Good day all. Colleges and Universities are supposed to be centers of higher learning and open debate. However, over the last 30 years, they have gone in the opposite direction and become nothing more then socialist reeducation centers that actively stifle any debate.
This has led to these “schools” creating “Free Speech Zones” where students are permitted to exercise the right privilege of speaking their minds. If the students were to say something that goes against the progressive liberal orthodoxy anywhere else, they would be punished, up to and including expulsion.
Needless to say, students started suing these places for willfully violating their 1st Amendment right to free speech. The universities would pull every legal trick in the book to suppress these students. Some of these schools, after being sued, would make small changes to their policies, the idea being it would render the suits moot. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that these suits can proceed. Here are the details from the Fire:
Today, (March 8th), the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, holding that former Georgia Gwinnett College student Chike Uzuegbunam’s First Amendment lawsuit against his alma mater was not rendered moot after the institution changed its free speech zone policy. The Court held that Uzuegbunam’s remaining claim for nominal damages would provide sufficient redress for his alleged harm to give him standing to continue the suit.
For those who don’t know, Fire is an organization that works to protect the rights of students and in many cases, teachers and professors who don’t follow the Progressive Liberal orthodoxy of the school administrations and most of the professional educator class. They have provided legal assistance to people who have come under assault by school administrations, and have won more then a few cases.
There is a lot of legal gobbledygook in the story by Will Creeley, so I will skip over a lot of it. Please review the story in its entirety.
As FIRE and Cato argued in our brief, authored by FIRE Legal Network member Kevin King and his colleagues Tarek Austin and Jack Lund at Covington & Burling, LLP, students already face substantial hurdles to vindicating their First Amendment rights in court, including their own impending graduation. Had the Court allowed public colleges to escape liability by permitting standalone claims for nominal damages to be dismissed as moot, we wrote, censored students like Uzuegbunam would be left in the lurch:
Students have few reliable options for securing judicial redress when their free-speech rights are infringed. Equitable-relief claims are frequently mooted by graduation or by revision of the challenged policy, and speech restrictions often do not inflict financial injuries that rise to the level of compensatory damages. As a result, nominal damages, which address violations that do not result in compensable financial loss, are often the only remedy available.
The article goes into details on what kind of damages can be asked for. In this case, nominal damages. I don’t fully understand all the legal mumbo jumbo, but I think it means that the plaintiffs don’t have to demand millions of dollars. What is interesting about this case was the 8-1 decision. The one justice who ruled against letting these cases proceed wasn’t one of the moonbats, it was the craven coward of a Chief Justice, John Roberts. Every other justice opposed him.
That worthless loser, who absolutely refuses to do the job he was appointed for, decided that since the cases were moot, there was no reason to hear them. The whole problem was that, thanks to delaying tactics and judges like Roberts, the cases became moot because the people involved had left or completed school and were no longer being affected by the anti-free speech codes these universities put into place.
In other words, Roberts is quite happy with delaying justice so that it can be denied. Thankfully, the other 8 justices, including the Moonbats, came to the conclusion that these cases can continue. This looks like a good thing to me, considering that the alternative, which Roberts, in this case and many others, willfully ignores, could and probably would lead to violence.
If people see that they have no chance under a system that is supposed to work for them, then they can resort to other means. That is not the way we want things to be done. Now people can still seek justice. The cases will have to be proven of course, but the “Technicality” that Roberts is in favor of has been removed. Now it’s back to the lower courts where this and other “moot” cases will now be heard.
Thatisall
(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
