They say that as if it’s any more intellectually challenging.

Well maybe if you all weren’t such pussies, had an office or phone number, you could substantiate that threat. We had to send Tgraf to defend your sorry asses.

And while it would be a nice gesture if the Insurgent were to apologize for their recent infantile ramblings, it’s worth noting that the Collective has undergone a bit of a shake-up since Aroused Jesus came along. Don Goldman and Pira Kelly, to name but two, are no longer on the list of contributors. It might be a good bit of public relations for their successors to point this out.

Or maybe they’re back. Of course, the person whose article most of the irate Christians are actually responding to still isn’t…

So yes, I know my shit.

HOWEVER, I did NOT know about O’Reilly nominating Dallas Brown for sainthood (and Dallas is a good guy, let me tell you) on his 5PM show.

Because of issues unseen (O’Reilly), I believe that my statement still stands as per the time it was submitted.

Only fiscal malfeasence. That whole “can’t be defunded for your viewpoint” thing…again. *sigh*. Basic courses in reading comprehension all around.

Long story short, fuck Dallas, imposters, and the insurgent… and long live Jared!

If a university determines that its mission is well served if students have the means to engage in dynamic discussion on a broad range of issues, it may impose a mandatory fee to sustain such dialogue. It must provide some protection to its students’ First Amendment interests, however. The proper measure, and the principal standard of protection for objecting students, is the requirement of viewpoint neutrality in the allocation of funding support. This obligation was given substance in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., supra, which concerned a student’s right to use an extracurricular speech program already in place. The instant case considers the antecedent question whether a public university may require students to pay a fee which creates the mechanism for the extracurricular speech in the first instance. The University may sustain the extracurricular dimensions of its programs by using mandatory student fees with viewpoint neutrality as the operational principle. There is symmetry then in the holding here and in Rosenberger. Pp. 9—14.

Southworth doesn’t confirm a right to have a mandatory incidental fee, but it does confirm that having such a fee is not unconstitutional, so long as distribution of that fee is done in a viewpoint-neutral manner. That is, without respect to the viewpoint of the group requesting funding. General requirements that apply across the board are okay, so long as those rules don’t address the viewpoint held by the group. Mostly this means complying with requirements for public money, and not having direct political affiliations. For example, the College Republicans and College Democrats cannot get incidental fee funding. Southworth also killed fee-funding via student ballot measure, as that obviously violates the principle of viewpoint neutrality. It did, however, leave the option of an opt-in fee, but as far as I know very few Universities have taken this route.

As Heath noted above, Rosenberger established that a University could not use the opinions/position/viewpoint of a student group as reason to deny funding. This translates pretty easily into student publications not being subject to defunding due to their content.

I don’t really get where you’re going with the ASUO…Southworth dealt with a student who did not feel he should be required to pay the incidental fee as it funded speech with which he disagreed. In essence his argument was that the fee constituted compelled speech and thereby violated his First Amendment right of free association. The ruling determined that the fee can be constitutionally collected, so long as it is distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner. The ASUO is the mechanism by which the fee is distributed at the University of Oregon, so they are bound by viewpoint neutrality.