Ok fine, first amendment place restrictions 101: As I said, the type of speech restrictions that the government can make are dependent on the type of forum where the speech is occurring. The Supreme Court analyzes the issue in term of three types of fora, the traditional public forum (places that have always been used for public expression, like parks and sidewalks), designated public forum (a forum that isn’t traditionally for public expression that the government has then opened to public speech), and non-public forum (public property that is neither a traditional place for public speech nor designated by the government as a place for public speech, e.g. an army base). In a traditional public forum, the restrictions must be content-neutral, viewpoint-neutral, and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest (ie strict scrutiny). In a designated public forum, content restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny and viewpoint restrictions are not allowed, but speakers may be limited to a certain group. In a nonpublic forum, such as an army base, the restrictions merely have to be reasonably related to the forum's function, and to that end viewpoint discrimination is allowed.

As far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the particular issue of whether the open areas of a college campus are traditional public fora. But at least one 11th circuit judge agrees with me that they are:

“Some places on campus, such as the administration building or the president's office, are not opened as fora for use by the student body, and may be best described as nonpublic fora. Other places on campus, such as the residence halls and fraternity and sorority houses, have been created to allow student expression, but remain limited for use by certain groups or for the discussion of certain subjects; these places may be best described as limited public fora. Other places on campus, such as the campus student union, streets, sidewalks, and park-like areas, are freely used for student expression. These areas are best described as traditional public fora”

-Ala. Student Party v. Student Gov't Ass'n

Are you trying to say, with your analogy of the norlin quad to an army base, that the quad is actually a nonpublic forum? Because I would love to hear your support for that extreme position.

"even if the court was acting politically rather than based on sound logic" - haha, that's cute! Who gets to make the acting politically vs sound logic determination - you?

Like so many who love to wave the constitution around, your actual understanding of constitutional jurisprudence is poor at best. First, the issue is whether the government can close an otherwise public forum just because it doesn't like the message. The issue is not, as you suggest, whether the government must provide a radio show or a stage - those analogies miss the mark because no one is asking for the university to take affirmative steps to promote the speech. What people are requesting is that the university not take the draconian measure of closing the university to the public.

You are correct, however, to note that the government may place some restrictions on the use of government property. No constitutional right is completely unfettered (even your right to guns :o). When it comes to regulating public places and the type of speech restrictions allowed by the constitution, the Supreme Court looks at the nature of the property, or “forum” to decide what types of restrictions can be allowed. As the Court stated in Hague v CIO (1939):

"Streets and parks...have immemoriably been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public issues. Such use has, from ancient times, been part of the privileges, immunities, and liberties of citizens."

The facts that the Norlin quad is normally accessible to the public at large and that other public areas of the university are routinely used for potentially disruptive speech tend to show that it’s a traditional public forum and therefore the restrictions allowed by the 1st amendment are highly limited.

You couldn’t be more wrong to state this is not a 1st amendment issue.

Christmas Eve riots over ugly $180 shoes made by children in southeast asian countries? Stay classy America.

So does this mean that the route is going to go through Ward!!!??? HAHAHAHAHA!! Some Wardo's head's are going to explode.

Biased toward the justice system? What are you talking about? Was the justice system riding the bicycle?

Also, it sounds like you've been in quite a few accidents, and that those accident reports often cite you as at fault. None of which is not surprising given that you can't understand that when a driver takes a left turn and crosses oncoming traffic it is that driver's responsibility to avoid placing his vehicle on a collision course with a vehicle coming the other direction.

Your point of view is the same as saying that if you are driving on the freeway and I drop a huge boulder from a freeway overpass such that lands in front of your car a millisecond before you hit it, then it's your fault for not stopping. And if you die then the death was caused by you not stopping in time. Or if I run a red a light and you're coming into the intersection from the side and you have a green light and you hit the side of my car then it's your fault for not stopping in time. If the world adopted your point of view that would really be chaos.

Your child running into the street analogy doesn't apply. Vehicles can't stop instantaneously, it's about who has the right of way. The bicycle was going straight, the bicycle had the right of way. If you can't understand that, then I think you need to retake your drivers test.

The basic problem is / was Christopher Loven. Again, as the state patrol investigator concluded, after a complete review of the facts and evidence, if Loven "had shown due regard for the road and traffic conditions, the crash would not have happened." Or do you somehow know more than the state patrol investigator?

Exactly! I'm glad Cain is out, but he should have been out over his complete and utter lack of foreign policy knowledge. It's embarrassing that he got this far.

Cain was running for the Republican primary, so take it up with your fellow Republicans.

Also, the comparison is not very apt. Cain is the former head of a pizza chain, he can't say one intelligible thing about Libya, and he didn't know that China has nuclear weapons. I think we're all better off now that he dropped out.

Not expensive for Cain, he's got a whole army of rubes donating to his campaign.