We read:
"According to FIRE, an organization dedicated to upholding civil liberties in higher education, a student at Ohio’s Sinclair Community College was banned from handing out literature about birth control, abortion, and breast cancer to students on campus.
It all began during Breast Cancer Awareness Month when student Ethel Borel-Donohue distributed about 15 flyers to a handful of students following her Probate Law I class. Borel-Donohue was in a paralegal-prep program at Sinclair Community College. The flyers she distributed, which you can see here, discussed the possible link between taking birth control/having an abortion and getting breast cancer. In that sense, the flyers caution against such forms of birth control and can be interpreted to be pro-life.
But apparently that “offended” at least one student who had previously had an abortion. As a result, Borel-Donohue was called into the office of Paralegal Program Chair who told her she had “no right” to be distributing such pamphlets.
I’m left to reason, as FIRE President Greg Lukianoff does, that “The right to distribute literature about controversial topics is one of Americans’ most hallowed rights. If someone’s claim to be offended by speech were all it took to overrule the First Amendment, we would all be reduced to silence. Thankfully the Constitution does not recognize a ‘right not to be offended.’”
FIRE has asked the college to update its student policies to conform to the First Amendment.
Source
14 comments:
In college I had to put up with all kinds of commie literature, so who the hell is that university to tell the students what they can or cannot distribute?
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/
Do you think that interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?
No freedom of speech at these leftists collages ecept when it comes to burning the flag by a bunch of worthless little snots
"Do you think that interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?"
---No, why you ask?
This is why the question was aksed.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/
04/08/2011-04-08_interracial_marriage_should_be_illegal_say_46_of
_mississippi_republicans_in_new_.html
These EduNazi's will never stop trying to reduce the Constitution to mean only what the Left want's it to mean.
long time lurker of these boards but been having issue where i keep getting redirected to hacking sites. Im not an idiot either! Im a certified medical assistant!!
1) What does that survey have to do with this topic? Just more grenade throwing by the haters.
2) Why weren't Mississippi Democrats mentioned? (Seems like a VERY one sided article to me.) Not to mention they don't even state what question was asked. (How questions are stated is a comment method of doing Push Polling.)
I'l stop there, 'cause I've already fed the troll too much.
Too many colleges view themselves as tiny little kingdoms to rule in an elitist fascist manner. Rights? What Rights. We have letters after our names so you don’t get rights. The arrogance and condescension on college campuses is so thick you could cut it with a chainsaw.
Yep. Can't have any unapproved knowledge interfering with the dogma injections, now, can we?
"Can't have any unapproved knowledge interfering with the dogma injections"
The motto of the Catholic Church.
Actually, I think this is a two pronged issue.
I believe that there can be a limitation on what people can hand out in class. A student is compelled to attend class and is therefore a captive audience. Someone else does not have the right to subvert the purpose of the class to fit their own agenda.
If the school decides that they do not want pamphlets handed out in classrooms, that is reasonable.
What is not reasonable and what the college has done, is make a restriction of speech by getting flyers, pamphlets and signs approved BEFORE being displayed on campus. That is prior restraint and is never acceptable.
In short, a restriction on handing out pamphlets to a captive audience is reasonable. Restricting all speech by prior restraint is neither reasonable or acceptable.
"I believe that there can be a limitation on what people can hand out in class. A student is compelled to attend class and is therefore a captive audience. Someone else does not have the right to subvert the purpose of the class to fit their own agenda."
If by "in class" you mean during class, then no, it would be unacceptable. It occurred in the classroom, but after class. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but after class sounds acceptable to me.
Maybe it's splitting hairs, but after class sounds acceptable to me.
I thought of that as well. The problem is that you still have a captive audience. The students HAVE to be in the classroom.
People say "if you don't like what is on TV, change the channel." Or, "no one is forcing you to listen to what a speaker is saying." (The corollary of which is "if you don't like what the guy on the sidewalk is saying, cross the street.")
The students who don't want to talk to the woman, or don't want to have a pamphlet thrust at their faces have no alternative. They are required to be in a specific place at a specific time. There is no escape for them.
I understand your point and thought about it a great deal before making my statement. Personally, I would feel better if such pamphlets and handouts were restricted to outside of the classroom where a person who does not want to listen or be confronted with the literature can walk away.
@Anon 7:49- Best answer to the problem award goes to you! And I'm not being a smart ass. That answer is about as perfect a solution as possible.
"Thankfully the Constitution does not recognize a ‘right not to be offended.’” <-This right here. Most important thing to remember ever!
Post a Comment