Page 1 of 47
Posted on November 20 at 9:32 a.m.
The 1970's disturbances, which included two major events in addition to the February 25, 1970 bank burning... the incident that lead to the death of Kevin Moran (IV II) and the mass, violent arrests of hundreds of peaceful protestors (IV III)... dwarfed he recent troubles.
There were also 3 murders (one a rape too) and a maiming on the IV beaches in 1970. Another bombing of the bank in late 1970. Odd how that all gets cloaked in some sort of purposefulness these days... please be a bit more careful, Kelsey, you are accepting without care the rose-tinted viewpoints of older people who tend to forget how crazy and violent IV really was circa 1970.
Indeed, when the older people were young their mayhem far exceeded anything going on in IV these days.
On Isla Vista's Blueprint for Change?
Posted on November 20 at 9:21 a.m.
The Elliot Rodger remark is definitely in bad taste, but this is the Poodle, where bad taste lives in the Indy.
Anyone ever seen any of the paperwork/reports from the Sheriff on the IV murders? They were promised in the summer, long gone now.
Digging back earlier.. Desmond Edwards, who was charged with starting the Deltopia riots... charges dismissed or what?
An absence of serious news media checking back on that stuff sure makes some folks lives easy here on the South Coast.
On Run Spot Run: The ABCs of Do-Re-Mi
Posted on November 16 at 5:49 p.m.
Well, if the Shorts suing 19 bystanders who had nothing to do with the sign seizure is just legal theater, with on implication that they oppose free speech, can't the same be concluded about Miller-Young?
Can't I safely conclude that Miller-Young was just engaging in theater with no implication whatsoever for the free-expression rights of the Shorts, and certainly no implications that percolate to the Academic Senate or to Chancellor Yang?
On Anti-Abortion Group Sues UCSB, Professor, Students
Posted on November 16 at 4:29 p.m.
There were over 600 arrests for loitering and breaking the 7:30pm to 6:00am curfew in Isla Vista in June, 1970. I can't remember whether even asingle one was prosecuted in the end.... Judge dropped all charges for most if not all.
I did once read some of the police reports, can't remember a single accusation of or arrest for chanting for <1 minute, which is what the Shorts are suing 19 UCSB student bystanders who had nothing to do with seizing or destroying their sign for.
Posted on November 16 at 2:55 p.m.
Whatever Obama did, he did not force Thrin Short and her colleagues to file this lawsuit against 19 UCSB students who were bystanders and had nothing to do taking her sign, or destroying it.
The 19 chanted `tear down the sign' for less than 1 minute, according to the lawsuit filing.
And for that they get sued by the Short and 10 others.
Proves that the Shorts and the 10 others don't care a fig about free speech.
Posted on November 16 at 8:08 a.m.
14noscams said... ``pardallchewinggumspot - check out other lawsuits. Attorneys sue for everything in the book with no expectation of settlement on many. The DA's office files charges like this; cops write police reports like this. It's SOP, not excessive. It's a statement. But it's a statement in favor of the US and not the UN.''
I don't think any of the 11 plaintiffs are attorneys. They are responsible and must endorse anything that their attorneys put in the lawsuit.
Does it matter if other entities also sue 19 bystanders for less than 1 minute of chanting? Remember the 19 bystanders did not participate in the sign theft or destruction.
Suing 19 bystanders for less than 1 minute of chanting in a free-speech area simply is a step **AGAINST** free speech. Maybe the DAs and cops do that all the time, but I'd like to see evidence. I've read a lot of charges and reports and can't remember a single one where 19 bystanders who chanted for less than 1 minute and were charged with anything.
In fact, most of those arrested during the IV III incident in June of 1970 during a peaceful demonstration where released without charges by Judge Lodge.
Posted on November 15 at 6:52 p.m.
dewdly, covering what bases? The complaint says that the chanting of the 19 students lasted less than 1 minute. The complaint doesn't identify any other actions that the 19 students undertook; it does not say that any of them were involved in seizing of taking the sign.
It is the complaint that identifies the 19 others as `students'... the complaint says `Miller-Young loudly and aggressively disagreed with plaintiffs’ viewpoint and attempted to incite UCSB students to tear down the plaintiffs’ signs. When that effort failed, Miller-Young herself stole a sign and recruited several students to help her carry it off.' Note that the `several students' are named specifically and differently than the 19 other students that the Shorts sue.
The 19 others chanted for less than 1 minute, refused to help Miller-Young steal the sign according to the Shorts own lawsuit, and yet the Shorts say in their lawsuit that the 19 others actions `were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive and were done in reckless disregard of plaintiffs’ rights and justify the award of punitive damages.'
Wow. Chant for less than 1 minute in a free speech zone, refuse to help steal a sign, and the Shorts haul you into court and want punitive damages from you.
Seems like the Shorts are completely opposed to free speech for those 19 other students.
BTW, the Shorts also say the Regents owe them due to the actions of those 19 other students. If they weren't students, why do the Shorts ask the Regents for damages? Would the Shorts ask for damages from the Regents if the 19 were just random residents from IV with no relationship whatsoever to UCSB?
The Shorts want money from the UC Regents because 19 students chanted for less than 1 minute in a free speech zone and then refused to participate in stealing the Shorts sign. Wow.
Posted on November 15 at 4:01 p.m.
Remember, UCSB students, fun is cancelled forthwith.
On Singer Detained During UCSB Concert
Posted on November 15 at 12:02 p.m.
dewdly, Miller-Young's actions were *subsequent* to the chanting, as far as I know. The Shorts rushed over the hold on to the sign as Miller-Young tried to carry it away.
Still don't understand what that has to do with the 19 other students who were exercising their right to free speech ***AND WHO DID NOT AID MILLER-YOUNG IN STEALING THE SIGN***.
All those 19 students did was exercise their constitutionally protected right to free speech, perhaps. And for that, the Shorts are suing them.
Do the Shorts believe in free speech or not? If they do, it would seem to me they would not be suing those 19 students. Suing Miller-Young and the students who *did* help Miller-Young seize, carry, and destroy the sign is a different matter.
But suing the 19 students who did not aid Miller-Young in those actions does seem like an attack on free speech.
Posted on November 15 at 7:43 a.m.
Loonpt, Friendship Manor was originally a private dormitory with tiny rooms, non-coed, etc. When coed dorms and apartment living of mixed groups became popular circa 1970, no students wanted to live in it.
So they made it a retirement home, very difficult and painful to shut down without building a new one to move everyone to, although they've explored the option.
On City College Mending Fences with Neighbors?