Will there be a season?

[MrsThortonMelon]

Not without a fight.

I can't speak for every university - but the Minnesota State system charges a $100-$150 fee for each online course taken. Students have to pay more for less instruction and resources. That may not sound like a whole lot - but that's another $500 dollars/semester of interest-accruing loans that students have to take.

Dartmouth has requested incoming freshmen not to come to campus and instead take a leap year. I like this plan - however Dartmouth is an Ivy League school so they can afford to tell their students that. My only worry with their plan is that some students who take up the offer get lost in the higher education bureaucracy and aren't allowed back in. It wouldn't be the first time, even this year, that a highly selective school screwed that up.

If I had 5.79 BILLION like Dartmouth in endowment fund I suppose I could see that...given that GVSU has 133 Million they are not playing with the same rules...Northwood has 72 Million, Ferris 40 Million SVSU 72, Ashland 41 Million.....so I can see taking a gap year...most colleges in Michigan would be broke.....

[Brandon]

Who has had their first amendment rights infringed? There's thousands of people gathering in every area of every state to protest anything and everything with zero repercussions so far.

Speech...



Press...



Churches...



Protests.....

[Brandon]

Can someone let me know when they find a D2 FOOTBALL board again...one place where we can come to enjoy the sport and its turned into the SNL skit of Dan and Jane...Jane, you ignorant slut...unreal...

How freaking old are you for quoting this and how freaking old am I for knowing the reference?

[Thelakerman]

How freaking old are you for quoting this and how freaking old am I for knowing the reference?

[SW_Mustang]

Speech...

(1)

Press...

(2)

Churches...

(3)

Protests.....

The First Amendment does not grant us the right to do what we want, when we want without repercussions. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll give these a crack.

1. False statements of fact are not protected speech.
2. See #1
3. These people were not cited for practicing their religion, they were cited for unlawful assembly. It just so happened to be at a church. I don't see how this violates 1A.
4. Interesting. Need more details. Generally speaking, people can't protest whenever and wherever they like. Maybe she didn't get the proper permits? Gotta play by the rules. Maybe the assembly was deemed unlawful by police and she refused to disperse? I'd ask for a source - but given how this is written, I'm sure it's quite biased and wouldn't do us any good.

[Brandon]

The First Amendment does not grant us the right to do what we want, when we want without repercussions. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll give these a crack.

1. False statements of fact are not protected speech.
2. See #1
3. These people were not cited for practicing their religion, they were cited for unlawful assembly. It just so happened to be at a church. I don't see how this violates 1A.
4. Interesting. Need more details. Generally speaking, people can't protest whenever and wherever they like. Maybe she didn't get the proper permits? Gotta play by the rules. Maybe the assembly was deemed unlawful by police and she refused to disperse? I'd ask for a source - but given how this is written, I'm sure it's quite biased and wouldn't do us any good.

1. They absolutely are protected speech. I don't know what has led you to believe that something has to be approved by the government as fact for it to be said.

2. See #1

3. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...... The assembly is the issue.

4. You arguments of 1-3 are absolutely incorrect, but this is an area that is grey and might be worthy of discussion. Here is a link to the story: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...kdown/2379736/ If possible, I'd like you to cite the area of the constitution where it says that people must get permits to protest. Obviously, that's a joke because it does not exist. Those things happen in municipalities.

[Redwing]

How freaking old are you for quoting this and how freaking old am I for knowing the reference?

Old? Doesn't that involve math to determine that? Champ won't do math. LOL :-)

[SW_Mustang]

1. They absolutely are protected speech. I don't know what has led you to believe that something has to be approved by the government as fact for it to be said.

2. See #1

3. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...... The assembly is the issue.

4. You arguments of 1-3 are absolutely incorrect, but this is an area that is grey and might be worthy of discussion. Here is a link to the story: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...kdown/2379736/ If possible, I'd like you to cite the area of the constitution where it says that people must get permits to protest. Obviously, that's a joke because it does not exist. Those things happen in municipalities.

1-2. Holy yikes Batman - here's a lesson on false statements of fact. The easiest ones to understand are slander and libel. Slander is defamatory speech, and libel is defamatory writing. They are very much not protected, although I will concede they can be hard to prove in court. Obviously, this instance doesn't involve either - but if you won't believe me, would you believe Cornell's Law School? They aren't a government school if that's of concern:

"As defamatory false statements can lead to legal liability, so can false statements in other contexts run afoul of legal prohibitions. For instance, more than 100 federal criminal statutes punish false statements in areas of concern to federal courts or agencies,1306 and the Court has often noted the limited First Amendment value of such speech."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...lse-statements

The article goes on to explain that not all false statements fall outside of protection, obviously. If I say your shoes are red, and they're really blue - I can't be sued. That being said, neither of us have the legal training to look into this any further - I'm okay agreeing to disagree on this one. To believe that all false statements of fact are protected though is mind blowing, I gotta say that's a first for me.

3. This one sent me down the rabbit hole, I must admit. Employment Division v. Smith (1990) appears to allow restriction of religious practices if they violate valid laws and the restrictions are neutral - which in this case they are very neutral. A large part of that opinion was overruled with the Religious Freedom and Protection Act - however, the RFPA does allow for some religious restrictions. The restrictions have to further a compelling government interest (check), and have to be implemented in the least restrictive way (check). Then, it looks like Boerne v. Flores (1997) announced it unconstitutional for the RFPA to apply to states - however that opened the door for many states to sign their own RFPA's into law. As I understand it, that's where we stand in 2020. If a state's RFPA allows for religious restrictions - there's not much that can be done about it.

Again - I'm not a lawyer and this is the 20 minute condensed version of a lot of complex legal texts, but it's what I put together. If someone wants to chime in and set me straight - please do so, but otherwise I'm going to claim this as a +1.

Neutrality is really the key here - they are barring all religious gatherings, not just one religion or another. I'm sure some fancypants city lawyer found every legal loophole and wrote these restrictions in a way that doesn't mention religious practices at all. If churches want to contend, there are legal means to do so.

There is also the issue of the word "peaceably." I'd argue that religious gatherings pose a "clear and present" danger in the greater context of a pandemic and therefore are not peaceable, but that's my own opinion - I don't have anything to back that up.

4. I'll address your concerns after this section - but yes, in many cases you do need a permit. Why wouldn't you?

time, place, and manner

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/enfo...-by-state.html


In conclusion, you seem to be stuck on the idea that the amendments were intended to be interpreted and implemented as absolute. Every amendment right has restrictions. If we didn't restrict the press, libel would be legal. If we didn't restrict religion, people would do crazy stuff, claim "religion" - and get off scot free. If we didn't restrict peaceful assembly, it would cause chaos in the streets.

A word of advice - don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and then complain to the judge that the police officer violated your First Amendment rights. That won't go over very well.

EDIT - I'm fine agreeing to disagree on our stances. If the individuals in question feel violated, they should seek the proper legal channels. That's why they are there.

[Brandon]

1-2. Holy yikes Batman - here's a lesson on false statements of fact. The easiest ones to understand are slander and libel. Slander is defamatory speech, and libel is defamatory writing. They are very much not protected, although I will concede they can be hard to prove in court.

I have a degree in journalism. I am very aware of issues of libel/slander. In fact, we all have to take a class in communications law to graduate. Long story short, the topic is not about civil repercussions, but about government enforcement and all any discussion is related to that topic, not side topics.

3. This one sent me down the rabbit hole, I must admit...

I was going to jump on you for this one but the fault is mine. It's the assembly that's the issue. I forgot to BOLD that word. If you see where I truncated the text, you'll understand the point I was trying to make. Again, it's the assembly part of your quote that I was addressing. I am not aware of any governmental body attempted to curtail freedom of religion except as it pertains to assembly to do so.

If we didn't restrict the press, libel would be legal.

Again, this is a civil manner, not a criminal manner.

A word of advice - don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater and then complain to the judge that the police officer violated your First Amendment rights. That won't go over very well.

Since you seem to be enamored with details rather than the substance of the argument....

You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater without ramifications in certain situations. The first - there is actually a fire. The second - there isn't a fire and no one does a thing.

Now, if there is not a fire and you yell "fire" and people are trampled and hurt as a result, you can face prosecution for incitement.

[champgymusa]

Do they actually talk about football in the Off Topic board...maybe that might be better than this steaming pile of ...well you know...

[champgymusa]

Old? Doesn't that involve math to determine that? Champ won't do math. LOL :-)

When I signed up Brandon told me there would be NO math. Math sucks...

[champgymusa]

How freaking old are you for quoting this and how freaking old am I for knowing the reference?

Old even to know better than to wrestle a pig in the mud, the pig likes mud.

[BeachinLaker]

Do they actually talk about football in the Off Topic board...maybe that might be better than this steaming pile of ...well you know...

D1 football only.

[SW_Mustang]

(1) I have a degree in journalism. I am very aware of issues of libel/slander. In fact, we all have to take a class in communications law to graduate. Long story short, the topic is not about civil repercussions, but about government enforcement and all any discussion is related to that topic, not side topics.



(2)I was going to jump on you for this one but the fault is mine. It's the assembly that's the issue. I forgot to BOLD that word. If you see where I truncated the text, you'll understand the point I was trying to make. Again, it's the assembly part of your quote that I was addressing. I am not aware of any governmental body attempted to curtail freedom of religion except as it pertains to assembly to do so.



(3)Again, this is a civil manner, not a criminal manner.




Since you seem to be enamored with details rather than the substance of the argument....

(4)You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater without ramifications in certain situations. The first - there is actually a fire. The second - there isn't a fire and no one does a thing.

Now, if there is not a fire and you yell "fire" and people are trampled and hurt as a result, you can face prosecution for incitement.

1) Great - however, you originally said that false statements of fact are protected. I made it clear in that post that libel and slander are two examples of where that's not true. However, I made sure to say that this isn't the case here, but other false statements of fact are also not protected. Even though I did study law under a fairly high ranking military lawyer who hammered the basics of 1A into us, neither of us have the legal training to read through the source I provided. I only did so to show that your claim of false statements being protected is absolutely incorrect - and I offered to call this one a draw.

2) Right - and I showed as to why governments can restrict assembly. It's neutral, and it furthers a government cause using the least intrusive method possible. I think I actually referenced assemblies in my claim, but if I didn't it was pretty clear I was responding directly to your claim. The RFPA was deemed unconstitutional in the sense that it can't apply to states, so most states enacted their own. Again, if churches have an issue with it, they can lawyer up. Funny how we only hear about churches though and not the other religious establishments that have been barred from participating - but that's neither here nor there.

I tried to be neutral in my argument - I found a lot of sources saying it's unquestionably constitutional to limit assembly, but they were all coming from fairly biased left-wing publications. Instead I tried to find the answer myself in case law. That's more constructive. I will always concede my argument may not be sound as I'm not an expert, but at least I tried.

Diving into state-sponsored RFPA's would take a lot more time than I'm willing to give to the discussion. As always, anyone with proper legal training is more than welcome to destroy my logic and reasoning - I'm a big boy, I can handle it. I'm actually curious to know if I'm on base or not and would welcome a proper discussion.

3) See #1 - also, I don't recall where we specified criminal vs. civil. Non-protected speech is non-protected speech. It's weird how you chose this example and not the other two I provided which are very much criminal though.

4) I think we both know that's what I meant.

Again, you seem to be hung up on this idea that the amendments to the constitution are to be taken literally. They were never intended to be interpreted that way. The specific rights and restrictions have been argued over since they were born. Nobody in this country is a member of a "well regulated militia," yet 2A protects their right to bear arms (thank god it does). Details matter - that's why they have been argued over in court for many, many years.

EDIT - I just wanted to toss in here that I'm enjoying this and there are certainly no hard feelings on my end. Even though we may disagree, I still think you're the best forum admin on the planet *insert thumbs up emoji here*

[SW_Mustang]

If I had 5.79 BILLION like Dartmouth in endowment fund I suppose I could see that...given that GVSU has 133 Million they are not playing with the same rules...Northwood has 72 Million, Ferris 40 Million SVSU 72, Ashland 41 Million.....so I can see taking a gap year...most colleges in Michigan would be broke.....

Obviously, Dartmouth can do as they please. They are a massive institution with a ton of influence. It was just one example of what one school is doing - that being said though, I think a lot of students are going to take a gap year, or at least drop to part-time. Imagine going to GVSU and paying full tuition for a semesters' worth of Zoom courses? That's not going to go over well.

Someone in another thread said that SNHU is slashing tuition by some ridiculous amount - not only can they afford to do that, given their business model that's a genius idea. They're going to make bank. I haven't looked into it to see if that's true or not though.