Comments on: Once “Harassment” and “Obscenity” Have Failed, Let’s Just Move On To “Treason”

By: Danimal

Danimal — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:53:06 +0000

Yeah, the “immediate presence” hurdle is insurmountable. The rules tracks US Supreme Court opinion language that was explicitly intended by the Court to bar printed or otherwise reproduced materials from coming under this kind of regulation. That is why those words are there — because reproduced materials are protected speech in this instance. The problem with Stees’ argument is that it’s the paper and not the person that is in your immediate presence at a distribution box. You are annoyed, not harrassed.

The “reasonable person” standard is also a stumbling point because it’s general and not particular. That is, it’s not up to the “reasonable devout Christian” to determine if this is harrassment, but a more general reasonable person. I’m sure there are one or two on campus somewhere.

By: Stan

Stan — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:42:02 +0000

Although saying that, you never see them in the same room together do you?

Incidentally, what Olly’s missed in the above text regarding the general unenforceability of the harassment clause is the relative impossibility of finding “a reasonable person” in Oregon.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:36:18 +0000

For the last time, you’re not Mickey Bricks.

By: Olly

Olly — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:26:53 +0000

If this is another attempt to lure me out of retirement for one last big score, Stan, I’m having none of it.

By: stan

stan — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:27:07 +0000

Uh, hi: sorry to interrupt - does anyone know Olly’s current e-mail address? The wee tyke is somewhat elusive at the moment…

By: Matt P.

Matt P. — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:16:06 +0000

It’s very hard to find copies of the Insurgent on campus. Many have tried. Few succeed. I agree with Olly. I understand the resentment, though.

PS. Wasn’t the Conduct Code “harassment” argument brought up in the Students of Faith grievance and dismissed by bureaucrat-extraordinaire David Goward?

By: olly

olly — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 07:05:47 +0000

Stees: the offending material can, at some subsequent point, be in your immediate presence - but that doesn’t mean the insult was made in your immediate presence.

If Don Goldman starts going up to Catholics on campus and shouting his interesting theories about the Catholic Church at them, then there’s grounds for calling that harassment. However, if he types the theories up, and then a few weeks later they appear in the pages of the Insurgent, and the Insurgent is then haphazardly distributed around campus - no, that’s not “in the immediate presence” of the outraged Christian hordes. This “harassment” claim is a complete non-starter.

By: Stees

Stees — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:38:39 +0000

“…in his or her immediate presence…”
If you walk up to a news box and a copy of the insurgent and the boner of Jesus Christ is staring you in the face, and then walk down a couple blocks, maybe into the emu, and there he is again, isn’t that in your immediate presence?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 06:29:26 +0000

Pantheist.

By: Timothy

Timothy — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 01:40:36 +0000

Don’t you get it, Olly? Jesus is all around us, inside of us, you are always in his immediate presence! The Insurgent was harassing Jesus!