Who Would Jesus Ban?
Liberty University (founded by evangelical and Teletubbie-hater Jerry Falwell) has banned the college Democrats student group, citing that the parent organization (the Democratic Party) contradicts the "moral principals" held by the school. These values clearly do not include freedom of speech and political beliefs.
I am curious to see if the anonymous commenters that equivocated disagreement with John Yoo's legal reasoning to the suppression of ideas are equally upset about this.
CNN article found here.
I am curious to see if the anonymous commenters that equivocated disagreement with John Yoo's legal reasoning to the suppression of ideas are equally upset about this.
CNN article found here.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Toney at 6:20 PM
10 Comments:
The anonymous commenters should not be equally upset, unless you believe that a private institution should have the same free speech requirements of a public one.
Last I remembered, UC-Berkeley is public, our tuition levels notwithstanding.
That said, this was pretty idiotic on the part of Liberty. My personal belief is that to allow a University, public or private, to ban speech is dangerous. The approach to stopping that behavior has more to do with accreditation than a First Amendment challenge, however.
Ditto.
great summer/beach reading: unlikely disciple by roose. it's nominally related and really quite entertaining.
Private schools are still tax exempt right? And students receive federal loan money and all that. So yeah, in this instance, I think free speech requirements should be applied equally.
What makes you think that those who support Yoo are arch-conservatives and not Democrats?
Censorship is censorship regardless of who is doing the censoring.
Requiring all tax exempt institutions to adhere to free speech requirements individually is one way to apply free speech as a policy, but it's hardly the only one. Allowing such institutions to engage in the restriction of protected speech, as long as the decision of what kind of speech is restricted doesn't affect the government's willingness to grant tax exempt status (aside, as some have noted, from accreditation issues), seems to be another, perfectly legitimate approach. The government as a whole doesn't restrict speech, and allows free association for those who want to restrict it.
I suppose one could argue that certain private universities are so prestigious that students couldn't reasonably choose a different private university more in line with their speech desires without suffering a severe detriment, but that's hardly the case for Liberty.
Toney, by your logic muslims and catholics would be open to challenge by feminists, as well. They are also tax exempt. I'm not sure tax-status is the panacea you think it is.
Oh, I'm not saying that tax exemption is a solid foundation for first amendment guarantees. I was just tossing it out as an idea. But, going along with this, I suspect that feminist challenges to religious institutions would bump up against that other first amendment protection.
In any event, private universities utilize enough federal benefits that this sort of censorship should set off some alarms.
Great point, Beetle Aurora Drake, and great name.
Con law? I think someone needs a mulligan.
Free speech? Tax exempt? Tax-exempt status doesn't make a private institution a state actor for First Amendment purposes. I think what you're getting at is that the tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations from engaging in partisan political activities. That's, well, precisely what Liberty did.
Here's a press release on the issue by Americans United for Separation of Church and State: http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/05/irs-should-review-liberty.html
Post a Comment
<< Home