Suck it, Ben.

[DaShi]

Wow, why does having an 'intellectual atmosphere' matter diddly squat to free speech? That's crazy. Free speech shouldn't be limited to museums and universities.

Free speech is a strawman is this issue. The issue is the misuse of public space: trespassing, specifically.

The GAP display has warning signs everywhere well before you can see the display. This way no one can see the display before seeing the warning signs. The signs are usually labelled, "Warning, Graphic Abortion pictures ahead".

If you don't want to see the signs, you don't have to see them.

But they are still in a public place that is used for other business. If they are placing those signs, they admit that they are commandeering that place for their own personal use. The article makes it clear that they did not have permission to do so.

Any evidence for this?

My KH degree.

So you acknowledge that people are influenced by them. Why are you afraid of them if the only ones that are convinced by them are morons?

This argument is a strawman as well.

Free speech means having to listen to views to which you disagree.

That's not the issue.

[DaShi]

Ben, can't you focus on the topic at hand?

[Ben Kenobi]

Free speech is a strawman is this issue. The issue is the misuse of public space: trespassing, specifically.

There was a Falun Gong demonstration in the same space on the same day. Clearly this is simply viewpoint discrimination, not 'trespassing'. To bar one and not the other is ludicrious. Regardless of how I feel or you feel about the displays, the students have a right to hold GAP on campus.

But they are still in a public place that is used for other business.

Which goes on just fine. They are not preventing people from doing what they are trying to do.

If they are placing those signs, they admit that they are commandeering that place for their own personal use.

They are entitled to book space with the university like any other club. To say otherwise is discrimination pure and simple. You cannot say the Falun Gong demonstrations are permitted while the prolife ones are banned.

This argument is a strawman as well.

IOW, I can't counter it.

That's not the issue.

It's been the issue from the start of the thread. Insisting that holding displays inside is a perquisite to the exercise of free speech is a silly argument. Arguing that it's too 'lowbrow' an area is ludicrious. Free speech is free speech, you either have it or you don't.

[Tuberski]

I'm not back, I'm just dropping by to send Ben into a depressive funk.

I think it's very funny that you are staying away EXCEPT to start a thread taunting the person that made you go away in the first place.

You left this site because you were tire of arguing with BK and him saying crap that you find offensive.

You stay away from discussions with other that didn't involve BK, because of him.

Yet, you still find a need to come here and argue with him again.

I think it's time for you to man up and either stay here all the time, which I and mostly everyone here would prefer, or stay away and let BK beat you.

ACK!

[DaShi]

There was a Falun Gong demonstration in the same space on the same day.

Did they have permission to be there? Were they told not to be there? Did they bring or do anything that normal society would object to?

Clearly this is simply viewpoint discrimination, not 'trespassing'. To bar one and not the other is ludicrious. Regardless of how I feel or you feel about the displays, the students have a right to hold GAP on campus.

I won't say that it is entirely discrimination, but I do believe that it played some factor. As Asher said, the tide is turning. The basic issue is that GAP broke the rules. I believe that GAP should be held on campus, minus unpermitted displays and rallies.

Which goes on just fine. They are not preventing people from doing what they are trying to do.

Yes, they are. There whole purpose to be there is to attract attention. They are soliciting without permission from the university.

They are entitled to book space with the university like any other club. To say otherwise is discrimination pure and simple. You cannot say the Falun Gong demonstrations are permitted while the prolife ones are banned.

Actually, you can. A more appropriate analogy would be if they allowed the KKK to demonstrate and not anti-abortionists. Then you could argue discrimination. The university is entitled to deny or restrict bookings on its property, especially of things that shouldn't be aired publically (such as nudity, coarse language, or graphic images). I think GAP would get along a lot better without the images. You claim to have been swayed by scientific reasoning. The images only serve to generate an emotional reaction.

It's been the issue from the start of the thread. Insisting that holding displays inside is a perquisite to the exercise of free speech is a silly argument. Arguing that it's too 'lowbrow' an area is ludicrious. Free speech is free speech, you either have it or you don't.

There are limits on free speech in public areas and especially universities. But the issues isn't silencing opinions people disagree with. It's about violation of university rules.

I don't believe I ever argued that the images are lowbrow. I stated that such images are inappropriate for public display according to the society's current mores. Frankly, you seem to be making up new arguments hoping to win something.

[Asher]

I don't need to be a student there to know what signs they are putting up.



Well for starters, I've worked for the group that built the signs. I think I should know what signs they are running when I helped build them.

You do know that just about every year the signs are destroyed by upset students...

You're a ****ing liar, Ben.

[Asher]

The GAP display has warning signs everywhere well before you can see the display. This way no one can see the display before seeing the warning signs. The signs are usually labelled, "Warning, Graphic Abortion pictures ahead".

If you don't want to see the signs, you don't have to see them.

This is a FLAT OUT LIE.

I've never seen the group put up signs warning of the content ahead. EVER.

In my first year, the SU let them host their exhibit in the Students Union building (Mac Hall) and the SU put up signs (with the SU logo). Second year, they forbid the group from using the SU space due to the content of the pictures (which is far beyond what you describe here, but again -- you are a pathological liar with no integrity). When they started hosting their exhibit outside in public university space, there were no signs at all warning of it. That's when the University took action and told them they weren't allowed to exhibit on campus space, their exhibits are wildly inappropriate and obscenely graphic with blatantly doctored photos. As people have said, they're troll photos only.

You have no integrity, Ben. You are a pathological liar. You are a shameful Christian, and if you truly believe in what you say you believe in, you'd wise up and take heed. You're going straight to ****ing hell, if you believe in it -- where you'll be joined with the likes of me. If you're going to be a sinner like me, Ben, at least be a man about it.

[Asher]

I think it's very funny that you are staying away EXCEPT to start a thread taunting the person that made you go away in the first place.

There's an important distinction here: Ben didn't make me go away, the administration's acceptance for his presence and behaviour and rampant dishonesty and bigotry did.

You left this site because you were tire of arguing with BK and him saying crap that you find offensive.

I left this site because I found it ridiculous that Ben could say obscenely offensive things to me and if I fought back with more traditional flame-fare I'd get banned, too. I've decided I don't really give a **** about the site, but I do hate Ben, so I'm seeing what the admin will do. Ben will continue to be Ben and I'll flame the **** out of him for it. Everybody wins. He'll get banned or I'll get banned, then we'll know where the admin stand on it.

I think it's time for you to man up and either stay here all the time, which I and mostly everyone here would prefer, or stay away and let BK beat you.

ACK!

You're looking at it the wrong way -- posting at a site that props up BK means you are losing. I'm making a stand in my own unique way, and having a gay old time doing it. I'm not investing any time into other conversations on the site on the high likelihood that I'm going to get banned in this thread for dealing with Ben.

[Asher]

There was a Falun Gong demonstration in the same space on the same day. Clearly this is simply viewpoint discrimination, not 'trespassing'. To bar one and not the other is ludicrious. Regardless of how I feel or you feel about the displays, the students have a right to hold GAP on campus.



Which goes on just fine. They are not preventing people from doing what they are trying to do.



They are entitled to book space with the university like any other club. To say otherwise is discrimination pure and simple.

Ben, you ****ing ******...any club can book the space, but you're not allowed to put anything you want on there.

The gay club (GLASS) regularly had their poster boards "modified" because of inappropriate content. They had to remove nudity on it (like a male ass) to satisfy content guidelines. And if you're not allowed to show a 25 year old's ass on a photo, why the **** should you be allowed to show a decapitated three year old child?

You're pretending like this is discrimination against the viewpoint. Do you get that, Ben? Comprende? That's wrong. Calgary is a right-wing, conservative Christian city by and large, for **** sakes.... it has to do with appropriate content. There are a few pro-life groups on campus, all of them can and do display posters and literature...it's just this one group that cannot. And do you know why it is? Because they post obscene content like slaughtered children on big posters to try to disgust anyone who sees it.

The difference between the gay club and the other pro-life clubs is one of intelligence and being reasonable -- there are guidelines regarding what can be displayed in public without getting someone's informed consent, and they must be respected. The other clubs comply with such requests and can keep their exhibits, the militant Christian clubs like the one you apparently proudly belong to refuses to be reasonable then whine when they get "discriminated against". **** you *****.

The worst part is you tightwads are the same types that petition to remove SU funding to the gay clubs or protest the "content" of the gay club booths because they "promote sex" by handing out condoms. You guys don't give a **** about freedom of speech, you're ****ing dip**** militant *******s with an agenda and you don't give a **** about the rights of others.

I hope these *******s charged with Trespassing get criminal records and the maximum fine.

[Berzerker]

It's raising the question as to why we are revulsed by it.

For the same reason I always turn away when LT sacks Joe and that leg...argh...SNAPS!

It's not a normal reaction to a right. You aren't revulsed by freedom of speech, or freedom of association on the face of it.

I hear repulsive things all the time and the KKK is certainly repulsive. Shall I go on with other repulsive associations?

We don't remove laws based on murder because it means there will be back alley hitmen.

That equates murder with abortion, I dont think thats a fair equation.

Yes, there will still be abortions done even if the law is changed. That's inevitable. We have to have laws because one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

And under the Constitution (Canada's different?) a person is born, not conceived. Therefore this "non" person wrt to the law is infringing upon the woman's rights. And be it blessed to most, some women cant or wont continue a pregnancy that endangers their lives. Is that murder?

If the unborn child is a person, then we have the same obligations to protect them as we do the mother.

Therein lies the rub, clearly the unborn child is a human being by the time of birth (and long before). But how many women have late term abortions? And why? Elective abortions usually occur much sooner. Would you want a ban on late term abortions to save the life and/or health of the woman?

The issue isn't that the police will snoop, just that the unborn child deserves the same protections. What used to happen in the past is the police would shut down the doctors and have the women plead out. It's not necessary to monitor in the fashion that you suggest in order to enforce things.

The police will need a record of every pregnancy and investigate any abortions and that means govt medical experts will tell juries whether or not the abortion was natural or induced. Now, thats if you want the law actually enforced. Like you said, enforcement was hardly a priority in the past and millions of women had abortions anyway. So what did they plead down to? How many women went to jail for illegal abortions?

Murder? Really? Dont you support the death penalty for murder?

[Berzerker]

Jesus Christ Asher, take a toke or something and try to mellow out. Yer gonna blow a fuse

[Asher]

Jesus Christ Asher, take a toke or something and try to mellow out. Yer gonna blow a fuse

Ben represents pretty much the epitome of evil in the Western World.

Spends his time politiking to remove the rights of others to satisfy his own personal morality, which itself was only recently acquired.

It's absolutely disgusting and needs to be treated as such. He's not subject to enough vitriol on this site -- too many people treat him like a retarded poodle rather than the rabid pitbull he is.

[Berzerker]

no one agrees on what rights we have or should have, not even family members... Just aint worth getting mad over

[Ben Kenobi]

Did they have permission to be there? Were they told not to be there? Did they bring or do anything that normal society would object to?

Yes, they were permitted. They did the same things as the campus prolife club, they applied for the space, and received permission to protest. I don't have a problem with protests in general regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them, I think they are a very important part of society.

I won't say that it is entirely discrimination, but I do believe that it played some factor. As Asher said, the tide is turning. The basic issue is that GAP broke the rules. I believe that GAP should be held on campus, minus unpermitted displays and rallies.

I believe the campus club should be permitted to do the same as any other club. They should be able to book space for peaceful demonstrations. I don't see how they can have one set of rules for some clubs, and another set of rules for other clubs.

Yes, they are. There whole purpose to be there is to attract attention. They are soliciting without permission from the university.

Soliciting? I suppose then all the Fraternities should be suspended. That's the craziest thing I've heard. They aren't collecting money, they aren't selling anything at all, they are protesting.

Actually, you can. A more appropriate analogy would be if they allowed the KKK to demonstrate and not anti-abortionists.

I'd be all for KKK demonstrations, provided they are peaceful. I don't believe they would be very effective in their goal at the universities.

The university is entitled to deny or restrict bookings on its property, especially of things that shouldn't be aired publically (such as nudity, coarse language, or graphic images).

First off, it isn't their property. I'd agree that a private university could restrict this, but a public university is bound by the fact that they are supported by taxpayer dollars. U of C is a public university, thus the students have the right to be there and protest, as the taxpayers are the ones that own the university.

I think GAP would get along a lot better without the images. You claim to have been swayed by scientific reasoning. The images only serve to generate an emotional reaction.

It's a reasonable question. It's been tried both ways, and GAP with the images is much more effective at getting the point across as to the nature of abortion. I hope there will be a day when the demonstrations aren't required.

There are limits on free speech in public areas and especially universities. But the issues isn't silencing opinions people disagree with. It's about violation of university rules.

Depends on the regulations. Turning your signs inwards is blatent viewpoint discrimination. They obviously don't mind the protests other then the fact that the protest communicates ideas that they find repugnant.

I don't believe I ever argued that the images are lowbrow. I stated that such images are inappropriate for public display according to the society's current mores. Frankly, you seem to be making up new arguments hoping to win something.

You said very clearly that indoors had a more intellectual air, which is why indoor holocaust displays are fine, but outdoor ones are tacky. I call BS.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is a FLAT OUT LIE.

I have pictures that prove otherwise. Would the moderators permit me to post them?

I've never seen the group put up signs warning of the content ahead. EVER.

Then you need to open your eyes.

In my first year, the SU let them host their exhibit in the Students Union building (Mac Hall) and the SU put up signs (with the SU logo). Second year, they forbid the group from using the SU space due to the content of the pictures (which is far beyond what you describe here, but again -- you are a pathological liar with no integrity).

Considering I have scans of all the images, I find that accusation rather weak. I know what they use at U of C, because as I said I helped build them and I receive their updates. I know what they are using and how their displays have gone for the past several years.

When they started hosting their exhibit outside in public university space, there were no signs at all warning of it.

It's standard procedure for the warning signs. I've worked with them and they are exactly as I said they were, saying, stop, "warning Graphic abortion pictures ahead," fullstop. They should have been at the access points to the display such that anyone passing by would see the sign.

That's when the University took action and told them they weren't allowed to exhibit on campus space, their exhibits are wildly inappropriate and obscenely graphic with blatantly doctored photos. As people have said, they're troll photos only.

Do you have any evidence that the photos themselves are doctored? The genocide photos have been used elsewhere across other memorials. Which ones are doctored, or are they all doctored?

You have no integrity, Ben. You are a pathological liar. You are a shameful Christian, and if you truly believe in what you say you believe in, you'd wise up and take heed. You're going straight to ****ing hell, if you believe in it -- where you'll be joined with the likes of me. If you're going to be a sinner like me, Ben, at least be a man about it.

I am a sinner like you Asher. Have I ever said otherwise? It is because I am a sinner that I need my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.