Saturday, November 2, 2013

US Constitution is ILLEGAL SPEECH!

John,

Will ALL words used in the US Constitution now be ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL to even mention on the Modesto Junior College campus since the case is now in Litigation and could be for Several Years as it could go to the California or US Supreme Court?
Will the rules that they now enforce be ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL to even mention since the case is now in Litigation and you could be suspended and escorted off the college campus for NOT knowing those silent rules?
Will other California Colleges and Universities have to comply once this gets to a higher court level?

Professor Fires Off Email In Defense Of Student Forbidden From Handing Out Copies Of Constitution
http://www.infowars.com/professor-fires-off-lengthy-email-in-defense-of-student-forbidden-from-handing-out-copies-of-the-constitution/

techdirt.com
November 2, 2013

On Constitution Day (Sept. 17th), a student of Modesto Junior College, Robert Van Tuinen, was prevented by Modesto Junior College administration from handing out copies of the Constitution. The college apparently believes free speech is limited to a single small concrete slab on campus, generously named the “Free Speech Zone.” Contrary to the First Amendment (and the state’s laws governing public university policies), MJC restricts free speech to no more than two people per day, subject to approval of the administration.

Van Tuinen set out to challenge the stupidity of this policy and MJC administration obligingly played its part, resulting in a story that spread across blogs and news sites. As a result of its actions, the staff at MJC was “subjected” to insults, death threats, and even worse, an “unfair and negative portrayal” by the media. While no one condones death threats, one would be hard pressed to agree with Jill Stearns, the president of MJC, that the portrayal was “unfair” or that the school’s willingness to place policy above all else, including the Constitution and common sense, wasn’t deserving of a few disparaging remarks.

Shortly after MJC went into damage control, Van Tuinen sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights. Van Tuinen is seeking a permanent injunction against the school’s unconstitutional policies, as well as damages and court costs.

Now the organization that originally brought the Van Tuinen’s experience to national attention (FIRE) brings news that a Modesto Junior College professor has written a lengthy email to all Modest Junior College faculty members to call attention to the college’s actions which the administration seemingly wants to let recede into the background.

Professor William J. Holly was kind enough to forward his entire email to me, as well as provide some additional info on California laws governing schools and students’ First Amendment rights, as well as this bizarre and tense interaction with school security over the supposed rule changes President Jill Stearns said were underway.

    I do not know what rules are now in effect. Last week I stopped by campus security and asked what the rules now were, and he referred me to ASMJC office on the other campus. I said he must know what the rules are since he was responsible for enforcing the rules. He kept pushing the paper with the name of the office on it, saying he was referring me to that office. It got a little tense because I kept saying he must know the rules and should be able to let us know what the rules are. Finally, he said he was not allowed to discuss this with anyone because they are under litigation. Stearns says the rules are being reviewed. Does that mean there are no rules?

Stearns’ statement says the college is “evaluating its policies and procedures.” It also says this:

    There is absolutely no requirement that a student register weeks in advance and hand out his literature only in a small marked area.

There may not be one now, but that requirement was certainly in place back in September.

Dan

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Do we know enough of our history to know whether the Constitution helped or hurt us?
It was written 'after' the people got their independence, right?
Then those amendments got added, and somehow the people are no longer having the rights that were 'originally' written, as if an amendment did some sort of word trickery and took away the very independence it was written for.

Think about it, the IRS exists while this Constitution with it's amendments exist. The Federal Reserve exists while this Constitution with it's amendments exist, and for some reason the right that was in the Second amendment seems to be lost by the time you get to the last amendment, just like the original 13th amendment was altered and the 14th amendment created a class of people that didn't have rights, but privileges and immunities. Who would want to be removed from rights to privileges? We have Social Security, Welfare, TSA, NSA, DHS, and universal healthcare while that document exists with all those amendments.

We have a group of people who took over our government while that document has been amended all those times over all those years.

What do we really know about it? Courts don't hear nor recognize it.
What power does a document give the living man when it can't be used for the living man?
Is it possible, the ones who gained power in it's current form don't want it to be removed and the ones who had their power taken away would like to have it removed. There are international treaties that recognize rights over that document that issues privileges and no one is able to use gold or silver as long as it exists in it's current form.

No one attacked it and this world has been handed to hell. Maybe we need to remove it and in doing so we get back to our sovereignty because it appears to be a way our lives have been hijacked into slavery..