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

If the government passes a law that has the ability to go far beyond what a charitable reader of it would say is the goal, I tend to look at it somewhat askew. Especially when it says, “broad constitutional rights have a bed time.”

I think it’s fine and good that a government tries to discourage specific lawless action. When it does so in broad and vague ways that leave a ton of room for overreach, that seems not ideal, especially because it trusts in the goodness of government employees to behave themselves.

Now, such a thing could probably be accomplished with a combination of any-camping rules and noise ordinances (I bet there’s something to deal with large gatherings that doesn’t run afoul of things). Strikes me as less over-broad.

It’s admittedly a little funny to me that we’re returning to the “free-speech zone” era. a bunch of libertarian organizations sued those out of existence, and that really good branding prevented people from understanding that most conservative-leaning folks (outside the hardcore libertarians) were probably in favor them.

Eh, they're free to demonstrate at the Capitol or City Hall as long as they like.

I think that making a distinction for college campuses, in the interest of protecting students and student residents whose rights supersede those of protestors who have ample other avenues to demonstrate, is appropriate.

Given the extreme destruction and violence of the college campus demonstrations I’m not only have no problem With this, I support it.  

The issue at hand is not about the particular targeting of campuses.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, because in the case of this bill, the issue at hand is precisely the protection of campuses versus other publicly owned spaces.

Epstein files uproar puts spotlight on Dan Bongino

LOL


https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1945837452305768540?s=46&t=Cp3usE5AFRqIBrUa4s1Gtg

Meh.  it’s like speed limits. You’re allowed to drive your car, but there are rules involved that take into account other people in property.   This is no different.

The people that object with claim it’s on the grounds of first amendment rights, but what they really mean is they want the right to have violence and destruction in their protest