Suck it, Ben.

[DaShi]

They have in the past, and even the sign from the university before acknowledged that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the prolifers right to freedom of expression. The university has changed their position to requiring the signs to be placed inwards, so as to restrict their freedom of expression.

Where did it state that was the reason that the university required the signs placed inwards? Why not just ban the signs altogether? You're argument doesn't make sense and I'm calling BS until you pony up some facts supporting it.

The rules are not the same. Does the university require the Falun Gong club required to turn their signs inward? That is where the rules differ, and why the prolife club is right to defy the rules that are specifically targetted at the prolife club.

So now you are just going to excise my arguments to argue something else? Ben, they're images were restricted because they were graphic. If Falun Gong displayed graphic images, they would be restricted too. There is no evidence that the pro-life specifically targetted. There is no evidence that the rules are different. Until you provide that evidence, I'm calling BS.

Where does the money come? Private donations by concerned individuals.

This is a serious question: Do you have a mental disorder? I'm dead serious in asking this. You would not post this response otherwise, unless you were being deliberately dishonest. You brought up money issues as non sequitur: "They aren't collecting money" I asked where the money argument came into my previous statement (I had made no mention of money). Now you're talking about money in a context that has no precedent in the discussion. What's worse, you're doing it as a response to me. Plus, you ignored the rest of my argument. That's disrespectful.

The state has the right to arrest those who break an unjust law, but that does not justify them being arrested in the first place. I believe the club should accept the authority of the law, while at the same time rejecting the application of the claim of trespassing. Same as Dr. King when he served his time.

It's not an unjust law. It's a law to protect other people.

Then why would the same images on their own are inoffensive? The display makes an argument that is considered offensive, regardless of the photos used.

Where did I say they were inoffensive on there own? Why are you ignoring what I say and arguing something else? Why are you being disrespectful when I am being respectful to your point of view here?

Which is why there are volunteers at the signs. I agree with you that the signs in themselves are not enough, but they serve to create the creative tension that Dr. King speaks about such that the issue cannot be ignored. The volunteers have the job of discussing the issue and addressing the points and the questions of anyone who wishes to discuss.

Again, you're returning to strawmen. Dr. King also promoted non-violence and worked to not harm others for his cause and during his actions. Since the graphic images disgust and offend many people, they do cause harm. Displaying these images in the manner you describe would be hypocrisy and dishonest.

Then why don't they impose the same 'compromise' on the other clubs? What makes the prolife club so special that only they receive 'special regulations?'

I agree, the pictures should have been outright banned. GAP has too much preferential treatment.

This is why I said it was VIEWPOINT discrimination, in that they don't mind the protest, but they do mind the ideas expressed by the display.

There is no evidence of this. You have to prove it. I do believe that you are simply lying. Disrespectful.

You haven't answered the question I posed as to why they would single out the prolife club. Do you have an alternative explanation that would account for all the evidence?

You only just asked that question to me in this post. Talk about being dishonest. You also ignore my questions and points and talk about other topics instead. In fact, this quote does not repond to my post at all (yet you quoted me here for some reason).

They permit the exact same pictures when used in a holocaust display. Obviously they do permit graphic images, when it supports causes that they support.

You know, when I wrote that I thought, "Ben isn't so stupid to take that at point value and would be able to see the context." You have proved me wrong. We already discussed why the holocaust images are permitted and the conditions they are held to. I apologize for overestimating your intelligence.

Do you really want me to quote you? You said just that earlier.

WTF! Can't you read? Yes.

[Ben Kenobi]

The holocaust images the GAP uses are not overly graphic in general, they are just offensive to many in comparing the plight of holocaust suffers to a fetus

So it's the idea not the pictures that is offensive? Public decency isn't about banning ideas.

[DaShi]

This Falun Gong poster is particularly graphic. Why doesn't the university force them to force the posters inwards?

Since we are comparing images, I'll concede that that image is as doctored as pro-life images. In that respect, they are the same.

[Asher]

So it's the idea not the pictures that is offensive? Public decency isn't about banning ideas.

No ideas were banned. The graphic images, like the decapitated 3 year old girl, are what was banned from being shown to unconsenting citizens. The university even permitted those disgusting images to be displayed as part of the protest, but only to people who explicitly agree to see them (by walking within the inwards-facing displays).

No ideas were banned here, the only thing that was banned was the emotional assault your group was providing to innocent passersby. Again, the display was to be permitted but under the condition that only people who agreed to see such graphic images could see them. It's public decency.

Don't ****ing steer this back towards the holocaust images again, because those aren't the images that people were most upset about and were deemed too graphic to show publicly. And you know that -- which is why you avoid talking about the obscenely graphic Rwandan genocide images.

PS: Man up and address my counterpoints rather than passively admitting defeat by not quoting them. You argue that protests cannot be censored, so you are in favour of child porn being displayed as part of NAMBLA protests? After all, how is child porn any worse than a decapitated three year old girl?

[DaShi]

I'd say that Ben has banned common sense.

[Asher]

I knew he couldn't stay away. Good to have you back and please continue going to indie music concerts. It will do you good to be around mellow people.

Also, I missed this comment. I didn't go to any ****ing indie concerts.

M83 opened for The Killers, and M83 was indy, but it was ****ing awful.

[notyoueither]

The Flames still suck.

[Darius871]

But surgery images aren't icky.

Clearly you've never seen a botched circumcision.

Sure I have, in fact dozens if you include the BME Pain Olympics. Not icky in the slightest.

[DaShi]

Jeez, Ben. How long does it take to find a quote that you said that I had said "just earlier"?

[Theben]

I agree. Practially the whole political spectrum lies between me and Ben, but I consider him to be a friend.

That's how I used to think, but the whole "God hates fags" approach wrapped in a face really turned me off after awhile. It's actually very demeaning and repulsive.

I don't dislike Ben, but I can't condone his actions.

[Alinestra Covelia]

If his tits were just a bit bigger, he'd be on Desperate Housewives as Bree's nemesis.

I did not need the mental image of Alec Guinness, bearded and be-big-titted, on Desperate Housewives. >_____<

[Alinestra Covelia]

Oh, forgot to mention I also agree with Asher on smoking. (From about 200 posts up or something.)

[Elok]

Also, I missed this comment. I didn't go to any ****ing indie concerts.

M83 opened for The Killers, and M83 was indy, but it was ****ing awful.

Well, I've only heard Hot Fuss, but that's just twelve kinds of awesome. The Killers

[SpencerH]

No ideas were banned here, the only thing that was banned was the emotional assault your group was providing to innocent passersby. Again, the display was to be permitted but under the condition that only people who agreed to see such graphic images could see them. It's public decency.

Amazingly, I find myself in agreement with Asher (as long as the university has the same policy for other graphic displays).

[rah]

But someone has to administer that policy and make judgements on the material in question in terms of public decency. Even if that judgement isn't completely consistent the policy can still be considered such.