Free Speech May Lead to Paralysis, Death

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Bruce says:

    Is the first line normal on these sort of things?
    For myself, my heirs, successors, executors,

    Are the children of dead people who signed waivers able to bring suits of negligence?

  2. Ken says:

    Bruce, I could answer you, but it would be (1) jurisdiction by jurisdiction, (2) full of ifs and buts, (3) deathly boring.

  3. Bruce says:

    Would it summarise to:
    "Yes, it's possible"?

  4. Neal says:

    Shall I have my daughter step up to the plate to check out the enforceability? She's enrolled at FRCC for Fall Semester.

  5. Ken says:

    I'd say yes, but quite frankly I'm afraid of her mother.

  6. SPQR says:

    No, Bruce, it would summarize to "Are you in California?"

  7. TomH says:

    Bruce – I could tell you. But then I'd have to bill you.

  8. mojo says:

    1) This is America. The whole god-damned place is a free speech zone.
    2) I ain't signin' shit. Take your waiver and stuff it.

  9. Colton says:

    I was just browsing around and i stumbled across this. Granted I haven't yet explored the site itself nor the issue much, I felt obligated to comment.

    Now, I am all for free speech and a hardcore believer in the written word is the law (I support the constitution in its entirety) but I have a itch in my side when I read this.

    I don't understand why making special "Free Speech Zones" is so terrible. I mean sure it can and really does limit your first right to free speech and assembly but is it without cause? I hardly doubt the objective of the institution in question is out to LIMIT or SUPPRESS your rights…

    You have to look at the issue in both lights, if you were allowed to start a protest wherever you wanted in the school there would be many issues arising from that which limit the rights of others. That's why we have permits to protest, not for limitation but to reassure that order will be maintained.

    Also, I personally believe the waiver isn't an excuse for guards to kill you. First reason for this is because even if the guard in the hypothetical trigger happy state does open fire, sure the school can't be held liable but that doesn't mean you're screwed…there is always a higher up until you hit the Supreme Court so I'm sure somebody would be held responsible. Second reason is the most simple. The school is an open public forum yes. As such, they can't take away your first amendment, as we all should know, but if somebody does want to speak out, it is obviously against something that already is or may very well be in the near future. As such, there will be supporters on the other side of the protesters as well and if one becomes violent, the school doesn't want to be held responsible for something you chose to do at your own desire and at your own risk. It's absolutely no different from going to a shooting range or a paintball course and signing a waiver saying if you get hurt, you understand that you can not hold the institution liable…again another "Do at your own risk" subject.

    Again, I am in total support of what this site seems to support but I don't understand how this issue is just that…an issue…

    I am part of the N.C.A.C. if your doubt my intent.

  1. August 9, 2010

    [...] Zone" policy—named as FIRE's Speech Code of the Month for August 2010 just yesterday. Popehat is first to the plate. Like FIRE, Popehat finds comic gold in the lengths that FRCC goes to disavow [...]