Police Release Video of Suspect in Hate Posters’ Distribution

There are 15 comments on Police Release Video of Suspect in Hate Posters’ Distribution

1. 考虑到学生团体到处张贴的海报，污损私人财产的指控有点夸大了。 当个人不同意他们的信息时，BUPD不应该有选择地追捕他们。 Either enforce the “law” to whatever extent BUPD does, and pursue all individuals who put up posters, or pursue none, but to pursue only those who post immoral messages seems to infringe on freedom of speech to an uncomfortable extent.

   回复

   链接

   1. 言论自由不适用于私有财产。 我其实不清楚这件事的细节，但如果这件事是在BU的财产或其他私人财产上发生的，学校有权调查和惩罚责任人。 Just because the university allows most posters doesn’t mean it has to allow all posters. 如果这是公共财产，那这就是言论自由的问题了。

      回复

      链接

   2. There’s free speech and then there’s Nazi recruitment. If you can’t see the difference then I don’t know how you got into this school.

      回复

      链接

      1. 不管他们是在为民主党、共和党、绿党、甚至是纳粹党招募成员。 每个公民都有权利选择自己喜欢的政党。 根据最高法院法官的说法，政治言论自由是我们权利法案中最重要的权利。

         回复

         链接

   3. Legally speaking, the front doors of buildings are not considered designated public forums – while students may post on those doors on occasion, it is not an area that has been designated for free speech – the University may choose to leave up fliers on the front of their building or remove them, depending on their endorsement of the content. According to “The Law of Higher Education” by Kaplin & Lee, if the posting is in a “nonpublic forum” rather than a public forum, it will be very difficult for a student to prevail – there is court precedent (Desyllas v. Bernstine, 351 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003)) where the court determined “campus areas not approved for posting ‘are not designated public fora because the university did not intend to open them for expression, as manifested by the univesity’s…policy.'” While not relevant here because this person brought their flyer to a non-public forum, an institution also can have some right to regulation of public forums in the case of obscenity and defamation.

      回复

      链接

   4. I’m not necessarily making a legal argument, I just do not agree with the selective enforcement here, and believe in the spirit of free speech more than political correctness. Whoever posted under “Are You?”, I suggest you read through the Constitution sometime…

      回复

      链接

   5. 丹尼尔：要么你不是波士顿大学的学生，要么你不知道。 是的，学生有时会发传单。 部t they do NOT stick them “all over the place.” 学生不允许在大楼门前或其他类似的地方粘贴传单（尤其是不允许使用这些海报所涉及的高粘性材料）。 他们将传单限制在广告牌等允许张贴传单的地方。 当学生或其他人在玻璃门上或没有张贴传单的地方张贴传单时，他们确实要承担责任。 I’ve seen it happen, and with perfectly non-offensive speech. 所以如果你看到它发生了，报告它。 不要再试图为那些呼吁以选择性校园执法为由杀害非洲裔美国人和犹太人的人辩护。 It’s just not a thing, and your attempts to call out the so-called PC police on campus are just sad misfires.

      回复

      链接

      1. 我在州立大学工作，经常撕下贴在门上的学生传单。 这些学生没有被逮捕。 Also, I wouldmt say two flyers constitutes “all over the place”.

         回复

         链接

      2. Freedom of speech and the controversy surrounding selective law enforcement are “things”.

         回复

         链接

      3. 的确，言论自由是一件非常重要的事情，但正如我上面所展示的，建筑物的正面不能算作言论自由的论坛。

         回复

         链接

2. As I demonstrated above, I wasn’t making a legal argument, just stating my opinion that police should not be launching criminal investigations and seeking public assistance to pursue some idiot who posted two flyers. 许多人在那些门上张贴材料。 That material is simply removed, students may face some discipline from the school, but are not criminally pursued by the University’s police force. 很明显，在这种情况下，问题在于讲话的内容本身，这相当于武断地执行法律来惩罚那些大学不同意的人。 这公然违背了我们国家赖以建立的原则。 在道德上，而不是在法律上，它违背了言论自由的精神。 I’m not the only one who believes this, it has been challenged many, many times in court. 正如你所说，最高法院的判决与此相反，我并不反对你的观点，多里斯。

   回复

   链接

   1. 丹尼尔，警察有责任调查是否发生了犯罪。 一旦调查完成，可能会提出指控，也可能不会。 部t saying the police should make no effort to find out what happened, & whether a crime’s been committed, is irresponsible. You also aren’t paying attention to those here who’ve said — repeatedly — that laws protecting freedom of speech apply far more to public spaces, & less to private property like the BU campus. 你会为那些在犹太教堂、黑人教堂或你自己家里张贴传单的仇恨者辩护吗？ 我希望不是。

      回复

      链接

3. 把这些传单归为言论自由，暗示它们毫无意义，或者说它们只是在表达无害的观点，这是荒谬的。 这种说法只能来自对社会和历史最无知的看法。 这些传单属于仇恨言论或煽动暴力，不受保护。 这些传单号召屠杀犹太人！！！！ And they are saying that the lives of millions of Americans don’t matter. 这是校园警察应该认真对待的事情。 如果说阿拉伯语的人可以因为害怕他煽动暴力而被赶下飞机（就像西南航空发生的那样），那么这个张贴煽动传单的人至少可以被抓住并接受采访，以确保他不会对波士顿社区构成威胁。 得到真实的。

   回复

   链接

   1. 纽约警察局已经宣布了这些指控。 他们不会对所有非法张贴海报的人追究这些指控。 他们对这条信息提出了异议，我不能宽恕这条信息，但这种类型的言论是受保护的，如果它不是在私人财产上。 它没有通过煽动的测试，所以会受到保护。 因此，北京警察为了打击演讲的信息，有选择地执行了这项法律。 I don’t care if BU takes action administratively, and, as this is against the student handbook, they should, but to use the BU controlled police force to crack down on a type of speech is inappropriate.

      回复

      链接

4. Reminds me of the scandal about black students feeling unsafe because someone wrote Trump’s name on campus, we are living in a PC world these days, it’s a shame.

   回复

   链接