Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

yeah.....it was a meme with catturd in response to jgvol post about catturd- apparently a very followed twitter account that is run by an anonymous person with millions of followers that sucks Trump off like no other.

I have no idea who this person is.  But that's okay, 'cause I don't care who this person is.

Alas, one caring or not does not dictate the most anything goes thread.

People wanna talk, for better or worse.

It was simply a weak attempt at humor, to at the very least push the thread past the cycle of Epstein did not kill himself-->Epstein was an intelligence asset-->Epstein had files on Clinton and Trump-->Epstein had nothing-->Epstein did kill himself-->Rinse repeat.  

I really don't GAF about Epstein anymore.  He's been in the crosshairs for three separate administrations and neither the D's or the R's have the guts to release the truth so why do we keep obsessing about it?  I feel like whatever it is, it's probably best left alone.  We do in fact PAY our intelligence and other assets to handle stuff like this so I vote for "let them handle it".  No, I do not condone what happened to children etc but until I see hard evidence (NOT MDOT SCREAMING AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS) then there is nothing to see here.  

Odd news out of Texas.

They’re passing some kind of anti-protest bill. Part of it says you can’t do “expressive activities” on college campuses between 10 pm and 8 am.

Expressive activity includes “any speech or expressive conduct” protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution.

We kinda have something similar to that here.

Any violence or damage or threats and a protest will be broken up. That passed shortly after we moved here in 2020.

Is there really a need for protests/demonstrations on a college campus between 10 PM and 8 AM?

I think the events on college campuses around the country over the past couple of years prove that there is a legitimate safety concern involved in such demonstrations.  And many or even most college campuses in the state of Texas include housing for students, who have a reasonable expectation for protection and safety, in and around their places of residence.

Demonstrations would still be allowed during the day, and they're also allowed at City Hall and the State Capitol and pretty much every other public space.

The odd part is the broadness of what’s described, being any first amendment protected activity, which is a fairly wide range of things.

(that also might make it textually unconstitutional, but that’s another matter)

The odd part is the broadness of what’s described, being any first amendment protected activity, which is a fairly wide range of things.

(that also might make it textually unconstitutional, but that’s another matter)

Maybe it's not well-written, but I think it's pretty obvious they're trying to say, "you can't claim first amendment protection because we're prohibiting it in this specific location during this specific time window."

Which might be poorly worded and it might be unconstitutional, although I think the state has an interest in protecting the rights of the residents, and that the rights of the residents in this case supersede the rights of protestors.  All rights only extend to the point that they don't infringe on the rights of others, that's a pretty basic tenet in our society.

That's why I wrote "similar" in my statement.

I'm sure Texas is looking at the Florida law, which was litigated by the left.

They're obviously targeting the style of campus protests that become violent, led to unsafe conditions for non-protesting students, and caused tremendous amounts of property damage, at other campuses around the country.

There are already laws against camping in public spaces, which was one way the state of Texas was able to prevent encampments and violence by demonstrators during the last round, when the authorities at other campuses either failed to do so, or chose not to do so.

This is pretty clearly an attempt to extend even further the capability for the protection of the safety of students and especially student residents, on those campuses.

I'm not a first amendment scholar, but I've got more than a passing knowledge of it. That sounds facially unconstitutional. I'm sure the courts will get a chance to weigh in.