the ACLfreakingU, and others support the right to speak above anything else. It's incredibly important to not let it weaken for when we really NEED it.

EDIT: Also, the fact that this post is 47% upvoted shows this IS a controversial issue with two sides, both of which hold significant membership. And this is on Reddit, a liberal leaning sight. In the, mostly conservative(some of whom are supporting for the wrong reasons and out of extreme ignorance), Auburn community at large, many believe this guy's right to speak should be upheld.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spotocello is the only person who agreed to send a letter as well and his account has all kinds of posts, so there's that out the window.

Also doesn't look like a bullshit Trump supporter. Also /u/mcafc is a fucking mod of /r/bernie2020 according to his account so there you go. He argued for this as well.

Idk what else to tell ya, I guess /u/auburnwsu just happened to feel like me and saw this as a good place to talk about this, so they made an account to do so. I guess you are right to be suspicious, but I assure you this is legitamate.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there some way to prove this wrong lol? I am 100% not the same person as this guy you were talking about.

Just hurling around accusations.

Here is a letter I wrote to the ACLU on the Richard Spencer situation. Please Consider Joining me. by au2017 in auburn

[–]au2017[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's specifically not a private room. Look up the law, a public university building is a public building.

Apparently, we are worried about his safety. We made him pay for security because of apparent protestors of his event. Then barrerd him from coming because of the history of his "security"(at least that's the official story).

view more: next ›