WEATHER »

UCSB Professor Accused of Assaulting Anti-Abortion Activist

[UPDATED WITH VIDEO]: Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust Say They’re Pressing Charges Against Feminist Studies Faculty Member


Originally published 12:00 a.m., March 11, 2014
Updated 1:00 p.m., March 13, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

An anti-abortion ministry known for its aggressive and controversial outreach work is pursuing criminal charges against a UC Santa Barbara professor, who allegedly stole one of its banners, assaulted one of its members, then helped destroy the banner during a confrontation on campus last Tuesday. The UCSB police department is investigating the incident.

According to 21-year-old Joan Short — a student at Thomas Aquinas College and a member of the Christian pro-life group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust — she, her 16-year-old sister Thrin, and 11 other Survivors had set up three large signs in an area of campus heavy with foot traffic called the Arbor. The banners, along with literature the activists handed out, displayed graphic imagery of late-term abortions that Joan said was intended to “begin conversations” with passing students.

Joan Short with Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust shows a student a model of an 8-week-old fetus
Click to enlarge photo

Courtesy

Joan Short with Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust shows a student a model of an 8-week-old fetus

Joan said that at around 11 a.m., Dr. Mireille Miller-Young — an associate professor with UCSB’s Feminist Studies Department — approached the demonstration site and exchanged heated words with the group, taking issue with their pro-life proselytizing and use of disturbing photographs. Joan claimed Miller-Young, accompanied by a few of her students, led the gathering crowd in a chant of “Tear down the sign! Tear down the sign!” before grabbing one of the banners and walking with it across campus.

Joan said she called 9-1-1 and Thrin started filming, and that the pair followed Miller-Young and two of her students — who Joan referred to as “the fugitives” — into nearby South Hall. As Miller-Young and the students boarded an elevator, Joan said that Thrin repeatedly blocked the door with her hand and foot and that Miller-Young continually pushed her back. Miller-Young then exited the elevator and tried to yank Thrin away from the door while the students attempted to take her smartphone. “As Thrin tried to get away, the professor’s fingernails left bloody scratches on her arms,” Joan claimed. The struggle ended when Thrin relented, Miller-Young walked off, the students rode up in the elevator, and officers arrived to interview those involved.

These are the injuries Joan said were left on Thrin's arms after her contact with Dr. Mireille Miller-Young
Click to enlarge photo

These are the injuries Joan said were left on Thrin’s arms after her contact with Dr. Mireille Miller-Young

“The police did not seem overly concerned about the incident until they saw the video and realized how violent the professor had been,” said Kristina Garza, director of campus outreach for the Riverside-based Survivors ministry. “She was definitely leading the group,” said Joan. “I sincerely doubt any crime would have been committed if she hadn’t been there.”

Joan said police later found their sign destroyed, but she couldn’t say where it was discovered or how it had been ruined. Garza said her group — which has publicized its accusations through Christian news outlets and on its own website — will soon release their video of the incident.

[UPDATE, March 13, 1:00 p.m.]: Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust have posted their video on YouTube. See it below:

)

Miller-Young declined to comment for this story and has retained an attorney. Catherine Swysen of law firm Sanger Swysen & Dunkle issued a brief statement on her behalf. “It is a pending matter, so it is not appropriate to comment at this time,” she said. “We will let the process take its course. I am confident that it will become clear that the events did not unfold as the anti-choice demonstrators say they did.”

District Attorney Joyce Dudley said her office had not received a report from UCSB’s police department by Friday. UCSB police spokesperson Sgt. Rob Romero did not return multiple phone calls and emails seeking comment.

John Longbrake, UCSB’s associate vice chancellor for Public Affairs and Communications, said the university is aware of the incident and that “it is being reviewed internally by the appropriate offices.” He said he could not comment on Miller-Young’s teaching status as it is school policy not to talk about personnel matters.

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young
Click to enlarge photo

Dr. Mireille Miller-Young

Longbrake said the Survivors had gathered on Tuesday “in an area designated as a free-speech zone and therefore did not require permission to be on campus.” When asked how often the Survivors travel to UCSB and if there have been past issues with the demonstrators and students or faculty, Longbrake said, “Groups with similar issues come to campus periodically. I am told that the University typically receives a large number of complaints during these demonstrations and, on occasion, the police have been called in the past to help maintain a safe environment.” Joan said her group visited UCSB on one other occasion last year.

While such activist groups are required to notify UCSB’s Office of Student Life of an upcoming trip so the Office can install its own signs warning students of explicit photos nearby, the Survivors failed to contact campus representatives before their March 4 demonstration. Joan said she and her group had not been in touch with university officials since their confrontation last week.

Last Friday, UCSB’s student paper, the Daily Nexus, published a letter to the editor called “Selfishly Abusing Our Freedom of Speech,” which argued students had been ambushed by “the overwhelmingly bloody and gory pictures that were displayed in the Arbor.” Other anti-abortion groups at UCSB, while agreeing with the Survivors’ overall message, have taken issue with their tactics, as well.

This Monday afternoon, The Santa Barbara Independent received multiple phone calls from parents picking up their children at Dos Pueblos High School. They were concerned about anti-abortion protests — featuring enlarged photographs of aborted fetuses — staged at the school’s entrances and exits.

Joan said that while she and her sister were shaken by their encounter with Miller-Young, they “are not deterred from leading future pro-life outreaches.” She said her mission is important and feels “everyone has an obligation to do what he or she can to end the slaughter. I do what I can by reaching out to women and men of my age and showing them the horror of abortion. I believe that if a woman knows the truth, she will never willingly have an abortion.”

Of her group’s shock-value approach, Joan said the admittedly gruesome images are meant to spark thought and debate that would otherwise not exist. “I think most people are ignorant about abortion,” she said. “When they see a picture of a ‘blob of tissue’ that has been aborted and see that it has a face and hands just like them, they feel a connection. That’s why they are disturbed. When people see the faces of abortion victims, they know they have to change the way they’ve been living.”

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Don't you just love the tolerant left!!!

This Professor (aka; THUG) will probably now get a raise and promotion!!!

Priceless (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So let me get this straight: You have this thing called the first amendment which guarantees your right to express an opinion, be it controversial. It is guaranteed by the highest court in the land.
But a snooty liberal professor can overshoot that guaranteed right & literally & physically attack someone expressing an opposing view?
I despise those anti-abortion sheep people, but you know what I do? Just smile, wish them a nice day & walk away knowing their plight is a losing cause.
Seems like the worst offenders against constitutionally given rights are the most liberal of the political spectrum. Liberalism, you're doing it WRONG!
I think the ACLU would have a slam dunk against this professor and her cronies. Funny how quick she lawyered up.
After all, they won the case for the nazis to be able to march on July 4, 1976 in Skokie, Illinois, a predominantly Jewish enclave.
Since when did the UCSB Women's Studies become "Feminist Studies" department?

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Were these people even authorized to be on campus much less set up a display ?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How does one become classified as a "survivor of the abortion holocaust"?

buckwheat (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SAH is one of those groups that has come to fetishize abortion while protesting against it.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone with a sophisticated understanding of the law knows that our First Amendment rights are within the reasonable time, place and manner criteria. Although I believe the Arbor passes that test, I also believe the Professor has an equal right of protest to tear down the signs "in protest." It will be interesting to see how this pans out legally, sounds like the anti-abortion group provoked the physical confrontation by blocking the elevator. I think the professor was within her rights to push them away and escape. As for the high school, we don't need these crazies harassing our children and I hope the School District does something about it.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SAH is our very own Westboro Baptist.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, the professor had a right to place her own signs, not destroy the property of others she disagreed with. I'm no defender of the anti-abortion crowd, but this is a free speech issue, not an abortion rights issue. Free speech shouldn't only apply to issues you agree with.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's a super-duper bummer to realize and see examples of your Pro-Choice point of view's impact to unborn living humans when they are killed during an abortion, which is legal.

It's so much easier to not see those images and forcibly remove and destroy them as a way of not confronting the reality of your position.

This professor Young clearly supports the right of women to kill the living human inside them (even for convenience) and doesn't want anyone to see the full set of facts and imagery associated with that.

Other students see it as cool to support this type of killing of living humans - but only when it's *inside* a pregnant woman. Most do not support the death penalty for any reason.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Professors behaving badly maybe, but what's the crime?

ooshea (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Their name is "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust" ? WOW! Talk about an offensive name on so many levels...

These girls are so incredibly brainwashed. How sad.

I sure hope they are fed the same level of visceral crap they spew... life's long and taking such an aggressive and insipid view at such an early age will have lasting reprecutions.

The Pro-Life folks are some of the worst people on earth. Hypocrisy at the highest level... Too bad we cant just abort them and their absurdly antiquated and ignorant views now... but we're 20 years too late for that.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm also no defender of the anti-abortion crowd BUT too often on campus there exists an attitude ( often brazen and entitled ) that IF you don't like someone's speech you have a right to block, shout down and deny them from speaking. Throwing a tantrum is another common tactic. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions.

This is a serious problem and should be seen for what it is a free speech issue. Academics and their student followers ( speaking of brainwashing ! ) have a right to not agree with people who come on campus but they should NOT be able to stop them from speaking or use physical violence to stop them. Those here that are ONLY critical of the anti abortion group involved, and their tactics, are missing the point.

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SAH is especially aggressive and provocative, and willing to intimidation tactics; because of their tactics they are disavowed by mainstream Pro-Life groups. Like the Westboro Baptist Church, they seek to create incidences for publicity and monetary gain through the court system.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya unfortunately the professor was wrong here, but it's really too bad because while I don't think that people should remain ignorant about what abortion is it is still a complex issue and the public ambush tactic they are using is really lowbrow and inconsiderate.

Then you also have to look at the fact that the Westboro Baptists are.......are.......wait for it.......a family of LAWYERS.

These people are a bunch of trolls who provoke attacks against themselves on purpose so they can sue and get funding to do more protests.

Don't feed the trolls.

In fact, what I would do next time is get the Chancellor's car down to the Arbor and bring the hottest sorority on campus wearing bikinis and have them shoot a sexy carwash video to some Miley Cirus music or something. Joan will have her daughters and signs out of there before you can say twerk. Not sure how some of the feminists will appreciate this tactic, but you can't please everybody all the time.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess that justifies assaulting them and silencing their message, huh Ken?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The SCOTUS has ruled that is no first amendment right to shout fire in a crowded theater...

So while protecting ones right to express ones own beliefs is key, its not OK to be an insinuator or so offensive that you cause a riot or other disturbance.

These young ladies will get what's due, that will happen in the form of a long hard miserable sexless life filled with misery and loneliness. After all no sane man wants a woman who thinks like this!

Or maybe, these young ladies can spend some time in the middle east where they will be forced to live a pious existence under the rule of the religious zealots...

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How they spend their lives is their business, not yours SomeGuy. And it has no relevance to yelling fire in a crowded theatre as posting these signs is not a public safety issue.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, I do find it both sad and ironic that you are defending their right to live how they please when their entire premise is based on forcing their beliefs onto others...

But then again I dont expect people who base their lives and beliefs on myths to understand basic logic... Maybe you should change your user name Botony? For no real scientist can possible be so woefully naive as to base their entire belief structure on myths and the words of pious men.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously Sealion, I don't know why The Nexus would choose to be posting such pro-fascist non-sense these days.

You would think with the internet people have learned that the best way to fight people with offensive first amendment speech in places where it can't be ignored is to out-first-amendment them........as I suggested above, bring in the hottest sorority and have them shoot a sexy video in bikinis washing the Chancellor's car right in front of them and Joan will have her girls out of there before you can say 'twerk'. No violence necessary.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You're completely missing the point Someguy. I'm not supporting their position, I'm supporting their right to free speech. I also don't agree with their message, but that's not the point. In this country, people have a right to express their beliefs, and so do you. But you don't have a right to tell people that they can't express theirs.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, I would be willing to die to defend our first amendment rights but the actions of this group are consistent with hate groups, not political motivated change agents or provocateurs.

So I do not think they should be protected when their goal was not to inform, but to inflame. The 1st amendment is about the govt controlling what you say, not the backlash from the populace for saying certain things... And in this case, they got what they were due and therefore I do not see this as a first amendment issue but that of them using the Govt to act as security for their hate fueled rhetoric.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are two basic types of protest: to inform or for action. SAH has a history of both provocation and litigation as a result of; their use of transgressive imagery is more often used as a weapon than as an educational tool.
We all know the outcome of this protest, but what was the intention?
Abortions aren't performed at the Arbor, which beinga place where people congregate to eat- the imagery displayed was inappropriate. Producers of movies, music and video games are held accountable for alerting audiences to visually explicit violence and the like.
But to those who fetishize such images as members of SAH seem to, won't respect any boundary as they have demonstrated in the past.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What the F?! "Abortion Holocaust"???!!!! You've got to be kidding me. Sometimes a word, a name, a symbol (swastika for example) become so forever entangled and tainted by evil and darkness that it doesn't even matter what the root of the word or origination of the symbol was; it will never ever be seen or interpreted separate from that evil and darkness that's been associated with it. "Holocaust" is one of those words. Obviously the use of this term is going to ruffle a few feathers and most definitely create an upwelling of strong emotion...but I suppose that's the point. It's a cheap trick. And deeply disrespectful.

Obviously there were emotions running strong and we all know these things can quickly become personal and can therefore escalate. The professor seems out of line. But so do these "survivors." The "survivors" were obviously looking for an interaction like this, camera-ready and all, and pushing for the continuation of the confrontation. When physical gaps are closed between people, it often times becomes physical. It's always that tricky line when people are entangled - at what point is it being aggressive and at what point defensive?

And...can I say it sounds seriously overblown? A scratch? Charges? Jesus. Was there any real harm? Now there are lawyers and police? It just seems like a terrific waste when all that's needed is someone to give them a stern talking to and sit them in the corner to think about their actions.

Also...still sort of stuck on this name, but I have to feel a little sorry for these "survivors" too. I mean, to be an "abortion survivor" you must have had parents that told you, "I didn't want you, but I kept you anyways." I think on some root level that has to be deeply damaging. And most that consider an abortion is because a child would make life exponentially more difficult. So you add in a potential difficult childhood - maybe money's tight or some other struggle...and you're upset and unsettled and latching on to some cause so you can funnel that negativity into something.

Gaijin (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure, label someone as a "hate group" to stifle their free speech. It's a very slippery slope. Occupy Wall St. could be labeled a "hate group" for their hatred of the rich. Of course the rich are a much more palatable group to hate than many others, so you'll give them a pass, right? These are labels that you want to put on certain people you disagree with just as an excuse to censor them. Nothing less.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I cannot think of a better way to provide one's political opponent with great publicity than attacking his/her First Amendment rights - and from a professor, no less.

MalMike (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Simply Google: survivors of the abortion holocaust lawsuit

You will see their history of targetting college campuses, and it's not to save babies it's for profit.

Shame on SAH.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, they DON'T need authorization to be in the area of the Arbor. You don't have to file a permit, it is supposedly a "free speech" zone, which apparently a "highly educated professor" doesn't seem to grasp the concept.
Ken, I know, yeah, you're of the bleeding heart lib persuasion, but put that bull pucky aside for a moment and LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE.
A "highly educated person" violated the rights of an individual based on the fact that it was an opposing view. You DON'T even have to be a ACLU lawyer to see the hypocrisy and "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of this "professor" in the story.
With "professors" like that, is it ANY surprise the product coming out of UCSB is less than desirable these days?

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Ken the problem is what if an LGBT group goes to protest for marriage equality and they end up in a violent confrontation with a Christian group, even if the Christian group is the one who started talking crap the LGBT group could be seen as provoking violence simply for voicing their opinion in the 'wrong' public place. So then you need to have a board of people to determine which groups get free speech and where and which groups don't. The board will be politically motivated and may even be corrupt. Then you have the end of free speech.

The entire point of having the state not abridge person's speech as well as protecting their property and protecting their body from harm is so that unpopular groups can make their voice heard.

These groups and their pattern of provocation and litigation need to be known by EVERYBODY especially those on campus and especially faculty and staff. This is done through free speech education outreach.

Once it is known that the goal of these groups is to create a situation that leads to provocation -> litigation, then we can think about different ways of handling the situation. Handling it in the manner I outlined twice now, or something similar would be the most effective way to persuade these groups not to stick around.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh Botany, come on now... you know as well as I do the actions of these people were designed to inflame not inform... They are not peaceful protesters, they're there to do one thing - inflame and anger.

To offer free security to these types of groups under the guise of Free Speech is not what the intent or the spirit of the first amendment is or was... Let's not conflate the issues here. This isnt a free speech issue, this is about them using hate, insulting and graphic imagery and intentionally positioning themselves for a physical showdown.

The actions of the professor is one thing and she's obviously in trouble, but these kids got exactly what they intended. And they did it all without the Govt intruding upon their rights to express their views.. Its not the Universities job to protect them from their opposition that is their job and if they receive backlash from the public, we;l; that's their problem.

If I stood on the front steps of the Mission on Sunday morning and held up pictures of molested boys and the priests who committed the crimes, how long would i be allowed to remain there?

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's pray these two indoctrinated young women never have to go through what some women do that get abortions (usually victims of a crime). If you think women choose abortion because of convenience or as contraception, you are sadly mistaken. Those who have were most likely indoctrinated as well and wouldn't use a condom. We have religion to thank for that. THANKS.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, most of you are focusing on the message and/or the message when you should be focusing on the right to convey that message. I don't have to agree that the world is flat for me to agree that someone has the right to say it is. Neither should you.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Only you are stuck on this point Botany, I havent read anywhere where the Govt imposed any restrictions on these people... What I have read is almost universal dislike towards their actions and their methods. Maybe you should jump down off your soap box and realize that no one is against their right to express their views, just the way they have chosen to do so...If people want to be true insipid morons in public, that's their right... but its not our job to protect them from the results.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree bots, as long as the message is true. Spreading lies is all too common nowadays. We need a condom for that disease.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If I stood on the front steps of the Mission on Sunday morning and held up pictures of molested boys and the priests who committed the crimes, how long would i be allowed to remain there?" -iamsomeguyinsb

This is actually an issue with quasi-private/public institutions like The Mission and UCSB. Private Property owners don't have to put up with free speech, they can ask you to leave their property. After all, only the government can violate your first amendment rights. For example, this comment section is not a free speech zone, it is owned by the Independent and so they may limit speech.

People who go to Mass at the Mission very likely pay tithing or whatever, so that money should go to rent out the Church, even if they can only pay for Sunday. At that point, if they are renting out the front steps then they can control the speech there.

Similarly, students pay a lot of money to attend UCSB, yet UCSB is also funded by taxpayer dollars. For this reason it is difficult to argue that UCSB should not be a free speech zone. In fact, if I ran a private university, I would likely treat the campus as a free speech zone if for any other reason to encourage opposing views.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm questioning the manner in which the "message" was expressed, and if communication/education was even a motivation for the "protest".
In fact I will say what happened was what SAH had hoped would happen, an avenue for more blood money; if abortion didn't exist SAH would invent it.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someguy, a university representative (professor) did just that. She took it upon herself to censor that message. Either peaceful public protest should be allowed or it shouldn't. But it shouldn't be based upon the message content or censored based on labeling them a hate group or as a veiled threat to public safety.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, sorry you can't argue with people who are stuck in their belief's that America means I scream louder, so I am right.

KV and Sum guy
You can't have it both ways either everyone gets to have a say or no one gets to have a say

The Arbor is an area were ALL people can have their protest or a meeting of "Save the Fracker's" not just the ones you agree with, all without physical assault.

Most of us here probably don't agree with the protest, but I completely agree with their right to be there...

dadof3 (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botony, She's an Asst Professor, not a representative of the University. Dont conflate the issues here... the actions of an employee are not the actions of a institution.

You're either trying to re-frame the argument to suit your points or you're missing the whole point. Either way. Re-read the comments here and if you're still insisting that people are asking for censorship post a detailed retort to their comments. Until then, you're flossing with hair.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One thing is clear, nobody really reads what I write here; only what they wish I wrote.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dadof3, you obviously dont have the best reading comprehension. Re-read the posts and try again. This time without the prejudice.

I never said they didnt have the right to express their views. I said the ways they expressed their views called for a visceral response - which they got. The Govt is not there to protect the provocateur, they are there to protect the public. If someone knowingly incites a riot, they are a criminal are they not? If someone uses known tactics and imagery to inflame people, that person does not have a right to be protected as a result of their actions. There in lies the issue.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SAH is not a legitimate Pro-Life group; they are a money making operation preying upon their volunteer's religious beliefs and emotions to entagle others in lawsuits.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, your point is irrelevant. The message and the messenger is not the issue.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was Stalked by the UC-BS Gaystapo years ago because I dared to object to their Rank Raw Misandry (Hatred of Men & Boys, Masculinity & Normal Heterosexuality).

I dared to challenge the Official Published Policy of UC-BS stating that:
" Gang Rape represents Normal Male Sexuality, the Abuse of Women for Fun"

- which got me on the Secret Hit List of the Twysted Systers who Secretly contacted the Fire Department and demanded I be silenced and punished for contradicting their Hate.

They had also run an editorial in the UC-BS Student Newspaper (Daily Nexus) with a picture of a white male with a Pig growing out of his head and the caption:

" I am a Lying Sexist, Cut Open my head, Drag Out the Pig, and Butcher It"

My statement against this Violent MIsandry was taken by the County of Santa Barbara as "Writing Letters to the Editor Expressing Negative Views on Current Women's Issues" - and I lost my job as a Fire-Engineer.

The Twysted Systerhood use the UC Police to go in to the Community and conduct Secret Vendettas against the "Pigs"
- and the Courts (like Rick Brown -who like opposing counsel was employed by the County when judging my complaint against them, showing up late for Court because he was pleading for money from the Defendants) - side with Misandry...

Because that is where the Tax Subsidy pays best, even for the "Men's Auxiliary" of SCUM - The Society for Cutting Up Men. Also known as Womyn's Studiez

Because in an age of Abomination, Tolerance Macht Frei

Oznog (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The message may not be the isue, but the fact that the messenger has a pattern of provocation and litigation. And not in one instance has the place of events in qustion at all been relevant to the abortion debate, almost ALWAYS college campuses. The messenger has a pattern that can't be ignored.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UCSB students should sure SAH for emotional trauma from involuntarily viewing graphic medical imagery inflicted upon them by SAH.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UCSB students should sue SAH for emotional trauma from involuntarily viewing graphic medical imagery inflicted upon them by SAH.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see GITMO re-enactments are OK in front of the Library but Anti-Abortion Protests at the Arbor aren't. Got it!

And I thought assistant professors were non-violent intellectuals.

Good thing a ROTC recruitment stand wasn't in the Arbor that day!

I would be interested in someone clearing up the question of how the women's studies department morphed into another department called Feminist Studies...How many so-called studies departments are out there at UCSB? Things were better with just the Trivium and Quadrivium.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually any student that sat though any of the "Dr's" classes has grounds for litigation against the University on grounds of wasted time and tuition-I'm sure those classes will open many doors in today's job market..Check out her Bio-she doesn't look like the open arms tolerant type-Tho she does check all the PC boxes.

garfish (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now anti-intellectualism rears its head.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

professor made a mistake by confronting these incredibly moronic girls. it's shameful they call themselves "survivors" and use inflammatory images not to mention trying to affiliate themselves with the Holocaust. They could have been just as easily ignored or ridiculed, no need to stoop to their level. how much you wanna bet these idiots eat meat but whine about "murdering" fetuses. oh the irony, and how insecure is this professor that she has to get in a physical altercation with such feeble minded sheep, someone needs to re-check her credentials, she's done more harm to the university through her actions than the SAH.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where's this video? Why wait so long to "publish" it? Editing? Color correction? Special effects?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where is Henry Yang in speaking out against intolerance and harassment on campus, even IF it is coming from the left ??

yendopostal (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All you are going on are the claims of SAH. None of you have seen the video, no ne of you was there. Yet so many of you are ready, willing, and happy to condemn someone when you know only one side.
The Professor does not appear to have a history of incodences such as this; SAH has a miles long history of self induced incidents such as this.
We hear a lot of about "class envy" in these threads, what I've seen here today is "intellect envy" for the most part.

Do i condone what I've read of the profs actions, no. Do I think SAH are innocent victioms? Far from it, SAH got the result they sought and watch them try to cash in.

Again, with SAH it's not about saving babies, it's about making bank.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Ken, now we see it clearly, if it doesn't meet the libtard bleeding heart position/agenda you & Dr. Feminazi espouse, it is therefore "anti-intellectualism. How anti-intellectual of you.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If what she teaches is the definition of intellectualism then ignorance is bliss!
(belch)

garfish (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Blah, you don't know what my position is, you only assume. SAH is not a legiit Pro-Life organization; it's overall scheme is not unlike insurance fraud. They use their street teams as bait for lawsuits. While the professor may've been led to act improperly, she was in effect set-up to do so. You have no idae what those images may signify to someone beyond their surface content.

In addition, the abortion porn addicts who thrust these images in people's faces are guilty of harassment.

Movie and TV, music, video game, and graphic novel producers are all required to warn audience of explicit imagery. If you're going to base your judgemnet entirely on this article, then you have to include that SAH did NOT, and knowingly did NOT work within UCSB guidelines. Again, they purposefully set up a situation in which to craete trouble, with no regard to anybody and especially not unborn babies.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And yet it's these very Xian gals who get knocked up.
Once preggers, they have three choices:

1. Confess to their out of wedlock carnal sinful ways and seek "le remedie". (Carried out in a safe and sanitary clinic or done by some Santeria chicken-entrailing witch with a wire-hanger in a bum-littered alley)

2. Carry their Xian bastard to full term and suffer the scourge down-turned noses from their fellow Xian hypocrites and holy hellfire of their imaginary deity.

3. Blame Jesus by claiming "If it got Mary off, then I invoke the Virgin Immaculate Confabulation Defense.

Draxor (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2014 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Graphic depictions? Sure and let's start with pictures of the maimed and mangled young civilian victims of our undeclared wars and illegal invasions - and post them outside all the recruiting offices and campus ROTC offices for prospective volunteers to see as a form of full disclosure. Perhaps it will promote a long overdue conversation.

pierhead (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah...pierhead brings in the ROTC issue. I feel prescient, the anti-war left has entered the the room to scrim. I knew that would happen.

OK. First, and staying on subject. What's the point of the ladies with the awful pictures? --That millions of potential humans are getting murdered every year. It is a horrendous thing when you think about it. Who will stand up for the rights of babies? When does a fetus become a person? At birth or earlier? It's something to think about indeed. This little helpless potential human is given no choice.

OK. I"m ready to scrim. What's this issue about the evil military?

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Arbor should be limited to UCSB students, faculty and staff. Although the university is a publicly-funded institution, it has a right to limit access. Clearly, as K_V points out, SAH thrives by such confrontations. How unfortunate that the prof. was stupid enough to feed the frenzy and give these mindless "survivors" an enlarged forum.

This is not a 1st Amendment issue. As for Dos Pueblos, sounds as though SAH is not on school property, but if they are in any way interfering with traffic on a public street, then their "speech" can be controlled.

at_large (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, from postings of past & present, I DO know what your position is and it is an accurate assessment, not assumption.
While in YOUR limited opinion SAH is "not a legit Pro-Life organization" with it's overall scheme not unlike insurance fraud THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THAT OF 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
While SAH might use their street teams as bait for lawsuits you have a professor who OBVIOUSLY acted improperly and she was in control to NOT DO SO.
I DO have no idea what those images may signify to someone beyond their surface content, as do images of the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Syrian war dead, circumcision mutilations of girls in African nations, you know, all stuff that shows things in a real light.

In addition, IF the abortion porn addicts who thrust these images in people's faces are guilty of harassment, there are many campus groups that espouse the liberal agenda and launch similar images of the above mentioned atrocities at their favorite venue: The Multi Cultural Center.

Movie and TV, music, video game, and graphic novel producers are all required to warn audience of explicit imagery.
I'm going to base the fact of this article has nothing to do with vague "existing" UCSB guidelines.
Like many other campus groups, again, they purposefully set up a situation in which to push their point, with no regard to anybody and especially not unborn babies, just as liberal groups with liberal agendas do on campus with no regard to survivors of the above mentioned atrocities.

There, fixed that for you.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The university has the right to limit access, but not based on the content of the message. They can choose to allow demonstrations or not, but they can't pick and choose who and what.

It's only a 1st amendment issue as far as the professor not allowing them to exercise their right to free speech.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

About the abortion issue. Couldn't we all agree that less abortion is better? And that mothers who can't support or handle the problem of an unwanted and unexpected baby could possibly give it up to adoption. This way that baby could possibly have a wonderful life with some family that adopts it. More adoption and less abortion is certainly the better idea.

Personally, I think the professor in Feminist Studies should be fired for her behavior. If she has tenure (I can only ask myself how that could have happened?!)...we might categorize her fault as 'moral turpitude'...

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't need to be a professor , a liberal or a feminist to be offended by this obnoxious group of "in your face" people displaying grotesque photos which you cannot easily avoid when you are trying to take a break for lunch. Whether or not they have the right to free speech, others also have the right to voice their objections. Chasing someone to an elevator and blocking her from going back to her department would certainly cause me to become physical as a member of the human race. This goes way beyond choice and anti choice labeling. Using the word Holocaust in this instance just adds insult to injury. Give me a break!

astrochori (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So sick of these anti-choice zealots attacking the right to choose that we have fought long and hard for. If they REALLY care so much about "life" then where are they once the child is born? Where are they for the sick, the poor, the unwanted children, the ones joining gangs and doing drugs? Anyone?... Anyone? Nope. They only care about the fetus until it is born, then you're on your own, kid! What a waste of time and space. Wish they'd just GO AWAY. For every anti-choice story I see I fight even harder to protect a woman's right to choose.

biguglystick (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At_large, I do agree that UCSB NEEDS to limit the use of the Arbor space/area to keep it sane and safe, but you would have to prevent any and all political/social/ideological groups from using said area for their causes.
But with all due respect, a "highly educated" individual STEALING a person's personal belongings in order to suppress said person's right to express their view NOT a 1st Amendment issue?
This is institutionalized freedom of speech suppression at the very least, since said "professor" is an employee of the UC system.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

astrochori - you completely ignored the theft and destruction of personal property.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Its amazing how people make this a partisian issue... why is it always the far right talking about how the "Liberal" this or "liberal" that is infringing on their rights? So odd...

This was not a Free Speech issue. It is a "Are you free to speak in any way you like regardless of the speech and its offensiveness or vulgarity"?

Those of you on the far right are are more guilty of wanting to stifle ones right to express oneself than the left... in fact, this is the very platform of the evangelical dominated GOP. To limit how other people live, express themselves and act... Ger over yourselves. Its the right that is the party of exclusion and censorship, has been for many many years... The meaning of the word Liberal may help you clear up your misconceptions... start by reading the definition and work backwards.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pro-Life people are offended by the abortion porn images as well, and to support SAH is to support a cult that uses its members as bait.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe all the SAH supporters can gather together for lunch and I can show them explicit medical and autopsy photographs.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SomeGuy - Are you an officer of the PC police? Again, will you decide what's offensive and what's not? Who makes that decision? You, Loon, Ken? This has nothing to do with the message or the messenger. (sorry Ken) It's just an excuse to shut off people's free speech because you or I don't like what they have to say.

I don't support these people in the slightest, but I support their right to speak their mind.

Who they are and what they stand for is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK Botany, then how come Movie/TV, Music, Book and video game producers have to warn people about explicit content?
Who they are is absolutely meaningless as SAH has a well established pattern of bait and sue behavior.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

*It is absolutely meaningful because SAH has a well established pattern of bait and sue behavior.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, of course I am not the decider you dolt. Could you be any more recalcitrant?

To quote the late SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart on his assessment of pornography " I know it when I see it"...

But here's a simple sniff test: Would you show these images on TV during prime time? Would you show the images to children? Would you share them with your grandmother?

If you answered no to any of those questions, you know that the images are vulgar and graphic and require special care... Next

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I still think UCSB has the ability to out-porn them. The only other way you can get them out of there is to threaten to call the police, so you would essentially have to threaten physical violence against them.

"It is only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without violence."

http://www.funnymeme.com/wp-content/u...

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pornography, huh? I don't see any sexual content there. And as far as being gruesome, I've seen worse photos in Time magazine. Case closed.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Case wide open (who made you the decider Botany?!)
SAH members have fetishized the abortion imagery they use to the point that it indeed becomes a pornographic experience in their psyches. Studies on porn back this up.
When you open Time magazine you expect photojournalism which sometimes includes gruesome pictures. TIME doesn't run up to people on the street and thrust the images in their face.
Yep, case wide open.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken_Volok: "OK Botany, then how come Movie/TV, Music, Book and video game producers have to warn people about explicit content?
Who they are is absolutely meaningless as SAH has a well established pattern of bait and sue behavior."

There he goes YET AGAIN, missing the point altogether... YET AGAIN! Ken, the Movie/TV, Music, Book and video game producers you're so fascinated by, YES, they DO have to post a "warning" as to anything containing an "explicit content" like you say.
And then the wheels fall off your "argument" when you realize the FACT that NOBODY is TELLING them that they CAN'T release such materials.
Their crap is released ion a daily basis, distributed to the masses and profit is made from it. Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN.

iamsomeguyinsb: "Its amazing how people make this a partisian issue... why is it always the far right talking about how the "Liberal" this or "liberal" that is infringing on their rights? So odd..."

What IS odd is that you don't see the correlation to partisan issue and suppression of media. The "libs" say FOX News is guilty of it, the "cons" say MSNBC is guilty of it and guess what? THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT!
However, on a college campus these days, given the left leaning attitude and mentality which is a useful tool of indoctrination, the "lib" tag can be accurately placed.
Do the math here: "Feminist" Studies professor, Liberal Studies/Humanities department, anti-abortion group, suppression of freedom of expression based on opposing point of view, pro-life vs. pro-choice, all factors to make THE PERFECT partisan issue with the "lib" component clearly acting out of line.
So yes, the partisan issue here is apparent: The "professor" is a leftie lib, the SAH supporters are right wing nuts. However, the right wing nuts here didn't assault and steal. If you can't see it, congratulations, you're indoctrinated.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sorry blah please try reading one of your own posts before you expect me to wade thru that soup.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Now you can add mind-reader to your repertoire Ken. Of course you know exactly what's in their minds.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany you're too kind but simple observation of human behavior is all that's needed in this case.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's odd that this turns into a discussion about porn. The definition of porn is in the mind of the beholder. What is porn?

This is about something else don't you think.

Ken: Are you arguing for the right of this professor to go violent and whacko in this situation, clearly outside the bounds of civilized discourse? Ordinarily I'd think, one would hope that faculty members are worthy of emulation by students and that's why they've been chosen to teach by the administration and the state-- don't you think?

There really is no excuse for her behavior.

DonJosedelaGuerra (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: "Botany you're too kind but simple observation of human behavior is all that's needed in this case."

No truer words spoken Ken and we can clearly see in this case your bias toward the wrongdoing party based on political affiliation and agenda is overwhelming. But your points and arguments aren't.
There, kept it simple for you, wouldn't want to give you more soup,m even though it is heartier than your broth.

Don.JosedelaGuerra, you ask Ken a good question at the end: "don't you think?"
The answer to that is clear as a sunny, cloudless day: Due to Ken's partisan agenda, no, he doesn't think, the party agenda (similar to Mao's Little Red Book) does it for him. SELECTIVE RIGHTS AND FAVORS!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SAH team members obviously get a thrill from these images, thus they become pornographic because they are inappropriate images the common sphere, especially one intended for dining.

As for the obviously ignorant attacks aimed at me, keep sticking your feet in your mouths.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would any Pro-Choice advocate be upset with seeing images that are the result of a woman's right to choose, which they advocate for?

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, let it go lil' buddy, SAH are douches, we ALL know that. Now if you'll kindly admit that the fact that the professor who BROKE LAWS is the same, the world will be a happy place. Let the partisan politics go and face the music.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well realitycheck, most people support open heart surgery but don't want to see actual images of one.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"anti-abortion"??? Could the Indy possibly be more slanted and ignorant?

JayB (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops, I had a brain fart ... ignore that.

JayB (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kenny: "Well reality check, most people support open heart surgery but don't want to see actual images of one."

Dude, you make less sense with every keystroke! Want to know a reality? If you don't like something, you don't look at it, listen to it, buy it, support it or endorse it. That does NOT however give you the "right" to steal and destroy it because it goes against YOUR OPINION.
Here's some simple guidelines for indoctrinates like you Ken:
Don't want an abortion? Don't get one.
Don't like guns? Don't buy one.
Don't like pot? Don't smoke it.
Don't like a certain candidate or position? Don't vote for it.
Don't agree with an opposing point of view? Don't listen to it.
Don't want to violate the law? Don't steal and vandalize.
There Ken, I hope that helps you and your intolerant, fascist, leftie teabaggers. You libs and cons, one and the same.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder, if the pics of the aborted unborn babies were known to be all female, such as most of the abortions that occur in China are, would that have made any difference to this professor of feminist studies?

Tearing down banners, screaming, physically pushing, scratching & clawing someone who holds a different world view from hers. I have seen this behavior before with these extremists...hateful, condescending, elitist, horrible people. No one should let these types of extremists intimidate them into silence.

Hope they got good video footage.

newsbiz (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As for comparing these images with open heart surgery images...I believe the reason these images are so disturbing to most normal people is...they are human beings, not a human organ.

newsbiz (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some of you have tried everything to keep these guys from exercising their rights to free speech by calling them "hate groups", threats to public safety and even pornographers.

Should there be limits on free speech?

Possibly, but SAH doesn't even come close to the point where free speech should be limited.

These guys come closer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit...

In the end, extremely poor taste and insensitivity is no excuse for censorship.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, you're a moron. Quit trying to pretend you're intelligent. Its growing quite sad that you cannot make the distinction between offensive conduct bordering on vulgarity and free speech. No one is saying they dont have a right to protest or express their views, its how they do it that's the problem...

Go read a book or a hundred on what is considered Free Speech / vulgarity and beyond.. you need it.

And then take some of the porn you stockpile and view and go stand outside an elementary school with your porn on a poster and see how long you have before you're arrested... you can argue your point to the judge as he laughs you out of court and into a prison cell...

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never said SAH are pornographers (they're a cult scam); I have pointed out time and again how these abortion images have become pornographic in the psyches of people such as SAH Team members.

Another example of violent imagery becoming pornographic to an individual are the people who post explicit images of animal abuse without warning "to make their point".

We all accept a girl was raped in IV this weekend without seeing photos or video to prove it, child molestations, murders.. Unless God forbid I get jury duty I don't need to see photos and video of every horrible event to accept the fact it occured.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someguy has degenerated into name calling since he can't carry on an intelligent discussion. Hide safely behind your computer screen and engage in your childish games. Just don't expect me to play along with you.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right Botany, what ever you say...

You choose to ignore the posts that retort your points and instead pick and choose which words you consider to be worthy of your time... All while continuing to paint yourself as something you're so obviously not... an intellectual.

So yes, I say without hesitation that you're a moron. Since you display so accurately the problem with morons in general. That they're just not smart enough to know how dumb they are...

As my late grandmother used to say "Bless your heart Botany, bless your heart"...

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the assault is true and accurate, Miller-Young should be fired, tried and if found guilty, thrown in jail/prison for the maximum time allowed by law! She will also be facing substantial civil penalties if found guilty. This type of behavior by anyone is inexcusable.

Justice4Me (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Justice4me, it seems this would be the perfect time for SAH to illustrate Christ's teachings to us in the form of forgiveness of Miller-Young, don't you think? Or do you think dollars will be prove a stronger reward than salvation?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, how do you "know" that ALL members of SAH are "Christian"? YOU DON'T! There are just as many Jews and Muslims that are anti-abortion, pro-life, whatever the politically correct flavor of the day is.
It is 4:35 pm on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 and Ken STILL DOESN'T GET IT!
The question for you inquiring minds is this: Will Ken EVER get it? Judging on his defense of the errant professor, accusing all anti-abortion people of being Christian, the hypocrisy in his using of "Christian ideals" to get the heat off the errant professor and his failure to recognize what freedom of speech entails, we think the answer is pretty obvious.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ask yourselves this question:
How many people do you really think are dissuaded from having abortions or change their position to anti-abortion after seeing these graphic displays and protests?
I'll say none.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And that matters why?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I asked you first.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not that it matters, but I believe your assessment is correct.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 12, 2014 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

they should protest open heart surgery on campus too. photos of that procedure are very bloody and terrifying. if people could see how horrendous the procedure is, theyd never go through with it. the fact that you change the channel when you see procedures like that on tv proves you know its wrong!

jamerson (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: "Ask yourselves this question: How many people do you really think are dissuaded from having abortions or change their position to anti-abortion after seeing these graphic displays and protests? I'll say none."

Ken, ask yourselves this question: How many people do you really think are encouraged to join the national socialist party (nazis) or change their position against racism after seeing these fools march in Skokie, Illinois back on July 4, 1976? I'll say none.

Here's the thing you're MISSING YET AGAIN/STILL: A Jewish ACLU lawyer represented the national socialists to win their CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT to march in Skokie, Illinois, a predominantly Jewish enclave.
As much as this guy hated the nazis, he loved the Constitution so much that he fought for their right to preach their doctrine.

You keep harping on and on and on and on about SAH. GET OVER IT! They have the right to exhibit their brand of stupidity to the masses.

You're supposedly a film maker right? You've released some of your "films" to the masses right? Have you EVER stopped to think to some viewers YOUR FILMS SUCK AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM?
But here's another question for you: Has ANYONE ever sought to take your material (films in this case) by force and destroy said material? I'll say NO!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, SAH is evil, Christian, right wing, teabaggers, conservatives, neocons, whatever, Guess what? THEY HAVE THE RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO EXPRESS THEIR STUPIDITY.
You know who DOESN'T have a right to steal and destroy private property as well as physically assault the owner of said property? THE NUTTY PROFESSOR!

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for being a sport Botany and answering. I was really just more curious than trying to make a point.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on Dr. Mireille Miller Young! We love you!

VioletFlame (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's so enlightening to read typical male assessments of this cat fight, complete with scratches. I wonder, if the male body was able to reproduce, and a male who had been raped walked by a protest such as SAH, run by seemingly inexperienced males, what would the outcome be? Judging by these comments, at the very least, a fist fight. Why? Because it is extremely insulting for someone to preach when they haven't walked in your shoes. They can't show coffins coming home from war, yet women are subjected to aborted fetuses? WAR on WOMEN is real, psychological, perpetrated by women in some cases, and disgusting. These little girls should have something better to do, but alas, somebody is willing to pay for this all to happen. Bank rolling the war on women. Pathetic.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I used to live 2 doors away from Dr. Charles Bradley, the medical director for Planned Parenthood. Protesters used to block the no outlet street and I would tell them to let me through or I was going to walk home and call the Sheriff. Their signs were gruesome but they have a right to wave them in front of adults. They do not have the right to block traffic.

When my son came home on his bicycle from grade school crying because they blocked his way and screamed and yelled and showed him, "dead baby pictures", I called the Sheriff and deputies dispersed them.

Dr. Bradley moved and the protesters began chaining themselves to his car. Dr. B had enough and went to court. He won.

Protesters used to stop public meetings of the Board of Supervisors when hearings were held in Solvang on Human Services grants. Some of the money went to Planned Parenthood. The supes did not have the intestinal fortitude to call law enforcement or to plan ahead and have law enforcement present so. . .I took my checkbook.

When the protesters started disrupting the meeting, I raised my hand to get recognized. The Board Chair knew me so he called on me and I got the microphone and handed Jean Schyler, the pres of PP, a check for $100 and said the amount would go up $10 for every 30 seconds the disruptions went on. I very pointedly looked at my watch and started counting the seconds out loud. The protesters shut up and sat down.

The point is that protesters have the right to speak but not the right to disrupt public meetings or assault and that goes for the Prof at UCSB. Do they have the right to display the signs to children? I don't think so but students, mostly adults, don't have to go near the signs or the noise.

Just my free opinion which may be freely ignored.

LHThom (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLemX...

Here's the video. After watching it I can say that these young girls are the ones who are in the wrong here... Not only are they trespassing onto a campus that they're not enrolled or a part of, they actually provoke the whole assault by touching the professor first and foremost. The sign is not even in the professors possession but instead is held by a couple of students. So I dont see it being a case of the professor stealing anything. In fact, she seems rather calm until physically provoked by the two young ladies.

This whole thing is really blown out of proportion. Not only is it not a Free Speech issue, (the University didnt stop these girls, a couple of students did) its a mountain made out of a molehill in order to draw attention to their cause.

Watch the vid. It clears up plenty of misconceptions represented by both sides.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If there explicit medical imagery?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't like the graphic imagery usage in anything but I do think it's hypocritical to say this is the only cause on campus that uses such imagery to get attention and make their point. I've seen some pretty gruesome PETA , Amnesty International, Anti War and Hunger posters in the same spots and because those causes are more inline with the majority liberal sensibilities on campus no one attacks them, either physically like this professor did or like the writer of this article does. I think it's pretty stupid for all groups to use such imagery but there appears to be a double standard being used here to defend the professor for attempting to stifle these people's free speech when everyone would be up in arms if the same thing happened at a PETA or Antiwar demonstration.

RobertGreen (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

!. Unauthorized display on campus (safety issues of all kinds you know.)
2. What a disappointment that video was, i was hoping someone got slapped or something. Instead it's just a bunch of whiny girls and an adult women cleaning the campus up.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The article says the display was in the area designated as a free-speech zone and I've seen tons of different demonstration there over the years, so your saying if anyone doesn't agree or like the demonstrators materials they can just attack them and destroy their materials. Seems like your advocating anarchy or I guess just allowing the majority to suppress and intimidate any minority views that offends them. Just seems hypocritical to me.

RobertGreen (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Total publicity stunt by right wing wacko weirdos. For all of you who posted otherwise, the Prof. did absolutely nothing criminal. She did not "possess" the sign, those young (apparently student) girls did. She was going about her business and people who are not students and who had no right to be where they were in Girvetz, attacked her and blocked her use of the elevator. That is criminal assault. The Prof. had every right to push them away. Especially now that DA Dudley is unopposed in her re-election, guarantee no criminal charges. Those SOH people should be banned from campus.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The article says the display was in the area designated as a free-speech zone and I've seen tons of different demonstration there over the years, so your saying if anyone doesn't agree or like the demonstrators materials they can just attack them and destroy their materials."

That's exactly what they're saying Robert.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They freely expressed their views. They were free to do so as per the 1st amendment but they received a backlash to their expression as a result of their use of inflammatory imagery and chosen local. The backlash was from other people, not the university or the Govt. It is not a 1st amendment issue.

The video clearly shows that the professor was not in possession of the sign nor the instigator of the physical assault. One of the girls was the instigator. And so she's in the wrong. Case closed. In CA you cannot impede the movement of another person. The foot, the pushing, all were from the alleged victims who were actually the perpetrators. Interesting.

If you spit gasoline into a fire you'll get burned. These young ladies got burned. Good lesson for two woefully naive and ignorant young girls.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lol, trespassing on campus? Last time I checked there weren't any "No Trespassing" signs and the public is welcome at UCSB.

The professor didn't have the sign in her possession in the video but she did intimidate the girls and stop them from getting on the elevator. Since they were committing a crime and stealing her materials, she was simply following to make sure her materials didn't disappear which is reasonable.

Perhaps this feminist gang should be on the injunction ;)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't care to see or defend the SOH stuff but I don't like seeing the disturbing crap from other groups too. I'd be fine with them banning all demonstrations on campus so I can just go to class and not be bothered, but no matter what they do it should be done equally and right now the only guarantee of free speech on campus seems to belong to one side of the political spectrum and harassment and attacks are fine if it's a minority conservative group. I'm not really political personally, it just seems odd to preach tolerance and then act so intolerantly. The same thing happens in majority conservative areas against liberal groups and they are rightfully demonized by the media. It just seems hypocritical to defend the intolerance and harassment just because most of us on campus don't agree with their political views.

RobertGreen (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

iamsomeguyinsb - the job of the government, in fact THE ONLY JOB the government should have is to protect individuals property and person from harm as well as protect against fraud and uphold contracts. There are laws against assault and stealing, you can't assault somebody unless you are defending yourself.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, the video seems to show the professor preventing the girls from entering the elevator, blocking their path and impeding their movement, so if what you say is true about CA law then the professor did break the law and against a minor. Maybe both groups will be charged with something, either way I just wanted to point out that everyone who's defending the professor here would be attacking her and demanding she be fired if the professor was conservative and had acted the same way to a group of liberal protestors. If some professor got mad and tried to stop an anti war rally, grabbed a sign depicting a gruesome civilian death all while harassing and intimidating a minor, most people on this board, the school paper, the university faculty and administration and media outlets across the country would be calling for the professor's head. It's just so hypocritical. Just ban all political demonstrations on campus if rights and protections aren't going to be equally enforced.

RobertGreen (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well based on the video the SAH forced their way illegally into Girvetz and then physically obstructed the elevator in a threatening manner. I thought Miller-Young was going to be the aggressor based on the initial article but now it seems the SAH girls dug their own grave by trespassing and initiating a physical assault.

the students were holding the sign the entire duration of the video and i saw no threatening behavior or aggression on their part or Miller-Young's. even though it's possible the sign was forcefully taken from them (only hearsay at this point) it doesn't justify an assault. now, backing someone into a confined space (like an elevator) and preventing their escape (the professor and students couldn't exit the elevator because the SAH were blocking their way) could be viewed differently.

i would think in that situation Miller-Young had every right to feel physically threatened and to defend herself from their assault. the girls should have called the police right away, they blew it on this attempted litigation in my opinion.

i honestly wouldn't want to see open heart surgery, dead fetuses, war mangled bodies or animals skinned alive while eating my lunch on campus. what would happen if i tried to explain this to the SAH but ended up projectile vomiting on them because i couldn't hold down my lunch as a result of the hyper-vulgar imagery they use to promote their "cause?" would that be assault?

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Given the history of violence cults like SAH have, Miller-Young had every reason to feel she needed to defend her space.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Loon, in your world there would be no UC... or any other public school or institution for that matter, Except of course, the police and the army... to protect your property ;)

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, first of all, stealing property from somebody is a violent act against them, period. If somebody steals your wallet or purse, you have a right to tackle them and use physical force to get it back. Same in this situation. So in fact, SAH had every right to use physical violence to defend their property which was stolen. It is not "hearsay" that the sign was stolen, they were walking with it on camera and the girl who owned it was trying to get it back. Since they initiated force by stealing her sign, she had every right to follow them into Girvetz in an attempt to retrieve her stolen property.

PLEASE if you are defending the professor read RobertGreen's previous post. They are a student and they see similar types of material being posted by anti-war and PETA groups.. if a conservative professor did the same thing and stole their materials, all of the liberals here would be very upset. If you were really consistent on the first amendment, you would be upset at this professor and the students for their actions. Not for the sake of SAH, but for the sake of others who want to voice their first amendment rights in the future.

Do not misconstrue this for me defending the material that they were presenting on campus, I have suggested other ways that you could get them off campus such as having a sorority in bikinis wash Chancellor Yang's car right next to them in the Arbor.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ken, what if, like some states, we allowed concealed carry on school campuses? she's a faculty member, followed into an elevator in a building on school property by two girls putting on a threatening display of unstable behavior. i think she would have had a decent enough case to invoke a "stand your ground" justification of using deadly force. oh the irony.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stockies, since the professor and students initiated the violence, if they used a gun against SAH they would be charged with murder.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

iamsomeguyinsb, in a free society UC would still exist but in private form.

The police and army wouldn't be there to protect my property, they would be there to protect EVERYBODY'S property which is extremely important in a free society. However a public police and army are not completely necessary, although I am ok with their existence as long as they limit their activities to protecting individual rights and liberty.

See anarchocapitalism or voluntaryism as opposed to minarchism.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loon, read my post again, well actually here's the part where i'm agreeing with you, "i honestly wouldn't want to see open heart surgery, dead fetuses, war mangled bodies or animals skinned alive while eating my lunch on campus."

you don't have the right to trespass and physically assault someone who's stolen property unless there's an immediate and unavoidable threat of bodily harm. they needed to call the police the moment the professor allegedly assault them and took their sign, i see the students walking with the sign in the video and no proof or witness testimony that Miller-Young was the aggressor.

my original comment when the article was first published stated that it sounded like a cut and dry over reaction and first amendment infringement by Miller-Young but i've since changed my opinion based on the video.

the issue should not be viewed through a political or ideological frame, were the SAH within their right to free speech and did the professor assault them. those are the only two real issues here.

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A gun would be considered excessive force, which it would be.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken: ". Unauthorized display on campus (safety issues of all kinds you know.)"

In YOUR opinion, but NOT the UCSB campus' "free speech" model. Get over it Ken, your hate for this group shows a biased leaning toward degrading free speech rights for 1 group & not the other while promoting illegal activity by an individual ONLY because she shares the same slant as yours.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KV - "Given the history of violence cults like SAH have, Miller-Young had every reason to feel she needed to defend her space."

If that's true, don't you think it would have been prudent for the professor not to steal their stuff?

Again, you're basing an excuse for bad/illegal conduct based on a supposed history of an organization, not on the rule of law.

Attitudes like that lead to Krystallnacht.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya see I disagree because I think police are only to be used as agents for us who can perform the same duties as citizens that we can but are hired to perform them when citizens feel a danger to their own safety.

So to say that they should have gotten the police involved and not acted themselves is incorrect, although you can hear the phone conversation in the video in which they are contacting authorities. The fact is, stealing is a violent act and if you are going to steal something you need to know that it can be met with violent consequences.

As far as having those images where they are, nobody is forced to eat lunch there. There are plenty of places around there to eat lunch. If you don't want to look at the images, then look away. It's not a big deal. Where I disagree with RobertGreen is where he says he would be ok with banning all protesting on campus. I think a campus that doesn't allow students to voice their political opinions is not a very effective campus.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looks to me from the video that the students who took the banner performed under orders from the nutty professor.
If that's the case, you got little Eichmanns running around doing the dirty work for an anti-free speech individual. Look closely, there's communication between the nutty professor & the henchwomen.
Also, Ken, trespassing on a public campus where there is a "free speech zone" established for such expressions? Dude, give it a rest, we know, we know, SAH sucks, but the Constitution backs them.

blahblahmoreblah (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've watched the video, read the articles, and lot of comments. After trying to filter through the 90% of the crap, here's how I see the facts situation.

The anti-abortion group had the right to be there to express their thoughts, but was required to notify the campus ahead of time so the campus could post warning signs about the graphic images. For the record, I have have seen graphic images from different groups over the years, but I have never seen any warning signs posted by the campus. They did not notify the campus that they were coming.

In my mind, they could have been asked to take down their graphic images by a proper authority, I'm thinking campus police.

My guess is the professor and the student's with her were unaware of this policy and/or their violation of the policy....though admittedly that's speculation on my part. In my opinion (for what it's worth), even if they were aware of this policy, they should have contacted campus police to have them deal with the situation.

Absolutely, what shouldn't have happened was to have their sign allegedly taken by force from the hands of one of the anti-abortion group members. The video did not show that part of the event, but I'm assuming there were plenty of witnesses that can confirm what happened and by whom.

The video showed, I believe, a UCSB student carrying the sign away with the professor and another student. The two girls followed them while recording the incident on a camera phone, which is understandable to me that they wanted to follow their property.

The incident at the elevator is a little fuzzy in the video, so I'll just say how it looked to me. I'm sure it will be scrutinized by the police, lawyers, and courts if it goes that far. The students and professor enter the elevator with the sign. The professor blocks the opening to the elevator to not allow the girls on. One of the girls blocks the door with her foot. The professor attempts to move the foot and the girl tries to keep the door with her arm. The video is a little too close up for the small scuffle to really tell, but it appears to my one time viewing, that the professor was trying to push the girl from the opening so the door could would close and they could be on their way with the sign.

A few more things that I read, but weren't in the video. The professor initially started a chant of tear the sign down. The girl stopped trying to block the elevator with her arm that had her cell phone, because the students were trying to take the phone from her hand, and that the girl was scratched on the arms by the professor while being pushed and pulled away from the elevator.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(Sorry, had to split my comment in two parts. I didn't know there was a limit).

Using my best judgment from all I've read and seen in the video, my take on the whole situation is...

This anti-abortion group came to campus. You can argue their intention of spreading information to stirring up trouble like this for litigation purposes. This professor didn't like seeing their graphic imagery and/or their message in general and took it upon herself to stop it. Sounds like she was trying to stir up the crowd against them, possible to tear down their sign(s). Either she or someone with her took the sign, seemingly by force (at least I haven't heard anyone saying otherwise). When stopped at the elevator, she used some level of force to get away. At least some pushing, possibly scratching (either accidentally or maybe intentionally).

No matter how you feel about the message, this professor and at least one of the students acted inappropriately in stealing the sign and using force to getaway. Everyone I have talked to about it in person here at UCSB has agreed that she acted inappropriately and very unprofessionally. Definitely not representing the University well.

It seems like most folks I've seen discussing this incident online, are blowing things out of proportion one way or the other. This is the act of one person, not representative of the University as a whole.

I believe there should be appropriate punishment for the professor and the student who carried the sign. I'm not sure the appropriate punishments, but they should fit the crime. Other folks in the court system and university hopefully will examine the facts and take the appropriate actions against those who committed the crimes.

Cheers.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Looneytunes and the rest of you attacking the Prof., the video is called evidence! The Prof. did not have "possession" of the sign, those young girls, apparently students who pay tuition, were carrying it. The SOH crazies had no right to enter Girvetz and no one has the right to block an elevator that others are in, others who have a right to be there. DA Dudley will not file criminal charges, and rightfully so. SOH should be banned from campus.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

agree for the most part loon but these girls aren't students and so they shouldn't be able to make students who are a part of the university so uncomfortable they'd have to leave a space in which they also have a right to feel safe. second, the theft had already occurred at the time the video starts, you can't barge onto private property (Givertz Hall) and assault someone because their in possession of stolen property. college campuses are a very appropriate venue for protest as long as they aren't causing physical or psychological harm to non-participants. there are plenty of feminist protests that cross the line equally as far or further than these SAH goons did, neither is in the right. i still think Miller-Young was in the wrong to either steal or instruct her students to steal the sign but clearly the SAH forced their way belligerently into Givertz and physically accosted the students and Miller-Young in the no-escape-confined-space that is an elevator with some serious aggression. i personally fear confined spaces like elevators and may have responded far more erratically and severely to such a perceived threat, though i don't steal things from people so i probably would never have been in that situation to begin with. yuck!

StockiestCastle (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm made uncomfortable by anti-war demonstrations, Occupy Wall St. demonstrations and Democratic party voter registration drives. Can we ban them too?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If SAH wants to have an impact on abortion decisions they should take their display to DP on Sat night where babies are being made; not a food court at lunch time where people are trying to eat.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just to clear one thing up, there are no restrictions on members of the public walking in the hallways or elevator of Girvetz Hall during business hours.

It seems highly reasonable to me that these girls would follow their stolen property until the police arrived.

It appeared to me in the video, that they were the ones being prevented from entering the elevator (the location of their property) by the professor.

When their sign was found, it had been destroyed.

jongaucho (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, it's definitely being blown out of proportion now, this is just one professor, not the university. She was definitely at fault here and there is definitely a hypocritical double standard at play on campus because of the politics of the demonstrators but I don't believe the professor will receive any punishment from the school unless there are criminal charges filed, even then only a slap on the wrist with the university emphasizing any provocation they can sell to the like minded campus population. The university admin should reprimand her and punish her to some degree but they can't afford to because in this litigious society if the university admits the professor is at fault it would not only upset the vast majority of the like minded faculty it would encourage these girls to sue and get more publicity. Ultimately the professor was wrong, put the university in a bad position and behaved in a manner ill befitting her position. She should have just called campus police if she believed these people were doing something wrong, maybe she already had and was told nothing could be done or just let her emotions and political beliefs overcome her and forgot she didn't have the authority to behave the way she did. Still, she will be protected because the university has little choice but to protect her, it doesn't make it right though. Hopefully this just goes away quickly and the university quietly reminds faculty members about the rules and the expectations on their behavior in the future.

RobertGreen (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In response to jgaucho who tries to sound like he knows what he is talking about, there is accepted practice, and there are the legalities that come out when there is an 'Incident." I am certain that if asked in a legal setting University Regent authorized personal would say that Girvetz is not open to the general public, a homeless transient would not be welcome roaming Girvetz, and there are any number of areas on campus that are not open to the general public, and I am certain the Regents would assert their right to prevent anyone who is not staff or student from coming on campus and I am glad of that. A UC campus is a special place in our society and we do not need publicity seeking, provocative, violent non-students on campus. These SOH people are not part of the student population, they are provocative trouble makers and they have no "right" to be on campus, and certainly no right to obstruct a Professor and registered students from using the elevator in Girvetz.

sbreader (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only legal issues will be theft and assault - odds are the faculty member and students are charged with slap on the hand misdemeanors. They also will have to deal with punishment from the University if it chooses to get involved, with Miller-Young probably dashing her future with the UC system due to a error in judgement.

-The other issues some have tried to wave are bogus
- its a open campus as spoken to by the University spokesperson in the article regardless what sbreader says (hint might want to read the article)
-You can pursue someone who has stolen your property, and since Miller-Young can be seen directing the students in the video, she would be viewed as a accomplice or party to the theft.
- Its offensive without a doubt but since photos of victims of air raids/tortured animals etc have been viewed at the free speech area presented by other groups in the past. A precedent already exists that it doesn't rise to a level where you can argue it could be banned.
-Its doesn't rise to grand theft (its a homemade poster) nor strong arm since there was not a implied threat of violence.

The free speech issue while its clear it was infringed on, should present no legal peril to them as it would take a Federal prosecution or CA DOJ to really do anything about that, which won't happen. Miller-Young and friends took the bait from some zealots and will now have to pay a price for their lack of restraint.

pointssouth (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This sign was removed because they knew it could sway hearts and minds. The 'people are upset by it' argument is a disingenuous ploy to have that you disagree with removed. This women was indulging in good old fashioned meeting breaking.

The fact she is professor who influences you minds is appalling. The irony is she has a porn video up on her Vimeo account, (google her).

ZimbaZumba (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 11:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

*young minds

ZimbaZumba (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I find any authoritarian action or opinion offensive.

I think that this woman's actions were offensive, and I hope there are repercussions.

I think that Darrell Issa's recent authoritarian act of cutting off allowable discussion offensive, and I hope there are repercussions.

In my mind, there is no difference between the two.

I think that those who cannot see that some people from both sides of the aisle overstep their roles, and highlight only one side - also highly offensive.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want to understand why our country and our world is so screwed up, read the comments on the YouTube video. Nothing could be more telling of the state of stupidity and ignorance than the voices of the masses represented on that page/site.

We're totally screwed as a society with so many uneducated, ignorant, stupid people out there having so many babies.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You mean your parents?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow LaBotany, you're really proving my points better than I ever could.

Thanks for playing. You're really doing a great job proving you're indeed an idiot. I dont have to point it out anymore! Since you remove all doubt... Keep trying though, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why in the world would the professor want to remove those photos? Don't pro-abortion folks just consider an unborn baby just a clump of cells? Or as Howard Stern puts it: "a blood clot"? Why would the professor think that pictures of a "blood clot" be offensive?

Palosrob (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Palo, since you're probably a dude, you'll never understand. Your comment proves you just as uneducated, immature, and brainwashed (religion?) as these little girls calling these women 'terrorists' in the video. There are few ugly's in this world as stupid.

spacey (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While I do believe a woman should have a choice, this professor's behaviour is despicable. What a joke of a professor. Firstly, she teaches useless garbage and got into NYU no doubt as a result of Affirmative Action i.e. reverse racism. Secondly, she incited, attacked and stole from others--teenage girls no less. The intellectual (blaaaahhh) professor only likes free speech when she wants to speak and show her trash in class.

The other thing that greatly disturbs me here is that the mainstream media is completely blacking out this story. That is shameful and deceitful of them to ignore this story.

Shame on the university as well for hiring her and offering such useless classes about porn.

thequidnunc (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sort of reminds me of what happened Dec 13, San Juan, Argentina. A violent assault by a feminist pro-abortion mob. .....ugly scene: a cursing, half-naked throng of hate-filled women,,,,, molesting, assaulting and spray-painting (mostly faces and crotches ) of men who did not retaliate, but keeled or stood arm-in-arm, praying while being kicked, spat upon and cursed.
The cathedral itself suffered some damage along the outside, but the interior was not broached....... the police stood by and did nothing, as they were directed to do.,,,, And of course despite the fact that this was clearly a news-worthy event with obviously compelling video readily available, the media turned away. To the agenda-driven media, it’s the wrong story: Catholics are not to be portrayed as peaceful victims in the culture wars, and the defenders of abortion and the LGBT agenda — the perpetrators of these crimes — must not be portrayed as the aggressors. Hence, nothing to see here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPUvUY...

fishingbobber (anonymous profile)
March 14, 2014 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

thequidnunc = racist

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Porn classes at UCSB are quite useful and respected worldwide.

The reason the mainstream media isn't interested in this dumb story is because Russia has invaded the Ukraine, a plance has gone missing under mysterious circumstances, and a host of other problems are occuring that make this a tempest in a teapot.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany is correct on this one and is one of the few not letting emotion get in the way of fact. Im also pro-choice and dont agree with the message or tactics of SAH but the law is very clear on this. It's interesting that only a couple comments have even attempted to dispute the clear free speech argument presented by Botany and others.

In no lawyer, but the only real limit on First Amendment speech I am aware of is the imminent danger clause that was used during the civil rights movement (think KKK demonstrations in predominantly African American neighborhoods). The specific language referred to by the court has changed over time but you basically have to prove the action "is likely to incite imminent lawless action." Considering protests similar to SAH's at UCSB have occurred peacefully thousands of times previously, I dont see how that can possibly meet the threshold.

Furthermore, Ken's idea of suing SAH is a non-starter proven by the Westboro Baptist case (who also does not trip the imminent danger threshold) which was an 8-1 ruling that you cannot sue for emotional distress for a public topic in a public place, no matter how outrageous the claims (slander notwithstanding but that's a different argument/suit which also doesnt apply in UCSB's case and is very hard to prove even in a good case).

Legally SAH is clearly in the right on this case, but most folks here want to let emotion dictate the outcome of a constitutionally protected right. Perhaps more interesting is the status of Mrs. Miller-Young's employment at the university and what the consequences are if this case moves forward and she's found guilty of xyz (I realize that is speculatory). What is the offense threshold for termination at UCSB? Does tenure or union status matter?

Bajades (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr. Miller-Young has done more than demonstrate her lack of self-control, and intolerance for views other than her own, she has committed a crime. She is at best an accomplice to theft of property. And guilty of assault and battery. The photos of scratches on that 16 year old girls arm document the battery. Look up Ca code for battery. Funny also...all this alarm about "gruesome" "medical" photos. We always hear that this is nothing more than a non-viable blob of cells, certainly it's not a human life lurking in there. And heck we want late term abortion and WE WANT IT NOW! I have to look at that horrid thing with a head and fingers and toes and Holy Crap it looks something almost like me! Oh please....You've seen worst in a Walking Dead preview. Spare us your tender nauseated feelings that suddenly blossom to the surface while you try to eat your bean sprout salads. What hypocrites. Stop with the OOohhh they shouldn't be there with the scary disgusting hurtful pictures crap. Oh but I just love the idea of fighting Free Speech with Free Speech! It is the way it is done. The only way. Especially having the "Hotties in Bikinis" doing a Car Wash next to the Pro Life Protest. Yup.....The Wymens Studies Group will surely applaud that move. Can you think up any more incongruent concepts there buddy? As for the name of the Pro-life protest group? Actually it is spot on. 55 million(and counting) have ended up looking like those "Cells" plastered on those posters, only 6+ in the ovens of the Nazis. But forget all that. That's actually not even the point. If you are such a coward that you compare a Campus to a Crowded Theater and this is screaming "Fire" to you, then you are not emotionally or intellectually Fit to be on a College Campus. Clearly "Dr" Miller-Young is not fit to be teaching on one. Intolerant fascists the lot of you. In this and so many other areas. Race, Abortion, Environment, Economy, sad little "ism's" completely intolerant to ANY thoughts other than whats been driven into those little brownshirt jackstep skulls. Now you call being Open Minded "hate speech", to the point of even driving paid speakers off of campuses. Reap what you sow. Brazen anti-First Amendment Professors like this Thug.

veronicajones (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't it wonderful that women can hire people to kill the living human inside them? How empowering! Go women! Yay!

Especially when the primary reason women get abortions is to maintain their socio-economic status or for some reason of financial or other convenience.

All of the people chanting against the SAH are proud supporters of these women being able to kill their unborn living humans. It's clearly an empowering and good for women.

Stand proud for the convenient and preventable choice of death and human destruction! Women's rights to kill their unborn pregnancies forever.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Ken --Very simplistic reasoning--Do you people ever think deeply about such fatuous reasoning?

There is news about ducks dying from no fish due to frozen rivers, MS new operating system, Apple's new iPhone, petty theft, Kardashian/Bieber garbage etc...
duhhhh.. Do you think the news only has space for one story?

@iamsomeguy-Can you elaborate on your deep reasoning abilities that led you to calling me a racist?
For the record, I have an Asian wife and my mother was from South America. My children will also never use Affirmative Action because my wife and I know our children will succeed in all endeavours they embark upon without reference to the color of their skin.

thequidnunc (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think Ill Repute being feted by the Oxnard City Council is a much bigger story than this one.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 15, 2014 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't you just love all the liberals on this thread who say, "We have the right to do and say what WE want, BUT, you don't have the right to do and say what YOU want!"

Can't wait to hear from all you bleeding heart liberals when a conservative student takes something from a bleeding heart liberal. Oh wait, that rarely happens if ever. Silly me…..

Priceless (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems to me there needs to be some "management" of the free speech plaza. Students are probably not allowed to stand out there stark naked, or act out a rape, or have placards with pornographic images. It sounds like these graphic and disturbing photos fall into those categories. Do they have a right to proselytize their ideas, of course, but there is a limit to what should be allowed. As to the professor, this was an error of judgement on her part as these Westboro Baptist imitators are jumping with glee at the kerfuffle that has resulted. Was their "assault"? I sure didn't see any. Of course, their disgusting placard was ruined, but they are quite overjoyed at the whole thing. The professor needs to be wiser. Horrific, overtly sexual, shocking images need to be addressed by a committee and rules need to be made.

praireylark (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

agree praireylark, and Miller-Young stupidly (and illegally) played right into the hands of the anti-abortion elements. There must be some sort of light management of the free speech plaza -- a relative who works at UCSB has mentioned how Christian activists [not these] press close and hound her with their religious message. The placard is disgusting, but free speech cuts both ways and Miller-Young's fanaticism matches those of the anti-abortion fanatics.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The professor is and will suffer enough for her mistake while the provacateurs cry crocodile tears.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bottom Line. Period. The End.

College campus have always been a place for debate and open dialogue.

The faculty have been charged with protecting that right and encouraging the debate.

If this professor disagreed with the message fine. She was free to disagree and set up counter protest.

Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young chose to do neither. She chose to steal the sign and assault the young girl.

It matters not at all what the message was and if your ranting about the organization that the girls are representing it shows only that your not intelligent enough to see the point and only interested in your side. Hence your just as much the problem as anyone.

This professor needs to be prosecuted for assault, violation of free speech (Civil Rights) and theft. As should her students that assisted in this outrageous behavior.

Bottom Line. Period. The End.

tcoon (anonymous profile)
March 16, 2014 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Prarielark
Yes stark naked is freedom of speech, there has been more than 1 naked protest there, I remember the ladies wearing grocery nags over their head and nothing else, protesting for the rights of women,,, I really could not make this up

dadof3 (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freedom of speech really shouldn't be obscenity with no point. Although these photos are tasteless and disgusting, they have a point of view that they should be free to make. And these posters are part of that point of view.

However, nudity and obscenity in and of itself is not speech. Freedom of speech should not give someone the right to masturbate in public let's say. And nudity that's only meant to draw attention to the point of view that one wants to make and not relevant to that point of view should propably not be considered "speech" either. e.g. If these protesters were nude when they protested, their nudity should not be considered "free speech".

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

thequidnunc - "Firstly, she teaches useless garbage and got into NYU no doubt as a result of Affirmative Action i.e. reverse racism. "

A clear statement of prejudice and racism as I have ever read... assumption and prejudice running rampant in your statement as your aligning her race with her position and beyond... And to throw in the "my wife is Asian?"... Holy crap dude, get a clue! You're about as typical of the old Archie Bunker racist as I've ever encountered...

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We need to fire this professor.

http://www.change.org/petitions/chanc...

As Noam Chomsky said, "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." Please know that this is not to show support for Pro-Life. This is to show support for our freedom of speech, our laws, and justice.

Labman22 (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gotta go to Paul Simon's "The Boxer"…"a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Or perhaps better paraphrased here, "…and censors all the rest."

And a note for anyone hurling malicious monikers at other commenters: think very carefully about using the word "intellectual" or "anti-intellectual" in your comments.

It's a dead giveaway.

(P.S. – for those wishing to quibble with "a 'man' hears", it is genderless. No pun intended.)

virtuallynothing (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I saw the poster in the days prior to the teardown.

The poster was really gross. Barf-inducing. Anyone who defends the placement of that poster should consider whether they would support posting of a graphic, huge photo of a dismembering, or a gang rape, or a painful torture, like, pulling someones genitals off or peeling their skin off with a blowtorch.

Miller-Young absolutely broke the law and deserves a sentence in jail.

But boy was I glad she got that disgusting barf-inducing poster off of the plaza. As glad as I'd be if someone tore down a huge pornographic poster.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dearest snugspout:

I hope you vividly remember that the "barf-inducing" images you detest are actual living humans that have been suctioned, artificially mis-carried, dismembered with scissors and chemically "scalded" between week 4 and week 22 of pregnancy.

These are the images of abortion by choice and for convenience (93% of the time according to planned parenthood).

These are the images of "women's power" and 'feminism" applied to pregnancy.

Barf.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
March 17, 2014 at 7:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

realitycheck88 - How many babies have you adopted? How many do you care for? How much money do you give to orphanages? How much time do you donate to child welfare causes?

Right...

So instead of preaching your myopic and antiquated (read: stupid) ideals, go out in the real world and do some actual work to aide the millions of children born into the world by parents who were not able or willing to care for them and until you have spent every last penny, every waking hour every ounce of effort, you have no right to tell anyone how or what they can do with their bodies or their lives. People like you suck.

iamsomeguyinsb (anonymous profile)
March 18, 2014 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That's absolutely Right realitycheck. Until you devote the rest of your life to children and orphans, spend every last dime, drop every last drop of sweat where I tell you to, then it is indeed morally correct and true that those blobs of cells, embryos, zygotes, fetuses, humans, whatever the heck you deign to call them, are fair game to be ripped asunder with medical instruments, sucked apart with vacuums, or scalded and blistered with hypertonic saline. Intact pain sensing nervous systems or not dammit. And how dare you have the utter gall to confront me with an actual photograph of my moral decision. On such a pretty day. So I, I, ME, I can tell you what to Think and how to behave and if you don't I will rip the sign from your hands or jail you. Because THAT is what a pathetic, immature sense of morality that I developed somewhere in my carnal shallow undeveloped life. The culture of death. The ease to turn to hate instead of self reflection and examination. And btw if nudity and 'gross' is now such an affront to all these enlightened ethical young learners may I ask that my tax dollars no longer used to support art that is nothing more than a Bullwhip inserted in a young mans Anus or , 'PissChrist'? Or maybe open S&M in San Fran during Gay Pride week? ( How deep and Groovy it all is...Maybe they should have a college course on porno next. Hey they do and you pay tuition for it! LOL That will help the job hunt! ) Personally I don't care but you sound like prudes and are inconsistent methinks only with ideas you don't approve. IOW, Hypocrites. The lot of ya.

veronicajones (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sealion, woman are not the people who are monkeys, as the Rolling Stones have explained.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3CIhG...

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 19, 2014 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But then again, he mentions about wanting a monkey woman.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 1:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, realitycheck88, not everyone agrees those were humans. Definitely potential humans.

As to photographs of our moral choices… generally photos of the atrocities that the US Military perpetrated on Native Americans, or on Vietnamese at My Lai, or in Afghanistan or Iraq are not displayed on giant posters where people like me can unintentionally happen upon them. I guess the Survivors ministry is comfortable with rape by bayonet that US Soldiers have committed from time to time with impunity.

It is a pretty good rule: no matter what, don't put anything intentionally in a public space that will make people barf, no matter how strongly you feel you are right in showing that thing.

I successfully have avoided Gay Pride Week, the Folsom Street Fair, pornographic movies, etc… by just not attending them. I don't think it was ever possible to happen upon PissChrist on a random walk on a UCSB plaza.

I'm not much of a pro-choice person, I just don't have strong feelings about the issue. So many spontaneous miscarriages happen that are not treated by any religion or by the pro-life folks as a true human death (how many people name and hold burial services for miscarriages?) that I think pro-life people are trumping up their outrage over human-induced abortion.

I mildly dislike abortion.

I detest, however, people putting barf-inducing images of any sort on giant posters in a public place that I walk through.

snugspout (anonymous profile)
March 20, 2014 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: