This past month, at the Georgia Institute of Technology (where I attend school), a lawsuit was filed against the school by two students, challenging the institute’s policy on “intolerant speech.” Under Georgia Tech’s “intolerant speech” policy, any speech that is meant to cause verbal harm to any particular student or group of students is prohibited... EXCEPT in one area of campus deemed to be a “free speech zone.”
The young woman filing this civil rights complaint against the institute, Ruth Malhotra, claims that she has good reason to oppose homosexuality and homosexual rights, being that she is conservative politically, and a Christian. However, under the “speech code,” Malhotra is prohibited from expressing those opinions because those opinions would be technically considered “harassment” against the (even though small) population on campus that is homosexual.
Just to be fair, I won't reveal my opinion on the matter and hopefully, no one can tell exactly what I feel based on what I've already written here!
The official complaint: www.telladf.org/UserDocs/GeorgiaTechComplaint.pdf
The Technique’s (campus newspaper-I write for them too!) report on the incident: http://www.nique.net/issues/2006-04-14/news/4
- Do you think that the institute has a right to impose an “intolerant speech” policy against any speech that is meant to be harmful against any students and/or group of student?
- Do you think that Ruth’s claim that the “intolerant speech” policy violates her First Amendment rights is valid?
- Do you think the claim will hold up in court?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I'll confess that I'm no lawyer and I haven't been a resident of the state of Georgia for some time, but it seems to me that the plaintiffs have a point. Maybe not enough to win their case, and something tells me I don't think I'd like these people personally, mostly because, and sorry if I piss off someone here, but it is the truth, most of the College Republicans I've met have been huge jerks who really like to bully just about everyone from their moral high horses. Just my experience though. Nevertheless, if GT itself is actually distributing these pamphlets and not some organization on campus and making participation in these "Safe Zones" obligatory, then I have to think that there is clear favoritism of one political/religious viewpoint being propogated here, which does strike me as unconstitutional.
Having a Gay/Lesbian Alliance or whatever on campus which receives funding from the institution, provided all such student organizations--aka politial/social action groups--receive funding, is one thing. Students can choose to ignore information passed out by this organization, choose not to participate in their activities, etc. And to be honest if students are still free to disregard said information or activities even if sponsored by the institution, then I don't see a problem. My only problem would be if students are FORCED to heed and at least in practice follow these beliefs.
I have gay/lesbian friends, a pastor at my church is gay, I have an aunt who's lesbian, and I have an almost equal number of friends and relatives who think that homosexuality is a sin and even some who would openly discriminate against gays if given the chance and legal right. I personally like all those people and I think every single one of them is entitled to their right to say what they believe. It just sometimes makes me sad that people I like can't like each other.
And I was unaware that free speech zones were the way of the future and I find that kind of disturbing. I had always kind of thought as America as a free speech zone, although having lived in some places I know that free speech exists only in theory. Regardless which side limits free speech, it is wrong and on principle it needs to stop. Do I think it will ever go away entirely? Of course not. People don't like to be proven wrong or even to hear someone say that they're wrong; Lord knows I hate it, but we only learn what's really important to us by questioning our own viewpoints. It's late where I am, so I'm not looking for an arguement at the present moment, but if you'd like, feel free to respond to what I've written and I'll try and get back to you.
I, also no lowyer, believe that this might be a valid case. In America, our various freedoms, including freedom of speech and expressions, come with attached strings. Our rights extend only to the point where we do not infringe upon others'. This young woman, i believe, from your blog, did not impose physical or verbal threats against the homosexuals on campus; she merely expressed her opinion, correct? Being that she is a Christian and a Repulican, she has the freedom to believe in the sins of homesexuality and as long as she expresses her views peacefully and doesn't advocate students to physically attack or alienate their way of life, I think she might have a point in the complaint.
However, a school is a community that can require its members to abide by a specific set of rules that might be narrower and less tolerant than what the framers proscribed in the US constitution (provided that its framework does not violate the consititution) to further promote a more welcoming environment for all. This alone might very well defeat the case in a court of law depending on the specific phrasing and the court's interpretation of the school's "intolerant speech" policy.
So I guess my response to you is that,
-yes, a institute such as a school does have the right to impose whatever regulations it believes to be harmful to its students. One of the main goals as an institution is to foster and provide an environment and all tools necessary for its students learn and grow. A hostile environment will mostly definitely staunch that effort.
-yes, Ruth's complaint is valid, thus her case is subsequently valid also. Her mere voicing her own beliefs is protected under the First Amendment of freedom of speech, expressions and religion, given that she didn't directly intend harm to the well-being of any other students. But a school also has the right to limit First Amendment and any other rights of the student to the extent it sees necessary (as the point I made above), although this extent of necessity can be challenged (which is why Ruth's case is valid). The military is a great example of a community that also limits its member the rights of the First Amendment. The members of its ranks are, to an extent, prohibited from speaking out against their superiors and the US government (their ultimate employer); these acts are seen as insubordination or even treason against the United States.
-yes, I believe the claim will uphold, although it does not mean that it will win.
A school only has the right to impose restrictions on speech if it receives no public funding, in my opinion. The state does more than provide public education, it guarantees it through the 12th grade and functionally guarantees it (assuming financial aid is available) past that. Because it is my right to go to school, my other rights can not be revoked while I'm at school.
I know court cases have occurred where they ruled that schools, especially younger-age schools, can impose more restrictions on students than would apply to those kids outside of school. Even Tinker v. Des Moines left this stipulation in.
The first obstacle to overcoming abusive rights limitations in lower education is the denial of the full rights of citizens to minors. That doesn't apply to college-age students, though, and since they have all the rights of adults, their legal protection is even stronger.
Except, obviously, where those rights would interfere with the function of the school. In other words, free speech should be absolute even in school except for cases where it would hamper teaching or learning - that is, doing stuff like interrupting the teacher, blocking students from viewing the teacher, etc.
I suppose you could (and did) argue that discriminatory speech makes it hard for the school to develop a welcoming community. Although this may be true, it probably doesn't apply to a very significant extent, and a restrictive atmosphere may also make such a community dificult to develop.
I believe that although it's valid to argue that such speech hurts education, it ultimately isn't reason enough to limit such speech to "free speech zones," since it doesn't directly conflict with the function of the classroom.
The very fact that the college makes "free speech zones" proves that the rest of the campus is in violation of the First Amendment. Plain and simple, no regulation limiting speech is valid, unless the speech is libelous or represents a clear and present danger. Discriminatory speech, however irritating and morally wrong, still should not be restricted.
The Federal Government has already used "free speech zones." When President Bush makes a public appearance in D.C. or whatever, they will wisk Bush protestors off to a "free speech zone" almost a mile away from where the parade or public appearance was taking place.
What if one's supposed "free speech" falls under the category of verbal harassment? Is it really free speech at that point? After knowing Ruth Malhotra's mannerisms and attitutdes, I can assure you that whatever she has to say about gays is most certainly going to be impolite, and will most likely border on verbal assault.
Just for reference, "verbal assault" and/or "verbal harassment" includes namecalling or any form of personal attack or defamation towards an individual OR a particular group of individuals.
Here's an example of the shoe being on the other foot:
If a group on Tech's campus wanted to protest Christianity, they too would NOT be allowed to protest except in the free speech zone BECAUSE their opinions would be considered "intolerant" to a particular group of students on campus.
I would also be opposed to the "free speech zones" involving Bush speeches. The actions of the Bush protesters should only be limited to the extent that they are prevented from making noises while Bush is talking or blocking the cameras from seeing him.
Discriminatory speech is not always verbal assault. Though I may hate what she has to say, I don't think it's valid to prevent this bigoted woman from protesting against homosexuality. I also don't think it's valid to stop anyone from protesting against Christianity. The difference is that such protests are general, not applied to a specific individual. If the woman walked up to a gay person and started following him or her around spewing out insults, then she is harrassing him or her and should be stopped.
From reading this case it appears that this woman has given up all her rights to freedom of speech only to replace these god given rights with the priviliedges and immunities of a 14th ammendment corporate citizen. This is obvious from several items in her complaint.
1 - Her name in all capital letters indicate her corporate (legal fiction) status operating as the strawman under color of law
2 - She took the case to federal court and explicitly sites the courts jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and
1988. and to award damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1343, declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and injunctive relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65.
4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and
LR 3.1 because the Defendants reside in this district and all of the acts described in
this Complaint occurred in this district."
She sites the court's jurisdiction in the matter but I believe she has failed to realize the implications of citing the case in such manner. You see according to the U.S. Constitution there are two different citizenships in America. The original citizens which are a "citizen one of the several states" who are guaranteed the rights in the bill of rights. The 14 th amendment "citizen of the United States" is a person guaranteed "privileges or immunities". The failure to distinguish between these two realities subjects her to the opinion of the court ruling on abridgement of privileges or immunities. The legal definition of a person is a corporate entity hence her NAME (in all caps) distinguish her as such and therefore renders her constitutionally guaranteed rights of out of reach. She did not even cite her 1st amendment right to free speech as part of subject matter jurisdiction so this further confirms her intention of corporate citizen status. My next question is; "Is she a naturalized citizen of the United States?" Maybe this was the reason for citing the US codes?? I have no idea why she chose this route.
Either way it is important for everyone to be aware of this wool that has been pulled over our eyes with the 14 amendment citizenship. You need to remember that you were a sovereign citizen of one of the several states with rights granted by God (which means rights should extend to all who are present in one of the several states hence including naturalized citizens and even illegal aliens (remember these are rights not benefits that are being extended) and that is the contract that we the people have established with our government. I know this may sound totally crazy but I would not necessarily believe all of this without extensive research into the subject and the fact that I have been to court several times with people who have won every time (in county circuit court) on various cases by denying corporate existence or even better separating the fictitious legal STRAWMAN from the Living Breathing full liability man/woman and pointing out that the administrative US constitution Article IV federal territory court (that’s right COUNTY court is operating under federal territory jurisdiction) does not have Article III justice court jurisdiction.
How is this done you may ask? Notice her name in the document is in all capital letters, notice this also on every document you have ever received from the government. The all caps "NAME" is not legally equivalent to your "Name" just like "citizen of the United States" is not legally equivalent to "Citizen of the United States". The implications of this are absolutely insane because when you look at the situation you even have the United States versus the UNTIED STATES or your County versus your COUNTY and so on. These are the beliefs of most in the patriot movement which is heavily documented in case law. And as I said I might not give it that much validity but after seeing the courtroom circus repeatedly here in Orlando, FL I must say that this is stopping the court in it tracks on cases of marijuana, driving on a suspended license, driving with expired tags, federal income taxes, among others. But this logic and the established government "benefits" extend far and wide and it seems to me should be most valid under a free speech circumstance but again a university campus requires you to enter into a contract for admission. This contract is most likely for the STRAWMAN but I will have to check this one out. Either way if you want to guarantee your rights of freedom of speech on campus you simply need to add two words to the contract when signing, "without prejudice" This means you retain all of your rights and you are allowed to add this to any contract that exists. A really good way to bring this issue up on campus is to try to get the student government to pass resolution to add "without prejudice" to your school admissions forms. This would secure all students' rights regardless of any school rule.
If you would like to learn more about this information please check out www.wealth4freedom.com and http://givemeliberty.org/. Also, there is a new movie coming out called "America from Freedom to Fascism", www.freedomtofascism.org, that discusses the historical facts that surround this whole horrible mind fuck and it's implications. This is the matrix and it turns out that you are indeed a human battery; an ECONOMIC battery. The whole thing is crime and the American people have now figured out the fraud.
One last thing that is really important. You need to research this information yourself because attorneys will lie to you about this information or unintentionally misinform you. The attorneys who know this information also know that they profit massively from this scheme and they do not want the sheople to wake up and spoil there party or they are just not very well educated on the law and assume they would already know. I have talked to several attorneys who actually admitted it was true because I approached them already knowing the facts. They told me that they would lose there Bar card if they defended a case on this lack jurisdiction issue that is the county court did/does not have jurisdiction in the case. These attorneys blatantly admitted that this is government tyranny straight up. We should have already known this from the fact of the Bar Associations themselves. The Bar is a private corporate monopoly in the US and should be considered completely unconstitutional but it is not. Why? This is because the people who own the Bar also own the UNITED STATES, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, ETC. and the COURTS which are all corporations and they think they own YOU too through your registered birth certificate which has been sent to the IMF where your future profit earnings potential (future income taxes) creates currency (through T-Bills) that the international bankers (through the Federal Reserve) sell for face value profits plus interest. It is time to wake up. Our government is committing massive fraud against us and now that we the people have figured out the crime we can now work together to fix the situation through a complete non violent solution that is now being formulated through our right to petition for redress of grievances. This will establish the fact of whether or not the U.S. constitution is even still legally in effect or whether everyone is now a person under the color of law of the 14 th amendment subject to Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction. I know this sounds crazy but hundreds if not thousands of people across this country have been winning in court when they know how the system is actively deceiving them and there are 65 million people in America who are now not paying federal income tax and the IRS will not show the American people the law requiring us to pay federal income tax. It is because the law does not exist for the living breathing full liability man/woman. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
Some of us here in Florida are planning to bring these issues before the Universities to show the administration that they have absolutely no authority on the issue of our rights because we are all equal and only injured parties have the authority to bring a case against anyone for violation of rights not the UNIVERSITY or the STATE. This is key. The university cannot legally write an unconstitutional rule but another man/woman can bring a case for any circumstance in which they feel that there rights were violated.
Peace, Love, and Happiness
Interesting commentary, but your legal jargon can't disguise the fact that you are blatantly wrong about the source of civil rights. The power of the Constitution and all amendments is derived from We the People - a secular state - and not God. In fact, the First Amendment deligitimizes any legal claim based on religion. You can argue that rights come from God - and if you believe in a God you are almost certainly correct - but you can not argue that our Constitutional rights come from God. God-given rights may exist, but they are irrelevent in terms of government regulation. They only exist for individual moral judgement.
Also, I would argue that the 14th Amendment's reference to citizenship applies not only to corporate citizens but also to individual human citizens. Binding court decisions throughout history have declared that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the state governments as well as the federal government. The Bill of Rights talks about the rights of individuals, thus by judicial review the 14th Amendment does too.
Of course the woman cited the 14th Amendment - she was fighting against abuses committed by a state government, not the federal government. Citing the 14th is really just a shorter way of saying the 14th-1st association - the combination of amendments which define a right and declare that state governments can not violate it any more than the federal government can.
That is www.freedomtofascism.com