Young Americans for Liberty works for free speech

Young Americans for Liberty, a student organization, spoke out yesterday about restrictions on free speech at the University of Kansas. The group set up tables in front of Watson Library and had a ‘Free Speech Wall’ where students could write whatever they felt, without repercussion.

Young Americans for Liberty handed out Constitution pamphlets to emphasize the restrictions Kansas places on free speech.

Young Americans for Liberty handed out Constitution pamphlets to emphasize the restrictions Kansas places on free speech. -Julianna Tidwell

The group also passed out 250 Constitution pamphlets to passers by in an attempt to make students realize free speech restrictions on the Kansas campus.

“KU could take away the policies of restricting chalking, tabling and putting up flyers in the dorms,” Tabitha Marcotte, a junior from Hays said. “I think that would be a huge step.”

Another restriction they hope to eliminate are the free speech zones on campus. For example, zoning restrictions on certain areas of campus.

“We are trying to promote the activism and the education of individuals,” Anthony Orwick, a freshman from Leawood said. “We want to change the ideas that the campus doesn’t have.”

He said that Kansas has no right to tell where a student can or cannot speak. They hoped that the Constitution pamphlets they passed out would bring students to that realization.

Young Americans for Liberty is working with its members to have more events in the upcoming months to raise awareness of free speech rights.

“Those rights are guaranteed to you by the First Amendment no matter what you say,” Orwick said.

Edited by Rachel Schultz

By
  • Updated Sep. 20, 2011 at 12:31 am
  • eljakeo

    The restrictions on chalking, tabling, and fliers are not to restrict free speech. They’re there so that our campus doesn’t start resembling a teenage girls’ MySpace page.

    Also, as you can see here:

    http://www.yaliberty.org/about/mission

    Young Americans for Liberty are basically anarchists. That is okay, because I also believe in free speech, I just think everyone should know what they are dealing with.

  • tetagh

    The page you presented includes this group being modeled after the principles of the Founding Fathers. Endorsing the very creation of a government is far from anarchy, a more accurate term would be minarchism, or endorsing limited government.

    Regardless of the intent of KU’s policies on chalking, tabling, and fliers, the fact still remains that KU is a public institution that is subject to the US and Kansas Bill of Rights, both which say we have the right to freely speak and cannot be prevented from exercising it. Furthermore, only recently have fliers and chalking been restricted in the dorms and on campus. It was not so chaotic beforehand so as to impair movement or, god forbid, be ugly.

  • BaneMaler

    YAL promotes the Constitution and limited government principles. We intend to liberate students with those ideas that founded this country. It is critical that students understand the difference and recognize when their civil liberties are being violated by administrators. This is the essence of our free society. Apologists of such an administration the regulates those rights inherent to all of us have a lot to learn about freedom and what legions in this country have fought to defend and preserve and believe YOU are a child that needs to be dictated to as the poster classicly demonstrates above.

  • eljakeo

    As someone who has fought for this country and who knows many others who have as well, I find it fairly presumptuous of you to tell me what we have fought for. I realize it is easy for you to use the tired rhetoric. You say that your ideas are what people fought and died for and that your ideas are the same ones that this country was founded on. I can tell you that neither I nor anyone I’ve talked to fought because they wanted Johnny’s Tavern to be able to chalk their Tuesday drink specials on Wescoe Beach. And just as you have no authority to tell me why people have fought for this country, you also have no authority on the intentions of those who founded our country. I credit Congressman Paul’s organization: It is clever of you to draw attention to your ideologically extreme political views through one of the few issues that people from across the political spectrum agree on (by this, of course, I mean free speech and not the ability to plaster “Jobs for students! $14 base/appt.” wallpaper all over the dorms). The fact is, your idealist system might work in a world full of perfect people, but we are not in that world and your ideas are useless in the world we inhabit. That being said, I am thankful that you can speak your mind and I can speak mine. I just happen to disagree, and I don’t think you should presume to use the people who have gallantly defended this country for your political needs.

  • ap13

    I wholeheartedly agree with eljakeo! The moment I read this article, I immediately realized that those YAL kids are trying to make something out of nothing. It is obvious that KU has rules in place to keep the campus looking a certain way. As a student or a parent on a visit to the university, I would definitely be turned off if the walkway by the union looked like White Owl’s car. KU isn’t trying trying to prohibit a message, they’re trying to preserve an aesthetic. I couldn’t agree more with the previous comment. Americans didn’t fight the Revolutionary War for the freedom to post advertisements in inappropriate and aesthetically unpleasing areas. To equate the two situations is a gross mistake and misinterpretation by the YAL. Maybe they should rename themselves Young Americans for Ridiculous Ideas Just to Cause Trouble for the Sake of Causing It. Kinda long, but more indicative of what the group actually stands for. Even when I don’t agree with people’s beliefs, I can understand where they are coming from and their reasoning 95% of the time. This, unfortunately, is not one of those times.

  • BaneMaler

    Sorry ap13 and eljakeo, but our information is backed up by law. Now if you do not believe in the rule of law then that is an entirely different case altogether. Freedom of speech wasn’t intended to make you feel good about yourself. It is to preserve the ability for each of us to have a voice, whether you agree with that voice or not. In addition, some of these “rules” that you refer to have been created in the last year. I certainly don’t remember seeing a campus as you describe with literature littering the halls just a year ago. This is an unfounded statement and dishonest to the readership. Something else you may not realize is that flyers were banned in the dorms supposedly to save paper, NOT to prevent clutter as you have assumed. However, it is not the campus’ business what I decide to print up and distribute to my fellow students. Their attempts to “save paper” for whatever reason will not work and is a symbolic gesture to score brownie points with some other group that is in the business of feeling good about themselves. It won’t work.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is an organization that rates schools on how they follow the rule of law on campus. Our school has had a red light status (the worst you can get) for many years for numerous violations. In a court of law the campus would not be able to defend the speech codes it has in place. So why have them? To make the two of you happy? I am sorry that you also are tired of hearing about what the founders believed and their intentions in laying the stage for a society that respects the rights of its people including you and me. It doesn’t surprise me that you were not taught what that oath meant as we have our modern military engaged in undeclared wars across the globe and I would wager that doesn’t bother you. Fortunately, there are many veterans who have woken up to this and care about defending this country and the Constitution. The subversion of the Constitution is all around us and it is transforming our ability to live as free people. This is but one issue we hope to present and challenge both the administration and the students this year. I am glad that it has challenged each of you.

  • eljakeo

    Lol. Okay Glenn Beck. Good luck getting your crazy-ass insanity agenda anywhere. If I were Ron Paul, I would not want you be the ones representing me on KU campus. But since you are (perhaps the story should have mentioned that?) I think it makes it pretty plain what kind of world we would live in if he is elected.

  • Calvin

    I almost spit up my Tea when I read about some knuckle head claiming he (she?) knew more about the oath military people take that someone who has lived it.

  • pvtsham

    Its sad eljakeo that you are in the military and you don’t understand your first amendment rights. Half of the students in the YAL group including myself are veterans. As a veteran I took an oath to uphold in defend the constitution foreign and domestic. The first amendment states;
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    KU does not have the authority to infringe on that right. Since you took the oath to defend the constitution as well elijakeo, maybe you would like to join our group since that is what our group is all about.

  • JustinV

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.
    -Benjamin Franklin-

    A Johns Hopkins University student posts a Halloween invitation to a fraternity/sorority party. This invitation had some hip-hop lingo. To make a long story, short, he was suspended from the university. Did this student have the attention to offend? No. Currently the Supreme Court determines free speech to be acceptable, as long as it is not intentionally creating a hostile environment. Johns Hopkins believes that any speech that can be construed as offensive, regardless of intent, should be punished.

    The University of Kansas views fall in line with the views of Johns Hopkins University. YAL wants to inform their fellow KU classmates, that their civil liberties are being violated by the universities policies.

    The first amendment of the great Constitution of the United States of America, in all its glory, is as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Abridging – to reduce in scope or to shorten duration or extent.

    The government, federal, state, and university, reduces the scope of our messages by dictating the time, place, and manner in which we may present them. For example, if you wanted to protest the war, they could tell you the best place will be your future jail cell, at about midnight, and only if you don’t wake your cell-mates.

    In address to eljakeo, to claim that the military does not defend free speech is to claim that you were never in the military. I know you don’t believe me, so I will give you undeniable proof. The very oath that I gave upon my entrance into the U.S. Air Force, “I, JustinV, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    In case you missed it, “I, JustinV, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The military definitely fights to protect free speech.

    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    -Benjamin Franklin-

  • eljakeo

    You are really offensive on top of crazy. I know what oath I took and what it meant. I never said that people in the military don’t fight to defend the freedom of speech. What I said was that we don’t fight because we give two s**ts about fliers in the dorms and sidewalk chalk. These are not free speech issues. The fact that you are not only confusing them but launching into obnoxious soliloquies based on arguments that no one but you is even making is causing me weariness. It is frustrating and pointless to argue with idiots, and you, my friends, are idiots. So, please, feel free continue to spout your asinine interpretation of the Constitution and cheapen the sacrifice that our military members have made to get attention for your presidential candidate.This argument is pointless.

  • Savage

    Obviously some rules are needed. If no chalking regulations were in place, what is preventing an anti-YAL group from erasing the chalk of YAL and chalking a different message in its stead? Would YAL be okay with this?

    It is wonderful YAL is raising awareness about the ideas of liberty and limited government, but it is quite another thing to claim its first amendment-protected rights are being violated. This just isn’t the case.

  • JustinV

    “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.” -Joseph Dunninger-

    You are right eljakeo, this argument is pointless. The irony of the situation is that your comments would be a violation of university policy. As a student, you could be suspended for the use of language that could be considered offensive. This is the very situation that YAL is trying to protect their classmates from.

  • Calvin

    I could make some comments about the oath that I took upon entering the US Navy but I think that has been taken care of already. Instead I will point out the obvious. The first amendment of the US Constitution limits the power of government, the FEDERAL government. Every state has it’s own constitution with their own list of rights and limitations on government. So you argument is without merit in a legal sense. The University of Kansas is not the University of the United States: Kansas branch. To belabor the even more; the US Constitution puts limits on the actions of the federal legislature and the executive branch not a school in the middle of the country. Of course (considering the caliber of your intial argument) your rights are still protected by the US Constitution within the framework of state, local, and university laws. You have the RIGHT to hold a Nazi rally on campus if the campus allows any rallies on campus. Now they could limit what kind of rallies if that limits were enforced universally. The university rules about chalking are universal without regard to content.
    So like a military person you have your full rights but (unlike so many on the outside) you are also fully responsible for what you say or do. Once again I believe I need to explain further. I can call the commanding officer of my ship a horse’s ass if I wanted but I will have to look forward to my responsibilties under the rules according to the rules of the UCMJ

    Before I go, look up the term “fighting words” and the Supreme Court ruling. This goes back to about 1800.

  • JustinV

    Thank you, Calvin, for taking the time to formulate such a thorough argument. You brought up some interesting points. Yes, the US Constitution is a document that establishes and governs the federal government. However, this does not grant the states the right to disregard the individual rights declared in the Constitution. I will refer you to the 10th amendment of the US Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is a awkward sentence construction, so I will break it down. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The powers not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.

    While a state university can set up its own rules and regulations, it cannot infringe upon individual rights granted by the state or federal government. Just because a rule, law, or code applies universally to all groups, does not mean they are right, just, or fair.

    While one of the first Supreme Court rulings on free speech was in the 1800′s, it would be foolish to think that it was the last ruling. Unless, you chose to disbelieve the existence of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War.

  • Calvin

    I think the 1800 ruling most demonstrates the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. For those who don’t like research I will expound. The term “fightin words” was the phrase handed down in a case concerning free speech rights. The court found that political free speech was protected but an insult or slur against an individual was not protected. If one man told another man that his wife was a slut then he could expect no constitutional protection. Any word or phrase that in normal circumstances would be expected to provoke a negative response or action were considered “fightin words”. Imagine how many TV reporters or talk show hosts would be sporting bandages if that concept still prevailed.

  • doesNOTselldrugs

    I’m going to ignore what’s been going on before this.

    Part of the Freedom of Speech is a Freedom to seek redress from the government. What effort has YAL made to address the restrictions on chalking, tabling, etc.? These are all restrictions covered by the Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities. In addition, they’re policies enforced by the University Events Committee and the SILC office. These are organizations overseen by Student Senate, which is open to all students. Specifically, these issues could be addressed during the Student Rights Committee. To what extent does YAL attend these meetings?

    As an activist, I think it’s important not just to acknowledge that ‘Wow, we put on a protest! We’re pretty awesome.’ But that some people in any organization are thinking ‘now that we’ve raised awareness, what’s our plan of action?’ In remembering the days of Adam Wood and his reign as King AHole Pimpin’ Ron Paul – I don’t remember him ever seriously considering how to address his campus complaints. Two years ago during the alcohol taskforce, I remember him being one of the least effective members.

    I know that your organization failed to bring F.I.R.E. at the expense of the general student. As in, Student Senate committees straight up failed your bill the moment you walked in. Why is that? Is that because you refuse to be a part of the process? I’d say so.

  • comrade57

    Calvin has hit this one on the head. I’m sorry to tell this group, but there is no such thing as “absolute free speech.” Most intro to government courses will give you the basic prohibitions, including something call TPM (time place and manner) restrictions that allow for appropriate public functions in these venues. All of the University regulations on speech (symbolic or otherwise) go through a TPM application with the Events Committee, and can only be denied for not meeting the necessary TPM criteria set forth by this committee.

    Also, doesNOTselldrugs makes a valid point about redress. It’s in the University Constitution that there are veins to go through to change these things. If you don’t use them and exhaust them, then you have no reason to complain about the stifling of speech on campus.