Pitty had a crybaby session over at the Wuss College;
This just popped up in my Facebook feed. Apparently, Augustana University dems think they get to decide what is free speech, and anything they disagree with is to be obliterated.
First off, if this was done on PRIVATE campus property, it would be vandalism, not free speech. First the students who decided to chalk up the sidewalk with anti-choice messaging AND the students who scrubbed the message away. While removing the messaging wasn’t vandalism, icing up the sidewalk was.
As I have told people who argue with me about the Jesus snowplows, there is a difference between public and private property. Neither party practiced free speech since this involved private property.
Speaking of crapola from Pitty;
Donita Trump Noem already practicing Nepotism before she is even sworn into office
Like most SD Republican Governor administrations, Nepotism reigns. Rounds was one of the worst, Denny continued the tradition, and now Noem announces her transition team which features her daughter;
Kennedy Noem is a senior at South Dakota State University, where she is majoring in political science with a minor in economics. She is the daughter of Governor-elect Noem.
I wonder if her minor in economics helps her keep track of the millions in farm subsidies her family has received?
I know this one is a bit weird, but the Supreme Court said sidewalk messages count under free speech.
The college republicans even got permission first from Augustana before they wrote it.
There isn’t any proof to dems doing it however,
Free speech : yes, Dems guilty of destroying it: no
The noem daughters helped run the Noem campaign. I agree it isn’t great, no fan of nepotism.
I have nothing against the noem girls, they actually are pretty nice irl.
Trump has a daughter-wife, while Noem has a daughter who is apparently transitioning to fulfill her duties….
#TakeYourKidToWorkDay
Glad to know her daughter is studying at her mom’s alma mater. Oh, wait, Kristi was given a degree by SDSU. I’m a State grad and in 2016 when the new football stadium debuted, I was invited to watch the Hobo Day game in a Community Suite. It was sponsored by the alumni foundation with the intent to motivate graduates to include SDSU in their wills. I met the president and CEO of the foundation and I politely told him that I would consider leaving the university a monetary gift if it rescinds the bachelor’s degree it gave Noem. I explained that I didn’t think it was right to just hand out a degree base on life experience (or whatever the reason was) while the rest of us attended classes, studied and took exams.
After the deer-in-headlights look on his face slowly faded, he said he understood my concern and that other alumni had expressed the same feelings. And then he said it was unlikely the university would revoke Noem’s “degree”. I did inquire if degrees had been given to anyone else who had not attended classes and earned credits. He offered to research it and get back to me. Riiiight.
Okay, so they got permission to leave the messages, so they are covered. But couldn’t you argue ‘removing’ the messages was a form of ‘speech’ also.
So Noem’s degree is actually a honorary degree, huh?…. If only Clint Roberts had thought of such an idea, he might have been governor too…. What was that slogan that SDSU had back in the last decade?….. Oh yeah, something about how “You can go anywhere from here…”
#FastTrackGubernatorialDegree
Republicans always show great faith in the market system, so I guess the market couldn’t support such thought any more, huh?
Yes, you could argue that “removing” the message was a form of “speech” also; of a five year old.
Not much different than corporations giving billions in campaign contributions and calling it free speech.
No, not honorary. She walked across the stage at commencement in Frost Arena. I think – not completely sure – she gave the commencement address.
This is her US House biography that contains a paragraph about her graduation: https://noem.house.gov/index.cfm/aboutkristi?p=biography
It all comes down to a question of voluntary vandalism versus involuntary vandalism.
Now, those who chaulked the messages on the sidewalk knew that the wear and tear of having individuals continuously walk over their messages would in time destroy their literal messages; hence, acceptance of involuntary vandalism for the sake of the market and the promotion of commerce.
However, the actual and intentional removal of the messages is voluntary vandalism; but if you do not have an ownership in the forum used, the actual sidewalk, then one cannot allege to be a victim of vandalism themself.
In fact, only the University could allege such voluntary vandalism victimization, but to do that would then suggest that they support the message, which my guess is they would not want to take a position on except to the degree that they are an educational institution within the ELAC faith, which happens to be tolerant of a choice position and its debate. And given that tolerance, the debate which enuses from such vandalism is merely the further expression of thought on a given issue within the confines of an institution of faith, which is evolving due to a healthy debate of that issue within that faith’s institutions.
Now, once again, some may say that voluntary vandalism is not “healthy,” but it is as long as the property interest is not destroyed, which it was not. Because the University’s sidewalk is still in good shape except for the ice which formed; which further means that the real issue is the potential civil tort due to the ice and not any legitimate criminal form of voluntary vandalism, and when you accept that premise, then the issue of free speech being denied due to a criminal act is no longer an issue, and then the real issue becomes merely left to the ambulance chasers to resolve.
#TacosForThought