Cal Berkeley Blocks Another Conservative Speaker

[IAMX 3,055]

Snowflakes continue to stifle speech they don't agree with 

 

 

Cal Berkeley Blocks ANOTHER Conservative Speaker

 

Officials at the University of California, Berkeley have determined that they simply cannot find a suitable campus venue to accommodate a speech by popular conservative writer Ben Shapiro — two months from now.

The Berkeley College Republicans announced plans for Shapiro to speak on the public campus on Sept. 14. That date will occur 56 days from now, on a Thursday.

The Republican student group has requested a space which can hold at least 500 people for the speech by Shapiro, a 33-year-old Harvard Law School graduate and a prolific political commentator.

On Wednesday, UC Berkeley’s dean of students, Joseph Greenwell, and a student organization coordinator Millicent Morris Chaney informed Berkeley College Republicans that they are “unable to identify an available campus venue,” according to a press release from Young America’s Foundation, a national conservative group.

 

The problem, the administrators explain in a letter, is that events — at least events featuring conservative speakers — must be “held at a time and location that allow for the provision of any required security measures.” Also, campus police “might rule out certain hours for the event” (which likely means any time in the evening, when more people could attend).

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/20/cal-berkeley-blocks-another-conservative-speaker/

 

Home of the modern speech movements. 

[bcking 3,157]

I agree with you on this, they are acting a little ridiculous. It's a Public University that wants to act like a private one.

 

While I agree with them that there are "additional security concerns" given the track record of Berkeley and conservative speakers, and we shouldn't ignore those concerns, they have plenty of time to plan ahead for those.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

The First Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech[.]” The protections contained in the First Amendment relating to the freedom of speech have been extended to the states and their subdivisions by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925).

 

In considering the constitutionality of government action to regulate speech, it must first be determined whether the action is one which is content based (i.e., it regulates what is being expressed) or content neutral (i.e., some other aspect of expression is being regulated). While the appropriate standard of review for content based speech is strict scrutiny, a content neutral regulation is subjected to a lesser standard, which varies depending on the nature of the forum in which it is expressed (about which, more infra). Still, not all content of speech is protected by the First Amendment. Certain types of speech, including, but not limited to, obscenity, defamation, so-called “fighting words (i.e., words that are likely to bring about immediate offensive physical contact), and incitement of immediate lawless behavior are exceptions to First Amendment protection.

 

Berkeley is a state university, so any action it takes to regulate the speech of Ben Shapiro is a governmental action which must comply with the First Amendment. Here, Shapiro wishes to speak on campus, but the university says there is no suitable campus venue due to space restrictions. Banning Shapiro for the content of his speech would be a regulation that is necessarily content based, and therefore subject to strict scrutiny, unless it falls within one of the categories of unprotected speech. However, Berkeley is not banning Shapiro for the content of his speech, but rather because it does not have a venue suitable to hold 500 people, a requirement set forth by Shapiro.

 

The government has a limited power to regulate speech in public, limited public and nonpublic forums that are located on public property. Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678-79 (1992). Different standards of review apply depending on the nature of the forum. Id.  Where the forum for speech is public, the applicable standard of review depends on whether the a regulation is content-based or content-neutral, with the former attracting strict scrutiny, and the latter intermediate scrutiny.

 

Where the government seeks to regulate the time, place and manner of speech, but not its content (so-called “content-neutral” regulations), the regulation is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Accordingly, it must be narrowly tailored so that it does not unnecessarily burden speech, and must serve a substantial state interest while also permitting alternative channels of communication to remain open. Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984).

 

Here, Berkeley is a publicly-funded university which seeks to regulate where and when Shapiro may speak. They are not seeking to limit the content of speech. Therefore, the regulation is content neutral and the applicable standard of review is intermediate scrutiny. Berkeley has a substantial state interest in maintaining order and safety on their campus. The restriction on where the speech can take place is narrowly tailored to this interest, because the university can prevent the event from spiralling out of control by, for example, providing police protection. Speech is not burdened because Shapiro is welcome to say his piece if there is a location on campus suitable for 500 people and security. It is merely the place and time of the speech which is regulated. Further, there are alternative channels of communication which remain open to all, including, but not limited to, conducting the event at other locations off campus. Accordingly, the time-place-manner restriction on Shapiro's speech passes intermediate scrutiny.

 

Here endeth the lesson.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

46 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

The First Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech[.]” The protections contained in the First Amendment relating to the freedom of speech have been extended to the states and their subdivisions by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925).

 

In considering the constitutionality of government action to regulate speech, it must first be determined whether the action is one which is content based (i.e., it regulates what is being expressed) or content neutral (i.e., some other aspect of expression is being regulated). While the appropriate standard of review for content based speech is strict scrutiny, a content neutral regulation is subjected to a lesser standard, which varies depending on the nature of the forum in which it is expressed (about which, more infra). Still, not all content of speech is protected by the First Amendment. Certain types of speech, including, but not limited to, obscenity, defamation, so-called “fighting words (i.e., words that are likely to bring about immediate offensive physical contact), and incitement of immediate lawless behavior are exceptions to First Amendment protection.

 

Berkeley is a state university, so any action it takes to regulate the speech of Ben Shapiro is a governmental action which must comply with the First Amendment. Here, Shapiro wishes to speak on campus, but the university says there is no suitable campus venue due to space restrictions. Banning Shapiro for the content of his speech would be a regulation that is necessarily content based, and therefore subject to strict scrutiny, unless it falls within one of the categories of unprotected speech. However, Berkeley is not banning Shapiro for the content of his speech, but rather because it does not have a venue suitable to hold 500 people, a requirement set forth by Shapiro.

 

The government has a limited power to regulate speech in public, limited public and nonpublic forums that are located on public property. Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678-79 (1992). Different standards of review apply depending on the nature of the forum. Id.  Where the forum for speech is public, the applicable standard of review depends on whether the a regulation is content-based or content-neutral, with the former attracting strict scrutiny, and the latter intermediate scrutiny.

 

Where the government seeks to regulate the time, place and manner of speech, but not its content (so-called “content-neutral” regulations), the regulation is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Accordingly, it must be narrowly tailored so that it does not unnecessarily burden speech, and must serve a substantial state interest while also permitting alternative channels of communication to remain open. Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984).

 

Here, Berkeley is a publicly-funded university which seeks to regulate where and when Shapiro may speak. They are not seeking to limit the content of speech. Therefore, the regulation is content neutral and the applicable standard of review is intermediate scrutiny. Berkeley has a substantial state interest in maintaining order and safety on their campus. The restriction on where the speech can take place is narrowly tailored to this interest, because the university can prevent the event from spiralling out of control by, for example, providing police protection. Speech is not burdened because Shapiro is welcome to say his piece if there is a location on campus suitable for 500 people and security. It is merely the place and time of the speech which is regulated. Further, there are alternative channels of communication which remain open to all, including, but not limited to, conducting the event at other locations off campus. Accordingly, the time-place-manner restriction on Shapiro's speech passes intermediate scrutiny.

 

Here endeth the lesson.

Consider us schooled! 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

See, I feel squicky about these sort of restrictions, because I am a firm believer in free speech, and lots of it, wherever possible. But on the other hand, Berkeley has some valid claim to time-place-manner restrictions because they don't have a room big enough. It's a public safety issue. What if Shapiro downscaled the attendance list to, say, 250 people and provided a livestream to some Jumbotrons installed in a large open space on campus? That could be a way of allowing plenty of people to hear what he had to say. Protestors who want to be heard, but cannot fit inside, can easily be outside making the same points. 

[Dashinka 24,799]

5 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

See, I feel squicky about these sort of restrictions, because I am a firm believer in free speech, and lots of it, wherever possible. But on the other hand, Berkeley has some valid claim to time-place-manner restrictions because they don't have a room big enough. It's a public safety issue. What if Shapiro downscaled the attendance list to, say, 250 people and provided a livestream to some Jumbotrons installed in a large open space on campus? That could be a way of allowing plenty of people to hear what he had to say. Protestors who want to be heard, but cannot fit inside, can easily be outside making the same points. 

So in other words one side can create a public safety concern which allows the University to get around the first amendment?  Sounds a little like fascism.

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

9 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

See, I feel squicky about these sort of restrictions, because I am a firm believer in free speech, and lots of it, wherever possible. But on the other hand, Berkeley has some valid claim to time-place-manner restrictions because they don't have a room big enough. It's a public safety issue. What if Shapiro downscaled the attendance list to, say, 250 people and provided a livestream to some Jumbotrons installed in a large open space on campus? That could be a way of allowing plenty of people to hear what he had to say. Protestors who want to be heard, but cannot fit inside, can easily be outside making the same points. 

There is no actual issue here for them to deny him at all. It turns out that their scheduling system that Berkeley uses to reserve the buildings is actually under maintenance as a of right now. They just don't want to accommodate him at all. But it looks like as of right now they will accommodate him now. 

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18835/breaking-berkeley-pledges-host-shapiro-cover-daily-wire

 

https://www.thefire.org/breaking-uc-berkeley-will-host-ben-shapiro-event-pay-fees-after-college-republicans-accuse-university-of-censorship/

[CaliCat 3,957]

So, in the end, it was just another situation of premature knee jerk reaction, and much ado about nothing. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by CaliCat

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

There is no actual issue here for them to deny him at all. It turns out that their scheduling system that Berkeley uses to reserve the buildings is actually under maintenance as a of right now. They just don't want to accommodate him at all. But it looks like as of right now they will accommodate him now. 

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18835/breaking-berkeley-pledges-host-shapiro-cover-daily-wire

 

https://www.thefire.org/breaking-uc-berkeley-will-host-ben-shapiro-event-pay-fees-after-college-republicans-accuse-university-of-censorship/

A great success. They need to keep holding this university's feet to the fire.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, CaliCat said:

So, in the end, it was just another situation of premature knee jerk reaction, and much ado about nothing. 

No, if it wasn't due to the reaction and the publicity that Berkeley was getting then they wouldn't have agreed to him coming at all. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

19 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

No, if it wasn't due to the reaction and the publicity that Berkeley was getting then they wouldn't have agreed to him coming at all. 

 

I think the report was a knee jerk reaction to something that was happening on campus, and now we're hearing about the end of the discussions. UCB doesn't pay much attention to publicity. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

I think the report was a knee jerk reaction to something that was happening on campus, and now we're hearing about the end of the discussions. UCB doesn't pay much attention to publicity. 

They have since ANTIFA caused that riot up there. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, cyberfx1024 said:

They have since ANTIFA caused that riot up there. 

 

Same case. The alt-right vandals may have put UCB on the news, but dissent and protest have been trademarks of the school for decades. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

Same case. The alt-right vandals may have put UCB on the news, but dissent and protest have been trademarks of the school for decades. 

Hey now you can't be mad that Moldylocks got beat up because she was throwing Molotov cocktails at me. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Hey now you can't be mad that Moldylocks got beat up because she was throwing Molotov cocktails at me. 

 

The alt-right vandals got what they came for. Moldylocks whooped their behinds. LOL.