Game just got a lot more interesting.

One of Arkansas State's players has filed an anonomouys complaint with the Liberty Institute (Which has nothing to do with the other Liberty) claiming that by removing the cross from the helmet, we were violating his right to free speech. The School received a letter informing us that we have X amount of time to put the cross BACK on the helmets, or face a lawsuit for violating free speech rights of our athletes.

Of course, we've also been notified by the Freedom from Religion Foundation that if we attempt to place the Cross on the helmets, we can expect to be sued for violating others rights to free religion.

Anyone got that?

The player is dead wrong. It is not his uniform and therefore he cannot decorate how he pleases.

More to the point, does he think he'd be able to put a swastika or a "hi mom" sticker on there? Of course not, and that's not an infringement on his freedom of speech either.

(09-15-2014 06:48 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The player is dead wrong. It is not his uniform and therefore he cannot decorate how he pleases.

More to the point, does he think he'd be able to put a swastika or a "hi mom" sticker on there? Of course not, and that's not an infringement on his freedom of speech either.

If the university told them...vote on a sticker design and we'll put it on the helmet....then we opened up a free speech zone on the helmet for the players....and then censoring that speech based on the content would be a violation and the crosses would have to go back on....or a naked lady or a marijuna leaf or whatever else they wanted to put on there.

If the university told them....we will put a sticker on the helmet....vote on a design for us to consider....then the university did not open up a free speech zone and the cross on the helmet was placed there by the state and was merely a suggestion by the players and has to stay off.

So which did we do?

I can't imagine that the intent was to open up a free speech zone on its helmet and I figure it will be very hard for a judge to think a university would have intended to do that.

But who knows.

(09-15-2014 06:56 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 06:48 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The player is dead wrong. It is not his uniform and therefore he cannot decorate how he pleases.

More to the point, does he think he'd be able to put a swastika or a "hi mom" sticker on there? Of course not, and that's not an infringement on his freedom of speech either.

If the university told them...vote on a sticker design and we'll put it on the helmet....then we opened up a free speech zone on the helmet for the players....and then censoring that speech based on the content would be a violation and the crosses would have to go back on....or a naked lady or a marijuna leaf or whatever else they wanted to put on there.

If the university told them....we will put a sticker on the helmet....vote on a design for us to consider....then the university did not open up a free speech zone and the cross on the helmet was placed there by the state and was merely a suggestion by the players and has to stay off.

So which did we do?

I can't imagine that the intent was to open up a free speech zone on its helmet and I figure it will be very hard for a judge to think a university would have intended to do that.

But who knows.

Your use of the phrase "free speech zone" drives me insane. Free speech has no zones.

(09-15-2014 11:11 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 06:56 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 06:48 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The player is dead wrong. It is not his uniform and therefore he cannot decorate how he pleases.

More to the point, does he think he'd be able to put a swastika or a "hi mom" sticker on there? Of course not, and that's not an infringement on his freedom of speech either.

If the university told them...vote on a sticker design and we'll put it on the helmet....then we opened up a free speech zone on the helmet for the players....and then censoring that speech based on the content would be a violation and the crosses would have to go back on....or a naked lady or a marijuna leaf or whatever else they wanted to put on there.

If the university told them....we will put a sticker on the helmet....vote on a design for us to consider....then the university did not open up a free speech zone and the cross on the helmet was placed there by the state and was merely a suggestion by the players and has to stay off.

So which did we do?

I can't imagine that the intent was to open up a free speech zone on its helmet and I figure it will be very hard for a judge to think a university would have intended to do that.

But who knows.

Your use of the phrase "free speech zone" drives me insane. Free speech has no zones.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Not all government/public property is open for individual free speech. For instance....license plates. The government can restrict what goes on a license plate for obvious reasons. You cannot request the same number that your neighbor has for instance.

But the state can open up space on the license plate that does not reflect a governmental viewpoint. For instance...specialty plates for organizations. "Choose Life" is not a government viewpoint, it is the viewpoint of the owner of the car.

If the state opens up that space on the license plate they then cannot censor the viewpoint in that space simply because they do not approve of it. They have created a free speech zone on that license plate.

This is why the government was unable to refuse the Sons of Confederate Veterans displaying their logo that contains the Confederate Battle Flag even though a lot of people in the public, and the bureaucrats, really, really, wanted to prevent them.

If you want all US Army trucks to have glow-in-the-dark crosses on them...you will be refused. Your free speech does not function in that zone. But if the US Army offers up a 3x5 spot for advertising then they can't refuse you placing an olive drab ad that says "Jesus Saves" just because they hate Jesus. (they probably still could refuse your glow-in-the-dark cross though because it would be a danger in wartime...so that particular speech would still not be free for you in that zone).

I'm sorry this drives you insane. But them's the breaks.

(09-15-2014 11:11 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 06:56 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 06:48 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The player is dead wrong. It is not his uniform and therefore he cannot decorate how he pleases.

More to the point, does he think he'd be able to put a swastika or a "hi mom" sticker on there? Of course not, and that's not an infringement on his freedom of speech either.

If the university told them...vote on a sticker design and we'll put it on the helmet....then we opened up a free speech zone on the helmet for the players....and then censoring that speech based on the content would be a violation and the crosses would have to go back on....or a naked lady or a marijuna leaf or whatever else they wanted to put on there.

If the university told them....we will put a sticker on the helmet....vote on a design for us to consider....then the university did not open up a free speech zone and the cross on the helmet was placed there by the state and was merely a suggestion by the players and has to stay off.

So which did we do?

I can't imagine that the intent was to open up a free speech zone on its helmet and I figure it will be very hard for a judge to think a university would have intended to do that.

But who knows.

Your use of the phrase "free speech zone" drives me insane. Free speech has no zones.

It does. There are limitations to free speech.

Have you considered having a throwback night to take some of the heat away from the cross issue?

(09-13-2014 01:13 PM)DrGonzo Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 02:35 PM)DrGonzo Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 02:30 PM)Higher Education Wrote:  Just a little tidbit, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. It says the federal government cannot declare an official national religion, but it says nothing about simply acknowledging a religion. Putting a cross on the back of a football helmet and creating an official national church of the United States hardly seem to be the same thing.

It's not an issue of separation. It's an issue with the establishment clause.

We've got some real Constitutional scholars on this board.

You are obviously not one of them. You claim to be an expert on the Establishment Clause, but pervert its historical meaning as a way to eliminate any reference to religion in the affairs of government. Understanding the sentiment within the colonies, especially Virginia where the Baptists had been persecuted by the Anglican Church, gives the clear indication what the intent was. When you consider a Baptist Minister (John Leland) was responsible for bringing federalist and anti-federalist forces together to support a constitution, it is laughable how liberals distort the meaning of the clause to mean the government must be free from all signs of religion. Reverend Leland was a very powerful voice in Virginia and did not support any form of a constitution that provided no assurances for religious liberty. Ratification was possible, not assured, only after the Establishment Clause was added that emphatically prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion. It is not a coincidence it is number one on the list. The aim of the Establishment Clause was to accommodate all denominations in government, not to eliminate all references to them.

Even with all the assurances in the Establishment Clause the Constitution still wasn't a slam dunk for ratification. It was hard for colonists to shake the memories of being forced into worshiping as the King of England wished. Skepticism was so high the amendment could not get the votes to get out of committee in 1789. Expanding the powers of the federal government was not the aim of anyone calling for constitutional amendments in the state ratification conventions. The states were terrified of the new government. It is ridiculous to think the first ten amendments were put in there so the federal government could order the states about. Of course, most people today have been bludgeoned over the head by revisionist educators with a lie what the Constitution is and what the Bill of Rights is, what they originally mean and how they are to be used. The historical disproves these ideas.

After itemizing the amendments James Madison, you know that guy they refer to as The Father of the Constitution, said; “The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution.” Alexander Hamilton considered a bill of rights unnecessary, even dangerous.

At which for-profit law school did you study?

And I'm about the farthest thing you'll ever find from a liberal.

No attorney, just a student of non-revisionist history. Not my intention to label you a liberal, although I can see how you drew that from my post. The liberal reference was merely to point out how differently they interpret /revise the events of history to fit their agenda.

(09-16-2014 07:20 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Have you considered having a throwback night to take some of the heat away from the cross issue?

I like it!

(09-16-2014 07:20 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Have you considered having a throwback night to take some of the heat away from the cross issue?

NMSU, of course, is in Las Cruces, New Mexico, whose various official logos look like:



But, of course, the Spanish 'Las Cruces' means 'The Crosses',
named after the historical encounter of three graves in the area.

Some have claimed religious offence, but really, it's a historical reference,
and I don't know any of my thinking Christian, Muslim, Jewish, animist, pagan,
beer drinking, or atheist friends who view it as anything else.

If you really want to be pure and get rid of religious symbols completely,
you have to include any reference to the year, which is of course the Christian calendar.

(09-15-2014 11:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Not all government/public property is open for individual free speech.

Right.

And not all speech is free.

One cannot yell 'Theater' in a crowded fire-house.

(09-16-2014 11:27 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  NMSU, of course, is in Las Cruces, New Mexico, whose various official logos look like:

Haha! Didn't think about that...

(09-16-2014 11:32 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  One cannot yell 'Theater' in a crowded fire-house.

IDWYST

(09-16-2014 07:42 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  No attorney, just a student of non-revisionist history. Not my intention to label you a liberal, although I can see how you drew that from my post. The liberal reference was merely to point out how differently they interpret /revise the events of history to fit their agenda.

(09-16-2014 12:39 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 07:42 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  No attorney, just a student of non-revisionist history. Not my intention to label you a liberal, although I can see how you drew that from my post. The liberal reference was merely to point out how differently they interpret /revise the events of history to fit their agenda.

You shouldn't use the "R" word, it's very offensive to some people...kind of like people and crosses on helmets. The more you know! #PSA

(09-16-2014 07:42 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 01:13 PM)DrGonzo Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 08:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 02:35 PM)DrGonzo Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 02:30 PM)Higher Education Wrote:  Just a little tidbit, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. It says the federal government cannot declare an official national religion, but it says nothing about simply acknowledging a religion. Putting a cross on the back of a football helmet and creating an official national church of the United States hardly seem to be the same thing.

It's not an issue of separation. It's an issue with the establishment clause.

We've got some real Constitutional scholars on this board.

You are obviously not one of them. You claim to be an expert on the Establishment Clause, but pervert its historical meaning as a way to eliminate any reference to religion in the affairs of government. Understanding the sentiment within the colonies, especially Virginia where the Baptists had been persecuted by the Anglican Church, gives the clear indication what the intent was. When you consider a Baptist Minister (John Leland) was responsible for bringing federalist and anti-federalist forces together to support a constitution, it is laughable how liberals distort the meaning of the clause to mean the government must be free from all signs of religion. Reverend Leland was a very powerful voice in Virginia and did not support any form of a constitution that provided no assurances for religious liberty. Ratification was possible, not assured, only after the Establishment Clause was added that emphatically prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion. It is not a coincidence it is number one on the list. The aim of the Establishment Clause was to accommodate all denominations in government, not to eliminate all references to them.

Even with all the assurances in the Establishment Clause the Constitution still wasn't a slam dunk for ratification. It was hard for colonists to shake the memories of being forced into worshiping as the King of England wished. Skepticism was so high the amendment could not get the votes to get out of committee in 1789. Expanding the powers of the federal government was not the aim of anyone calling for constitutional amendments in the state ratification conventions. The states were terrified of the new government. It is ridiculous to think the first ten amendments were put in there so the federal government could order the states about. Of course, most people today have been bludgeoned over the head by revisionist educators with a lie what the Constitution is and what the Bill of Rights is, what they originally mean and how they are to be used. The historical disproves these ideas.

After itemizing the amendments James Madison, you know that guy they refer to as The Father of the Constitution, said; “The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution.” Alexander Hamilton considered a bill of rights unnecessary, even dangerous.

At which for-profit law school did you study?

And I'm about the farthest thing you'll ever find from a liberal.

No attorney, just a student of non-revisionist history. Not my intention to label you a liberal, although I can see how you drew that from my post. The liberal reference was merely to point out how differently they interpret /revise the events of history to fit their agenda.

I'm no revisionist. I just learned (in law school) that the Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it does. Call them revisionists if you must, but we are bound by their decisions.

(09-15-2014 06:56 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If the university told them...vote on a sticker design and we'll put it on the helmet....then we opened up a free speech zone on the helmet for the players....and then censoring that speech based on the content would be a violation and the crosses would have to go back on....or a naked lady or a marijuna leaf or whatever else they wanted to put on there.

If the university told them....we will put a sticker on the helmet....vote on a design for us to consider....then the university did not open up a free speech zone and the cross on the helmet was placed there by the state and was merely a suggestion by the players and has to stay off.

So which did we do?

I can't imagine that the intent was to open up a free speech zone on its helmet and I figure it will be very hard for a judge to think a university would have intended to do that.

But who knows.

If the university told them to vote on it and they'd do it... then the players voted and they decided that the best way to remember these guys was to have two people having sex/having a swastika, or something else that is highly charged, the university would still say no.

So no, there is no free speech in it.

University released its official response today with its final ruling. The matter will not be discussed by University officials after this point unless an official question is sent.

1. The decals were designed by Blake Anderson and then approved by a 15 member Team Leadership Council. They were then approved by the AD. From that point the school used public funds to buy the stickers. From that point, The team held a ceremony in which they together affixed part of the decal to the helmets, while team managers did the rest later.

2. This was done without consulting University Counsel. When The school's counsel was made aware of the decal, it was requested that the decal be modified because using public funds to pay for it violated the Establishment Clause of the constitution.

3. From this point forward, students will be allowed to place the full cross decal on their helmets if they so wish, however the student must purchase that sticker with their own funds, and may not use public money to do so.

(09-17-2014 10:40 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  University released its official response today with its final ruling. The matter will not be discussed by University officials after this point unless an official question is sent.

3. From this point forward, students will be allowed to place the full cross decal on their helmets if they so wish, however the student must purchase that sticker with their own funds, and may not use public money to do so.

You sure about this?