Judge William Downes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming ordered the University of Wyoming allow William Ayers speak on its campus with this explanation:
“This court is of age to remember the Weather Underground. When his group was bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971, I was serving in the uniform of my country,” Downes said. “Even to this day, when I hear that name, I can scarcely swallow the bile of my contempt for it. But Mr. Ayers is a citizen of the United States who wishes to speak, and he need not offer any more justification than that.” (source)
Hat Tip: Popehat
By Email
By RSS Feed
Should I infer from the wording of the judge’s statement that if Ayers was not a citizen, his request to speak would have been denied?
No. The judge wasn’t trying to say that the 1st Am is limited to citizens, but that the 1st Am is the birthright of citizens.
And. . if not allowed to speak, what other actions would he then resort to: bombing the US capital?
That’s not the point.
This isn’t Minority Report.
As a native of Wyoming, a US citizen and a real, live human being I say, “Bravo! Judge Downes! Well met.”
There is simply no more succinct way to illuminate the core of the First Amendment.
Were students protesting his speaking engagement? Or was he upset that they wouldn’t invite him to speak in the first place.
He was invited. Apparently, other people were upset that he was speaking and planned to come and protest. Which the University tried to portray as a threat of violence — a claim the judge (rightly) rejected.
Meh, I’m not entirely convinced this decision was good. It seems to me that no one was denying his right to speak, simply his privilege of speaking in UW’s auditorium. It looks more like UW was forced to give him a forum which, to my knowledge, is not guaranteed by the First Amendment.
I’m not particularly well versed in the workings of Constitutional law, so if I’m missing something here, feel free to inform me.
Sean,
The Univ of Wyoming is a public school, thus a state actor. If it was a private entity, that would be a whole different story.
The state may not discriminate against speakers on the basis of viewpoint or association. UW said they wouldn’t allow him to speak on campus because of “safety concerns,” but it was later proven that they were lying and it was because they disfavored his prior association with the Weather Underground.
Furthermore, even though the university testified that it was just about the auditorium, emails that the plaintiffs provided showed that the University said, in writing, that none of the campus would be available to him.
Accordingly, I don’t think you have shown a deficiency in your con law knowledge, just a few facts might not have been at your disposal.
Ah, I see. I’m not sure how that could have escaped me. It’s so obvious. Must still be half-asleep.
Thanks.
In all fairness to you, I had to click through to three different articles to gather all those facts.
It’s always nice to see someone standing up for the first amendment, especially for a real piece of shit like Bill Ayers
[...] FREE SPEECH: Liberals fail once again to suppress speech they don't like by pretending like it&… Except it wasn't. This is just like the people trying to ban the group of people praying for Obama's death on facebook. Exact. Same. Shit. [...]
[...] FREE SPEECH: Liberals fail once again to suppress speech they don't like by pretending like it&… Except it wasn't. This is just like the people trying to ban the group of people praying for Obama's death on facebook. Exact. Same. Shit. [...]
Wow, I don’t know who “Clint” is, but he seems not to be quite on the ball regarding who was trying to suppress whom here.
@ Dan – well, just goes to show you how many people scan the articles rather then reading it thoroughly and computing the contents properly.
Or if you were me who lives in China, I’d just lost in translation :-p