I take it that this display was on campus property. Does this mean a display by pro-choice would also be allowed? If you give voice to one cause, then all voices must be heard.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 14, 2006 08:17 PM
And you would have to give a spot to the people who's religious beliefs have them eat babies and sacrifice animals...
Posted by: steve at April 14, 2006 09:01 PM
So Steve and Hoser your premise is that this professor and her students have teh right to determine what is appropriate and what is not?
That proves Matt's point.
Posted by: phnxbmed at April 14, 2006 10:12 PM
So Steve and Hoser your premise is that this professor and her students have the right to determine what is appropriate and what is not?
That proves Matt's point.
Posted by: phnxbmed at April 14, 2006 10:13 PM
"I take it that this display was on campus property. Does this mean a display by pro-choice would also be allowed? If you give voice to one cause, then all voices must be heard."
What the hell does your comment have to do with anti-speech vandalism? Are you DEFENDING anti-speech vandalism, as long as it's pro-abortion?
Posted by: JPL at April 14, 2006 10:32 PM
So if the pro-life protestors decided to spray paint the woman's car with pro-life slogans, or destroy her car in protest over what happened to their display, I am sure this woman would be more than happy with that.
Who wants to go egg her house as an expression of freedom of speech?
Posted by:
shoelimpy™ at April 14, 2006 11:08 PM
Yet another example of the type of liberal professors who are indoctrinating our students. I guess she thinks this behavior will encourage them to become law abiding citizens!
Perhaps if the professor were teaching literature and language instead of encouraging her students to vandalize property, the students could speak better English.
I would like to see her fired, but that won't likely happen. Hopefully she will get time on the street or possibly charged with contributing to a crime!
AAR
Posted by: AAR at April 14, 2006 11:44 PM
Civil disobedience has always been a method for the fringe leftists. Laying down in busy intersections; chaining their body to a mailbox, whatever.
Their acts speak to the idiocy of their movement.
Posted by:
J. Morgan at April 15, 2006 12:15 AM
As per the statements: "I take it that this display was on campus property. Does this mean a display by pro-choice would also be allowed? If you give voice to one cause, then all voices must be heard."..
Come on guys, give him a breka, you know he was just joking. Nobody is THAT stupid to say such a thing and mean it.
Posted by: Jonathan at April 15, 2006 12:47 AM
This is an outrage. Destroying ones example of free speech, is not, in fact, free speech.
Posted by: Ames Tiedeman at April 15, 2006 07:54 AM
more examples of people who claim to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion. If you're are pro-choice what is your problem with people who advocating pro-life. Its people's choice to decide
Posted by: sil at April 15, 2006 09:57 AM
I would like to see her fired, but that won't likely happen. Hopefully she will get time on the street or possibly charged with contributing to a crime!
Indeed, she will be charged, and most likely disciplined. And notice that an actual pro-choice group condemned the vandalism.
http://media.www.thenortherner.com/media/storage/paper527/news/2006/04/12/News/Right.To.Life.Group.To.Press.Charges.Against.Protestors-1851538.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thenortherner.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
Posted by: nicole at April 15, 2006 12:21 PM
JPL, it's best not to respond to Canadian Observer's comments--he posts them for one purpose only, to elicit a response. It feeds his ego, makes him look like a big shot up there at the shooting gallery.
So respond to him if it makes you feel better. Just remember, he's Canadian, with no dog in the US political hunt. In other words, he's insignificant, just like 80% of the Canadians who pollute our blogs.
Posted by: keefer at April 16, 2006 06:52 AM
I take it that this display was on campus property. Does this mean a display by pro-choice would also be allowed? If you give voice to one cause, then all voices must be heard.
And you would have to give a spot to the people who's religious beliefs have them eat babies and sacrifice animals...
So Steve and Hoser your premise is that this professor and her students have teh right to determine what is appropriate and what is not?
That proves Matt's point.
So Steve and Hoser your premise is that this professor and her students have the right to determine what is appropriate and what is not?
That proves Matt's point.
"I take it that this display was on campus property. Does this mean a display by pro-choice would also be allowed? If you give voice to one cause, then all voices must be heard."
What the hell does your comment have to do with anti-speech vandalism? Are you DEFENDING anti-speech vandalism, as long as it's pro-abortion?
So if the pro-life protestors decided to spray paint the woman's car with pro-life slogans, or destroy her car in protest over what happened to their display, I am sure this woman would be more than happy with that.
Who wants to go egg her house as an expression of freedom of speech?
Yet another example of the type of liberal professors who are indoctrinating our students. I guess she thinks this behavior will encourage them to become law abiding citizens!
Perhaps if the professor were teaching literature and language instead of encouraging her students to vandalize property, the students could speak better English.
I would like to see her fired, but that won't likely happen. Hopefully she will get time on the street or possibly charged with contributing to a crime!
AAR
Civil disobedience has always been a method for the fringe leftists. Laying down in busy intersections; chaining their body to a mailbox, whatever.
Their acts speak to the idiocy of their movement.
As per the statements: "I take it that this display was on campus property. Does this mean a display by pro-choice would also be allowed? If you give voice to one cause, then all voices must be heard."..
Come on guys, give him a breka, you know he was just joking. Nobody is THAT stupid to say such a thing and mean it.
This is an outrage. Destroying ones example of free speech, is not, in fact, free speech.
more examples of people who claim to be pro-choice are really pro-abortion. If you're are pro-choice what is your problem with people who advocating pro-life. Its people's choice to decide
I would like to see her fired, but that won't likely happen. Hopefully she will get time on the street or possibly charged with contributing to a crime!
Indeed, she will be charged, and most likely disciplined. And notice that an actual pro-choice group condemned the vandalism.
http://media.www.thenortherner.com/media/storage/paper527/news/2006/04/12/News/Right.To.Life.Group.To.Press.Charges.Against.Protestors-1851538.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thenortherner.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
JPL, it's best not to respond to Canadian Observer's comments--he posts them for one purpose only, to elicit a response. It feeds his ego, makes him look like a big shot up there at the shooting gallery.
So respond to him if it makes you feel better. Just remember, he's Canadian, with no dog in the US political hunt. In other words, he's insignificant, just like 80% of the Canadians who pollute our blogs.