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

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.

Time, place, and manner restrictions on public demonstrations have existed for a long time.  Not sure why you think this is not acceptable.

Personally, as a parent of a student who will be living on a college campus next year, I'm in favor of reasonable protections of her safety.

Nobody is telling protestors they can't demonstrate at all.  And nobody is telling them they can't demonstrate on college campuses.  Restricting such demonstrations to daytime only is perfectly reasonable IMO.  And if they want to demonstrate more openly, there are other places like City Hall and the State Capitol, where they may do so.

Of course, there's still a law against overnight camping on public grounds.  So encampments are going to be unacceptable regardless.

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.

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.

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.