PDA

View Full Version : UPDATE TOTAL WIN: "CSU East Bay" Refusing To Publish Reasoned Debate On Gun Issues


Pages : [1] 2

oaklander
01-30-2011, 9:38 PM
EDIT - TOTAL AND UTTER WIN HERE! SEE http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5739749&postcount=204

-----------------

This actually requires a new thread. So here it is.

Basically, the "Editorial Editor" at Cal State University East Bay (CSU East Bay, or CSUEB) wrote and published a very one-sided editorial about gun control.

http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

Several Calgunners have posted comments, but only ONE has been approved so far. Not only that, but the article is being presented as a "news story" online, when it is actually an "editorial."

I contacted their "Academic Adviser" about these issues, and even wrote my own editorial. In response, I am now getting strange emails from him.

You guys figure this out. I am confused here.

I've been out of school 17 years, so maybe my old concepts of "logic" and "truth" are now somehow outmoded.

Here is the original thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=390290).

EDIT: as you know, there are constitutional reasons that PUBLIC schools can't stifle debate over the gun issue. Let's see how far they want to take this.

----------------------

[I emailed the "Academic Adviser" about the comments issue, and this was his response.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

[Oaklander],
You are addressing an editorial, not an article. I will check to determine whether your comment about comments is accurate.

BTerrell

------------------- [Here is my reply.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, [Oaklander] wrote:

Dear Dr. Terrell,

I know that it is an editorial. But the writing itself is not labeled "Editorial." Perhaps that is simply an error. Usually editorials are denoted as such in the subhead.

Also, the fact that the comments are not being approved is now becoming a topic of discussion on the forum I frequent.

I am aware of your work with homeless people. You might be surprised to learn that I used to work with homeless people when I was in law school. I was a volunteer for a program that helped them do the required paperwork to get housing. We also served as general advocates for homeless people, and made numerous phone calls to various agencies in order to help our "clients." As you know, it's not easy getting someone off the streets. But we did it.

Anyways. . .

I think you will find that many people on the Second Amendment community are not what you would think or expect.

Therefore, "reasoned analysis" is the type of thing that we like to see when articles are written about "us." Here your student has written complete drivel, based on nothing more than feelings and unsubstantiated assertions. It's also too long, and simply repeats things others have written.

Our intent in joining the discussion is thus educational in nature, and it is my hope that by allowing reasoned debate on the topic, both sides will learn something new.

If you wish, I would be happy to write a longer editorial response for The Pioneer. I have more than 70 published articles (most of them on legal topics). What I would write about would be the exact thing I have pointed out above (that analysis of "gun" issues is more complicated than some people think), and that stereotyping is easy, but not useful -- or intellectually honest.

Thank you in advance,

klt

----------- [His reply to me.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

The Pioneer's editorials always apear [sic] on page two. The editorial you disagree with appears on page two.. [sic] Whether you agree or not, it represents the staff's consensus on the matter. Feel free to present your opposing perspective via a letter or short essay (800 - 1500 words). We print such submissions on our op-ed page.

What do you mean when you say "the comments are not being approved?"

------------- [I now reply to him.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:14 PM, [Oaklander] wrote:

Yes, I know it's "page two" in the print edition. But online, there's no "page two" -- so someone clicking on the online version and landing directly on the article will not even see that it is an editorial.

See:

http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

With respect to the comments, I know of at least three people who have commented, and none of their comments have been approved. Your comment system at your website requires that someone on your end read and "approve/moderate" any and all comments.

For example, my comment was made last night, and is still not approved. This means that I am the only person who can see it.

While I realize that this is a weekend, I imagine that there are students who can access your website from their homes and "moderate" remotely.

[I embedded a screen shot of my comment here.]

Yes, with respect to our opposing perspective, I will go ahead and write a short essay/editorial that outlines a more balanced view on the topic.

I should have something to you later this evening, or by Monday at the latest.

Thank you,

Kevin

------------ [Then I sent him an editorial a couple of hours later.]

from [Oaklander]
to Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu>
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM
subject Re: http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/


As promised, attached is an editorial on the topic we have been discussing. . .

I trust that you will see that the proper person receives it. Ironically, this would probably be Mr. Thompson himself. . .

;-)

Please also let me know the publish date so that I can email the link to my friends (and mom).

I appreciate your ear on this matter, by the way. And thank you for replying to my original email. . .

Best,

[Oaklander]

-------- [Then I got this strange reply.]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

Is that such a bad thing? I am finding it difficult to understand your position on the issue, and what you think The Pioneer should do about it?


------------ [I was so irritated by his inability to understand plain English that I missed a word ("are") in my reply.]

from [Oaklander]
to Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu>
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM
subject Re: http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

Surely you [sic] joking with me?

Presenting an "editorial" as a "news story" is universally accepted as bad journalism. Shall I cite the numerous sources for this fact?

With respect to my position on the "issue" there are actually two issues that we are talking about:

1) Comments are being posted on your website, and these comments are apparently not being approved because they are contrary to your editorial position on the "gun issue."

2) I disagree with your editorial position on gun control, as my essay explains in clear detail.

In my career as a licensed attorney, I have written well over a million words, and this is the first time that someone was unable to understand me.

Shall I continue pushing this "issue" with the Office of the Provost? Or will you simply publish the 1043 word editorial that I submitted, per your own guidelines???

---------------------------- [End.]

The ball is now in their court.

HiPower823
01-30-2011, 9:43 PM
Wow is really all I can say.

Matt C
01-30-2011, 10:04 PM
Last time I contacted the academic advisor of a college newspaper about BS editorials masquerading as news I ended up in jail for nearly a month. YMMV.

Apocalypsenerd
01-30-2011, 10:09 PM
Last time I contacted the academic advisor of a college newspaper about BS editorials masquerading as news I ended up in jail for nearly a month. YMMV.

????

anthonyca
01-30-2011, 10:10 PM
We all know that public agencies do these kind of things with our money. Good job on holding their feet to the fire.

Matt C
01-30-2011, 10:11 PM
????

It's.... a long story.

$P-Ritch$
01-30-2011, 10:13 PM
I'll second the wow.

Also, Blackwater, if you don't mind me asking, how did that earn you a fortnight in the slammer?

$P-Ritch$
01-30-2011, 10:13 PM
whoops, someone beat me to it.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 10:16 PM
I took it up a notch.

Let's see if they do the right thing. . .

from [Oaklander]
to james.houpis@csueastbay.edu
cc Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu>
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:13 PM
subject Fwd: http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/


Dear Dr. Houpis,

I am an attorney licensed in California.

I was made aware of an editorial at "The Pioneer Online." The editorial is here:

http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

I was also made aware that viewpoints that are contrary to the editorial are not being published in any logical manner. The online story has a "comments" section. I personally know of at least four comments that have not yet been approved. Unlike a print newspaper, which has space constraints, online newspapers can print hundreds of comments. This is normal procedure for virtually all online news publications. Here, your student editors are cherry-picking comments. I think you have a single comment at this point, from a student.

In addition, the online article is being presented as "news" - when in fact, it is an "editorial."

I have tried to explain these problems to Dr. Terrell, but he appears to not understand what I am talking about.

As you are aware, public schools are under a legal and ethical obligation to present all reasoned viewpoints on a given topic. The Supreme Court has recently held, in no unclear terms, that the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms is a right that is held by the people (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010)).

What this means in plain English is that there is a high level of scrutiny when a public institution, such as a state college, refuses to present reasoned debate on the "gun issue." There will be many lower level court cases in the coming years that will flesh out the holding in McDonald, supra.

All I require at this point is that the 1043 word editorial that I submitted to Dr. Terrell be published, since it presents a more balanced view on the gun topic. For your convenience, I have attached a copy of my editorial.

If you are not the appropriate person to talk to, I am happy to speak with your General Counsel, since he or she may have a clearer understanding of the potential legal issues here.


Best regards,

[Oaklander]

anthonyca
01-30-2011, 10:19 PM
Let's see if they do the right thing. . .

I have a feeling you are going to have to force them to do the right and legal thing.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 10:20 PM
Yes, there are legal steps that can be taken. . .

:)

I have a feeling you are going to have to force them to do the right and legal thing.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 10:23 PM
I think a good "1983 suit" would be great, since it would allow me to pay off my student loans.

EDIT: what I meant above is that if some wayward LE agency decided to try and arrest me (for legally possessing legal guns), that LE agency would face a lawsuit.

Last time I contacted the academic advisor of a college newspaper about BS editorials masquerading as news I ended up in jail for nearly a month. YMMV.

Matt C
01-30-2011, 10:27 PM
I think a good "1983 suit" would be great, since it would allow me to pay off my student loans.

Sounds good to me! Can't wait to get my own bar card.


Also, Blackwater, if you don't mind me asking, how did that earn you a fortnight in the slammer?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=79599

SixPointEight
01-30-2011, 10:29 PM
Lmao oaklander. Sometimes I wonder if you're bored and just look for things like this.

Then I realized, I don't care because I find it hilarious.

tonelar
01-30-2011, 10:37 PM
I emigrated here from a country that recognized no right to keep and bear arms. The govt enacted an all out ban on privately owned firearms, in fact.

I hate to see CA slipping farther and farther into the role of the nanny government.

Best of luck. Oak. I admire your tenacity.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 10:40 PM
Thanks Tone!

Yes - the problem with CSUEB is "they are smugly sure they are right."

The Academic Adviser can't even seem to wrap his head around the idea that refusing to present differing viewpoints is akin to censorship, to the extent that a public college SHOULD be a place where diverse viewpoints are welcomed.

I emigrated here from a country that recognized no right to keep and bear ams. The govt enacted an all out ban on privately owned firearms, in fact.

I hate to see CA slipping farther and farther into the role of the nanny government.

Best of luck. Oak. I hope they publish your response to their editorial.

Cali-Shooter
01-30-2011, 10:49 PM
Great effort here, Oaklander. Not surprising to see the Anti's use censorship and selective "facts" to make ultra-biased stories, but still pisses me the F**k off. I go to a CSU campus, and they are generally VERY liberal dominant.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 10:54 PM
Thanks!!!

:D

Great effort here, Oaklander. Not surprising to see the Anti's use censorship and selective "facts" to make ultra-biased stories, but still pisses me the F**k off. I go to a CSU campus, and they are generally VERY liberal dominant.

MP301
01-30-2011, 10:56 PM
:lurk5: This should prove to be entertaining...

anthonyca
01-30-2011, 11:06 PM
Yes, there are legal steps that can be taken. . .

:)

I would love to see a legal smack down of these tax payer funded anti free speech idealogs.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 11:07 PM
Yes, it's kind of funny.

On one hand, it's "just" a local CSU, and almost not worth my time.

BUT - on the other hand, their "smallness" should not be an excuse to stifle debate on an issue.

I want to see how they react.

My prediction is that they will lawyer up. I expect an email from their General Counsel.

Then we start swinging our members around.

:lurk5: This should prove to be entertaining...

kmn
01-30-2011, 11:13 PM
Oaklander, you are an excellent asset to the community and I'm sure there are hundreds of unregistered readers on here that are appreciative of what you're doing--they just aren't posting. :)

If you somehow find a way to make a lawsuit out of this, I'm hoping that some of the money goes to the NRA, CGN, and/or CRPA.

YOU ROCK!

N6ATF
01-30-2011, 11:27 PM
Last time I contacted the academic advisor of a college newspaper about BS editorials masquerading as news I ended up in jail for nearly a month. YMMV.

When you are a member of the bar, your member is too big to swing in a jail cell.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 11:31 PM
Thanks kmn!!!!

Yes, I like to help. I used to be a lot more involved than I am now. I got married recently, and that (obviously) took priority.

Now me and my beautiful wife (who is also a shooter and who is on this forum) are settling in real nice, and thus I am starting to have time to do this sort of stuff again.

The reality is that the sort of litigation that *could* result here would end with an injunction, or order, or something like that.

That being said, if I ever DID file and win a $$$$ suit against someone over gun issues, I would most certainly give all or most of the money to gun rights groups!!!!!

:)

Oaklander, you are an excellent asset to the community and I'm sure there are hundreds of unregistered readers on here that are appreciative of what you're doing--they just aren't posting. :)

If you somehow find a way to make a lawsuit out of this, I'm hoping that some of the money goes to the NRA, CGN, and/or CRPA.

YOU ROCK!

oaklander
01-30-2011, 11:32 PM
Don't believe what your radio radio tells you, William.

When you are a member of the bar, your member is too big to swing in a jail cell.

N6ATF
01-30-2011, 11:35 PM
Is that a song?

oaklander
01-30-2011, 11:36 PM
LOL, it's a poem. Glad to see you are still here. I even forgot what we used to argue about.

Was it open carry?

Is that a song?

guns4life
01-30-2011, 11:41 PM
:clap::clap:

N6ATF
01-30-2011, 11:48 PM
Perhaps. Whatever it was, I can't find it on the Google custom search by searching N6ATF & oaklander, so maybe it was epic enough to purge! HAHAHA

Aww cute dog above this post.

Cali-Shooter
01-30-2011, 11:50 PM
Just jumped into the fray, my comment is awaiting moderation. I hope it makes it, otherwise I would be pissed, I spent almost an hour writing it.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 11:52 PM
Sweet!

The more comments they "reject" the more idiotic they will look!!!!!!!!

Just jumped into the fray, my comment is awaiting moderation. I hope it makes it, otherwise I would be pissed, I spent almost an hour writing it.

oaklander
01-30-2011, 11:56 PM
LOL - you are just like me - you love a good argument!!!

:D

Perhaps. Whatever it was, I can't find it on the Google custom search by searching N6ATF & oaklander, so maybe it was epic enough to purge! HAHAHA

Aww cute dog above this post.

Cali-Shooter
01-30-2011, 11:56 PM
Sweet!

The more comments they "reject" the more idiotic they will look!!!!!!!!

Yeah, and if it doesn't make it, they can expect another CSU student to let them know with a formal tone that they are First Amendment suppressing hypocrites.

N6ATF
01-30-2011, 11:59 PM
Just jumped into the fray, my comment is awaiting moderation. I hope it makes it, otherwise I would be pissed, I spent almost an hour writing it.

Hopefully you saved it to your hard drive. I try to do that when I see or suspect preemptive moderation.

My argumentative bastardizations must be preserved for future generations!

Cali-Shooter
01-31-2011, 12:00 AM
Hopefully you saved it to your hard drive. I try to do that when I see or suspect preemptive moderation.

Yeah I got that covered, it's copy-pasta'd onto a text doc, lol

oaklander
01-31-2011, 12:01 AM
Actually, I have an idea now. . .

There are several CSU students here on CGN.

It might make sense to think about rolling all of this into a press story somehow, and getting some PR.

Let me think on this - I do not think that CSU wants to get bad PR on "civil rights" issues.

I may say less soon. When I start saying less on this topic, it means something good is happening and I don't want CSU to see what I am up to.

IN THE MEANTIME - I WOULD LIKE ALL CSU STUDENTS WHO ARE ON CALGUNS TO POST A COMMENT IN THAT ARTICLE AND SCREENSHOT THE COMMENT SHOWING THAT IT IS WAITING FOR MODERATION.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/screengrab/

Yeah, and if it doesn't make it, they can expect another CSU student to let them know with a formal tone that they are First Amendment suppressing hypocrites.

Cali-Shooter
01-31-2011, 12:08 AM
Actually, I have an idea now. . .

There are several CSU students here on CGN.

It might make sense to think about rolling all of this into a press story somehow, and getting some PR.

Let me think on this - I do not think that CSU wants to get bad PR on "civil rights" issues.

I may say less soon. When I start saying less on this topic, it means something good is happening and I don't want CSU to see what I am up to.

IN THE MEANTIME - I WOULD LIKE ALL CSU STUDENTS WHO ARE ON CALGUNS TO POST A COMMENT IN THAT ARTICLE AND SCREENSHOT THE COMMENT SHOWING THAT IT IS WAITING FOR MODERATION.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/screengrab/

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1763/moderationpendingcommen.jpg (http://img37.imageshack.us/i/moderationpendingcommen.jpg/)

Like this? :D:D:)

oaklander
01-31-2011, 12:15 AM
Sweet!

Perfect!




Like this? :D:D:)

yakmon
01-31-2011, 12:20 AM
:lurk5:

santacruzstefan
01-31-2011, 1:57 AM
First off, this is awesome. Well done, sir, I can't wait to see how they take your veiled (or really, not-so-veiled) threat of legal action. Hopefully it scares Mr. Thompson into thinking about what he publishes a bit more carefully next time, but expect some scathing response. After all, in the end he and his staff have the final word, even if it is incorrect. Also, while the editorial does lack a proper sub-heading, on the paper's main page, it is filed under the "Editorial" section, so I wouldn't push that issue as hard as I would them silencing your right to respond.

Lastly, I am surprised that they are like this at a CSU. I know higher education is liberal in general, but I would expect this behavior more from UCSC or Berkeley than I would a more "working man's" institution such as the CSU system. But really, liberal bias shouldn't have any place here to begin with, since gun ownership is a civil right, as you pointed out. Very interesting; I am tempted to throw my word in as well, but I think I'd rather sit back and see what unfolds here. The last thing we want is to appear like a rabid bunch of dogs who have been thrown an injured rabbit, if you know what I mean. They are, after all, just kids and forming their own opinions about things is relatively new to them. I think we can win supporters from this if approached from a place of tact and respect (see the thread on my adventure with the Brady Campaign and Facebook). You are off to a good start, this is going to be exciting!

oaklander
01-31-2011, 2:02 AM
Excellent points on both strategy and tone!!!

:D

EDIT: ROFL!!! I just realized that my gripe with the minor editorial/news issue is 100 percent related to my childhood experience on school newspapers. Some teacher must have grilled it into my head that the two were ALWAYS supposed to be distinct!!! Too funny.

First off, this is awesome. Well done, sir, I can't wait to see how they take your veiled (or really, not-so-veiled) threat of legal action. Hopefully it scares Mr. Thompson into thinking about what he publishes a bit more carefully next time, but expect some scathing response. After all, in the end he and his staff have the final word, even if it is incorrect. Also, while the editorial does lack a proper sub-heading, on the paper's main page, it is filed under the "Editorial" section, so I wouldn't push that issue as hard as I would them silencing your right to respond.

Lastly, I am surprised that they are like this at a CSU. I know higher education is liberal in general, but I would expect this behavior more from UCSC or Berkeley than I would a more "working man's" institution such as the CSU system. But really, liberal bias shouldn't have any place here to begin with, since gun ownership is a civil right, as you pointed out. Very interesting; I am tempted to throw my word in as well, but I think I'd rather sit back and see what unfolds here. The last thing we want is to appear like a rabid bunch of dogs who have been thrown an injured rabbit, if you know what I mean. They are, after all, just kids and forming their own opinions about things is relatively new to them. I think we can win supporters from this if approached from a place of tact and respect (see the thread on my adventure with the Brady Campaign and Facebook). You are off to a good start, this is going to be exciting!

glbtrottr
01-31-2011, 2:14 AM
Also posted - awaiting "moderation"

santacruzstefan
01-31-2011, 2:21 AM
EDIT: ROFL!!! I just realized that my gripe with the editorial/news issue is 100 percent related to my childhood experience on school newspapers. Some teacher must have grilled it into my head that the two were ALWAYS supposed to be distinct!!! Too funny.

I know exactly what you mean. I was the editor of my HS paper my senior year, and as such wrote many of the editorials (I also denied many other students articles on the Opinion page because they lacked any sort of rational thought...). Often the adviser would have to keep me in check when it came to small aspects of a piece that overstepped the bounds of what was "good journalism," and I learned from this. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have happened in this case, which is perhaps why Dr. Terrell is becoming defensive. Showcasing all sides was a huge part of our responsibility; when I wrote a review of the DARE program (well-researched and properly cited) that cast it in a bad light, I welcomed a response from our campus police officer. Of course, I responded to it, and picked it apart, in the same issue, but thats one of the "perks" of journalism, and the same one I expect Mr. Thompson and Co. to use if/ when they print your response.

Just perusing their site, it seems other people, namely the person whose response to the gun control ed. has already been printed, have raised concerns about their apparent liberal bias, specifically in regards to the last election and the paper not featuring candidates other than those from the Democratic party, or opposing viewpoints to particular ballot measures like Prop. 19. My guess is this bias is endemic to the staff at the Pioneer.

yakmon
01-31-2011, 2:36 AM
steamroller.jpg, wru? or is strictly an oaklandler gig?

BKinzey
01-31-2011, 2:59 AM
What's your legal basis to insist they publish your reply to their editorial?

There have often been issues with student publications. Students vs students, students vs advisors, and students, advisors vs administration. Often over who has final say over what is published.

If you plan on a 1st amendment basis I think they will claim the publication is an educational tool and not an official government publication and the 1st does not apply.

They could also claim you are not a student of that specific school.

I think your position is good on asking them to improve over what they are currently doing I just don't see a legal basis.

AAShooter
01-31-2011, 4:30 AM
:lurk5: This should prove to be entertaining...

Agreed. Should be interesting what shows up in the next edition. Probably one of the more exciting things that have happened to college paper.

glbtrottr
01-31-2011, 5:53 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The author’s comments on Mr. Obama’s “shrewd and calculated move” come across as paranoid and uninformed, unless the author suddenly developed mind reading skills or divined the President’s intent through his crystal ball.
Jared Loughner’s purchase of a Glock was done legally – in large part due to the fact that despite multiple complaints to academic advisors and administrators, his educators opted not to raise any red flags about his bizarre behavior and mental condition that would have otherwise prevented him from purchasing his gun. Academia had a hand in his being able to purchase a weapon; had they spoken up, the system would have been able to prevent him from purchasing a gun legally.
I do agree with Mr. Thompson – Jared Lee’s ability to purchase Glock and magazines alike should be a concern for any American. Of greater concern is also how criminals are unfettered by any and all new laws slung in their direction as they continue acquiring firearms. How does Mr. Thomson propose families defend themselves against these dangers? Shiver in wait while hope the police show up to defend him? When crime happens, seconds count, and police are minutes away.
Consider the case “Warren v. District of Columbia”. In this case, the court ruled that the police have no duty to protect Mr. Thompson or myself for that matter. Two ladies were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, another woman, attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned police a number of times and were told officers were on the way. After 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” It would seem that Mr. Thompson would argue that instead of these women being able to defend themselves by giving them an opportunity to “own, and, in some cases, carry a firearm with that killing capacity seems not only irresponsible, but unnecessary.” Shame on you! Mr. Thompson’s ideology is exactly what drives women such as those involved in the Warren case to continue to grow defenseless so Mr. Thompson can believe he’s safer at night in his weaponless utopia.
I also find Mr. Thompson’s distinction between pistols and rifles as one being “expressly designed for taking the lives of other human beings”. Children die at a rate of 12 times more on average from vehicular homicide than gunfire, but I don’t see the writer advocating giving up his Prius anytime soon…
Mr. Thompson argues that “no matter what the circumstance, the average civilian gun owner is unlikely to have the proper training or experience necessary to handle the extreme stress of a gun battle—indeed, police officers and combat soldiers receive rigorous, thorough training, and even then, friendly fire incidents and firearm accidents still occur.” Here’s a statistic for Mr. Thompson: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
person are less than 1 in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year ( Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, C. Cramer, and D. Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994). While Police Officers can certainly be counted on to reactively deal with crime, there is also the issue of them not losing their weapon; Police have trouble keeping their own guns. Hundreds of firearms are missing from the FBI and 449 of them have been involved in crimes. (ABC News July 17, 2001.

Speaking of specious claims, Mr. Thompson refers to “ Research by the University of Pennsylvania has shown that an individual possessing a firearm in an assault is 4.5 times more likely to be shot than one who does not possess one.” What Mr. Thompson fails to mention in the study is that the author’s research “…For this study, he and his colleagues relied on the cooperation of police to get information on shootings in Philadelphia between 2003 and 2006 – a total of 3,485. “ …Researchers randomly chose 677 of those victims for the study. They came from various occupations – taxi drivers, bartenders, nurses, and drug dealers. Fifty-three percent had criminal records. Six percent had guns with them when they were shot.” The Study Mr. Thompson refers to may as well have written: “In a sampling of drug dealers with guns that got shot, none were able to protect themselves from the shooter.” The shooter most likely being a police officer.

Mr. Thompson further brings up Mr. Zamudio and skews the events to benefit his patently anti-gun argument. Mr. Zamudio stopped Mr. Loughner because he had the confidence to do so aided by a firearm at his side, yet Mr. Thompson would dare rid him of it and keep him from preventing further mayhem, or categorize him as an exception – truly sad.
Mr. Thompson also failed to check his facts regarding “thousands of legally available firearms—including AK-47s—being transported to Mexico for use by drug cartels. Guns from the U.S. are used expressly for murdering police and public officials in our neighbor to the south.” “In Senate Committee testimony, the BAFTE said the number was likely at worst in the “hundreds”. For 2007 and 2008, the average for all seizures was closer to 40 per day only a fraction of which came from the USA by any means.” (Senate Committee Judiciary, William Hoover, Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, &
Firearms, March 17, 2009).

Mr. Thompson states “The Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, and we certainly do not oppose or challenge that. However, what constitutes a reasonable necessity to possess a weapon capable of ending human life remains a valid question.” The very reason the framers explicitly authored the 2nd amendment was, in fact, to allow citizens to possess weapons capable of ending human life as a means to defend themselves as well as to be able to keep from being abused by a tyrannical government – a history lesson may be in order for the author.
When Mr. Thompson argues “The United States has over 8,000 homicides by firearms per year, far above similar rates in nations comparable in living standards,” he omits actual statistics: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest
homicide rates. “Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001)” or…”According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America.” (Scotland tops list of world’s most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005).

All of this is academic, however; Mr. Thompson seems well entrenched in his gun-grabbing beliefs, however sugar coated by his questionable support of the 2nd amendment. Chances are Mr. Thompson has never held a firearm, and his lack of exposure may very well explain his fears of things he truly doesn’t seem to know.

AAShooter
01-31-2011, 6:43 AM
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The author’s comments on Mr. Obama’s “shrewd and calculated move” come across as paranoid and uninformed, unless the author suddenly developed mind reading skills or divined the President’s intent through his crystal ball.
Jared Loughner’s purchase of a Glock was done legally – in large part due to the fact that despite multiple complaints to academic advisors and administrators, his educators opted not to raise any red flags about his bizarre behavior and mental condition that would have otherwise prevented him from purchasing his gun. Academia had a hand in his being able to purchase a weapon; had they spoken up, the system would have been able to prevent him from purchasing a gun legally.
I do agree with Mr. Thompson – Jared Lee’s ability to purchase Glock and magazines alike should be a concern for any American. Of greater concern is also how criminals are unfettered by any and all new laws slung in their direction as they continue acquiring firearms. How does Mr. Thomson propose families defend themselves against these dangers? Shiver in wait while hope the police show up to defend him? When crime happens, seconds count, and police are minutes away.
Consider the case “Warren v. District of Columbia”. In this case, the court ruled that the police have no duty to protect Mr. Thompson or myself for that matter. Two ladies were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, another woman, attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned police a number of times and were told officers were on the way. After 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.” It would seem that Mr. Thompson would argue that instead of these women being able to defend themselves by giving them an opportunity to “own, and, in some cases, carry a firearm with that killing capacity seems not only irresponsible, but unnecessary.” Shame on you! Mr. Thompson’s ideology is exactly what drives women such as those involved in the Warren case to continue to grow defenseless so Mr. Thompson can believe he’s safer at night in his weaponless utopia.
I also find Mr. Thompson’s distinction between pistols and rifles as one being “expressly designed for taking the lives of other human beings”. Children die at a rate of 12 times more on average from vehicular homicide than gunfire, but I don’t see the writer advocating giving up his Prius anytime soon…
Mr. Thompson argues that “no matter what the circumstance, the average civilian gun owner is unlikely to have the proper training or experience necessary to handle the extreme stress of a gun battle—indeed, police officers and combat soldiers receive rigorous, thorough training, and even then, friendly fire incidents and firearm accidents still occur.” Here’s a statistic for Mr. Thompson: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
person are less than 1 in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year ( Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, C. Cramer, and D. Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994). While Police Officers can certainly be counted on to reactively deal with crime, there is also the issue of them not losing their weapon; Police have trouble keeping their own guns. Hundreds of firearms are missing from the FBI and 449 of them have been involved in crimes. (ABC News July 17, 2001.

Speaking of specious claims, Mr. Thompson refers to “ Research by the University of Pennsylvania has shown that an individual possessing a firearm in an assault is 4.5 times more likely to be shot than one who does not possess one.” What Mr. Thompson fails to mention in the study is that the author’s research “…For this study, he and his colleagues relied on the cooperation of police to get information on shootings in Philadelphia between 2003 and 2006 – a total of 3,485. “ …Researchers randomly chose 677 of those victims for the study. They came from various occupations – taxi drivers, bartenders, nurses, and drug dealers. Fifty-three percent had criminal records. Six percent had guns with them when they were shot.” The Study Mr. Thompson refers to may as well have written: “In a sampling of drug dealers with guns that got shot, none were able to protect themselves from the shooter.” The shooter most likely being a police officer.

Mr. Thompson further brings up Mr. Zamudio and skews the events to benefit his patently anti-gun argument. Mr. Zamudio stopped Mr. Loughner because he had the confidence to do so aided by a firearm at his side, yet Mr. Thompson would dare rid him of it and keep him from preventing further mayhem, or categorize him as an exception – truly sad.
Mr. Thompson also failed to check his facts regarding “thousands of legally available firearms—including AK-47s—being transported to Mexico for use by drug cartels. Guns from the U.S. are used expressly for murdering police and public officials in our neighbor to the south.” “In Senate Committee testimony, the BAFTE said the number was likely at worst in the “hundreds”. For 2007 and 2008, the average for all seizures was closer to 40 per day only a fraction of which came from the USA by any means.” (Senate Committee Judiciary, William Hoover, Assistant Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, &
Firearms, March 17, 2009).

Mr. Thompson states “The Constitution grants Americans the right to bear arms, and we certainly do not oppose or challenge that. However, what constitutes a reasonable necessity to possess a weapon capable of ending human life remains a valid question.” The very reason the framers explicitly authored the 2nd amendment was, in fact, to allow citizens to possess weapons capable of ending human life as a means to defend themselves as well as to be able to keep from being abused by a tyrannical government – a history lesson may be in order for the author.
When Mr. Thompson argues “The United States has over 8,000 homicides by firearms per year, far above similar rates in nations comparable in living standards,” he omits actual statistics: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest
homicide rates. “Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001)” or…”According to the U.N., as of 2005, Scotland was the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. Violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. 3% of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2% in America.” (Scotland tops list of world’s most violent countries, The Times, September 19, 2005).

All of this is academic, however; Mr. Thompson seems well entrenched in his gun-grabbing beliefs, however sugar coated by his questionable support of the 2nd amendment. Chances are Mr. Thompson has never held a firearm, and his lack of exposure may very well explain his fears of things he truly doesn’t seem to know.

Nicely done.

Flintlock Tom
01-31-2011, 6:48 AM
re: glbtrottr
One correction to your very well presented response, you state: "Jared Loughner’s purchase of a Glock was done legally" when in fact it was not.
He answered "no" to question 11e on the 4473 form.
It is reported by people who know him that he is an habitual user of pot.
If he had answered "yes" to that question the sale would not have proceeded. Giving false information on the 4473 form is a federal felony.
He purchased the gun illegally.

glbtrottr
01-31-2011, 6:52 AM
Gotcha...must have come out after my last read :)

So no amount of laws in this country would have prevented him from lying on his 4473, right?

AAShooter
01-31-2011, 8:13 AM
Gotcha...must have come out after my last read :)

So no amount of laws in this country would have prevented him from lying on his 4473, right?

I think two more would to it. :D

AAShooter
01-31-2011, 8:15 AM
I suspect they will only publish the ones that are reasonably thought out and written by CSUEB students.

CalBear
01-31-2011, 8:55 AM
A California university suppressing viewpoints they see as "conservative?" Go figure. And this is coming from a long time liberal. I saw this over and over in Berkeley. Their logic is usually that "conservative" viewpoints are inherently racist and hateful, and thus do not warrant attention, and should be stifled.

They are wrong to suppress "conservative" viewpoints, and the 2A shouldn't even be viewed as such.

As for what the OP is doing -- they may seem too unimportant to go after, but I applaud the OP's actions. Universities have run amok over the 1A for too long.

oaklander
01-31-2011, 9:12 AM
This may actually be a "case of first impression." I need to hop on Lexis for a while and see if there are any cases right on point.

I generally agree that no publication should be "strong armed" into printing anything. That in itself is a 1A violation.

However, what I am seeing here is more murky. Dr. Terrell has just sent me an interesting email. It appears that he has sunk to the "your momma wears combat boots" method of debate.

I've heard about liberal bias, I've just never seen it so explicitly.

What's your legal basis to insist they publish your reply to their editorial?

There have often been issues with student publications. Students vs students, students vs advisors, and students, advisors vs administration. Often over who has final say over what is published.

If you plan on a 1st amendment basis I think they will claim the publication is an educational tool and not an official government publication and the 1st does not apply.

They could also claim you are not a student of that specific school.

I think your position is good on asking them to improve over what they are currently doing I just don't see a legal basis.

CalBear
01-31-2011, 9:24 AM
Dr. Terrell has just sent me an interesting email. It appears that he has sunk to the "your momma wears combat boots" method of debate.
It's really sad that anyone would stoop to that level of name calling, especially an African American, considering their history of receiving that same, awful treatment.

oaklander
01-31-2011, 9:29 AM
We are not "anon."

So we are not trying to do a 4chan-style thing. . .

Just post a nice response, using clear language, on that editorial, and screenshot it.

steamroller.jpg, wru? or is strictly an oaklandler gig?

oaklander
01-31-2011, 9:34 AM
We should probably avoid any discussions on certain topics, since if this gets press, this thread will be dissected.

He didn't actually insult me. Rather, it sounds like he's trying to "challenge" me. Totally strange.

Here was his strange response:

I recommend that you do what you will...

That was his entire email. I would think that someone involved in "communications" would perhaps be more erudite.

It's really sad that anyone would stoop to that level of name calling, especially an African American, considering their history of receiving that same, awful treatment.

Veggie
01-31-2011, 9:52 AM
Good luck. I am curious to see how this plays out.

CalBear
01-31-2011, 9:54 AM
We should probably avoid any discussions on certain topics, since if this gets press, this thread will be dissected.

He didn't actually insult me. Rather, it sounds like he's trying to "challenge" me. Totally strange.

Here was his strange response:

That was his entire email. I would think that someone involved in "communications" would perhaps be more erudite.
Yeah I don't get that response. Does seem like a bit of a challenge.

choprzrul
01-31-2011, 10:05 AM
Although very rare and seldom seen in the wild, the Oaklander Tiger can be heard roaring in the wild from time to time. This species is extremely dangerous when cornered and seems to have a never ending appetite for battle when attacked. One should never intentional provoke the Oaklander Tiger, as his bite is much worse than his bark. Should one find himself locked in battle with the Oaklander Tiger after over provoking him, it is highly recommended that the provoker immediately roll over and play possum. This is the only known effective defense once the Oaklander Tiger's claws come out.

Dr. Terrell thinks that he has the tiger by the tail. I am afraid that he has simply over provoked the wrong tiger and now will suffer a fool's fate.

Go get 'em Oaklander. Team CGN supports you all the way!

.

rips31
01-31-2011, 10:10 AM
well done, oak. go get 'em!

:lurk5:

BusBoy
01-31-2011, 10:36 AM
:lurk5:

mbuna
01-31-2011, 10:51 AM
Keep up the good work Oaklander.

Wherryj
01-31-2011, 11:21 AM
This actually requires a new thread. So here it is.

Basically, the "Editorial Editor" at Cal State University East Bay (CSU East Bay, or CSUEB) wrote and published a very one-sided editorial about gun control.

http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

Several Calgunners have posted comments, but only ONE has been approved so far. Not only that, but the article is being presented as a "news story" online, when it is actually an "editorial."

I contacted their "Academic Adviser" about these issues, and even wrote my own editorial. In response, I am now getting strange emails from him.

You guys figure this out. I am confused here.

I've been out of school 17 years, so maybe my old concepts of "logic" and "truth" are now somehow outmoded.

Here is the original thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=390290).

EDIT: as you know, there are constitutional reasons that PUBLIC schools can't stifle debate over the gun issue. Let's see how far they want to take this.

----------------------

[I emailed the "Academic Adviser" about the comments issue, and this was his response.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

[Oaklander],
You are addressing an editorial, not an article. I will check to determine whether your comment about comments is accurate.

BTerrell

------------------- [Here is my reply.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, [Oaklander] wrote:

Dear Dr. Terrell,

I know that it is an editorial. But the writing itself is not labeled "Editorial." Perhaps that is simply an error. Usually editorials are denoted as such in the subhead.

Also, the fact that the comments are not being approved is now becoming a topic of discussion on the forum I frequent.

I am aware of your work with homeless people. You might be surprised to learn that I used to work with homeless people when I was in law school. I was a volunteer for a program that helped them do the required paperwork to get housing. We also served as general advocates for homeless people, and made numerous phone calls to various agencies in order to help our "clients." As you know, it's not easy getting someone off the streets. But we did it.

Anyways. . .

I think you will find that many people on the Second Amendment community are not what you would think or expect.

Therefore, "reasoned analysis" is the type of thing that we like to see when articles are written about "us." Here your student has written complete drivel, based on nothing more than feelings and unsubstantiated assertions. It's also too long, and simply repeats things others have written.

Our intent in joining the discussion is thus educational in nature, and it is my hope that by allowing reasoned debate on the topic, both sides will learn something new.

If you wish, I would be happy to write a longer editorial response for The Pioneer. I have more than 70 published articles (most of them on legal topics). What I would write about would be the exact thing I have pointed out above (that analysis of "gun" issues is more complicated than some people think), and that stereotyping is easy, but not useful -- or intellectually honest.

Thank you in advance,

klt

----------- [His reply to me.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

The Pioneer's editorials always apear [sic] on page two. The editorial you disagree with appears on page two.. [sic] Whether you agree or not, it represents the staff's consensus on the matter. Feel free to present your opposing perspective via a letter or short essay (800 - 1500 words). We print such submissions on our op-ed page.

What do you mean when you say "the comments are not being approved?"

------------- [I now reply to him.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:14 PM, [Oaklander] wrote:

Yes, I know it's "page two" in the print edition. But online, there's no "page two" -- so someone clicking on the online version and landing directly on the article will not even see that it is an editorial.

See:

http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

With respect to the comments, I know of at least three people who have commented, and none of their comments have been approved. Your comment system at your website requires that someone on your end read and "approve/moderate" any and all comments.

For example, my comment was made last night, and is still not approved. This means that I am the only person who can see it.

While I realize that this is a weekend, I imagine that there are students who can access your website from their homes and "moderate" remotely.

[I embedded a screen shot of my comment here.]

Yes, with respect to our opposing perspective, I will go ahead and write a short essay/editorial that outlines a more balanced view on the topic.

I should have something to you later this evening, or by Monday at the latest.

Thank you,

Kevin

------------ [Then I sent him an editorial a couple of hours later.]

from [Oaklander]
to Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu>
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM
subject Re: http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/


As promised, attached is an editorial on the topic we have been discussing. . .

I trust that you will see that the proper person receives it. Ironically, this would probably be Mr. Thompson himself. . .

;-)

Please also let me know the publish date so that I can email the link to my friends (and mom).

I appreciate your ear on this matter, by the way. And thank you for replying to my original email. . .

Best,

[Oaklander]

-------- [Then I got this strange reply.]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

Is that such a bad thing? I am finding it difficult to understand your position on the issue, and what you think The Pioneer should do about it?


------------ [I was so irritated by his inability to understand plain English that I missed a word ("are") in my reply.]

from [Oaklander]
to Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu>
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM
subject Re: http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

Surely you [sic] joking with me?

Presenting an "editorial" as a "news story" is universally accepted as bad journalism. Shall I cite the numerous sources for this fact?

With respect to my position on the "issue" there are actually two issues that we are talking about:

1) Comments are being posted on your website, and these comments are apparently not being approved because they are contrary to your editorial position on the "gun issue."

2) I disagree with your editorial position on gun control, as my essay explains in clear detail.

In my career as a licensed attorney, I have written well over a million words, and this is the first time that someone was unable to understand me.

Shall I continue pushing this "issue" with the Office of the Provost? Or will you simply publish the 1043 word editorial that I submitted, per your own guidelines???

---------------------------- [End.]

The ball is now in their court.

I'm relatively certain that this person is not misunderstanding you. I'd posit that this may be the author of the opinion piece in question.

That said, however, I appreciate that manner in which you addressed this.

oaklander
01-31-2011, 11:30 AM
The author is a student. He's also the person who approves what editorials get "printed" - so he basically has his own government-funded bull horn.

The reason that CSUEB does not understand me is that they cannot imagine that there is any contra argument to their own editorial position.

I'm relatively certain that this person is not misunderstanding you. I'd posit that this may be the author of the opinion piece in question.

That said, however, I appreciate that manner in which you addressed this.

RawImpact
01-31-2011, 11:43 AM
.

bump

lewdogg21
01-31-2011, 11:44 AM
This thread is teetering on the verge of epic. I went to CSU Chico (got out in 02) and I have my own stories about bias.


Thank you for standing up for myself and others who share the same 2A viewpoint.

Sam
01-31-2011, 12:18 PM
Oaklander, I hope to be as clever as you when I graduate from law school!

Databyter
01-31-2011, 12:41 PM
I just responded to the article (pending moderation) the below.

Using the specific logic of the writer of this well-meaning but flawed article, perhaps we should limit the capacity of fuel tanks in our cars, buses, and trucks.

After all thousands of people die every year as the result of motor vehicle accidents.

The writer has to realize that the sheer population of the United States means that almost every activity including drinking koolaid is going to have a small percentage of risk.

Shall we all stop driving, stop working, stop eating, and throw away our defenses in the hope that the violent world will see how weak and benevolent we are and do something that has never occurred in the history of man, not hurt us for it?

The truth is there is more violent crime in cities with draconian gun laws than there is in gun friendly cities, especially those with free right to carry permits possible. The reason is that the only people who follow the laws are the law abiding citizens. As a gun user I also have to take issue with the false assumption that Police officers (who are legally civilians by the way)are more trained and safe with thier weapons than the average citizen. In many cases it is the reverse. People who are not in Law Enforcement have to make sure they are very careful in how they use their weapons whereas Police officers are expected to use their weapons and are given the benefit of the doubt in grey areas.

In short disarming the law abiding sane citizen will never prevent the insane criminal from committing appaling acts of violence. There is no connection. Someone in the future will go into a gun store, buy a gun, and kill innocents with it. But it is the price we pay for a free society, and the same applies every time someone buys a car and drives down the road with it.

Doug L
01-31-2011, 12:49 PM
What's your legal basis to insist they publish your reply to their editorial?

1. Tax monies fund the institution.

2. The institution established and maintains a publicly-accessible web site.

3. The web site represents, that readers are able to post comments.

4. The institution is censoring (restricting) comments.

5. A possible violation of their own institutional charter to restrict discussion and debate??

Sounds like a reasonable jumping off point to me.

Databyter
01-31-2011, 12:59 PM
The main problem with arguing with the "liberal" (such a bad name for them) mindset is that they see something like what occurred in Arizona and proclaim.

"This must never be allowed to happen again"

Well, I too share the hope that it does not, but with it is the realization that it will. As I said elsewhere in this thread,.

One day in the future an individual will go into a gun store, but a gun and kill innocents with it

This is the price we pay for a free society.

The only difference in making it an UN-free society is that the individual would get his gun somewhere besides a gun shop, or would put poisen in the cafeteria, or set fire to an apartment building.

Liberals can't seem to grasp that you can never prevent violence, but that in your attempt to do so, if you're not carefull, you can prevent the defensive capacity of Main Street USA.

Diesel-Gunner
01-31-2011, 1:16 PM
Oaklander, I followed your posts step by step during the riots last year, even listened for your name on the online scanner...
With that being said, I can wait to see how this one turns out. You never know when a small student paper can make national headlines in our world today.

>Insert popcorn symbol here<

santacruzstefan
01-31-2011, 1:40 PM
Oaklander, I hope to be as clever as you when I graduate from law school!

lol this!

Steyr_223
01-31-2011, 2:15 PM
Great responses!

Jack L
01-31-2011, 2:24 PM
This actually requires a new thread. So here it is.

Basically, the "Editorial Editor" at Cal State University East Bay (CSU East Bay, or CSUEB) wrote and published a very one-sided editorial about gun control.

http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

Several Calgunners have posted comments, but only ONE has been approved so far. Not only that, but the article is being presented as a "news story" online, when it is actually an "editorial."

I contacted their "Academic Adviser" about these issues, and even wrote my own editorial. In response, I am now getting strange emails from him.

You guys figure this out. I am confused here.

I've been out of school 17 years, so maybe my old concepts of "logic" and "truth" are now somehow outmoded.

Here is the original thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=390290).

EDIT: as you know, there are constitutional reasons that PUBLIC schools can't stifle debate over the gun issue. Let's see how far they want to take this.

----------------------

[I emailed the "Academic Adviser" about the comments issue, and this was his response.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

[Oaklander],
You are addressing an editorial, not an article. I will check to determine whether your comment about comments is accurate.

BTerrell

------------------- [Here is my reply.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM, [Oaklander] wrote:

Dear Dr. Terrell,

I know that it is an editorial. But the writing itself is not labeled "Editorial." Perhaps that is simply an error. Usually editorials are denoted as such in the subhead.

Also, the fact that the comments are not being approved is now becoming a topic of discussion on the forum I frequent.

I am aware of your work with homeless people. You might be surprised to learn that I used to work with homeless people when I was in law school. I was a volunteer for a program that helped them do the required paperwork to get housing. We also served as general advocates for homeless people, and made numerous phone calls to various agencies in order to help our "clients." As you know, it's not easy getting someone off the streets. But we did it.

Anyways. . .

I think you will find that many people on the Second Amendment community are not what you would think or expect.

Therefore, "reasoned analysis" is the type of thing that we like to see when articles are written about "us." Here your student has written complete drivel, based on nothing more than feelings and unsubstantiated assertions. It's also too long, and simply repeats things others have written.

Our intent in joining the discussion is thus educational in nature, and it is my hope that by allowing reasoned debate on the topic, both sides will learn something new.

If you wish, I would be happy to write a longer editorial response for The Pioneer. I have more than 70 published articles (most of them on legal topics). What I would write about would be the exact thing I have pointed out above (that analysis of "gun" issues is more complicated than some people think), and that stereotyping is easy, but not useful -- or intellectually honest.

Thank you in advance,

klt

----------- [His reply to me.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

The Pioneer's editorials always apear [sic] on page two. The editorial you disagree with appears on page two.. [sic] Whether you agree or not, it represents the staff's consensus on the matter. Feel free to present your opposing perspective via a letter or short essay (800 - 1500 words). We print such submissions on our op-ed page.

What do you mean when you say "the comments are not being approved?"

------------- [I now reply to him.]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 10:14 PM, [Oaklander] wrote:

Yes, I know it's "page two" in the print edition. But online, there's no "page two" -- so someone clicking on the online version and landing directly on the article will not even see that it is an editorial.

See:

http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

With respect to the comments, I know of at least three people who have commented, and none of their comments have been approved. Your comment system at your website requires that someone on your end read and "approve/moderate" any and all comments.

For example, my comment was made last night, and is still not approved. This means that I am the only person who can see it.

While I realize that this is a weekend, I imagine that there are students who can access your website from their homes and "moderate" remotely.

[I embedded a screen shot of my comment here.]

Yes, with respect to our opposing perspective, I will go ahead and write a short essay/editorial that outlines a more balanced view on the topic.

I should have something to you later this evening, or by Monday at the latest.

Thank you,

Kevin

------------ [Then I sent him an editorial a couple of hours later.]

from [Oaklander]
to Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu>
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM
subject Re: http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/


As promised, attached is an editorial on the topic we have been discussing. . .

I trust that you will see that the proper person receives it. Ironically, this would probably be Mr. Thompson himself. . .

;-)

Please also let me know the publish date so that I can email the link to my friends (and mom).

I appreciate your ear on this matter, by the way. And thank you for replying to my original email. . .

Best,

[Oaklander]

-------- [Then I got this strange reply.]

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu> wrote:

Is that such a bad thing? I am finding it difficult to understand your position on the issue, and what you think The Pioneer should do about it?


------------ [I was so irritated by his inability to understand plain English that I missed a word ("are") in my reply.]

from [Oaklander]
to Robert Terrell <robert.terrell@csueastbay.edu>
date Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM
subject Re: http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/01/reasonable-gun-control-held-up-by-gun-lobby/

Surely you [sic] joking with me?

Presenting an "editorial" as a "news story" is universally accepted as bad journalism. Shall I cite the numerous sources for this fact?

With respect to my position on the "issue" there are actually two issues that we are talking about:

1) Comments are being posted on your website, and these comments are apparently not being approved because they are contrary to your editorial position on the "gun issue."

2) I disagree with your editorial position on gun control, as my essay explains in clear detail.

In my career as a licensed attorney, I have written well over a million words, and this is the first time that someone was unable to understand me.

Shall I continue pushing this "issue" with the Office of the Provost? Or will you simply publish the 1043 word editorial that I submitted, per your own guidelines???

---------------------------- [End.]

The ball is now in their court.


I sent that article to the NRA. They received it and thanked me. The thanks goes to you for posting.

Hopefully someone sent it to the CRPA since it's in their back yard so to speak.

Wompinblazer
01-31-2011, 2:31 PM
Just playing Devils Advocate here... Again...

It says the word "Editorials" in the link you clicked on.

Other than that, I hope you take it to them.:D

oaklander
01-31-2011, 2:44 PM
Yes, I finally saw that up in the "http://" stuff. It would take about 5 seconds for them to ALSO add it to the actual webpage via an edit to their page template.

The issue is that if you print it, it doesn't say "Editorial" - since it's only in the http stuff.

Not a big issue, but does show their apparently careless mindset.

Just playing Devils Advocate here... Again...

It says the word "Editorials" in the link you clicked on.

Other than that, I hope you take it to them.:D

oaklander
01-31-2011, 3:09 PM
I have contacted the General Counsel for the entire CSU system. Out of professional courtesy, I will not be publishing her name or email address, at this time.

Her reply, if any, should be interesting.

EDIT: also contacted ACLU NorCal.

I will keep everyone updated.

jwb28
01-31-2011, 3:12 PM
Hey Oak,
Thanks for making some lib at a CSU a little less comfortable. I work at one. It's like being behind enemy lines sometimes.
Congrats on the new bride. How are the pups doing?

shock
01-31-2011, 3:12 PM
bringing drama!

:D

oaklander
01-31-2011, 3:36 PM
Thanks!

Yes, pups are doing fine! They seem to like the quiet out here!!!

Hey Oak,
Thanks for making some lib at a CSU a little less comfortable. I work at one. It's like being behind enemy lines sometimes.
Congrats on the new bride. How are the pups doing?

kermit315
01-31-2011, 3:41 PM
tagged to follow. this could be popcorn interesting.

AAShooter
01-31-2011, 4:02 PM
I believe the next edition is out on Thursday.

BKinzey
01-31-2011, 4:04 PM
The link between the school and government funding does sound like an interesting one. I can also see where this link would prevent an invite from the institution to the KKK to burn a cross on school property. (It's an obvious example rather than a probable one.)

Then I think of all the universities and colleges throughout the US that receive government funding. All the media they control or at least oversee. The commencement speakers, guest speakers and such. Certainly in the past someone, somewhere has thought of this link and pursued it as a violation of the 1st amendment. A search should provide at least some of these legal cases.

From what little I know these situations CSUEB is operating in a manner consistent with, and normal among, other state supported schools. I would then guess they have a legal basis to do so.

Still I am interested in knowing where that basis is derived from.

kermit315
01-31-2011, 4:07 PM
Its not just the .gov funding. Its a public, state owned school. Trickle down means that its a public, state owned newspaper. Basically, the person moderating comments and not allowing discourse, is acting as an agent of the government, and by proxy the .gov is stifling discourse regarding an individual constitutional right.

as per usual, JMO, YMMV, IANAL.

oaklander
01-31-2011, 4:14 PM
The issue will probably be decided by whether the "public forum doctrine" applies to the comments section of school newspaper websites.

:D

I have not read all of this - but it seems to explain the issues here:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:pVjoFx_Pq54J:statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/hottopic/cipa/overview_of_public_forum_doctrine.doc+public+forum +doctrine&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESis9OyI75Fq4jK0xtm_W0UwF4DPNC5lmrN6m7Vf vs0G2gGpBVlNhhRM1xaCqKjOYfFSdJ_VuQ4AmlQiFce9vitXjL PbggcYFQsnkg6kC_yaYpY7uFmGhnguyi9kxOgOGcIbMA7W&sig=AHIEtbTGbBT2rqQ9CZsoPmNqrbJZb675IA

Also:

Christian Legal Soc'y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971 (U.S. 2010)

The link between the school and government funding does sound like an interesting one. I can also see where this link would prevent an invite from the institution to the KKK to burn a cross on school property. (It's an obvious example rather than a probable one.)

Then I think of all the universities and colleges throughout the US that receive government funding. All the media they control or at least oversee. The commencement speakers, guest speakers and such. Certainly in the past someone, somewhere has thought of this link and pursued it as a violation of the 1st amendment. A search should provide at least some of these legal cases.

From what little I know these situations CSUEB is operating in a manner consistent with, and normal among, other state supported schools. I would then guess they have a legal basis to do so.

Still I am interested in knowing where that basis is derived from.

stix213
01-31-2011, 4:43 PM
:popcorn:

My money is on they continue stone walling you and force you to take this all the way. They think they are king of their little castle, and who are you to tell them otherwise.

Plus.... guns kill people so they are bad so should be banned obviously. Why do you need a gun when you have 911? :p

BKinzey
01-31-2011, 4:54 PM
The issue will probably be decided by whether the "public forum doctrine" applies to the comments section of school newspaper websites.

:D

I have not read all of this - but it seems to explain the issues here:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:pVjoFx_Pq54J:statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/hottopic/cipa/overview_of_public_forum_doctrine.doc+public+forum +doctrine&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESis9OyI75Fq4jK0xtm_W0UwF4DPNC5lmrN6m7Vf vs0G2gGpBVlNhhRM1xaCqKjOYfFSdJ_VuQ4AmlQiFce9vitXjL PbggcYFQsnkg6kC_yaYpY7uFmGhnguyi9kxOgOGcIbMA7W&sig=AHIEtbTGbBT2rqQ9CZsoPmNqrbJZb675IA


Yes, there were 2 sections (for some reason I can't copy & paste the sections) and the summation on page 10 & 11 which address it. After you have time to read it I'm certainly interested in your opinion.

fpeel
01-31-2011, 5:02 PM
:popcorn:

My money is on they continue stone walling you and force you to take this all the way. They think they are king of their little castle, and who are you to tell them otherwise.

Plus.... guns kill people so they are bad so should be banned obviously. Why do you need a gun when you have 911? :p

stix' comments are spot on. Add in that if there this ever reaches the point where legal fees are involved it won't be the offending party's monies that pay them. In addition to the salaries of the administrators who are allowing these inappropriate activities, any costs incurred will also come from the tax paying citizenry. Ironic, no?

Regarding the question, "Why do you need a gun when you have 911?" My response is to rewrite it a bit. "Why do I need 911 when I have 1911?"

WatchMan
01-31-2011, 5:12 PM
:popcorn:

My money is on they continue stone walling you and force you to take this all the way. They think they are king of their little castle, and who are you to tell them otherwise.



Once they realize Oaklander will not back down and has the horsepower to really take them on, I think you may see them come up with some cheesy, face-saving way of folding.

I hope not, because I would love to see these elitists get schooled the hard way. :43:

Pig Rifle
01-31-2011, 5:25 PM
Take it to em, oak! Good to see you around again! :cool2:

kcbrown
01-31-2011, 5:58 PM
Thanks kmn!!!!

Yes, I like to help. I used to be a lot more involved than I am now. I got married recently, and that (obviously) took priority.

Now me and my beautiful wife (who is also a shooter and who is on this forum) are settling in real nice, and thus I am starting to have time to do this sort of stuff again.


Excellent. I'd wondered where you'd gone off to...

And congratulations!

ale014
01-31-2011, 6:02 PM
Although very rare and seldom seen in the wild, the Oaklander Tiger can be heard roaring in the wild from time to time. This species is extremely dangerous when cornered and seems to have a never ending appetite for battle when attacked. One should never intentional provoke the Oaklander Tiger, as his bite is much worse than his bark. Should one find himself locked in battle with the Oaklander Tiger after over provoking him, it is highly recommended that the provoker immediately roll over and play possum. This is the only known effective defense once the Oaklander Tiger's claws come out.

Dr. Terrell thinks that he has the tiger by the tail. I am afraid that he has simply over provoked the wrong tiger and now will suffer a fool's fate.

Go get 'em Oaklander. Team CGN supports you all the way!

.

:rofl2:


Yeah, get some Oak!

PsychGuy274
01-31-2011, 6:18 PM
Just ran across this thread.

I deem this thread...

http://who-is-awesome.com/who-is-awesome.jpg

Mendo223
01-31-2011, 7:41 PM
Wow...pat on the back for oaklander. we need more people like you willing to devote their time. this thread makes me really want to get my BAR...

once again thank you. i wish i was a student at a CSU college so i could add my two cents.

Gray Peterson
01-31-2011, 7:52 PM
So, I just found this out, but the First Amendment applies to private colleges and universities as well under what's called the "Leonard Law".

Very very interesting.

oaklander
01-31-2011, 8:11 PM
Thanks guys for the kind words!

I originally pursued this as a lark, then when I started doing the research, I determined that what CSUEB is doing is likely illegal, in my personal opinion.

I'm glad to be back!!!!

Interestingly, nobody from the CSU system has replied to me today, except for that one strange email from Dr. Terrell, this morning.

I'll know more when I connect to the main lawyer at ACLU NorCal.

My prediction that they are "lawyering up" is probably correct. That being said, everything I have seen so far indicates that they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

EDIT: If I really want to get assertive with them, I'll bring Gray into the fight!!!

hoffmang
01-31-2011, 8:34 PM
Can Oak be the first person to apply Pruneyard to an online forum?

-Gene

Librarian
01-31-2011, 8:34 PM
Make this one work and maybe we have a lever to compel large-market newspapers to accept pro-gun paid political advertising.

Now that would be a Good Thing.

AAShooter
01-31-2011, 8:35 PM
I still think the quickest way to get responses included in this week's edition is for CSU EastBay students to submit responses and identify themselves as CSU Eastbay students.

I open carry
01-31-2011, 8:35 PM
My reply is still awaiting moderation.
It has been waiting for over 24 hours.

Mimi_T
01-31-2011, 8:42 PM
:popcorn:

I posted a comment too, complaining about their blatant disregard for both the 1st and the 2nd amendments. It's "awaiting moderation" like the others.

JohanD
01-31-2011, 8:43 PM
:inquis:

Let 'em have it!

Mendo223
01-31-2011, 9:15 PM
haha awesome! man i feel like registering at CSU east bay so i can contact them too...how much is a course credit?

gatdammit
01-31-2011, 9:20 PM
Nice... tagged this for follow up. I am awaiting approval as well for my comments. Except I went the other way... I wrote an anti message and will see IF that one gets approved. You always need a control in an experiment right?

Gray Peterson
01-31-2011, 9:20 PM
Can Oak be the first person to apply Pruneyard to an online forum?

-Gene

No need, CSU is a governmental group, IIRC.

-Gray

Matt C
01-31-2011, 9:40 PM
No need, CSU is a governmental group, IIRC.

-Gray

Yes, but it's a student (print) paper, and this is an editorial issue. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo is more likely to be controlling.

Veggie
01-31-2011, 10:13 PM
You guys are scary when you get moving.

freonr22
01-31-2011, 10:35 PM
Can Oak be the first person to apply Pruneyard to an online forum?

-Gene
The Pruneyard has been part of history many times...

jdberger
01-31-2011, 10:43 PM
IIRC James Taranto, editor for the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page, had a similar issue with a CSU school in SoCal. Northridge, maybe?

He's an amenable fellow. He also has some anti-authoritarian instincts and a wicked sense of humor.

You might want to reach out, Oak.

oaklander
01-31-2011, 10:48 PM
Thanks JD - good tip!!!

IIRC James Taranto, editor for the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page, had a similar issue with a CSU school in SoCal. Northridge, maybe?

He's an amenable fellow. He also has some anti-authoritarian instincts and a wicked sense of humor.

You might want to reach out, Oak.

otalps
01-31-2011, 11:29 PM
IIRC James Taranto, editor for the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page, had a similar issue with a CSU school in SoCal. Northridge, maybe?

He's an amenable fellow. He also has some anti-authoritarian instincts and a wicked sense of humor.

You might want to reach out, Oak.

UCSD? If that's the case you're referring to it's here (http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/4147_2465.pdf?direct). This site (http://thefire.org/) is pretty good nonetheless for these issues.

jdberger
01-31-2011, 11:36 PM
Northridge for sure.

FIRE's interesting. I think that they too often make mountains where molehills should be, but it's always good to have someone poking a sharp stick at the bureaucrats.

Never let them get comfortable.

hoffmang
01-31-2011, 11:39 PM
Yes, but it's a student (print) paper, and this is an editorial issue. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo is more likely to be controlling.

Server and bandwidth are state property and there is viewpoint discrimination by an agent of the state in an invited public forum (comments are open....) Miami Herald is not relevant on those facts.

-Gene

otalps
01-31-2011, 11:51 PM
Northridge for sure.

FIRE's interesting. I think that they too often make mountains where molehills should be, but it's always good to have someone poking a sharp stick at the bureaucrats.

Never let them get comfortable.

True, I agree with the sharp stick.
Is this (http://www.jamestaranto.com/rooster.htm) it? Not that it's important, just piqued my curiosity.

smokeysbandit
02-01-2011, 12:07 AM
:gunsmilie: You guys really know how to get me excited! LOL

Andy Taylor
02-01-2011, 12:17 AM
Good going. Keep up the fight.

Gray Peterson
02-01-2011, 12:46 AM
Server and bandwidth are state property and there is viewpoint discrimination by an agent of the state in an invited public forum (comments are open....) Miami Herald is not relevant on those facts.

-Gene

Correct. In fact, on private universities, the Leonard Law applies in California.

oaklander
02-01-2011, 12:53 AM
There's actually two Constitutions at work here as well.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.

oaklander
02-01-2011, 1:12 AM
Guys and Gals, I didn't want to go nuclear here, but I will anyways.

What I would like is for those of you who frequent conservative blogs to let the appropriate blog editors know about this.

Basically, just send them a link to this thread with a two or three sentence explanation of why you are sending it. Don't make anything complicated, or they won't even finish reading your email.

Please PM me if you need my email address or phone number.

If the editor doesn't understand the hub bub, just say something like this:

Basically, the legal issue is whether a "news" website that is maintained by a state-funded college, and which has a "comments -section" that is open to the public, is a "public forum" under the relevant case law.

Remember, the issue isn't CGN, or this thread - the only reason I even want you to send them the link to this thread is because we explain everything very well here. Please also remember that we are NOT 4chan, or anon. This is not an internet "pile-on," and any and all letters to the editor should be respectful.

ALSO - please keep posting comments, and taking screen shots of them - showing that they are perpetually awaiting "moderation." I may have a use for those, shortly.

ALSO/ALSO - if this starts to get press, etc. . . I would like one of our resident wiki editors to make an annotation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_University,_East_Bay

I can't do all this myself - I also work a full-time "day job" - so everyone's help is AWESOMELY APPRECIATED!!!!! :D

chiselchst
02-01-2011, 3:00 AM
Wow, just WOW!

So PROUD to be associated with such a group here... :hurray:

Purple K
02-01-2011, 6:02 AM
Glad to see you back Oak.

cdtx2001
02-01-2011, 6:31 AM
GO get em!!!! I can't stand any media source that only allows a one sided opinion.

mikaarce
02-01-2011, 6:38 AM
tagging.

Glock_Toter
02-01-2011, 6:52 AM
Just gotta say BRAVO :hurray: Good job Oak and everyone else. Tagged

Flintlock Tom
02-01-2011, 6:58 AM
I don't see any "comments" to the article, but there is one "response".
I posted a screen capture of the one response and my comment below.

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm138/FlintlockTom/response.jpg

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 7:20 AM
If the responses are moderated, i.e., there is exercise of editorial discretion (like picking and choosing letters to the editor in a print newspaper), then how is it a "public forum"? The only response published is a rebuttal anyway...are they required to publish every rebuttal from every non-student gadfly?

Gray Peterson
02-01-2011, 7:25 AM
If the responses are moderated, i.e., there is exercise of editorial discretion (like picking and choosing letters to the editor in a print newspaper), then how is it a "public forum"? The only response published is a rebuttal anyway...are they required to publish every rebuttal from every non-student gadfly?

Just as much as they have to allow non-students to preach in the public squares of a college, the answer to this is yes.

PsychGuy274
02-01-2011, 7:30 AM
I like Oak's new avatar :D

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 7:34 AM
Just as much as they have to allow non-students to preach in the public squares of a college, the answer to this is yes.

Do you have any cites to any published decisions that the editorial section of a university print newspaper is a traditional public forum like "the public squares of a college"? That traditional public forum analysis is applied to moderated responses to the editorial section of an online university newspaper?

Matt C
02-01-2011, 8:51 AM
Server and bandwidth are state property and there is viewpoint discrimination by an agent of the state in an invited public forum (comments are open....) Miami Herald is not relevant on those facts.

-Gene

Not sure that a student acting in an editorial capacity for a student newspaper is an agent of the state, particularly if there is no oversight or control on the students actions. Do you have a cite for this? Also, the ability to submit comments does not create an open public forum, in fact it appears the comments are heavily regulated by the editor. The fact that the print is online is irrelevant unless you have a cite that says otherwise.

Dooligan
02-01-2011, 9:44 AM
What a great read. Thanks.

AAShooter
02-01-2011, 9:46 AM
I wonder if this is the gun control the author is calling for . . .

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

ADH
02-01-2011, 9:56 AM
This thread has made my morning. Git 'em!

gun toting monkeyboy
02-01-2011, 10:36 AM
This is entertaining. I can only imagine what is going on behind closed doors at CSUEB right now. Good job!

Librarian
02-01-2011, 10:44 AM
I've just skimmed back through the thread and I may have missed it, but have you also contacted FIRE (http://thefire.org/)? They have a somewhat different set of concerns, but perhaps they may be interested.

Drivedabizness
02-01-2011, 11:24 AM
Has anyone thought to contact that vigilant defender of the 1A...our AG?

:)

Matt C
02-01-2011, 11:26 AM
I've just skimmed back through the thread and I may have missed it, but have you also contacted FIRE (http://thefire.org/)? They have a somewhat different set of concerns, but perhaps they may be interested.

FIRE was very helpful when dealing with 1A/free speech zone issues when I was at ELAC, great organization.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 1:17 PM
Lexis, maybe?

:p

Nope, the cases there say that third party, non-student gadflies can't sue universities over student editors' decisions not to publish their stuff in the school newspaper. And that the student editors can sue the universities if the university interferes with their editorial discretion.

Before you whip everybody into a frenzy and threaten litigation to CSU's general counsel, you might want to read the case law first!

:p

odysseus
02-01-2011, 1:24 PM
Nope, the cases there say that third party, non-student gadflies can't sue universities over student editors' decisions not to publish their stuff in the school newspaper. And that the student editors can sue the universities if the university interferes with their editorial discretion.

Before you whip everybody into a frenzy and threaten litigation to CSU's general counsel, you might want to read the case law first!

:p

I cannot cite (and I am not an attorney), but I do know of cases where a student member in said school can sue over editorial interference from being published in their own school paper. One in a high school near me where it went to appellate and the student won, over an article on illegal immigration. Perhaps there are students there that are having this very problem at CSU EB?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 1:30 PM
I cannot cite (and I am not an attorney), but I do know of cases where a student member in said school can sue over editorial interference from being published in their own school paper. One in a high school near me where it went to appellate and the student won, over an article on illegal immigration. Perhaps there are students there that are having this very problem at CSU EB?

Oaklander apparently wants CSU to force the student editor to publish oaklander's stuff, thereby exposing CSU to a first amendment lawsuit from the editor lol.

choprzrul
02-01-2011, 2:31 PM
You guys are scary when you get moving.

Methinks somebody named student better pull on his big boy pants if he wants to dance with the Oaklander. Then again, the big boy pants are just going to get in the way when he gets turned over a knee and spanked...

.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 2:46 PM
Get real.

Yes, there are legal steps that can be taken. . .

I think a good "1983 suit" would be great, since it would allow me to pay off my student loans.

Oh yea, that's just your "personal opinion" that a good 1983 suit would be great.

:rolleyes:

Therefore, would you do me the professional courtesy of:

1) Posting the mysterious cites you mention.

How about I answer that with the same answer you gave me to my question?

Lexis, maybe?

:p

2) Explaining to me why a "print publication" which has limited room for belated printed responses is the exact same as an "online publication" which has unlimited room for instant comments?

3) If you find cases that ARE on point, and are controlling, (and the ones you have mentioned are apparently not), would you also please post those here as well?

If you had been able to read between the lines here, you would have realized that I was already four steps ahead of you, and that I had already thought about this issue, and that I had realized that this was likely a case of first impression - since it deals with the issue of whether an online comment section at a public university newspaper is a public forum.

As blackwater ops pointed out, editorial discretion is apparently being exercised here with respect to online editorials and commentary. Just like editorials and letters to the editor in a print newspaper. Why would you think that because an online newspaper uses software that could be tweaked to permit instant, unmoderated, online commentary, that would somehow nullify the ample case law that says the state ordinarily cannot interfere with the exercise of editorial discretion in a variety of student-run media?

You've got other problems besides that. The single response that was posted online isn't exactly compelling evidence of "viewpoint discrimination." Again where is the authority that a student newspaper -- print, online, whatever -- is required to publish every letter to the editor or online comment it receives from every third party, non-student gadfly? There isn't any that I can find on Lexis.

Let's face it, you're blowing smoke here.

oaklander
02-01-2011, 2:51 PM
The 1983 comment was a joke about getting arrested for guns like BWO was. Please read the exchange again.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 2:52 PM
EDIT: wait - aren't you the lawyer who works for the state, like as a DA or something? Or was that another member? This could explain why you are so supportive of the institution and not the people who pay for the institution.

I don't work for the state, I pay taxes, and it annoys me when people threaten to file/and or file frivolous litigation.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 3:03 PM
I have read the entire thread and the funny thing is that they've already published one opposing viewpoint in the online comment section, and they've invited you to submit an opposing viewpoint, but despite this they are somehow violating the first amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination:

Feel free to present your opposing perspective via a letter or short essay (800 - 1500 words). We print such submissions on our op-ed page.

Sure looks like prima facie viewpoint discrimination to me!

doubledgarage
02-01-2011, 3:03 PM
http://www.doubledgarage.com/pictures/pioneer.jpg

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 3:20 PM
Folks, Fabio adds nothing to the conversation here, and I will be adding him to my ignore list. I urge others here to do the same so we can stay focused on the real issues here.

Just click here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/profile.php?do=ignorelist

And paste his name into the little box - takes about 5 seconds and will save you a lot of time scrolling through his posts.

Boo hoo, you hurt my feelings! :( Good luck with your gadfly litigation!

choprzrul
02-01-2011, 3:27 PM
Folks, "DA Fabio" adds nothing to the conversation here, and I will be adding him to my ignore list. I urge others here to do the same so we can stay focused on the real issues here.

Just click here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/profile.php?do=ignorelist

And paste his name into the little box - takes about 5 seconds and will save you a lot of time scrolling through (and trying to understand) his posts.



Most excellent! I've always wondered how that whole 'ignore' thing worked. Perfect opportunity to try it out. Thank you Oaklander.

.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 3:29 PM
If you haven't put me on your ignore list yet and want to see how oaklander's last gun-related gadfly litigation turned out, click here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=199495) for the background and click here (http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/html/casesumbody.html), enter case number "RG09460712", click on "Rulings and CMC orders", and select the 11/05/09 order throwing the case out. No surprise that he would put me on his ignore list, I predicted exactly where that one would end up. :rolleyes:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 3:32 PM
Most excellent! I've always wondered how that whole 'ignore' thing worked. Perfect opportunity to try it out. Thank you Oaklander.

The cool thing about it is that the posts that you are "ignoring" somehow show up in your signature.

oaklander
02-01-2011, 3:39 PM
We don't win every case. But we at least try to set things right and do the right thing when we can. I don't get paid for any of this. In fact, I lose money because it takes time away from my day job. The case you reference cost me over $5000 in lost billed time, by the way - i.e., hours I could have spent getting paid (but wasn't) multiplied by my hourly rate.

I spend hundreds of hours of unbilled time per year on this stuff. I am not exaggerating when I say that I could be driving a much newer car, and living in a much nicer house, if it wasn't for the work I do for gun rights.

And yes, sometimes we fail. But we at least try, and that is more than most people do.

Please join us in this battle. If you think that we are wrong, please cite cases so we can look them up.

If you haven't put me on your ignore list yet and want to see how oaklander's last gun-related gadfly litigation turned out, click here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=199495) for the background and click here (RG09460712), enter case number "RG09460712", click on "Rulings and CMC orders", and select the 11/05/09 order throwing the case out. No surprise that he would put me on his ignore list, I predicted exactly where that one would end up. :rolleyes:

Purple K
02-01-2011, 3:39 PM
I've read many of the exchanges between Fabio and the folks in the know here at CGN. He's a troll, a sophisticated troll, but a troll all the same. Kinda like a pimple on the (3 letters, starts with "A", ends with "SS") of progress.

Diesel-Gunner
02-01-2011, 3:45 PM
I've read many of the exchanges between Fabio and the folks in the know here at CGN. He's a troll, a sophisticated troll, but a troll all the same. Kinda like a pimple on the ***** of progress.

The last part is signature line material for sure!:clap:

curtisfong
02-01-2011, 3:47 PM
I'd feel differently about him if he actually managed to be constructive. I've yet to see him be helpful in any substantive way.

Fabio, are you trying to be helpful or not? I'm a big fan of dissenting opinion, but only if it comes with the right intent.

Also, for the record, I never use any ignore feature of any message board. I don't believe in them.

choprzrul
02-01-2011, 3:50 PM
I've read many of the exchanges between Fabio and the folks in the know here at CGN. He's a troll, a sophisticated troll, but a troll all the same. Kinda like a pimple on the (3 letters, starts with "A", ends with "SS") of progress.

Perhaps someone should start a "IGNORE FABIO" thread so that we could have a mass ignore event in Fabio's name?

.

###EDIT###

Upon further investigation, I believe that I have discovered the root cause of the problem:

http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac214/choprzrul/FabioFriends.gif

.

AAShooter
02-01-2011, 3:51 PM
. . . (3 letters, starts with "A", ends with "SS") . . .

I know, I KNOW . . . pick me, pick me!!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 3:56 PM
We don't win every case. But we at least try to set things right and do the right thing when we can.

Sometimes we fail. But we at least try, and that is more than most people do.

You are really showing your true colors, at this point.

You are trolling a thread where I am trying to set something right again, when I call you out, you are now trying to find something else to criticize.

It's simply sad, Fabio.

The sad thing is that the wrong you think you're trying to right is perceived. Just like your perception that I'm a DA. Don't you think it was a little premature to get CSU counsel involved over some speculative "viewpoint discrimination" that may or may not happen? You might have had something to work with if you let this one play out differently, but instead you are coming across as a blow hard gadfly, especially when none of the many published decisions on student-edited media and the first amendment directly or indirectly support your position that a moderated comment section for an online student newspaper should is the same as traditional public forum, and there is no evidence of viewpoint discrimination even if they did. That's sad.

Dreaded Claymore
02-01-2011, 4:06 PM
Guys, once you click "Ignore Fabio," you have to follow up on it by actually ignoring Fabio. As in, stop responding to his posts. Otherwise, you're not contributing to the thread any more than he is.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-01-2011, 4:07 PM
I'd feel differently about him if he actually managed to be constructive. I've yet to see him be helpful in any substantive way.

Fabio, are you trying to be helpful or not? I'm a big fan of dissenting opinion, but only if it comes with the right intent.

Let me state this clearly, with no personal attack intended. I don't think the shoot from the hip, blow hard approach oaklander is using here (and previously) is credible especially when, at this point, there is nothing remotely resembling an actionable first amendment claim against CSU or its student newspaper. I did not think his last gadfly litigation was credible or ably litigated either. (In that case, to win he needed to prove that the information he wanted was "general" and not "specific" but in his lawsuit he alleged that the information that he wanted was "specific.") Credibility is important and that was one of the the concerns I raised in the thread on the last case, which the judge ultimately and predictably tossed as being "without legal merit." In short I think oaklander's approach, while well-intentioned, does not enhance credibility.

Gray Peterson
02-01-2011, 4:11 PM
Let me state this clearly, with no personal attack intended. I don't think the shoot from the hip, blow hard approach oaklander is using here (and previously) is credible especially when, at this point, there is nothing remotely resembling an actionable first amendment claim against CSU or its student newspaper. I did not think his last gadfly litigation was credible or ably litigated either. (In that case, to win he needed to prove that the information he wanted was "general" and not "specific" but in his lawsuit he alleged that the information that he wanted was "specific.") Credibility is important and that was one of the the concerns I raised in the thread on the last case, which the judge ultimately and predictably tossed as being "without legal merit." In short I think oaklander's approach, while well-intentioned, does not enhance credibility.

Fine. Let's forget about the fact that Oaklander is doing this case.

What is the cases you speak of? Cite your sources if you're going to make a contrary claim. You made the specific claim that there are cases that allow students to sue universities for altering their editorial content (which isn't what's going on here) among other things.

Educate us on what you're talking about, or stop trolling.

curtisfong
02-01-2011, 4:12 PM
In short I think oaklander's approach, while well-intentioned, does not enhance credibility.

So is your motive to help oaklander (and others) with his (and their) 2A advocacy strategy, or simply to whinge?

You still haven't indicated which; although you seem to imply you are trying to be constructive, but it is so vague and roundabout I wonder what it is about your personality, posting style, or motives, that prevents you from being upfront.

383green
02-01-2011, 4:13 PM
Folks, "DA Fabio" adds nothing to the conversation here, and I will be adding him to my ignore list. I urge others here to do the same so we can stay focused on the real issues here.


I'm months ahead of you on that one. ;)

oaklander
02-01-2011, 4:15 PM
You are right.

I am going to go back through and delete most of my replies to him. I don't want this thread to get locked. My fault here for even replying to the first one.

The update is that I am in communication with their General Counsel's office. This matter will get resolved.

I know that my approach is not to some folk's liking. But it's worked well in the past for me and the movement.

I grew up in a trailer park. My last job before I went back to school was as a bouncer. Nobody expected me to do anything with my life. But I was just aggressive enough to reject that idea. So I ended up graduating from a top 20 law school. My personality and approach to problems might be distasteful to some people who grew up in gated communities, or who came from wealthy families or whatever. I know I'm not socially acceptable to some people. But, luckily, they aren't the kinds of people that I would want to hang around with anyways.

The whole pro-gun movement is basically about "standing up for your rights." Sometimes you have to be loud. Sometimes you have to be a jerk. Sometimes, you need to be smooth too. This isn't one of those "smooth" times (by the way). I could explain why, but I don't want CSU to read this thread and understand my strategy here.

If this was the 1960's, I would have been a hippie. I really don't like the government (or big business) telling me what to do. I don't like the "modern" Subaru hippies, but I love the old angry "f-the-man" ones. I also don't like people telling me to "tone things down," or just "go with the flow," or "conform," or whatever.

If I had listened to those people, I would still be working as a bouncer, working 30 hours per week, living off "shift meals," and hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Sorry for the long essay. Some of the newer people here don't know why I do all this. I hope this helps people understand.

Guys, once you click "Ignore Fabio," you have to follow up on it by actually ignoring Fabio. As in, stop responding to his posts. Otherwise, you're not contributing to the thread any more than he is.

sandman21
02-01-2011, 5:03 PM
The basis for our decision is narrow. Having created a forum generally open to student groups, the University seeks to enforce a content-based exclusion of religious speech. Its exclusionary policy violates the fundamental principle that a state regulation of speech should be content-neutral, and the University is unable to justify this violation under applicable constitutional standards. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0454_0263_ZO.html) I think you could make an argument that the University is limiting a forum generally open to students based on content. I know that CA is fairly unique in regards to the 1A, allowing people to protest or solicit on private property that is open to the public.

If they can limit speech on a public comment section of a CSU run website, can they limit speech on a bulletin board on campus. What is the difference?

ldivinag
02-01-2011, 5:33 PM
Oak,

Ha ha on your new avatar ...

You don't even wanna know how much that new logo cost the university. Nor.the.cost of changing the name of Hayward to eastbay and the politics behind it.

Or in another money wasting way of changing the names of the 4 main academic bodies from "school of "... to "college of ".

Oh the skeletons I know buried... hee hee.

Funtimes
02-01-2011, 5:46 PM
You are right.

I am going to go back through and delete most of my replies to him. I don't want this thread to get locked. My fault here for even replying to the first one.

The update is that I am in communication with their General Counsel's office. This matter will get resolved.

I know that my approach is not to some folk's liking. But it's worked well in the past for me and the movement.

I grew up in a trailer park. My last job before I went back to school was as a bouncer. Nobody expected me to do anything with my life. But I was just aggressive enough to reject that idea. So I ended up graduating from a top 20 law school. My personality and approach to problems might be distasteful to some people who grew up in gated communities, or who came from wealthy families or whatever. I know I'm not socially acceptable to some people. But, luckily, they aren't the kinds of people that I would want to hang around with anyways.

The whole pro-gun movement is basically about "standing up for your rights." Sometimes you have to be loud. Sometimes you have to be a jerk. Sometimes, you need to be smooth too. This isn't one of those "smooth" times (by the way). I could explain why, but I don't want CSU to read this thread and understand my strategy here.

If this was the 1960's, I would have been a hippie. I really don't like the government (or big business) telling me what to do. I don't like the "modern" Subaru hippies, but I love the old angry "f-the-man" ones. I also don't like people telling me to "tone things down," or just "go with the flow," or "conform," or whatever.

If I had listened to those people, I would still be working as a bouncer, working 30 hours per week, living off "shift meals," and hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Sorry for the long essay. Some of the newer people here don't know why I do all this. I hope this helps people understand.

Oak, if your out in Hawaii we need to have dinner. You sound like my brother from another mother =D.

AAShooter
02-01-2011, 6:57 PM
Oak, if your out in Hawaii we need to have dinner. You sound like my brother from another mother =D.

Not a twin Oaklander . . . I don't know if the world can take two! :eek::rofl:

Slant_7
02-01-2011, 7:28 PM
hey guys, first post here but I just came across this thread.. I'm a CSUEB student myself, and I had Robert Terrell as a teacher for 3 quarters last year.. Very interesting teacher, although I didn't like what he was spouting out most of the time in his lectures.

Anyways, I commend Oaklander for the effort put into this situation. Very good read!

AAShooter
02-01-2011, 7:44 PM
hey guys, first post here but I just came across this thread.. I'm a CSUEB student myself, and I had Robert Terrell as a teacher for 3 quarters last year.. Very interesting teacher, although I didn't like what he was spouting out most of the time in his lectures.

Anyways, I commend Oaklander for the effort put into this situation. Very good read!

Welcome. I hope you posted on The Pioneer Online site. Your comments as a student (ID yourself as such) are likely to get published.

choprzrul
02-01-2011, 8:02 PM
Oaklander's thread here has brought another young enthusiast into the fold.

My hat is off to Oaklander. Now, no matter what, his efferts in this matter can in no way be seen as being in vain.

Welcome Slant_7.

.

dantodd
02-01-2011, 8:09 PM
hanging out with the wrong crowd.


Bad news Kevin, you're still hanging out with the "wrong crowd" we're just a better class of "wrong crowd."

oaklander
02-01-2011, 8:22 PM
LOL, my wife works with a lot of gun people. One of her coworkers saw that video I recently posted (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=391078) of her shooting my AK pistol.

He asked her something like, "is that a Draco pistol," and she said "no he built it himself from a flat."

His exact words to her were "wow, you ARE hanging out with the right people!"

:D

Bad news Kevin, you're still hanging out with the "wrong crowd" we're just a better class of "wrong crowd."

oaklander
02-01-2011, 8:24 PM
Thanks FT!

Hawaii is awesome. My wife and I are actually thinking about honeymooning there. Yes, we should totally have dinner!!!

Oak, if your out in Hawaii we need to have dinner. You sound like my brother from another mother =D.

oaklander
02-01-2011, 8:35 PM
Awesome Slant 7, glad you are here!!!

Is your handle related to the popular automobile engine known as the "slant six?"

If so, let's talk cars sometime!!!

:D

If not - it's still great to have you here. I actually went to a CSU school for undergrad, and they are generally awesome. I had great professors!

Yes, as choprzrul mentioned, it's great to have new people here. This forum is growing fast, and I think you will find that we are passionate about gun rights, even if some of us hold differing opinions on how to get there. . .

The way we win the "gun rights issue" is by banding together, forming coalitions and contacts, and then taking planned and coordinated action.

Merely forming coalitions and making contacts on a single issue is beneficial, since those coalitions and contacts can be used for subsequent and unrelated issues.

Sorry for the digression, but I just had to spell things out, since it appears that some people can't grasp the dynamics at work here. . .

;)

hey guys, first post here but I just came across this thread.. I'm a CSUEB student myself, and I had Robert Terrell as a teacher for 3 quarters last year.. Very interesting teacher, although I didn't like what he was spouting out most of the time in his lectures.

Anyways, I commend Oaklander for the effort put into this situation. Very good read!

Rockjaw
02-01-2011, 9:05 PM
Cars, Guns, Not puttin up with others....*ahem*:rolleyes: junk. Boy am I in the right place.

Oak, glad you're on this one. Doubters aside (BTW do I smell a troll?) I think that calling them out on this...aside from the actual effects of litigation, at least sends the message that we are watching with a roving eye for those that don't like opposing viewpoints.

Now if only they'll post my 14 point list of stuff they got wrong, with citing and logical fallacies in place...I'll be ecstatic.

hoffmang
02-01-2011, 9:22 PM
FGG,

Let's remember you're stating your opinion as a starter.

The Oakland PRA is a far closer call than you're attempting to make it out to be. Not balanced into the decision (but on balance probably not worth pursuing) was the public interest in the records in question where there was no balance on the other side as the man was dead. Oakland's theory remains thin that there was a follow up investigation - that's never happened...

Just because there is no cite today doesn't mean that Oaklander's theory is quite so out there as its probably not a case anyone has really thought about yet. My initial take is that he had no claim but as I thought about it, it's not clear how a public entity avoids at least limited public forum here. Seriously - explain the legal argument you'd make that the comments section is allowed viewpoint discrimination once they open it and excepting civility exceptions. It's not a private forum like Facebook or Calguns.net.

-Gene

dantodd
02-01-2011, 9:40 PM
Awesome Slant 7, glad you are here!!!

Is your handle related to the popular automobile engine known as the "slant six?"


I had a Duster with a slant six as a kid. That was one tough engine.

oaklander
02-01-2011, 9:58 PM
OK, one issue, at least - is settled in our favor. . .

1) Is the "Pioneer Online" a public forum?

CA(3)(3) When Cargle decided in August 2001 to join the conversation about the fortunes of Ampex, he did so by posting messages on the Yahoo! message board for Ampex. The question here is whether such postings were made in HN4a public forum, traditionally defined as “ ‘a place that is open to the public where information is freely exchanged.’ ” (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006.) The term “public forum” includes forms of public communication other than those occurring in a physical setting. Thus the electronic communication media may constitute public forums. Web sites that are accessible free of charge to any member of the public where members of the public [***9] may read the views and information posted, and post their own opinions, meet the definition of a public forum for purposes of section 425.16. (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, supra, at p. 1007.) Thus the Yahoo! message board maintained for Ampex was a public forum.

Ampex Corp. v. Cargle, 128 Cal. App. 4th 1569, 1576 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2005)

That particular holding appears to be repeated in numerous cases here in CA.

Here's some more good stuff:

CA(12)(12) “The second category of public property is the HN16designated public forum, whether of a limited or unlimited character—property that the [[S]]tate has opened for expressive activity by part or all of the public.” n7 (International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee (1992) 505 U.S. 672, 678 [120 L.Ed.2d 541, 112 S.Ct. 2701].) “The Constitution forbids a State to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place. [Citations.] Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest.” (Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., supra, 460 U.S. 37, 45–46, [**85] fn. omitted.) Thus, regulations of expression in the context of a designated public forum must satisfy the same standards as those that apply in the context of a public forum.

San Leandro Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of San Leandro Unified School Dist., 46 Cal. 4th 822, 839 (Cal. 2009)

We have HN3discerned three distinct areas of student speech from the Supreme Court's school precedents: (1) vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech, (2) school-sponsored speech, and (3) speech that falls into neither of these categories. We conclude, as discussed below, that the standard for reviewing the suppression of vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech is governed by Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683-85, school-sponsored speech by Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273, and all other speech by Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513-14.

Chandler v. McMinnville School Dist., 978 F.2d 524, 529 (9th Cir. Or. 1992)

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that the exercise of the forbidden [***8] right would 'materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school,' the prohibition cannot be sustained." (21 L.Ed.2d at p. 739, 89 S.Ct. at p. 738.)

Dunbar v. Governing Board of Grossmont Junior College Dist., 275 Cal. App. 2d 14, 18 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1969)

These two cases explain the topic well:

Hopper v. City of Pasco, 241 F.3d 1067 (http://openjurist.org/241/f3d/1067/janette-hopper-sharon-rupp-v-city-of-pasco-arts-council-of-the-mid-columbia-region)

Barlow v. Superior Court of Cal., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66668

odysseus
02-01-2011, 10:01 PM
I had a Duster with a slant six as a kid. That was one tough engine.

I remember those ones. Seems the slant six Duster survived more than it's other power plant cousins - used to see them around, and for some reason from Oakland through Richmond I always saw more.

I digress...:D

oaklander
02-01-2011, 10:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJC5rK3calI

:D

I remember those ones. Seems the slant six Duster survived more than it's other power plant cousins - used to see them around, and for some reason from Oakland through Richmond I always saw more.

I digress...:D

Liberty1
02-01-2011, 11:01 PM
Last time I contacted the academic advisor of a college newspaper about BS editorials masquerading as news I ended up in jail for nearly a month. YMMV.

Yes, but we got CGF conception out of it...your pain our gain. ;)

santacruzstefan
02-02-2011, 4:18 AM
Yes, but we got CGF conception out of it...your pain our gain. ;)

Would you explain? Sounds interesting...

doubledgarage
02-02-2011, 8:08 AM
lol, they approved my comment.

Matt C
02-02-2011, 8:52 AM
lol, they approved my comment.

Hahah, at least they have sense of humor.

AAShooter
02-02-2011, 9:18 AM
Funny.

AAShooter
02-02-2011, 9:20 AM
lol, they approved my comment.

You da' man . . .

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 9:26 AM
OK, one issue, at least - is settled in our favor. .

You neglected to quote the language in that case distinguishing unmoderated, free-for-all internet chatrooms (which that court said was a public forum for purposes of California's SLAPP statute) from newspapers that "exercise editorial control over access to their pages."

Even if you assume that the comments section to the CSU online newspaper, is a traditional public forum, a designated public forum, a limited public forum, whatever (which would not be easy to do if it is moderated by student editors exercising editorial control), where exactly is the viewpoint discrimination? They already posted an opposing viewpoint to the opinion piece, a second comment critical of the editor's moderation of the comments section, and they have invited you to submit your own opposing viewpoint. So what you you do? Start a thread to rile everyone up claiming that CSU is "refusing to publish reasoned debate on gun issues," with no evidence of viewpoint discrimination other than your accusation and the supposition that is what is going on because not every online comment is being published immediately. You come out swinging with the faculty advisor, claiming that the opinion was disguised as a legitimate news article, which was not the case at all, accusing the newspaper of viewpoint discrimination, liberally playing the attorney card, etc. Then you go over the faculty advisor's head, once again playing the attorney card immediately and once again claiming (incorrectly) that the opinion was disguised as news, then you call the ACLU, and then you bring the general counsel of CSU into the mix, and so on. All within 3 or 4 days (including a weekend) after the opinion was initially published. Did it occur to you that instead of coming across as a patient, reasonable, professional, you may be coming across as an impatient, unreasonable gadfly? It's entertaining and kind of funny but ultimately frivolous and lacking credibility IMO.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 9:32 AM
The Oakland PRA is a far closer call than you're attempting to make it out to be.

It was not close at all. Investigatory records do not have to be produced, with the exception that you can get a "general description" of any weapons involved. That was the sole issue. No balancing of the public interest was required. The lawsuit asked for more than a general description, and to make it worse, the lawsuit alleged that what it was asking for was "specific." Not surprisingly, the judge made the right call, tossed the case out, and said it was "without legal merit." The proof is in the pudding!

BusBoy
02-02-2011, 9:34 AM
lol, they approved my comment.

I like how you linked CGN with your name there! Hopefully that will bring others here to view the truth.

BusBoy
02-02-2011, 9:47 AM
Anyone else notice... (I didnt read too far back) that the link to "Leave a Comment" actually doesn't work??

doubledgarage
02-02-2011, 11:16 AM
I like how you linked CGN with your name there! Hopefully that will bring others here to view the truth.

:D

I left my Cal Poly Pomona alumni e-mail address for some "credibility". :D

oaklander
02-02-2011, 11:29 AM
There appears to be some speculation that by CSUEB posting "ONLY ONE" pro-gun comment, they are somehow engaging in "viewpoint neutrality" here.

There is a major problem with that.

By only printing a small percentage (one) of the at least TWENTY PRO-GUN comments that have been made, CSUEB is making it look like there is little opposition to the editorial. The choice to print only one comment IN ITSELF is therefore skewing the viewpoint. Unlike a print publication, there is no "room" issue online - there's plenty of room for all of our comments.

Also, one poster in this thread somehow has the idea that you are a bunch of hyperactive children, and I am somehow getting you all excited over nothing.

I personally think that (most) of you are rational grownups, and can think for yourself.

:D

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 11:50 AM
The poster here arguing for reasoned debate (while encouraging everyone to ignore another poster but never getting around to doing so himself lol) seems to think that it is viewpoint discrimination for a university newspaper not to publish any and all letters to the editor or online comments from anyone at all. If there's "plenty of room" (you could argue that there's "plenty of room" in print newspapers too) then editorial discretion is out the window! There is of course no support for this in any published decision anywhere and moreover the limited publication of online comments tends to establish that the online comment section is not a public forum vis a vis a third party non-student.

choprzrul
02-02-2011, 11:51 AM
Also, one poster in this thread somehow has the idea that you are a bunch of hyperactive children, and I am somehow getting you all excited over nothing.

I personally think that (most) of you are rational grownups, and can think for yourself.

:D

Some days I am really tired and not very motivated to do much thinking about anything, so you go ahead Oaklander and apply your significant brain power to this problem for me. Permission Granted.

Maybe you should refer them to the Tausan thread to verify that you know exactly when to circle the wagons.

.

Paul S
02-02-2011, 12:03 PM
Oakmeister:

Win, loose or draw on this matter it is a good thing that you have tweaked the sensibilities of the one sided, narrow viewpoint student journalists at CSUEB. While they are probably somewhat riled up over your stand perhaps at the least it will make them think.

jdberger
02-02-2011, 12:13 PM
It appears that all of the comments were published.

ALL of them.

FGG - putting aside the issue of whether Oak could have won a case, the mere threat of litigation appears to gotten results. The Pioneer posted the comments in opposition to the article.

As a tactic, I'd say that it was successful.

oaklander
02-02-2011, 12:15 PM
EDIT: TOTAL WIN!!!!!!!!!!!

NOW FOLKS CAN SEE THAT MY METHODS WORKED - BELOW IS THE ORIGINAL POST ABOUT A "METHOD TO MY MADNESS." I WROTE IT BEFORE I SAW OUR WIN.

----------------------------------------------------

Agreed.

There's been times when I have "laid low" - in fact, 90 percent of what I do re: gun rights never even makes it to the forum. This is good, since I don't think you guys want to hear about every phone call I make, or every meeting I am in, or the details of CRPA stuff, etc. . .

So when I decide to make something public, there's a reason.

You will note that I was silent on most of the Tuason stuff, even though I was the one who broke the story. There was a reason for that too.

Perhaps the most interesting thing is that some people seem to think that the best approach here is to say something like:

Dear Kind Sir,

We do not mean to offend, but could you perhaps let us publish a letter or two? We promise we will be nice. Shall we also have some tea and crumpets?

Screw that. An arm of the government is using our tax money to present a skewed perspective on gun rights, and won't let us even debate them. That calls for more than nice stuff and tea and crumpets.

You *will* note that I am being silent right now with respect to my communications with their counsel. Remember earlier in the thread when I said I might get silent?

<big smile>

Again, as my wife can attest to, sometimes I do things that might not make sense - but there's a "method to my madness."

Oakmeister:

Win, loose or draw on this matter it is a good thing that you have tweaked the sensibilities of the one sided, narrow viewpoint student journalists at CSUEB. While they are probably somewhat riled up over your stand perhaps at the least it will make them think.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 12:20 PM
It appears that all of the comments were published.

ALL of them.

FGG - putting aside the issue of whether Oak could have won a case, the mere threat of litigation appears to gotten results. The Pioneer posted the comments in opposition to the article.

As a tactic, I'd say that it was successful.

Not surprising at all! They invited oaklander to write a rebuttal with an opposing viewpoint, I wouldn't be surprised if they published that too! This doesn't prove that it was a "threat of litigation" that got the result obviously, it more likely proves that the newspaper was not engaging in the viewpoint discrimination that oaklander imagined that it would. By the way, the threat of litigation could not possibly have gotten the result because there was no threat of litigation in the first place lol.

Gray Peterson
02-02-2011, 12:20 PM
The poster here arguing for reasoned debate (while encouraging everyone to ignore another poster but never getting around to doing so himself lol) seems to think that it is viewpoint discrimination for a university newspaper not to publish any and all letters to the editor or online comments from anyone at all. If there's "plenty of room" (you could argue that there's "plenty of room" in print newspapers too) then editorial discretion is out the window! There is of course no support for this in any published decision anywhere and moreover the limited publication of online comments tends to establish that the online comment section is not a public forum vis a vis a third party non-student.

You give no legal cites, whereas Oaklander has given legal cites.

Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to continue to act like a troll?

oaklander
02-02-2011, 12:23 PM
LOL, my list of cites is much longer than FGG's list of cites!

:D

You give no legal cites, whereas Oaklander has given legal cites.

Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to continue to act like a troll?

jdberger
02-02-2011, 12:24 PM
Not surprising at all! They invited oaklander to write a rebuttal with an opposing viewpoint, I wouldn't be surprised if they published that too! This doesn't prove that it was a "threat of litigation" that got the result obviously, it more likely proves that the newspaper was not engaging in the viewpoint discrimination that oaklander imagined that it would. By the way, the threat of litigation could not possibly have gotten the result because there was no threat of litigation in the first place lol.

You're correct. It doesn't prove anything.

...and the threat of litigation didn't convince Chicago to change its laws concerning handguns, either.

;)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 12:25 PM
You give no legal cites, whereas Oaklander has given legal cites.

Are you going to answer my question, or are you going to continue to act like a troll?

Why don't you look at the cite that Oaklander gave, the one where he didn't quote the bad stuff about editorial discretion? That's one. And it was me who asked you for cites first (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5731134&postcount=130), in case you don't remember. Where are yours?

oaklander
02-02-2011, 12:29 PM
OK, just communicated with their General Counsel:

1) They will start publishing all "comments" - that is their policy now (they claim it was earlier, but I am not going to argue with them). PLEASE DON'T BE A RICHARD AND ABUSE THIS BY POSTING CRAP. JUST POST THINGS LIKE THE WELL REASONED COMMENTS THAT ARE THERE NOW.

2) My 1043 word editorial will appear in the print version of their newspaper and online.

3) They will mark the online editorials as editorials, like I requested.

--------

I would consider this a total and utter win!!! Thanks guys for helping and posting comments, and giving me ideas on strategy. We did this as a team!!!!

:D:D:D:D:D

EDIT: ROFL - FGG is still in this thread arguing about something unrelated. Too funny!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 12:34 PM
EDIT: ROFL - FGG is still in this thread arguing about something unrelated. Too funny!

How would you know, you're ignoring me? I was just responding to some other poster anyway lol.

What a big win to get your editorial published! Especially when they invited you to write one and told you where they publish them. :rolleyes:

Feel free to present your opposing perspective via a letter or short essay (800 - 1500 words). We print such submissions on our op-ed page.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 12:41 PM
Dear Readers,

I apologize for not publishing your comments earlier.
We had technical issues.

fh

Well that settles it! :p

Falconis
02-02-2011, 12:41 PM
FWIW, I think Oaklander getting all comments published ( especially the dissenting ones) is a win. Way I see it, the CSU holds a lot of students that are going to go on to bigger and better things somewhere down the road. IF nothing else, the majority of them will be voting members of our community sooner or later. I am not saying anyone reads the school paper, I never did, but if all they are exposed to is a 1 sided view point their entire acedemic career, it kind of endangers things in the future.

Also the AWB also got started with the mass media spreading hysterical frenzy, didn't it?

I am in no way saying college students are smart. I wasn't, and most of my classmates were dumber than me. But to restrict information is actually a pretty powerful tool. Granted in the grand scheme of things this may be a small fish that got fried, but it atleast makes the liberalistic journalism professor think twice before he decides to restrict what information he wants flowing out to the student body.

BusBoy
02-02-2011, 12:42 PM
How would you know, you're ignoring me? I was just responding to some other poster anyway lol.

What a big win to get your editorial published! Especially when they invited you to write one and told you where they publish them. :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight fabio... you actually want us to believe that had Oaklander NOT said anything, had NOT contacted the CSU consul, Had NOT done what he did, that all of those comments that we now see would have appeared eventually?? Really? there is not ONE... not a single supportive comment to the article.

It was clearly Oaklanders intervention that made those comments appear. Stop trying to make it appear as though it was by some other means.

SideNote... just saw this!
admin says:
Dear Readers,

I apologize for not publishing your comments earlier.
We had technical issues.

fh

So I suppose you actually believe they had technical difficulties that only posted ONE negative comment and then ONE smart @ssed one? :rolleyes: Now thats some SELECTIVE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES!!

Gray Peterson
02-02-2011, 12:46 PM
Why don't you look at the cite that Oaklander gave, the one where he didn't quote the bad stuff about editorial discretion? That's one. And it was me who asked you for cites first (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5731134&postcount=130), in case you don't remember. Where are yours?

Considering Oaklander won the battle here after consultation with General Counsel, I think we're done here. He won. Whatever your personal problems are with the way Kevin does things, the fact is, he won the battle, and you did nothing but dog him.

Your attitude towards other gun owners doing good work honestly sucks. You've not only been intransigently contrarian not only to Kevin, but also to Gene as well. Even Don Kilmer had to smack you down repeatedly when you stepped into something outside of your particular knowledge base.

There's a point to being a contructive counterpoint and even a devil's advocate. What you're doing is beyond those levels and being destructive to the legal interests of gun owners statewide.

That isn't to say that nothing you've ever said about legal stuff isn't correct in some form. As you remember, Gene agreed with you on a magazine acquirement discussion a few years back. However, that doesn't give you license to do what you're doing today.

BusBoy
02-02-2011, 12:48 PM
Well that settles it! :p

:kest: FACE PALM... Goog God you do believe!! LOL!

WatchMan
02-02-2011, 12:48 PM
This is one of the most entertaining threads I have seen in a LONG time :smilielol5:

Oh yeah, I too see this as an Oaklander win...didn't someone say they would find a cheesy face-saving way to fold? Hehe

oaklander
02-02-2011, 12:48 PM
Folks,

This thread contains WIN!

:D

I gotta go back to work now and bill some hours so that I can feed my family (and pay for the nice AMD kit I just bought on GB for my wife (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=5737237&postcount=36)). . .

:D

Just remember that there are no coincidences. . .

wash
02-02-2011, 1:05 PM
I love watching you make the antis spin.

stix213
02-02-2011, 1:06 PM
Good job Oaklander!!!

Also, this thread is even more hilarious once you ignore FGG, since my imagination replaces every instance of "This message is hidden because FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is on your ignore list" with an ever growing pool of tears :p

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 1:06 PM
Considering Oaklander won the battle here after consultation with General Counsel, I think we're done here. He won. Whatever your personal problems are with the way Kevin does things, the fact is, he won the battle, and you did nothing but dog him.

There was no battle here...the faculty advisor encouraged him to write a rebuttal!

Even Don Kilmer had to smack you down repeatedly when you stepped into something outside of your particular knowledge base.

Overstate much? When I asked him to explain why guns may not legally be sold at gunshows without the gun being physically present, he said he wouldn't give legal advise without charging his hourly rate. What a smack down lol.

curtisfong
02-02-2011, 1:17 PM
Had oaklander listened to you, no comments would have been published, and there would be no "editorial" marking.

So you are full of nothing but bad advice. You make a terrible OpFor. Unless you are a troll after all.

oaklander
02-02-2011, 1:19 PM
Yes, he is completely useless for our movement. If anything he wastes our time. I am not sure why he is even here.

Maybe he's a Brady? That would be funny.

Good job Oaklander!!!

Also, this thread is even more hilarious once you ignore FGG, since my imagination replaces every instance of "This message is hidden because FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is on your ignore list" with an ever growing pool of tears :p

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-02-2011, 1:22 PM
Had oaklander listened to you, no comments would have been published, and there would be no "editorial" marking.

The proof is in the pudding! :p

quick draw mcgraw
02-02-2011, 1:38 PM
Oaklander, you sir are a true scholar and a gentleman!!

I am very happy that we are on the same side of the aisle regarding the Second Amendment and the "gun issue".

Thank you for all of your efforts and congratulations on your recent marriage!!!

- Todd

choprzrul
02-02-2011, 1:45 PM
Troll:

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

Looks like Fabio had a bad hair day.

.

Flintlock Tom
02-02-2011, 1:47 PM
As of a few minutes ago there were two comments in support of the author's position. Overall we got them outnumbered by about 10:1.
My comment was even published twice.

Nice job, Oaklander.

choprzrul
02-02-2011, 2:08 PM
1. So, does the methodology employed by Oaklander apply to any entity that accepts monies from the public treasury?

2. And/Or if a forum is considered public in nature in CA, does this methodology apply anywhere the public might visit online?

3. Does it matter if you must be a registered user or if the site accepts anonymous postings?

.

FastFinger
02-02-2011, 2:15 PM
Great work Kevin!

Don't know which is more amusing to read, this thread or the editorial responses. Heck they're both entertaining!

If the editors of the paper had any clue about what makes an interesting newspaper they'd write an article on the editorial and resulting battle to publish the responses. However considering the spanking they're getting - no chance of that happening.

leelaw
02-02-2011, 2:23 PM
This will stay visible for documentation, but the continued bickering has forced a thread closure. Involved parties are advised to put each other on their respective ignore lists if they can't discord with civility.

You may PM me if you find an opposing party continuing troll-like postings aimed at you.,

Kestryll
02-02-2011, 9:19 PM
I've finally gotten a chance to look this thread over and I have to agree the closure was needed. The bickering and trolling made that necessary.

However I also think the subject is valuable and merits discussion and also feel that we need to remember that ALL victories count and each one no matter the size is still a step forward.

The closure gave enough time for people to step back and calm down and thus served it's purpose, now we can let real discussion go forward from here.


As a final comment before reopening this thread, there is a none too fine line between playing devil's advocate and trolling/crap-stirring, if it get's crossed again I will not shut down the thread but will shut down accounts.
And yes, I am looking directly at you FGG.

oaklander
02-02-2011, 9:24 PM
Thanks Kes.

When I get a minute, I will outline the tactic that I used. It can be duplicated by anyone.

Pig Rifle
02-02-2011, 9:55 PM
Good job, Oak! Fighting for the 2A AND 1A simultaneously! Woohoo!:punk:

dantodd
02-02-2011, 9:58 PM
I wonder how often the university general counsel gets involved in "technical problems"

oaklander
02-02-2011, 9:58 PM
Thanks!

Going to take a short break tonight. The wife hasn't really seen me in 3 days!!!

Good job, Oak! Fighting for the 2A AND 1A simultaneously! Woohoo!:punk:

Lead-Thrower
02-02-2011, 10:09 PM
I wonder how often the university general counsel gets involved in "technical problems"

I LOL'd when I saw that comment from the admin. "Technical problems", haha. To The Pioneer: :laugh:

Veggie
02-02-2011, 10:17 PM
Scary dude. Scary. Nice job Oaks.

kcbrown
02-02-2011, 10:17 PM
I LOL'd when I saw that comment from the admin. "Technical problems", haha. To The Pioneer: :laugh:

Well, you know, the law is quite technical. :D

SickofSoCal
02-02-2011, 10:23 PM
admin says:

Dear Readers,

I apologize for not publishing your comments earlier.
We had technical issues.

http://www.todaysfacilitymanager.com/facilityblog/wp-content/uploads/LOL.gif

wash
02-02-2011, 10:43 PM
Thanks!

Going to take a short break tonight. The wife hasn't really seen me in 3 days!!!
You're doing it wrong.

oaklander
02-02-2011, 10:57 PM
I meant LONG break.

:D

You're doing it wrong.

Alaric
02-02-2011, 11:03 PM
I used to suspect that Oaklander was just a loudmouthed lawyer with a desire to drum up business in the gun owners' community. I thought he was a scheister, to be blunt. He just seemed kind of fake, pushy and in dire need of internet affirmation. My first interaction with him was about a license plate at which time he accused me of being anti-1st Amd. I never thought much of him after that. That is, until I read this post...

You are right.

I am going to go back through and delete most of my replies to him. I don't want this thread to get locked. My fault here for even replying to the first one.

The update is that I am in communication with their General Counsel's office. This matter will get resolved.

I know that my approach is not to some folk's liking. But it's worked well in the past for me and the movement.

I grew up in a trailer park. My last job before I went back to school was as a bouncer. Nobody expected me to do anything with my life. But I was just aggressive enough to reject that idea. So I ended up graduating from a top 20 law school. My personality and approach to problems might be distasteful to some people who grew up in gated communities, or who came from wealthy families or whatever. I know I'm not socially acceptable to some people. But, luckily, they aren't the kinds of people that I would want to hang around with anyways.

The whole pro-gun movement is basically about "standing up for your rights." Sometimes you have to be loud. Sometimes you have to be a jerk. Sometimes, you need to be smooth too. This isn't one of those "smooth" times (by the way). I could explain why, but I don't want CSU to read this thread and understand my strategy here.

If this was the 1960's, I would have been a hippie. I really don't like the government (or big business) telling me what to do. I don't like the "modern" Subaru hippies, but I love the old angry "f-the-man" ones. I also don't like people telling me to "tone things down," or just "go with the flow," or "conform," or whatever.

If I had listened to those people, I would still be working as a bouncer, working 30 hours per week, living off "shift meals," and hanging out with the wrong crowd.

Sorry for the long essay. Some of the newer people here don't know why I do all this. I hope this helps people understand.

I see my mistake now. I know where you're coming from, been there myself.

Kudos to you on this topic, and with your life in general. More power to you. I couldn't have been more wrong about you.

Sincerely,
Alaric

nobody_special
02-02-2011, 11:22 PM
I meant LONG break.

:D

Well, since you posted that here, you're still doing it wrong. :p

Good job. Congratulations on your victory.

nick
02-02-2011, 11:31 PM
I used to suspect that Oaklander was just a loudmouthed lawyer with a desire to drum up business in the gun owners' community. I thought he was a scheister, to be blunt.

What made you think that he isn't? :confused::p

I used to think he just comes here to post the pictures of his dogs. I still think so :p

renzoku
02-03-2011, 12:01 AM
What made you think that he isn't? :confused::p

I used to think he just comes here to post the pictures of his dogs. I still think so :p

I'm not finding a "dog" on the acronym list, what is it and what caliber does it come in?

Is it off roster? Concealable? Where can I find this "dog" you speak of?

Andy Taylor
02-03-2011, 5:33 AM
OK, just communicated with their General Counsel:

1) They will start publishing all "comments" - that is their policy now (they claim it was earlier, but I am not going to argue with them). PLEASE DON'T BE A RICHARD AND ABUSE THIS BY POSTING CRAP. JUST POST THINGS LIKE THE WELL REASONED COMMENTS THAT ARE THERE NOW.

2) My 1043 word editorial will appear in the print version of their newspaper and online.

3) They will mark the online editorials as editorials, like I requested.

--------

I would consider this a total and utter win!!! Thanks guys for helping and posting comments, and giving me ideas on strategy. We did this as a team!!!!

:D:D:D:D:D

EDIT: ROFL - FGG is still in this thread arguing about something unrelated. Too funny!

Good Job! :cool2:

santacruzstefan
02-03-2011, 5:53 AM
Congratulations, Oaklander, this is a win for sure. I'm glad you helped them "see the light," though I still expect Mr. Thompson to have some sort of, eh... 'interesting' response to your Op Ed printed in the same issue. Eagerly awaiting publication, this is too good. What would be really cool is if the staff beings to change their tone across the board, and begin featuring other viewpoints regularly. I think this incident has exposed their bias for everyone to see.

oaklander
02-03-2011, 6:40 AM
Thanks Alaric for saying those things. Over the last few years, if I've learned one thing, it was just to be myself and let the chips fall. When I was married to my first wife, I tried to be the "corporate" person that I thought she wanted. I remember she used to get mad at me for things like parking the car on the front lawn and having grease under my finger nails. She hated guns, and thought I spent too much time with everyone here, talking about guns and gun rights.

I recently fell in love with and married a beautiful woman who is 10 years younger than me. She is actually on this forum as SierraApril. She loves guns so much that she is getting ready to build an AMD-65 AK pistol, herself. She taught me that I am OK, just being myself.

I know that this sounds somewhat like "over-disclosure" - but I think it might help people understand why I do things the way I do them. At this point in my life, I feel like I have nothing to prove.

It's a good feeling, and I am blessed to have met someone who has showed me that I am "ok" - just being "Oaklander."

I used to suspect that Oaklander was just a loudmouthed lawyer with a desire to drum up business in the gun owners' community. I thought he was a scheister, to be blunt. He just seemed kind of fake, pushy and in dire need of internet affirmation. My first interaction with him was about a license plate at which time he accused me of being anti-1st Amd. I never thought much of him after that. That is, until I read this post...



I see my mistake now. I know where you're coming from, been there myself.

Kudos to you on this topic, and with your life in general. More power to you. I couldn't have been more wrong about you.

Sincerely,
Alaric

SpringfieldEMP
02-03-2011, 6:59 AM
I would consider this a total and utter win!!!

:King:

AAShooter
02-03-2011, 8:01 AM
well done

sfpcservice
02-03-2011, 8:09 AM
"Dear Readers,

I apologize for not publishing your comments earlier.
We had technical issues.

fh"



I wonder what it must feel like for a student in journalism to have blown their credibility before they are even remotely close to getting their 1st paycheck in that field. Guess it's good it happened in college, this guy can at least pick a new career path he hasn't yet blown. The icing on the cake is that he polishes it off with a lie about technical issues. Hopefully he will learn from this and live a bit more honorably in the future.

Flintlock Tom
02-03-2011, 11:13 AM
I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all it's not like any of us have never had "technical issues" with the programs on our computers.
My daughter graduated from CSUEB last year and managed to remain a moderate in the political spectrum. She even had a class with Professor Terrell and told me, in discussing this issue, that he never tried to push a political orientation in class or demean alternate opinions.
I don't doubt, however, that the editorial represents the general opinion of the newspaper student staff. But that is not grounds to accuse these students of lies, deceit or censorship, absent evidence that it really is something more than simply issues with the software.

oaklander
02-03-2011, 11:45 AM
Tom, they were able to publish two comments over the weekend. So I know that their ability to publish comments was not completely "broken."

I say this because they are using "Word Press" as their blogging software, and I know exactly how it works, since I use it in my "day job." You can tell they are using WP by looking at the page source:

"http://thepioneeronline.com/wp-content/themes/PioneerOnline/style.css

There's another way to tell as well, but I am not going to suggest it on a public forum.

My personal opinion is that they thought that by publishing one comment that criticized the editorial, and one neutral comment, that their duty under the constitution was somehow fulfilled. It wasn't, under the numerous cases that I read, and which set down the law in regards to this matter.

They simply can't regulate speech in the public forum that they created. Certainly, this does not mean that anyone can "take over" their entire website and start posting actual news articles - BUT what it does mean is that if they put up a "comments" function - like they did - they absolutely cannot restrict what is posted there, unless it is vulgar, or slanderous, or obscene.

It is my personal opinion that they did this to save face, and because they realized that there was a real potential for litigation.

I call them like I see them. And here I saw censorship, again in my personal opinion.

They ended up doing the right thing, and now everything is good.

I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. After all it's not like any of us have never had "technical issues" with the programs on our computers.
My daughter graduated from CSUEB last year and managed to remain a moderate in the political spectrum. She even had a class with Professor Terrell and told me, in discussing this issue, that he never tried to push a political orientation in class or demean alternate opinions.
I don't doubt, however, that the editorial represents the general opinion of the newspaper student staff. But that is not grounds to accuse these students of lies, deceit or censorship, absent evidence that it really is something more than simply issues with the software.

With respect to Dr. Terrell. His communications with me were somewhat rude, especially the last one that said "I recommend that you do what you will..." If he had said something along the lines of "thank you for pointing this out, I will take care of it" - or something like that, I would NOT have "did what I did."

People who work for public universities are public servants. They work for you and me, and our tax money pays their salaries. We should start expecting more of them.

oaklander
02-03-2011, 11:56 AM
NOW: I promised Kes that I would explain how I did this whole thing, so that others could use this tactic when they run into this sort of problem.

However, I realized last night that the tactic also works for anti-gunners too!!

So I am not going to go into extreme detail.

Basically the concept is that in any organization, each person reports to someone "above" him or her. If you ask for something, and don't get the right answer, there's a way to "go up the chain" until you get the answer that you require.

Many people make the mistake of complaining to the person with the least power. Here, it would have been the "Editor." The correct way to complain is to start with the first obvious decision maker, and then move up the chain.

This applies to everything. A lot depends on how much of a richard you want to be. I have no problems being a richard, so I am good at this.

uyoga
02-03-2011, 11:59 AM
Good job all the way around, Oaklander. Hat Tip to you.

BusBoy
02-03-2011, 12:02 PM
Tom, they were able to publish two comments over the weekend. So I know that their ability to publish comments was not completely "broken."

This!! /\/\ if it worked for two comments that were some time apart from each other then all of them could have been published. As Oak pointed out there was one comment "for" and then a comment that I believe was a shot across our bow, so to speak, saying... this is my playground, go pound sand. But, as we all have seen now.. that didnt end well for Terrell.