It doesn't actually tell us what they were saying.
A lot of 'religious' speech, can be straight up hate speech. Something tells me they weren't preaching not to eat meat on fridays?
A lot of 'religious' speech, can be straight up hate speech. Something tells me they weren't preaching not to eat meat on fridays?
I mean, what? We should censor speech because they may say something we don't like? That's madness, one, and two, antithetical to the mission of the institution as a public University. There should be penalties for incompetent Administrators who overstep or abuse their authority by unilaterally attemptimg to abolish a fundamental civil right.
When an article neglects to mention what exactly the student was saying, it's a very good indication that it wasn't a kind and gentle message.
It seems like, yes, his first amendment right were violated. While I may not like religion, he certainly should be allowed to hand out pamphlets as long as he's not being agressive about it.
They got to abuse his constitutional rights and they pay his attorneys fees + $1 as recompense?