Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 Disruptive campus preacher protected, student isnt
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2013 :  17:55:24  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Just a little something to remember whenever a theist goes and complains about how "anti-christian" the US is:
This is the article that describes what happened, followed by some links and videos.

SEVERAL times over the past couple weeks the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga has allowed and endorsed a fire and brimstone preaching fanatical woman to scream hate and damnation at its students. They even provided her a with huge coned-in circle, complete with security and police.


According to this report, the mad womans rantings pushed one student over the edge last week. Cole Philip Montalvo, 24, crossed the coned perimeter with his bicycle to yell at Angela Cummings:

That was a mistake, as he immediately found out.

Probably just should have gotten a bunch of people together with a shitload of signs and, outside of the circle, just place those signs to at least metaphorically, seal the wackjob off. Or at least enough to block everyone's view of her.

UTC student Alyssa Fjeld said that he campus preacher routinely describes:


How horrible we all are, how were living in our sins and will go to hell, and general condemnations against people of other races or sexual preferences.

A petition was launched following Montalvos arrest, criticising the UTC administration for allowing Cummings to disrupt the campus they pay to attend.


By allowing this woman to scream in the middle of our campus, UTC is not properly delivering the service we have paid for. We do not pay to have a large section of our campus cut off from us. We do not pay to have some stranger scream at us and tell us that were going to hell. Our campus is no place for her hatred.

As of this morning, over 700 people had signed the petition on Change.org, which points out that:


Its been said that some professors have had to cancel classes because her screams can be heard through the windows.

Or maybe a few people with megaphones to shout the ***** down?

https://twitter.com/JaclynGlenn/status/403488617189752832

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkuY5nF3ytY

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1467 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2013 :  09:58:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Boo! Hiss!
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2013 :  07:15:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Boo! Hiss!


It's called free speech. I would expect the University to act the same if an atheist wanted to scream his message. The only conflict would be if the University treats screamers different depending on if they like their message or not.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1888 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2013 :  08:15:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Boo! Hiss!


It's called free speech.
Free speech requires security? Did she bring her own or was it provided by the University. If he had stayed outside the perimeter of cones (which he should have done) would he have been allowed to continue with his suggestions and likely eventual questions? As far as the inciting a riot charge is concerned there must have been a certain expectation why else would a perimeter and that level of security be required.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2013 :  09:36:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by moakley

Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Boo! Hiss!


It's called free speech.
Free speech requires security? Did she bring her own or was it provided by the University. If he had stayed outside the perimeter of cones (which he should have done) would he have been allowed to continue with his suggestions and likely eventual questions? As far as the inciting a riot charge is concerned there must have been a certain expectation why else would a perimeter and that level of security be required.


As much as this kills me.

Bill is right on this one. UTC is a state run university. Therefore, it is a public forum and the messenger cannot be turned away due to message.

Rights don't stop because the message sucks or costs money to ensure that the speaker doesn't get his ass handed to him.

The university put up the perimeter for their own protection. If they didn't, little miss sinscreamer getting assaulted would be a suable offense.

However, free speech des not mean unopposed speech. Instead of calling for a ban on this speaker, a more effective way is to hold counter protests (using megaphones) against her rantings.

A particularly effective form of satire, a friend of mine once organized a bunch of guys in monks robes to walk around a "Campus Crusade for Christ" speaker pointing out what a hypocrite he was and chanting "N-E-S-T-L-E-S, Nestle makes the very best" in a Gregorian manner.

Campus Crusade for Christ threw a screaming hissy fit and were told that the free speech issue that they enjoyed did not mean others had to shut up and listen to him. They stopped holding public sinscreamings.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2998 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2013 :  10:03:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I would setup some speakers and microphone, and use a computer to produce an interference sound wave based on her voice, thus cancelling her voice wave out. Would that be a violation of free speech? She could still speak, just no one would hear her.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1888 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2013 :  10:36:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

Originally posted by moakley

Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Boo! Hiss!


It's called free speech.
Free speech requires security? Did she bring her own or was it provided by the University. If he had stayed outside the perimeter of cones (which he should have done) would he have been allowed to continue with his suggestions and likely eventual questions? As far as the inciting a riot charge is concerned there must have been a certain expectation why else would a perimeter and that level of security be required.


As much as this kills me.

Bill is right on this one. UTC is a state run university. Therefore, it is a public forum and the messenger cannot be turned away due to message.

Rights don't stop because the message sucks or costs money to ensure that the speaker doesn't get his ass handed to him.

The university put up the perimeter for their own protection. If they didn't, little miss sinscreamer getting assaulted would be a suable offense.
Thank You. It has been too long since I have been in school. I do recall the sidewalk sermons at a busy student intersection, but not the perimeter or security. Back then it was just noise for the couple of minutes it took me to move through the area. At Ball State there was a bit of a platform, about 30" high and about 36"x36", that they used.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 11/27/2013 :  21:29:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Boo! Hiss!


It's called free speech. I would expect the University to act the same if an atheist wanted to scream his message. The only conflict would be if the University treats screamers different depending on if they like their message or not.


Did you not catch this part?

As of this morning, over 700 people had signed the petition on Change.org, which points out that:


Its been said that some professors have had to cancel classes because her screams can be heard through the windows.

I don't care what the message is...once that starts happening, something needs to be done.

Move her to where her screams don't cause the cancellation of classes. That goes beyond free speech.

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 11/27/2013 21:30:22
Go to Top of Page

LizW
Skeptic Friend

USA
113 Posts

Posted - 12/03/2013 :  11:47:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send LizW a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi all, I know it has been awhile since I posted, but I have been keeping my eye on you.

Just so you know where I stand, Dave and I have debated various freedom of speech issues and he calls me a "freedom of speech absolutist" he also followed that up with "indefensible position", but I am willing to keep running face first into that particular wall. In other words, I believe that anyone has the right to say that "Goody Proctor is a witch" fault lies with the idiot that believes it and actually persecutes her.

That being said, I also believe if you are going to voice your opinions in public, you should not expect any more protection from repercussion than any other person walking by.

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

Rights don't stop because the message sucks or costs money to ensure that the speaker doesn't get his ass handed to him.

The university put up the perimeter for their own protection. If they didn't, little miss sinscreamer getting assaulted would be a suable offense.


The university should not be responsible for her protection unless she is an invited speaker in which case the club or organization that invited her should be footing the bill out of their own budget. The university should not be blocking off public area for her private use unless she files a request for performance space, which usually involves a contract specifying a limited time frame. As for the university attempting to avoid being sued...screw it they should take the risk, if their campus is considered public property then she would have to sue the state of Tennessee.

I think (and I could be wrong...It has happened before) Freedom of Speech means that government can't drag you off to jail for vocalizing your opinions in public. They can't shut down your newspaper or ban your book or boot your blog etc... I don't think it means anyone is required to provide you personal security in order to protect you from the repercussions of what you've expressed, beyond the protection already provided to all individuals by law.

If someone takes a swipe at her that's assault, if someone takes a shot at her that's attempted murder (or actual murder depending on their level of skill), if someone grabs her and drags her away it's kidnapping. If someone gets two inches from her face and screams back at her...that's a passionate exchange of ideas.

Free speech is not always safe speech, in fact at it's best, free speech is downright dangerous. If your going to publicly champion an unpopular position, you personally have to be prepared for the backlash it creates. If you have the courage of your convictions, you do it anyway.

You learn something new every g****mn day!
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2013 :  08:05:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by LizW

Hi all, I know it has been awhile since I posted, but I have been keeping my eye on you.

Just so you know where I stand, Dave and I have debated various freedom of speech issues and he calls me a "freedom of speech absolutist" he also followed that up with "indefensible position", but I am willing to keep running face first into that particular wall. In other words, I believe that anyone has the right to say that "Goody Proctor is a witch" fault lies with the idiot that believes it and actually persecutes her.

That being said, I also believe if you are going to voice your opinions in public, you should not expect any more protection from repercussion than any other person walking by.

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

Rights don't stop because the message sucks or costs money to ensure that the speaker doesn't get his ass handed to him.

The university put up the perimeter for their own protection. If they didn't, little miss sinscreamer getting assaulted would be a suable offense.


The university should not be responsible for her protection unless she is an invited speaker in which case the club or organization that invited her should be footing the bill out of their own budget. The university should not be blocking off public area for her private use unless she files a request for performance space, which usually involves a contract specifying a limited time frame. As for the university attempting to avoid being sued...screw it they should take the risk, if their campus is considered public property then she would have to sue the state of Tennessee.

I think (and I could be wrong...It has happened before) Freedom of Speech means that government can't drag you off to jail for vocalizing your opinions in public. They can't shut down your newspaper or ban your book or boot your blog etc... I don't think it means anyone is required to provide you personal security in order to protect you from the repercussions of what you've expressed, beyond the protection already provided to all individuals by law.

If someone takes a swipe at her that's assault, if someone takes a shot at her that's attempted murder (or actual murder depending on their level of skill), if someone grabs her and drags her away it's kidnapping. If someone gets two inches from her face and screams back at her...that's a passionate exchange of ideas.

Free speech is not always safe speech, in fact at it's best, free speech is downright dangerous. If your going to publicly champion an unpopular position, you personally have to be prepared for the backlash it creates. If you have the courage of your convictions, you do it anyway.


I don't think she should have security as well, however, the school as a public entity is still suable. As the school has a limited budget, it is actually cheaper for the school to provide security than deal with a lawsuit.

And with cases where physical violence occurs, the school is also suable by the person doing the violence as well.

This was a decision made by the school administration and they went with the lowest potential cost.

I can understand the decision while not particularly agreeing with it. Some entities cannot afford to stand on principle.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

LizW
Skeptic Friend

USA
113 Posts

Posted - 12/04/2013 :  09:33:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send LizW a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer

I don't think she should have security as well, however, the school as a public entity is still suable. As the school has a limited budget, it is actually cheaper for the school to provide security than deal with a lawsuit.

And with cases where physical violence occurs, the school is also suable by the person doing the violence as well.

This was a decision made by the school administration and they went with the lowest potential cost.

I can understand the decision while not particularly agreeing with it. Some entities cannot afford to stand on principle.


I also understand that it was a practical decision on the part of the university, but if any entity should stand on principle it is a publicly subsidized university. They are not only diverting resources that should be benefiting the students, they are diverting resources that are in part provided by the people of Tennessee. If a hundred speakers approached the school demanding the same treatment, I believe they would have to rethink their position, or reconfigure their campus. She deserves to be allowed to speak, but she does not deserve any special concessions in order to do so. By allowing these concessions the university is in a way allowing her speech to be supported by public funds, and I am pretty sure she should have to apply for a grant in order for that happen.

You learn something new every g****mn day!
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.67 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000