Freedom of speech curtailed, inspired by Singapore
-
STIFLING SPEECH
July 9, 2007 -- THE island nation of Singapore has a reputation for zealously regulating the daily life of its citizens. It has banned chewing gum and levies stiff fines for failure to flush public toilets.
And when it comes to free speech, Singaporeans must use a heavily restricted "Speakers' Corner" and limit their discourse to uncontroversial topics - and only then after registering with the local police station.
Pretty un-American, right? Not so fast. Shockingly, public universities across this country are taking their cues on regulating student speech from Singapore's repressive civic culture.
For example, speech at McNeese State in Louisiana is governed by the school's "Public Forum Regulations Policy," which limits student speech to two "Public Demonstration Zones." In these two "zones" - and only in these zones - McNeese students "may speak on campus one time per week" for just two hours.
Student groups have it worse: instead of once a week, they can only demonstrate once per semester. What's more, all students seeking to use the zones must submit an "application," to be approved "at least 72 hours in advance." Finally, McNeese limits student speech in the zones to Monday through Friday, dawn to dusk. Sound familiar?
Many public universities maintain tiny, remote "free-speech zones" on campus - despite their blatant unconstitutionality. Onerous speech zones have been reported at Clemson University in South Carolina, Western Illinois University, Florida State University, University of Nebraska at Omaha, University of North Carolina-Greensboro, University of Oregon, California State University at Chico, West Virginia University, University of Nevada at Reno, Citrus College in California and the University of Northern Texas, as well as many other campuses.
Free-speech zones at public universities are an embarrassment. After all, this is the United States - not Singapore.
Written by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (thefire.org).
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07092007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/stifling_speech_opedcolumnists_.htm -
They can protest and have something done about it, but in Singapore....
-
LL: this isn't new. They can write wat they like but nothing changes. Our gahmen is immune from external arrows.
-
If there's a case, the American students can sue the university.
It's a free country. -
sue ? they can take a gun and shoot somebody.Originally posted by googoomuck:If there's a case, the American students can sue the university.
It's a free country.
It's a free country. -
Referring to Cho Seoung Hui? He was a maladjusted youth.Originally posted by crazy monkey:sue ? they can take a gun and shoot somebody.
It's a free country.
People flew airplanes into the World Trade Centre, but nobody is saying we should stop flying....but it's off topic. -
People can sue the universities all they like, the point is, any difference made to the tiny, remote "free-speech zones "in "campus Clemson University in South Carolina, Western Illinois University, Florida State University, University of Nebraska at Omaha, ...... as well as many other campuses"?Originally posted by googoomuck:Referring to Cho Seoung Hui? He was a maladjusted youth.
People flew airplanes into the World Trade Centre, but nobody is saying we should stop flying....but it's off topic.
May be somebody should sue the schools for allowing students to bring in guns to the campus. Cho is not the first and will not be the last to gun down students and teachers in US campuses.
Are these universities inspired by Singapore? why is there a need to do that?
Very soon George Bush would be writing his own pay cheque.
-
okie how abt the million dollars pants judge anyhow sue the dry cleaners.Originally posted by googoomuck:Referring to Cho Seoung Hui? He was a maladjusted youth.
People flew airplanes into the World Trade Centre, but nobody is saying we should stop flying....but it's off topic. -
Spore if more than five people gathering need to get a permit but failure is a form of illegal gathering. Indonesia during the Suharto period also
has a similar rule n more than five people is illegal gathering. -
Are you aware the courts dismissed his claims and even ordered him to bear the legal costs for the dry cleaners?Originally posted by crazy monkey:okie how abt the million dollars pants judge anyhow sue the dry cleaners.
The bottomline is, there're consumer laws in place to safeguard the rights of consumers and that's a right which anyone would have a just cause to pursue should he/she believe he/she has been wronged.
Can you say the same about regimes run by despots and tyrants? Are the consumer laws (assuming they even exist) in such regimes coming anywhere close to safeguarding the rights of the individuals subjected to its jurisdiction? -
ya how much stress the shopowners have to go thru before the case is dismissed. shd be thrown out in the first place.Originally posted by walesa:Are you aware the courts dismissed his claims and even ordered him to bear the legal costs for the dry cleaners?
The bottomline is, there're consumer laws in place to safeguard the rights of consumers and that's a right which anyone would have a just cause to pursue should he/she believe he/she has been wronged.
Can you say the same about regimes run by despots and tyrants? Are the consumer laws (assuming they even exist) in such regimes coming anywhere close to safeguarding the rights of the individuals subjected to its jurisdiction? -
Same goes to the employment law, according to Ministry of Manpower the employers have the right to terminate the employees without stating reasons. As such, no wonder where I was from (govt sector) they do this without any conscience at the expense of the employees. I won't say that there is no law to protect the common people here, but take a look at it the law they have protect more of those in business, companies. They make it difficult for us common people to trust them we are in their good hands.Originally posted by walesa:Are you aware the courts dismissed his claims and even ordered him to bear the legal costs for the dry cleaners?
The bottomline is, there're consumer laws in place to safeguard the rights of consumers and that's a right which anyone would have a just cause to pursue should he/she believe he/she has been wronged.
Can you say the same about regimes run by despots and tyrants? Are the consumer laws (assuming they even exist) in such regimes coming anywhere close to safeguarding the rights of the individuals subjected to its jurisdiction?