Public College allegedly prohibits distribution of pamphlets on campus. pro CCW pamphlets

[paulsby]

courtesy: www. volokh.com

Public College Prohibiting Distribution of "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus" Pamphlets? The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports that this indeed happened, at the Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania. At this point, the factual allegations are just the student's, with no confirmation by the school (the school was asked for its side of the matter on April 29, and wrote on May 13 that "a response will be forthcoming in a reasonable time frame," but hasn't said anything further). Still, I have found FIRE's past factual assertions to be quite reliable; and if the student's accusations are accurate, this seems like a serious First Amendment problem. Check out FIRE's summary, and the linked documents, and see for yourself.

I should note that the college apparently defended itself on the grounds that students couldn't use the name of the college without the college's permission. But according to FIRE, the name was used in a way that made clear that it was just identifying the location of a student group; I see no constitutional basis for the college to prohibit the use of a name in this context (though I suppose that it might, in an excess of caution, require that use of the name be accompanied with an express note that the college name is used only for identification purposes, and not as a sign of endorsement).

I should also note that the college reportedly asserted that its policy is to require preapproval of student publications; to the extent that such a policy is permitted on college property, it has to be nondiscretionary and viewpoint-neutral, and according to the student's account the college claimed that it would not approve publications that express this viewpoint. And the only policy that FIRE could find that supposedly covered this behavior (which the college reportedly labeled as "soliciation") was this one, which is pretty clearly unconstitutional:

Solicitation: The distribution or display of, and the personal contact with individuals or groups related to non-sponsored college material or events, without prior written approval of the college are prohibited. These actions are limited to public property; however, public property in this context does not include college property.

[armyowalgreens]

1. Uh oh. I attend ASU and they allow everyone on campus.

And I mean everyone. Even the crazy preachers that scream how masturbating will send you to hell.

This is complete bullshit.

[paulsby]

2. i agree, if true.

i did put "allegedly" in the title, because it has not been confirmed yet.

it would not at all surprise me if it's true.

[X_Digger]

3. The First Amendment - protecting only speech we agree with since 1791! n/t

[madinmaryland]

7. The Second Amendment - protecting only gun-nuts since 1791. n/t

[paulsby]

9. makes about as much sense as saying

"the 4th amendment. protecting only criminals since 1791"

[X_Digger]

10. Attacks on _any_ provision of the constitution bother me..

.. and as someone who spent a lot of time today defending Obama's choice of Sotomayor based on her application of the rule of law, it constantly amazes me how two-faced DU can be sometime.

Student censored at private school because of political views? First Amendment, all the way, baby!
Right-wing-hate radio? First Amendment doesn't mean shit!
"Terrah" watch lists that include anti-war protesters? Right to privacy / Fourth Amendment says you can't do that!
"Terrah" reports that highlight returning vets and right wing morans? Right to privacy / Fourth Amendment be damned, they're nuts!

See my sig for my approach.

[marmar]

4. About the source of this article - volokh.com - from wikipedia:

"The Volokh Conspiracy is a weblog which mostly covers United States legal and political issues, generally from a libertarian or conservative perspective. This group blog has more than a dozen contributors, most of whom are law professors. Each blog entry is signed. The Volokh Conspiracy was cited by the New York Times in an article dealing with the paucity of female Supreme Court clerks......."

[paulsby]

5. so what?

instead of relying on wikipedia, how about actually visiting the site?

prof. volokh is a brilliant legal scholar, as are many of the contributors.

posts there are made (mostly by attorneys) from ALL perspectives. there are "flaming liberals", "staunch conservatives", and the entire gamut.

regardless, it's an excellent site for legal analysis.

furthermore, the volokh conspiracy has been cited not just by the new york times, but by numerous judges, in their decisions, etc.

so you can whinge that it's a "libertarian or conservative perspective" (according to wikipedia) or you can see for yourself.

i prefer primary sources. i don't need wikipedia or anybody else to tell me whom to get my legal analysis from

[marmar]

6. "how about actually visiting the site?"

I did. Wikipedia seems pretty accurate on this one.

[paulsby]

8. fair enuf

it's the best legal analysis i've ever seen.

and for legal analysis, i have no problem with a libertarian perspective. that word scares some people. they think of the "abolish the IRS, abolish welfare, etc." people which is definitely NOT prof. volokh.

he is libertarian, in that he believes in less govt. intrusion into private life, strong supporter of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendment, etc.

that works for me.

he may be more of a textualist than many DU'ers are, but ime he finds fault with justices on both sides of the aisle, when they #$($#( up. which is refreshing.