quote:

---

Originally posted by: wary undergrad
"Just thought that FS readers would like to know that all flyers posted for the rally tomorrow are being ripped down and new signs with the statement that it is illegal for us to post signs are being placed up in our signs' place. Also, earlier today it was reported to us that someone was in LAB taking pictures of signs posted before ripping them down. Freedom of speech on campus??? HA!!! We are posting signs in the same places that the SGA posted signs during their elections, the crawfish boil that was announced for last weekend, etc., etc., etc. But because our signs are not what the administration says is PC, they're being ripped down. Anyone care to comment, post it here. BTW...we're not scared- We're pi$$ed."

---

when I was at another (anonymous ) institute of higher education we discovered that chalk was excellent:

very fast

doesn't do permanent damage

writes on anything

any size and color you want.

VERY EFFECTIVE.

We did create a kind of set of rules for "chalking" that helped create some kind of social/ethical framework for action . . . . but it was very visible and almost impossible for authorities to stop . . .

You have to be an official student organization to post signs.  They usually don't say anything unless the problem gets to be too bad, and I'm sure they might have a little prejudice against the protest signs.  However, it is a new policy and they are having trouble enforcing it, but they're trying. I've been involved in two other organizations that violated the sign policy without knowing it, and both had signs ripped down, and harsh notices sent to them. Putting up large posters on buildings without a reservation is a 50 dollar fine.  Putting signs on glass doors results in the same.

It really has nothing to do with free-speech.  It isn't a violation of your free speech to be expected to obey the same rules as everyone else. I"m very surprised that the table in the LAB has been allowed to stay up for so long: you have to have a permit for that as well.  It would be just like putting up a table in front of a government building, or putting up signs on the courthouse: just because it's public property doesn't mean you can do whatever you like.  Remember, that's why we want shelby gone.

I'm all for the protest, but only if students do not make fools of themselves doing it.  Crying free speech everytime established campus rules go against what you want makes us look like idiots.  Please, for the sake of USM, know what you're talking about before you start talking. And know what the rules are before you start thinking they don't apply to you.

Also, if I ever catch someone putting a notice on my car about the protest, I will stop supporting the protest.  That car is MY property, and NO ONE's "free speech" applies to it.  That's just tacky, people. Show that you have respect for other students (most of whom hate car notices) and other students will respect your protests.  (Sort of the same principle as the signs... )

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Katie
"And similar rules apply to chalk.
Take another look at the handbook.  Be sure you have the newest version. The sign policy is a very recent thing, I think it began the middle of last semester."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Katie
"You have to be an official student organization to post signs. 

Any student can post signs at the University for announcements, etc.

They usually don't say anything unless the problem gets to be too bad, and I'm sure they might have a little prejudice against the protest signs.  However, it is a new policy and they are having trouble enforcing it, but they're trying. I've been involved in two other organizations that violated the sign policy without knowing it, and both had signs ripped down, and harsh notices sent to them. Putting up large posters on buildings without a reservation is a 50 dollar fine.  Putting signs on glass doors results in the same. It really has nothing to do with free-speech.  It isn't a violation of your free speech to be expected to obey the same rules as everyone else.

as Sarge pointed out, the "sign policy" has not been enforced fairly. As a long-time member of Amnesty International, we have had this problem in the past. It's not where we put them, but the simple fact that we put them up that the SGA seems to have a problem with.

2nd point: We didn't have any problems with our signs, other than a few lone wolf students, until the Founder's day protest, at which we were NOT confrontational, just there.

 

I"m very surprised that the table in the LAB has been allowed to stay up for so long: you have to have a permit for that as well.  It would be just like putting up a table in front of a government building, or putting up signs on the courthouse: just because it's public property doesn't mean you can do whatever you like.  Remember, that's why we want shelby gone.

According to the 2003-2004 student handbook, signs can be placed on any spot as long as the "building manager" doesn't have a problem with it. Since Dean Pood is our building manager, and he hasn't asked us to quit putting up flyers (actually even smiled at us a couple of times!) then it is not the responsibility of the SGA to second guess what he is allowing.Same with the table, not a word about us taking it down yet.

 I'm all for the protest, but only if students do not make fools of themselves doing it.  Crying free speech everytime established campus rules go against what you want makes us look like idiots.  Please, for the sake of USM, know what you're talking about before you start talking. And know what the rules are before you start thinking they don't apply to you.

acquired copies of the handbook several weeks ago. For the record, the sign policy only applies to Student organizations; most of our signs are from several students who are not in any way an organization. Also, Nshombi Lambwright, president of the Mississippi ACLU looked at the handbook and noticed that several of the provisions were in conflict with our "guaranteed constitutional rights" as provided by the US Constitution, and extended to us through the SGA constitution (Article IX, p. 31).

This is not to lambast you, Katie. This is just to expose the blatant bias found in "our" SGA.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter."

                 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

---

Why not go buy some of those cheap (a couple of dollars each) plastic hunter's vests in neon orange or yellow, take permanent markers and write on them or tape flyers on them, and wear them around campus on days leading up to protests?

Just a suggestion to circumvent the tearing down of flyers.

I know that would catch my attention!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: manova
One quick note, I know of at least one secretary that ran around ripping “pro-thames” posters down...let’s not be hypocritical, if we want to have the right to dissent, then we have to respect others rights to disagree with the dissent. "

---

I wholeheartedly agree!  However, tearing down flyers that one does not agree with is not a respectable from of dissent, but an attempt to suppess speech.  (Funny you say that pro-thames posters have been ripped down--I am on campus all of the time--have never seen one of those on any campus walls...hmmmm) Anyway, I say let pro-thames put their posters up beside anti-thames posters--let both sides have their say.  THAT would be free speech.  Tearing down something you don't agree with is NOT free speech.  You don't like what a flyer says, post one beside it, but don't tear it down.  And if someone challenges you when you tear one down, have a good explanation and ID with you that shows you have authority to do that.

1. I don't have a copy of the handbook in front of me, but I don't think that just anyone can post up a sign. Just because they DO it doesn't mean that they're supposed to.

2. If Amnesty is having a problem with their signs, they need to take it up with the SGA, who has nothing to do with signs and their removal, or the administration.  Amnesty is, unfortunately, an organization that LOTS of people do not like. The problem could very well be that rude and inconsiderate students tear down Amnesty signs.  I don't know if you're making blanket claims, or have actual evidence that the SGA is the source of your trouble (which would surprise me since they never do anything or any consquence, be it good or bad). Either way, Amnesty should look into it.

3. Yes, the handbooks sign policies are restrictive, and are probably very much in violation of constitutional rights.  That, however, is a bit too big of a problem for student protesters to handle right now. One step at a time. If you want to oust someone for breaking the rules and being a dictator, the WRONG way to go about doing that is by breaking the rules and claiming you have a right to.  Obey the same rules as everyone else.  If you have permission from the department to stay where you are, go right ahead. If the building secretary doesn't mind your signs, go right ahead. Be sure you know who is taking down your signs and why.  Then you can complain about it.  My point is that making huge claims of free speech violations when no one is even sure what the policies are isn't going to get you anywhere.  Having substantiated claims and being able to prove you were within the rules and discriminated against will get you very far.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: take it back
"It seems to me that the members of Amnesty International are the same ones in Gay/Straight Alliance who are in the Sceptics Society who are helping with protests around campus. ...just a useless observation"

---

Actually, I have worked tirelessly for the past month on Shelby protesting.  I am not a member of Gay/Straight Alliance, AI, or skeptics.  I personally do not agree with some of the things these groups stand for, but I do know that Thames is a horrible leader and that he needs to step down as soon as possible, to avoid any further irreversable damage.

Furthermore, we need to stay away from making this a liberal/conservative issue. There are numerous conservatives who are anti-Thames.  It is an issue of adademic freedom and integrity. 

I agree, this is not an issue for liberal/conservative split. However, I for one am a member of several organizations (ACLU, Amnesty, not the GSA or Skeptics) and feel it is my resposibility to stand up for what I believe. I think that is why so many of us are in organizations, and why we fell like we have to be at the front of these protests. Those who are already active are more likely to take a visible role in the movement to get our professors back, but not because we are "liberal", just because we feel it is our right and responsibility to speak out. Thanks to all those, Messy included, who are not normally so outspoken for having the guts to get off the fence (Unlike our beloved SGA).

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth
"Katy Are you a prof? USM is still legally bound under rules in the 1996 Handbook. The "new" handbook by Hanbury, the "Hanbury Handbook" is still not offically "adopted". Yes, that handbook ends much due process and puts the presidential power at every level of every decision, but it is not "law" yet. I think this is enough."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by: truth4usm (not "truth!")
"I think Katie is referring to the Student Groups handbook, not the faculty handbook."

---