7 Charged for Dismantling Campus Display

[Judi Lynn]

7 Charged for Dismantling Campus Display
By Associated Press
April 27, 2006, 9:41 AM EDT


HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, Ky. -- A professor and six students at Northern Kentucky University were charged with uprooting 400 crosses meant to represent fetuses in an anti-abortion display, prosecutors said.

Professor Sally Jacobsen and six students face misdemeanor charges of criminal mischief and theft by unlawful taking, prosecutor Justin Verst said. Jacobsen is also charged with encouraging students to participate in the destruction, Verst said.

The crosses were pulled from the ground and thrown in trash cans around campus on April 12.

The temporary display had been approved by university officials as an expression of free speech.
(snip/...)

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-anti-abortion-display,0,7864882.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

[shadowknows69]

1. As sick as I find that display

unfortunately for everyone to retain free speech even the intolerable must occasionally be tolerated.

[DumpDavisHogg]

3. The display was in a "no display" area

Actually, folks, the display they tore down was in an area that was not for displays. It was in a small grassy field that was for recreation by students.

The media never told us that part, did they?

I know this because I went to college at the university where this happened.

By the way the university and prosecutors in this county have been known to be extremely intolerant towards anyone with liberal views.

[Dora]

5. thanks for the added info!

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[Warpy]

6. Thanks, I wondered about that

because I know that grassy areas around any college are generally filled with students on blankets during nicer weather.

The people who pulled up those stupid crosses probably wanted their recreation area back.

The fetus fetishists ought to be fined for putting the stupid things there in the first place.

And yes, I'd have this position even if the crosses represented the people Stupid has killed in his dirty little war.

[Che_Nuevara]

7. Actually, if the university approved the display,

then I guess it turned into a "yes display" area, huh?

[seriousstan]

8. Wrong, read the article. "approved by university officials"

The temporary display had been approved by university officials as an expression of free speech. I believe that is their call. Now show me where this prof. had University authority to enforce the "no display" rule.

I understand when a drunk redneck does illegal, free speech stifling stuff. This woman was, supposedly, sober and intellectual. What is her excuse for a fascist display of intolerance?

[DumpDavisHogg]

9. Like another user said...

That is in a small field where students lay down on blankets and study or play hackeysack.

There are lots of places on campus open to displays. That's not one of them.

[seriousstan]

10. That is for the University to decide, not some vigilante professor.

Funny how people want to make excuses for her actions and wanted the man in truck drug down the street by a chain. I guess hypocrisy has no limits or party affiliation.

[Judi Lynn]

11. I never saw the posts indicating DU'ers wanted to drag the halfwit

in the truck down the street by a chain. That act has been connected exclusively to redneck, hate-filled monsters of the Klan: not entirely similar to DU'ers, one would need to admit.

Mawkishly dramatic, but false.

[Mike Daniels]

12. Then why didn't the professor offer that as her reason?

She claims in the article she did it because of an intimidation factor. Why bother with that explanation if "it was a no-display area" would have been sufficient?

And even if it was in a "no-display area" the proper call of action would have been to go to the powers that be to complain about the display and request that it be relocated

[DumpDavisHogg]

13. But wait just a minute here, folks...

What makes us assume she didn't first complain to the university or try to explain that it was a "no display" area?

And it's not like the university would have listened. You really, really, really do have to understand how NKU and this county operate to know where I'm coming from here. Boss Hogg and Rosco look like honest government compared to this county. Trust me on that.

The university often does not follow its own policies that are spelled out in the handbook. I'm not saying people should take matters into their own hands, but then again, I'm not so sure that's really what the professor in this case was doing.

[mondo joe]

16. How can she explain to them it's a "no display" area if they

okayed it for display?

And if they violated their own policy there have to be formal processes for challenging that.

[DumpDavisHogg]

18. One would think so, however...

If the school violates its own policy, then it probably won't abide by the policies regarding such challenges.

[mondo joe]

24. Then wouldn't it be their de facti policy that the display

IS allowed?

[mondo joe]

15. Actually it's up to the University to decide its use.

Creepy as the display was, it appears it was officially sanctioned for that use by the University.

[benburch]

2. What they did was wrong.

As wrong as that Freeptard mowing down the crosses at Camp Casey last August.

We cannot have a double standard.

[Renew Deal]

4. That's just wrong.

And dumb.

[ecoalex]

14. How about a display for the dead troops from Iraq ?

I guess abortion is worse in their tiny minds? Gawd are priorities askew.

[DumpDavisHogg]

17. That wouldn't have been allowed

I can almost GUARANTEE that the university never would have permitted this.

[GOPFighter]

19. They hate abortion because...

...it deprives the Army of cannon fodder. If too many poor kids get aborted we may need a draft to fight our future wars, which will inconvenience rich kids all over the country who will have to scramble to find ways to avoid it.

[jukes]

20. it cd be argued

that REMOVING the crosses was an example of the prof's/students freedom of expression.

that said, i imagine they're willing to pay the price for their civil disobedience caused by their own beliefs.

[onenote]

22. if a bunch of RWers tore down posters opposing the war

would you call that an example of their freedom of expression?

onenote

[jukes]

23. hey, i only said.....

i did NOT say the prof/students were right. they performed an act of civil disobedience and they'll pay the price. i hope the penalty is just.



if a bunch of RWers (especially fundy anti-choice maggots) develop epilepsy and have recurrent seizures every 15 minutes for the rest of their miserable lives, i'd be pleased. i never claimed to be a nice person.

[toopers]

26. As well, the display was approved . . .

the protest of the display was not approved.

[jukes]

27. hence, "civil disobedience"

it IS a form of expression, albeit, as i have mentioned, 1 that comes w/ a price.

in this instance, the penalty for acting out against this licensed display will probably be minor, but the imjpact on the fundy nutjobs will prbly be "extreme outrage" w/ emotional disturbance and vastly increased blood-pressure.


i just can't find myself terribly sympathetic to these "victims", even though their 1st amendment rights were apparently violated.

boofuckinghoo!

[mondo joe]

25. When did freedom of expression ever include using

other people's property?

[Odin2005]

21. Dumb move.

They just gave the pukes propaganda material. The fundies will use this to "prove" they are being persecuted, and I already know how Horowitz's spin is going to be about that proffessor.

[alarcojon]

34. He'll probably add her to his book

The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America if she isn't there already.

[Kailassa]

28. Wherever a religious symbol is used as a threat,

it is only right to tear it down, whatever the law says.

Christianity has been besmirched forever by those who have used it as an excuse to intimidate, to shut-up and to murder.

In a free country without religious intimidation, it could be different, it could just be free speech.

But in a country where doctors have been threatened and murdered for performing abortions, and where the right to choose an abortion is steadily being removed, where Christianity is being used as an excuse to outlaw freedom and label abortion as murder, those crosses are a threat to women everywhere.

When "free speech" is aimed at taking away the right of 1/2 the population to make their own health choices, it is no longer free speech, any more than threatening to kill a person is. It is assault, and must be treated as such.

[onenote]

29. so you would make it against the law to advocate overruling Roe?

I hope the day that Roe is overturned never comes. But I also hope the day never comes when the concept of free speech is narrowed to the point that advocating a change in the law is not protected speech.

onenote

[Kailassa]

31. Look at where criminalizing abortion has led in El Salvador.

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/34576

In El Salvador the "Christians" and right wing politicians have what they want. Women are treated as murderers if they manage to procure an abortion. It is illegal to seek an abortion or to provide one, even in the agonizing cases of ectopic pregnancy or when a woman's life is at stake.

How would you feel about a law making it illegal for a man to seek medical attention or for anyone to provide him with medical care? There is no moral difference between that and restricting the health care available to women.

Anyone arguing against providing medical care for men would be promptly accused of hate speech and shut up. However women are still not as assertive as men, and many tend to take this stuff quietly and merely feel worried and threatened. So people need to take advocacy of the removal of rights from a segment of the population very seriously, and realize that not only is the freedom of half the population at stake here, but also the health and the lives of many of them.

[onenote]

32. how would I feel about a law making it illegal for a man to seek medical

attention? I'd hate it just as I hate attempts to restrict a woman's right to choose. And if someone proposed such a law I'd argue against it just as I speak out against efforts to overturn Roe or otherwise restrict the right to choose. But I would never suggest that I have the right to (figuratively of course) stick a gag in the mouth of a person advocating such a stupid law.

onenote

[mondo joe]

30. So now free speech would apply only to people you agree with?

Nice.

I think whatever illness the Freepers have must be spreading.

[rinsd]

33. Here ya go Rush, here's your "example" for the week. (nt)