I see that our good friend Bill Ayers is stirring trouble again, this time at Pennsylvania State University:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/25/republ...

Suprisingly enough - because usually they get it right - Reason Magazine is all wet on this issue.

Which reminds me of when Bill Ayers showed up HERE in Wyoming five years ago and many of the same problems occurred then as well. I wrote a "double-tap" for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, at that time, to discuss those issues from what I consider to be a better viewpoint. The text of those two pieces follow, in Part I and Part II. (The WTE was not posting commentaries online at that time, so I cannot provide any links).

And YES, the University of Wyoming really DOES have a "Social Justice Research Center"... GAG!!! By the way, for best understanding, these two parts really should be read in order, for anyone who reads them at all, 'cause they're long and Rick told me not to do that. LOL

Brad Harrington

********************

April 18th, 2010

What Free Speech Really Means

By Bradley Harrington

“It is only on the basis of property rights that the sphere and application of individual rights can be defined in any given social situation. Without property rights, there is no way to solve or to avoid a hopeless chaos of clashing views, interests, demands, desires and whims.” - Ayn Rand, “The Cashing In: The Student “Rebellion,” 1965 -

Now you see him…now you don’t…now you see him…maybe? At this point, who knows? The controversy sure is broiling, however, over whether William Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground, former bomb-thrower and agitator for communist revolution, is going to have his say at the University of Wyoming (UW) after all.

Back in August of 2009, UW’s Social Justice Research Center had originally invited Mr. Ayers to speak on April 5th on the topic of “Trudge toward freedom: Moral commitment and ethical action,” and to give a talk the following day to faculty and grad students on “Teaching and research in the public interest: Solidarity and identity.”

As UW began to publicize Mr. Ayer’s appearances, though, a lot of people with a lot of problems regarding what he represents had a lot to say, and not much of it very positive. Menacing statements ranging from promises to withhold UW donations to declarations of violent disruption were made, and on March 30th, UW President Tom Buchanan, citing security threats and controversy, cancelled Mr. Ayers’ appearances.

Now, Mr. Ayers, along with UW student Meg Lanker, have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to allow Mr. Ayers to come and speak at UW anyway - that “the university violated their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly,” and that UW officials “are opposed to his [Ayers] political beliefs and are engaged in censoring him…” (“Lawsuit seeks to force UW to allow Ayers speech,” Wyoming Tribune Eagle, Apr. 16.)

Speaking for myself, I don’t like William Ayers very much. In fact, I despise him, as I despise all communist agitators, along with their myopic agendas for left-wing revolution against the “evils of capitalism” - as if we really had any capitalism left in this country any longer.

Even so, I still state that such individuals have the right to voice their opinions. The right to agree is never in question; it is the right to disagree that is an absolute requirement in a free society. But to claim that the UW cancellation of Ayers’ appearances is “censorship” and a violation of his “right to free speech” is the purest left-wing claptrap.

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” It does NOT say that anyone has to be forced to provide Mr. Ayers with a microphone, a newspaper or a university lectern. Nor does it say that speakers are to be freed from the negative consequences of their actions - including public condemnation, ostracization and lack of support. It means that, should an individual or group of individuals decide to make that provision, THEN the speaker will be free from government prosecution - period!

The issue here that everyone is missing is: “free speech” as it relates to private property rights. You can say anything you want on YOUR property, Mr. Ayers, but if you try promoting your “social justice” twaddle in my living room, you’d best be prepared for a swift and undignified ejection from the premises.

In the same sense, who owns the UW campus? The issue here is clouded by the fact that UW is a state-owned, state-run institution. But what would the issue be in a truly free society, where all property, including college campuses, is privately owned? Would anyone doubt the university administration’s right to determine who it invites or doesn’t invite?

No, it is only in the context of “public” - i.e., government-owned - property, that such an issue as the “freedom of speech” can arise; and the answer to the apparent dilemma created by such a context is to privatize the property in question, leaving those decisions up to the owners thereafter.

In the meantime, outside of that context, the twelve UW trustees, as the duly-appointed-by-the-state-governor administrative staff, still retain control over university administration, and any appeals to their decisions can only be legitimately contested by seeking redress through the proper state channels - NOT by attempting to subvert the intent and meaning of the United States Constitution through a ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit against alleged “censorship.”

Or don’t we care about the Constitution any longer?

********************

Part II Next...