So wouldn't a threshhold problem in this case be proving the existence of Allah?

I feel obligated to point out that there are valid objections to Hamas and Hezbollah that have nothing to do with race or religion.

Should be obvious, but...

So, if we don't like seeing the US flag desecrated, all we have to do is replace the fifty stars in the top-left corner with the words "Allahu Akhbar", and that'll be the end of flag-burning?

--Jim

Now, I don't know for sure, since I wasn't there, but there appears to be good reason for Ms. Saunders choosing to refer to the event in dispute as an "anti-terrorism rally" in quotes.

You gotta love YouTube:

one bit


another bit

JosephSlater:

If you read the Debra Saunders column, she says that a) 'the Associated Students board Passed a unanimous resolution, which ... denouced the California Republicans for "hateful religious intolerance" and criticized those who "pre-meditated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence."' and b) 'the student panel could [later] decide to issue a warning to, suspend or expel the GOP club from campus'

So, while there hasn't been any discipline, there has been "denouncing"; and the same group of people who did the denouncing reserve the right to take further action. Given the denouncement, they seem inclined to do it.

As of now, I don't see how this equates to "New Anti-Blasphemy Laws," since the only thing the protesters seem have suffered is a denouncement by the student union, which is in and of itself another form of free speech. If there were additional disciplinary actions then that might change the situation, but right now that seems to be jumping the gun.

The investigation has been "concluded," according to SFSU; now the matter is being sent to the Student Organization Hearing Panel for review" and "possible disciplinary proceedings."

We're clearly not just talking about possible further resolutions expressing the Student Union's views; this is a formal school proceeding that may lead to formal school discipline. Indeed, no discipline has been implemented yet. But what would we think if SFSU had sent into "possible disciplinary proceedings" a complaint that someone was expressing anti-American views (e.g., stepping on an American flag) or anti-Administration views (e.g., stepping on a picture of President Bush)? I take it that we'd recognize that even having a "Hearing Panel" look into the results of an "investigation" that might lead to "possible disciplinary proceedings" would be improper -- the university should have just dropped the complaint, on First Amendment and academic freedom grounds. Likewise here. How free is speech about religion going to be at SFSU if students know that when they say religiously offensive things that are alleged to create a "hostile environment" or to be "incivil," they can be haled in front of a "Hearing Panel" with the prospect of "possible disciplinary proceedings"?

The fact is, the whack jobs who have largely taken ooft departments in public universities are mostly left-over socialists from the 60's (some of 'em are my former pals). The real problem however, is that having once gotten traction, the "collegial" nature of the (feudal) universities virtually assures these barbaric sub-intellectuals will generationally poison the ferment of ideas professed to be the core competency ofcampuses. Nonsensical, money-wasting "grievance departments" that promote whining and pissing as academic accomplishment is prima facie the calibration of the proliferation of these "intellectual" sewer-rats. This current anti-constitutional arrogance is likewise proof that the thought-gestapo is alive, well and as vicious as ever, right here at you local state-sponsored school. I hope FIRE will do the right thing and haul the vermin behind this garbage into court. Apparently the gang of 88 is a franchise, not a localized event.

It's one thing when it is a private university devoted to the study of loons. It's another when these totalitarian parasites are living out of my pocket.

God damn it, I think I just chipped a tooth.

"As for the students who want to punish the College Repubs, they might want to consider how their actions reflect on SFSU. A university is supposed to be a place of learning and a forum made more vibrant by the free exchange of ideas, but this exercise makes SFSU look like a playground where bullies rule." Debra Saunders

Anti-Islamicist protests and avowals by College Republicans. It's racism. Case closed. Decry these College Republicans, these insensitive louts!

Anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Christian, etc. avowals and protests by the Left, by Left/Dems and Dems. Chin pullers of the world, unite! The Left's Righteousness™ itself is the cause! Progress! Hooray, hoorah!

Hezbollah fires rockets upon Israeli civilian populations from southern Lebanon. Hamas first rockets upon Israeli civilian populations from Gaza. A Hamas suicide bomber strikes in Eilat. Chin pullers of the world deploy to Starbucks™, order a cinnamon dolce latte™, consider what movie to attend (perhaps that one about Rwanda, maybe Babel, with Brad Pitt - he's hot!), decry Bush after movie, are refreshed, are born again with a newfound zeal to save the world, or at least to decry Bush again. This process is repeated until The Left's Righteousness™ is fully restored.

It is a never-ending source of amusement for me to watch the Left tie itself in knots over these silly "issues." The fact of the matter is that far too many enlightened progressives in this country have attitudes that are straight out of the Archie Bunker/George Wallace mindset.

Why can't people see that hatred and demonization are not somehow redeemed just because you just direct your hatred at white, Christian, heterosexual males?

Just amazing! Progressives arm in arm with Muslims-- who would stone homosexuals, enslave women, and enforce by the sword a religious dogma straight out of the Middle Ages. This is a pristine example of the special kind of blindness that occurs when ideology replaces common sense. (Actually... I may be being too kind to call it an ideology.)

In order to get Lefty "progressives" to embrace Southern Cracker culture, all you had to do was put a turban on it!! Who knew?

I don't by any means agree that the College Republicans should be disciplined. But from the two videos, I have to say that it appears the whole point of the "anti-terrorism rally" was to get up on a stage and rail against the liberals that they knew would come out protesting. Based on that, I do have to agree that the point of stepping on the Hamas and Hezbollah flags was to offend people. Once again, I think they have every right to do step on the flags, even if it is offensive. But, I do have to swallow bile as I defend their right to be offensive pricks.

What a shock. I mean, what a surprise. It turns out that the First Amendment does not mean white Republicans.

Burn the US flag, and there they are.
Stomp some other flag, cannot seem to care.

Insult Christ and Christians by displays of a cross in urine, ACLU is there to defend the "artist".
Insult Allah and Muslims, and they are nowhere to be found.

I'm not sure "Where's the ACLU" is being quite fair. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is just as good, if not better, at protecting students' rights in these sorts of cases, and it often works with the ACLU. Indeed, I'm pretty sure the attorneys on its network overlap with ACLU-minded or supporting folk.

So with FIRE on the case, I see no real reason the ACLU would feel a need to jump in.

Also, for all we know nobody has asked the ACLU for help.

Whether the ACLU is asked in or not, it had better gets its butt in on the side of the Republicans, or every time in the future it whines that free expression has been 'chilled,' the actual believers in free speech will use their silence at SFSU to tee off on them.

The videos were quite enjoyable, thanks for posting the link. If you noticed, there were only about 20 people protesting the Republicans' event. That is typical: in my experience, and even at the politically active campuses, most students belong to the great apathetic majority.

I have been practicing law in SF for almost 20 years, and clerked in the US DC in San Francisco. I find it hard to believe that anything will happen to these students.
But, if SFSU does anything to these students for stepping on the Hamas and Hezbollah flags, I am more than happy to offer my services pro bono to FIRE and the other attorneys already representing them. This case would be easy: I know several of the SF federal and superior court judges, and think any case would be a slam dunk for the flag-steppers. Here, the video makes it clear that this conduct is political speech.

It's a good thing they did not stomp on a Greenpeace flag that had "global warming" written on it.

The ACLU has defended some of the First Amendment rights of a variety of groups, some neo-nazis for example and yes, even Christians as well. However, the First Amendment rights the ACLU has defended, for Christians, has been selective. (Read, and comprehend, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.) But yes, the ACLU has defended Christians qua citizens expressing their right to protest, which reflects one important aspect of the First Amendment.

On the other hand. Here, for example, is Joe Cook, Louisiana chapter director of the ACLU:

"They [Christians] have always crossed the line of separation of church and government. They believe they answer to a higher power, in my opinion ... which is the kind of thinking you had with the people who flew airplanes in the buildings in this country."

Telling, that. But Mr. Cook fails to tell us what his own "higher power" or driving incentive is. At times the ideal being expressed by ACLU protagonists is a type of multicultural leveling, which is to say that the Supreme Value is that all other values/beliefs are to be regarded as equal, while only the "supreme value," the one which posits all other values to be equal, is higher than or above other values - the grand inquisitional power deemed to be worthy of judging all other values/beliefs. Perhaps not so philosophically, but before the coercive force of the law such is the socio-cultural and juridical interest of the ACLU, and long has been.

Instead of just wringing hands about this sort of thing and using it as an excuse to blame the imagined monolithic left surely there must be some organization that defends free speech in these sorts of cases that accepts donations.

I realize that many people here would be loath to donate to the ACLU and while I do think they are on balance very positive I wouldn't mind seeing another organization with the same goals and a conservative slant sharing the burden of defending our liberties.

So is their an organization with a conservative slant that goes to court in these sorts of cases? If so maybe it would be useful to post a link along with these depressing stories. If not this sounds like a disappointing failing of the libertarian right. If you don't like the ACLU shouldn't someone set up an alternative so you don't have to rely on them to protect your liberties?

HeScreams,

The associated student board is just the student government. At least at UC Berkeley the fact that they passed a resolution means about as much as learning that the 'Tree Huggers for Self Promotion' passed a resolution. Everyone knows these resolutions mean nothing (I was in the graduate assembly for a year and it just isn't worth fighting resolutions no one reads or cares about). Unless the associated students actually vote to cut off funding for the group they are just whining in a formal fashion and it has no necessary relation to the general student viewpoint.

I think under the rules they are using that this is allowed

What will San Francisco State do when someone tramples on a banner that says: "Jesus requires gays to be put to death"?

and this verboten:

What will San Francisco State do when someone tramples on a banner that says: "Allah requires gays to be put to death"?

> if the GOP club wants $$$ and recognition from the official student body

We wouldn't be hearing that argument if the organization in question had PC positions.

If SFSU is typical, those $$$ were not volunteered, but are collected as a condition of enrollment. And SFSU is a public institution.

I bet no one would stomp on this flag.

but, of course, right wing censorship is just as egregious as left wing.

ed o,

What precisely is the purpose of identifying an instance of censorship by its ideology, especially when most people here are an agreement that a state school is equally wrong to prohibit the stomping of a Hizbollah flag, a Christian symbol, or to otherwise prohibit students from engaging in expressive political conduct?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I would genuinely like for you to explain further the purpose of your comment.

I don't think the College Republicans should be disciplined.

However, I disagree with Professor Volokh that this is a "clear" constitutional violation. Public universities are allowed to treat student groups as limited public fora. Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 234 (2000); Rosenberger v. Rector &Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). They can't discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, but they can impose viewpoint-neutral rules for student groups that are more restrictive than what is allowed in a traditional public forum like a public square.

For example, a school can probably ban Klu Klux Klan or Al Qaeda student groups, even though those groups have the First Amendment right to peacefully express their views in other fora.

The question then becomes whether this discipline is viewpoint discrimination. Perhaps it is, but we don't have enough information to make that determination. For example, there's no evidence that Muslim groups were allowed to deface Jewish or Christian symbols.

we had a recent thread holding right wing censorship was as prevalent as left wing, despite the rampant examples of this campus political correctness run amok. why not identify the ideology-what purpose is served by not indicating the left wing lunacy of college campuses, where shouting someone down is first amendment protected, even if violence is involved, but something like this is met with sanctions.

i have no problem with that board (or any group of people) condemning, criticizing, or mounting a counter protest. that is just as valid as the protest itself (in terms of free speech).

but if they try to PUNISH the students or prohibit this valid political protest, they would run afoul of the 1st, not to mention FIRE would hopefully take up the case.

i don't see where there is any mention of any students being punished by the school, but some people are inferring that.

The question then becomes whether this discipline is viewpoint discrimination. Perhaps it is, but we don't have enough information to make that determination. For example, there's no evidence that Muslim groups were allowed to deface Jewish or Christian symbols.

I suppose that SFSU could have a general ban against flag desecration (including the US flag). I suppose they could also have a ban against religious symbol desecration (which would ban some modern art and desecration of the UK and Israeli flag).

However, I really doubt it.

MnZ, you may be right. My pointt was just that they can do this as long as they're consistent so this isn't an open and shut case.

sorry, that should read "a few different political stripes."

MaGa,
Does your bible include the Old Testament?

Ditto Al. Harry, don't equate "right-winger" with "bigot."

Hattio, does your copy of the Old Testament include Jesus' teachings?

Hattio/MaGa:
This is close to threadjacking, but Jesus 'clarified/abrogated/superceded' (or whatever term is appropriate) the Old Testament (depending on your view, this either an acknowledgment of the errors of man writing the Old Test, a change in God, or a change in the circumstances). So Hattio's 2:31 post is off - Jesus is still the same God as the Old testament, and God doesn't change, but Old Testament law is no longer binding. However, MaGa's 1:03 post runs too close to the "Jesus was a hippie" fallacy. Jesus condemned a lot of behavior, and many of the "judge not" quotes are taken out of context and ignore that Jesus was not some free-love swinger.

Houston Lawyer:

Using your logic, we should certainly outlaw gay marriage, because it offends the Muslims at least as much as stepping on Allah's name. Apparently, we shouldn't let women drive either.

Any good idea becomes a bad idea if you take it too far.

For one, gay marriage (and gay sex) amongst infidels doesn't bother them as much as the idea that we're disrespecting Allah.

And even if the two are equally offensive, so what? The freedom at stake with regard to gay marriage is much higher than with regard to desecrating symbols of Allah.

Further, I'm not saying it should be outlawed, just that we shouldn't exercise our right.

It's probably Constitutionally permissible for gays to make out on the sidewalk in front of a mosque. I think patriotic gay people shouldn't try to exercise or enforce that particular right if that would mean major upset in the Muslim world. I'm not saying they should permanently give it up, just that they shouldn't push the issue at this time.

They can go make out somewhere else. We can protest against HAMAS and Hizb'allah in other ways. For instance, I didn't say, "we should give in to HAMAS and Hizb'allah in order to help our war effort"--that would be loony, even though our positions there are also a source of anti-American hatred.

Yankev, it's interesting that you bring up the incident where an Israeli flag was trampled. According to a letter written by the president of SFSU at the time, disciplinary proceedings were brought against the student. So this actually supports the conclusion that the university applies its policies in a non-viewpoint-discriminatory way.

"So, while there hasn't been any discipline, there has been "denouncing"; and the same group of people who did the denouncing reserve the right to take further action."

Not so. The Associated Students board, whatever that is, does not have any authority to impose disciplinary action. That ability rests squarely with the Student Organization Hearing Panel (SOHP), which consists of both students and faculty. Apparently they have yet to hold their hearing.

AF

It appears that you are correct. My recollection of the incident was based on a widely circulated email at that time, accusing SFSU of doing nothing about threats and physical intimidation, as well as the flag trampling. Newspaper accounts (which,as we know, are often erroneous) suggest that the university did indeed institute disciplinary proceedings.

There is one huge difference, of course. In the Hillel case, counterdemonstrators charged the demonstration and took away a flag that belonged to the demonstrators. In the College Republicans case, the demonstrators trampled banners that they had brought with them. Does anyone think that Serrano's supposed work of art would have enjoyed 1st Amendment protection if he had grabbed a cross from around the neck of a nun and dunked it into a beaker of urine?

mike, i totally agree with your point, even if that wasn't clear in my post.

if one accepts that the VAST majority of campus censorship occurs against rightwingers, by leftwingers, then that clearly explains why most of FIRE's cases are of the beleagured rightwinger. i accept that premise. it is clear to me from my personal experience on campus, as well as the "#'s"