In fact, with their appearances on MSNBC, members of that former club are exercising more free speech than they ever have in their lives.

So you are defending the narrow Liberty education. I think the term for that is bigoted. If you are not going to allow the opposing voice to speak you are a bigot. You do not need to agree with the opposing viewpoint, but if you do not allow the opposing viewpoint to speak because you fear the speaking, well…. then you are a bigot.

I will accept that liberal universities can also be described as being just as bigoted. But if St Thomas Aquinas himself would have been barred from speaking at universities that call themselves Christian I think we have a problem.

Someone might want to attend Liberty University because they are Christian, although they might not perhaps be Republican. It is possible to be both liberal and Christian. If you live in Hampton Roads and want a Christian university, perhaps you should consider Virginia Wesleyan located right here in Virginia Beach. The tuition is pretty steep but from my experience they are pretty liberal in offering at least partial scholarships to worthy students (one of my kids qualified so it must not be that hard – I steered him to ODU but sometimes regret having done so). Perhaps Virginia Wesleyan will not attempt to make you feel unwelcome if you dare say there is nothing wrong with a married couple using birth control if they do not want children.

These students chose a college that was founded on principles that are anathema to the Democrat Party. Why should a college support such a group or allow its name to be associated with such a group?

By your logic, Liberty University should have a Hail Satan club.

As for what is wrong with a university banning a Democratic club, I am afraid that if you have ask, it can never be explained. Suffice to say many many people made great sacrifices so that you and I and students and adults could have free speech.

Republicans frequently make a big deal of “protected political speech” every time somebody tries to reform campaign finances with legislation like McCain-Feingold. You guys talk a good game about protected speech when it affects you personally. Not so much when you think stifling somebody else’s right to “protected speech” will give you a political advantage. But mark my words, not standing up for free speech as a general principle will come back to bite you someday. And you know what?

I will be the first one defending your rights. Because I know if your rights are endangered, so are mine.

Thank you for the personal attack and insult.

Every Liberty University Democrat can say today anything they want to say. They just can’t use “Liberty University” as a title or a funding source. What’s wrong with that?

Here is the post i was referring to, where I indeed did support Neal Boortz’ right to free speech, even though he said some fairly reprehensible things about the students at Virginia Tech. I suspect you didn’t want to put this up because it still makes even the right in Virginia cringe.

I took an incredible amount of flack, on and off the blogs, for defending free speech in that particular case. More than you will ever take from your side because you never actually defend principle, only what benefits your side of the fence, regardless on the principles involved. That’s not real conservative principles.

And my statement still stands, if you can’t stand up for the statement: “I may disagree with you but I will defend to my death your right to say it” you don’t support freedom.

Anything else is an excuse.

The L.U. decision was right and proper. Apparently, the students did not choose their college well.

As Brian pointed out, they still have the 1st ammendment, just not a Democrat club.

I absolutely agree with your point that a minority’s right to free speech must be defended. That’s precisely why we have the Constitution, because we are not a tyranny of the majority. But this isn’t really about that.

You can’t talk about politics all day at work(unless that’s part of your job). If you do, your boss can fire you for cause claiming it interferes with work. You still have freedom of speech, but are likely held to a contract of performance standards. Most companies have clauses enabling them to release you if you prove to be an embarrassment or potential legal problem that tarnishes the name of the company.

Imus certainly had the freedom to say what he did. The company had the right to fire(or not) him. You or advertisers also have the right to refuse to do business with any employer of Imus.

You do agree to certain rules of behavior when you accept entry to a college or university. A private institution has even more leeway. People go to Liberty University FOR A REASON. They don’t expect a Berkley type atmosphere. They are sold a representation of a conservative atmosphere. If the university rightly or wrongly feels the democrat club as a distraction from the product they are trying to provide, it is their right to exclude that club.

Protecting minority rights is exactly what I’m arguing on behalf of Liberty University. They are clearly the minority in upper education. You must also protect THEIR property rights, their right to THEIR name, and THEIR right to structure their campus to be a place for like minded people to learn and associate. You can’t force them to allow a party they feel represents the exact opposite of their ideals.

They could go rent a room at a restaurant on Saturday mornings and talk about Obambi all day long. But if they want to use a college’s name and a college’s money, they kind of have to play by the college’s rules.

Imus got fired for something he said. Did you defend him?

NO! you didn’t.

In fact, you attacked him and others for speech. The “indecency and crudeness that the Coulters, Boortzes and Imuses spew” is what you called it. Read your own post here: http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com/2007/06/ann-coulter-mean-girl.html

Can’t find “free speech” or “first amendment” in your entire post. So get off your perch yammering about defending speech you disagree with until you actually do it.

And I am not saying it is right for conservatives to be harrassed. Brian, I think you know I’d never agree with that. But there is a difference between some boorish and bad mannered ultra leftwing students harrassing other students and a university administration shutting down a legitimate campus club because they don’t agree with their politics.

Look, as you point out, most campuses are liberal. What would happen if they followed LU’s lead? More Young Republican groups would be shut down than Young Democrats groups. It is not to your advantage to keep arguing this point. It actually is to my advantage to solemnly agree that that LU has every right to do this and it is a good move, and then I could slip away and go laughing as I quietly encouraged larger, more liberal groups to follow LU’s example. But it would be wrong and ultimately harmful to a democracy and to freedom.

The thing of it is, it’s detrimental to a democracy to have college groups banned. And it’s harmful for academic freedom and free speech. You can’t just defend your own side’s right to free speech and turn a blind eye when it’s your rival’s right at stake.

If you don’t defend the right to freedom of speech for the unpopular minority while you are the majority, who will be there to defend your right to the same should the tide turn against your own popularity?

And besides, whatever happened to the cornerstone of free speech: “I may disagree with you but I would defend to my death your right to say it.”

If you can’t agree to that, you actually don’t support freedom despite all your posturing.

I posted the link, but its waiting in Limbo. Also are links to colleges banning the American Flag and the pledge of allegiance. Hopefully, they’ll pass muster and you can see for yourself.