Page 2 of 17
Posted on March 30 at 9:26 p.m.
Well, looks like the anti-abortion protestors violated UC regulations concerning signs that were too big.
Perhaps all Miller-Young was doing was enforcing the regulations.
And then these protestors resisted a campus faculty member who was merely enforcing the regulations. The protestors perhaps were openly disrespectful of both the regulations and a faculty member who was enforcing the rules.
On UCSB Professor Charged with Theft and Battery
Posted on March 27 at 10:48 a.m.
All the pre-March 2014 comments are quite positive. After that, probably mostly sock puppets and trolls who never took her class posted.
Posted on March 24 at 12:05 p.m.
Sure, a `graphic image' zone could be placed anywhere on campus 1000' from any establishment that sells or prepares food, or any place where food is regularly consumed (like picnic tables put out for public use).
You'll quickly find that any spot like that has no foot traffic.
It is not at all clear to me that graphic images are speech in the first place, but that is splitting legal hairs. It took a huge long set of court cases for flag burning to fall under `free speech'. I'm not at all sure I agree with that, simply because a flag has a very special significance during battle, and burning one inflames soldiers who have been through real battles.
In any case, the disgusting images posted in the Arbor Mall were incompatible with the normal activity of that particular place at that particular time. I think that is a normal restriction on `free expression'. But I"m no attorney.
Posted on March 24 at 11:43 a.m.
@DrDan, I disagree. Barf-inducing posters right next to a cluster of restaurants and food trucks is *not* within the realm of free speech or free expression. The extremity of the posters is amplified by the fact that neither the Independent nor any other media outlet has published the actual photos… (here is a link, don't click it unless you are prepared and have a strong stomach):
Getting that poster out of the Arbor Mall was most certainly the proper thing.
Miller-Young's method of doing so was most probably illegal and certainly rude. Indeed she should have known how to do it right, by lodging proper complaints. But this was not a story of an out-of-control liberal professor subjecting meek but stalwart protestors to a whomping. It was the story of agents provocateurs putting an absolutely disgusting giant image next to a lunch spot where hundreds of people might well barf due to the image.
Miller-Young's basic logic was sound. Disgusting images like that have no place in the public space next to a lunch spot. There are limits on free expression… people can't decide to butcher a few cattle on the street outside your house, DrDan. One can go on and on with other examples. Making people barf by a restaurant falls squarely over the line.
So for me, I have to agree that Miller-Young did the right thing but in the wrong way. She will pay, just like police who make minor mistakes when arresting a murderer have to pay with the agony of seeing the murderer go free. But like the police, Miller-Young mostly did the right thing.
Posted on March 24 at 8:51 a.m.
Young most likely mentioned the slave holding of some of the Founders because it points out that you don't have to be perfect to do the right thing. You don't have to agree with the protestors to let them protest. Plenty of conservative groups have David Horowitz, Ann Coulter, Karen Hughes, etc on the UCSB campus. Henry Yang is a close friend of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, which no-one at UCSB complains about.
Whatever the purpose, the posters were placed right next to a lunch spot where the protestors should never have posted such barf-inducing images.
The main thing the protestors accomplished disgusting people who might otherwise have supported them. The protestors showed they didn't give a darn about making regular people barf, who were carrying or eating their lunch. People like that should never be listened to no matter what they say.
On UCSB Administrator Issues Statement on Free Speech
Posted on March 23 at 5:45 p.m.
The type of image showed next to the Arbor (lunch spot) Plaza at UCSB, with no warning…. (don't click unless you are mentally and physically prepared)
Sorry, if showing that next to take-out restaurants with no warning is not, in my opinion, within the limits of free speech. Not a single news outlet that I've seen that is publicizing the Miller-Young case is actually showing the images we are talking about… they are too graphic for publication anywhere.
As I said, Miller-Young broke the law. She must do the time for her crime. But I applaud her, she made the plaza more civilized.
Posted on March 23 at 2:02 p.m.
In the eyes of good taste and civility, barf-inducing posters are reprehensible.
Al Capone only went to jail on income tax violations, but he was a murderer. The law is imperfect.
Saying that Miller-Young did was `assault' is mere legal exaggeration by cowards.
When I've visited hospitals to see my loved ones ***I CHOOSE THE TIME, MY STATE OF MIND, AND THE STATE OF MY STOMACH***. When a barf-indicng poster is placed next to my regular lunch spot **WITH NO WARNING** I get to choose none of those.
Has conservatism declined in this country down to the squalor of insisting on the posting of disgusting giant posters of blood and entrails without warning in public spaces? That is a gross embarrassment. What would Goodie Knight think?
Hey howgreenwasmyvalley, why not post your home address so you can be subject to huge disgusting posters in your visual fields? I'll tell you why you don't, because you too find it revolting. You'd tear them down too. Good for you.
And good for Miller-Young, who cleared the Arbor Plaza of disgusting barf-inducing imagery. She made the world a whole lot better.
Posted on March 23 at 1:54 p.m.
Nobody `proper' would post giant barf-inducing images in a public space next to a lunch spot. Freedom of speech never should cover making people sick with revolting images, whatever the political intent.
Only disgusting, tasteless, ill-educated people do such a rotten thing.
All of you who support the demonstrators: why not post your addresses so the protestors can post giant images of sliced up fetuses with their entrails leaking out, ***SO YOU CAN SEE THEM ALL THE TIME OUT YOUR WINDOWS***? I can tell you why you don't: you don't want revolting barf-inducing images in the public space either. Good for you.
Miller-Young certainly did the proper thing that any polite, respective person must support. She did so rudely. She broke the law. She'll pay the price.
But all who believe in civilized, proper, public spaces must support her
Posted on March 23 at 9:38 a.m.
What a bunch of irrelevant drivel. This is about some impolite protestors debasing the public space next to a lunch spot with barf-inducing posters. If you support them then you support giant disgusting posters everywhere, like in front of your house.
In this case, Miller-Young acted like a true conservative, she supported decorum and politeness in the public space. She must do the time but I for one am glad she did the crime.
Posted on March 22 at 4:14 p.m.
Certainly it is extreme to post large barf-inducing images right next to a lunch spot, the Arbor. One look and I almost lost my lunch. Actually, now, I wish I had barfed all over the young lady who approached me as I walked by. She was aggressive, but that did not bother me.
Disgusting, barf-inducing images in public do bother me.
I simply don't think free speech includes the right to cause people to barf in public. Right next to a lunch spot. That goes for barf-inducing images of *any* political leaning, whether of butchered fetuses or dead babies skewered by the bayonets of US soldiers.
UCSB should move its `free speech' spot 1000 feet away from any place that sells food or any vending machine, and require protesters with barf-inducing images to issue multiple warnings prior to their barf-inducing stuff.
But the protestors still showed a lack of respect for passers-by. I'm glad Miler-Young took the poster and destroyed it, but no doubt she broke the law and has to accept the consequences.