May 29, 2017

Listen to the Episode

Guest


From The Official Website:

In this episode, the guys engage in a discussion with actor Travis Wester, who criticized the show’s coverage of the Berkeley College Republicans’ lawsuit back in the “C” segment of Episode #65.

Travis comes on the show to criticize Berkeley’s policy regarding the imposition of fees, while Andrew walks us through the various laws regarding the First Amendment’s applicability to “time, place, and manner” restrictions in college classrooms.

This episode went long, so we skipped our other segments, but obviously no Tuesday episode would be complete without the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question #25 about smokin’ weed and crashin’ cars.

Show Notes & Links

Here are the resources discussed in this episode:

  1. This is the link to the BCR/YAF (Ann Coulter) Complaint.
  2. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) is the Supreme Court case decisively holding that campus groups allocating space in classrooms are a limited public forum.
  3. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), is the landmark Supreme Court case on time, place, and manner restrictions.
  4. Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski, 643 F.Supp.2d 729 (D. Md. 2009) is the D.Md. case that is directly on point with a university that has the exact same policies as Berkeley.
  5. The authorizing regulation is 5 CCR § 100004.
  6. The 5th Circuit case to which Travis kept referring is Sonnier v. Crain, 613 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2010), the opinion of which was subsequently withdrawn in part by Sonnier v. Crain, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011).
  7. Finally, the Supreme Court case cited by Travis within the Sonnier opinion is Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), in which the Supreme Court held that content-based restrictions, including excessive security fees, violate the 1st Amendment.

Law Talkin' Stuff

It's in the Constitution
Law Court Thingies
Makin' Up the Laws
Magic Law Words

Organizations

People


Content

  • [00:00:00] Intro
    • [00:01:18] Intent behind the episode
    • [00:03:24] Introduction of guest Travis Wester
    • [00:07:28] Sonnier v. Crain: Introduction and Background
    • [00:11:27] Forsyth County v Nationalist Movement: Precedent for Sonnier v. Crain
    • [00:12:52] Travis's argument for Sonnier v. Crain as precedent for BCR/YAF(Ann Coulter) complaint
    • [00:17:05] Andrew's rebuttal
    • [00:21:15] Andrew's list of relevant documents/cases
    • [00:24:27] Examining Sonnier and Forsyth, and distinguishing them from the Berkeley Case
    • [00:46:20] Comparing the Berkeley Case to Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski
    • [00:47:00] Andrew addressing Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski
    • [00:51:15] Andrew summarizing Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski
    • [00:51:37] Discussing distinctions between limited public forum and traditional public forum
    • [00:54:12] Andrew explaining core of what to prove vis-à-vis viewpoint discrimination and security fees
    • [00:55:55] Debate ensues
    • [00:57:50] Citing Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)
    • [00:58:30] Discussing distinctions between security fees versus time, place, and manner
    • [01:01:25] Citing Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
    • [01:01:55] Discussing whether charging security fees is unconstitutional
    • [01:02:30] Discussing security fees: Ann Coulter, David Horowitz and Milo Yiannopoulos (Berkeley speeches)
    • [01:05:06] Travis contends no objective criteria exists to ascertain a security fee and Thomas refutes
    • [01:05:50] Travis cites paragraphs 22 & 23 of BCR/YAF(Ann Coulter) complaint
    • [01:06:55] Andrew’s rebuttal
    • [01:07:17] Andrew reads correct version of California Code from CCR § 100004
    • [01:07:47] Discussing whether CCR § 100004 is unconstitutional
    • [01:18:40] Andrew reads from Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
    • [01:21:20] Andrew defines (one of) “Motion to Dismiss” hallmarks; predictions made on whether case will be dismissed: BCR/YAF(Ann Coulter) complaint
    • [01:24:00] Commentary on the foregoing discourse with Travis Wester
  • [01:28:20] New Patron Tuesday
    • [01:29:10] Andrew thanks his dad for becoming a Patreon
    • [01:30:40] Milestone met
  • [01:31:00] Thomas Takes The Bar Exam: Two college kids in car wreck (sleepy driver and pothead passenger) sue each other - answer
    • [01:37:00] Discussing “fact pattern” and “issue spotting” and “negligence per se
  • [01:39:20] Outro

Follow up