| June 2016 |
| ...... |
| San Diego Education Report |
..."CORPORATIONS CANNOT
EVADE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO SUPPRESS CRITICISM."
Large corporations and individuals with deep
pockets may try to suppress speech using the
court system because they are angered by the
criticism. “Humans dislike self-directed
criticism. The intolerance within all of us can
oversuppress speech which is otherwise useful
either to the speaker or to a listener. The
desire to suppress unpleasant or critical
speech is almost irrepressible.” Moore v. City of
Kilgore, 877 F.2d 364, 380 (5th Cir. 1989).
Commercial entities may also try to
suppress criticism because they believe it will
hurt their bottom line. Because
corporations often have resources which the
citizen critic lacks, they are able to
intimidate critics with threatened or actual
litigation.
Corporations or wealthy individuals attempting
to silence critics are just as
dangerous to free debate as the government
doing the same. If corporations are
able to suppress criticism of their products and
services, not only do the critics
suffer, but other consumers lack the
information they need to make informed
decisions. “The constitutional guarantee of
free speech ‘serves significant societal
interests’ wholly apart from the speaker’s
interest in self-expression” and “protects
the public’s interest in receiving information.”
Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. Public
Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)
(citations omitted).
EVADE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO SUPPRESS CRITICISM."
Large corporations and individuals with deep
pockets may try to suppress speech using the
court system because they are angered by the
criticism. “Humans dislike self-directed
criticism. The intolerance within all of us can
oversuppress speech which is otherwise useful
either to the speaker or to a listener. The
desire to suppress unpleasant or critical
speech is almost irrepressible.” Moore v. City of
Kilgore, 877 F.2d 364, 380 (5th Cir. 1989).
Commercial entities may also try to
suppress criticism because they believe it will
hurt their bottom line. Because
corporations often have resources which the
citizen critic lacks, they are able to
intimidate critics with threatened or actual
litigation.
Corporations or wealthy individuals attempting
to silence critics are just as
dangerous to free debate as the government
doing the same. If corporations are
able to suppress criticism of their products and
services, not only do the critics
suffer, but other consumers lack the
information they need to make informed
decisions. “The constitutional guarantee of
free speech ‘serves significant societal
interests’ wholly apart from the speaker’s
interest in self-expression” and “protects
the public’s interest in receiving information.”
Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. Public
Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)
(citations omitted).
Tarla Makaeff v. Trump
University
University
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Daivd Loy of ACLU San Diego supports the First Amendment--EXCEPT
when his pals are violating it
It seems that political expediency and friendship with cronies caused Blair-Loy to support egregious violations
of the First Amendment in San Diego
when his pals are violating it
It seems that political expediency and friendship with cronies caused Blair-Loy to support egregious violations
of the First Amendment in San Diego
It turns out that David Blair-Loy, in contradiction to his own stated policy, does sometimes believe in suing
regarding First Amendment rights. He just doesn't like to sue the clients of his pals who are attorneys for
public schools in San Diego.
regarding First Amendment rights. He just doesn't like to sue the clients of his pals who are attorneys for
public schools in San Diego.
Silence at Boalt Hall
The Dismantling of Affirmative
Action Andrea Guerrero
The Dismantling of Affirmative
Action Andrea Guerrero
The ACLU undermines the First
Amendment to suppress criticism
of its lawyer friends
Maura Larkins comment:
The ACLU, incredibly enough, indulges its own
urges to silence criticism of itself and its pals.
My father deeply admired the ACLU for standing
by its principles. It seems that it's a new world
now. David Blair-Loy (now David Loy), author of
the brief in the Trump University case on this
page, tried to suppress criticism of a law firm that
represented public schools in San Diego.
The San Diego ACLU has avoided suing public
schools, even as the Los Angeles ACLU has
been winning cases against schools. The LA
ACLU sued the LAUSD for firing all or almost all
the teachers at low-performing schools because
seniority policies demanded it.
The Los Angeles ACLU also named districts in a
suit on school fees, but San Diego ACLU
declined to name San Diego Unified School
District in the suit, apparently purely out of a
desire to go easy on its pals.
Blair-Loy told those gathered at the 2011 San
Diego ACLU general meeting that he preferred
not to sue, but to negotiate with school lawyers.
He said a lawsuit is the "worst" option. Yet he is
constantly suing other institutions. He seems to
want the Constitution to be applied very sparingly
to the public schools represented by his friends.
He only wants a few student speech issues to be
discussed, and seems to be either opposed to
employee speech, or not much interested in it.
Amendment to suppress criticism
of its lawyer friends
Maura Larkins comment:
The ACLU, incredibly enough, indulges its own
urges to silence criticism of itself and its pals.
My father deeply admired the ACLU for standing
by its principles. It seems that it's a new world
now. David Blair-Loy (now David Loy), author of
the brief in the Trump University case on this
page, tried to suppress criticism of a law firm that
represented public schools in San Diego.
The San Diego ACLU has avoided suing public
schools, even as the Los Angeles ACLU has
been winning cases against schools. The LA
ACLU sued the LAUSD for firing all or almost all
the teachers at low-performing schools because
seniority policies demanded it.
The Los Angeles ACLU also named districts in a
suit on school fees, but San Diego ACLU
declined to name San Diego Unified School
District in the suit, apparently purely out of a
desire to go easy on its pals.
Blair-Loy told those gathered at the 2011 San
Diego ACLU general meeting that he preferred
not to sue, but to negotiate with school lawyers.
He said a lawsuit is the "worst" option. Yet he is
constantly suing other institutions. He seems to
want the Constitution to be applied very sparingly
to the public schools represented by his friends.
He only wants a few student speech issues to be
discussed, and seems to be either opposed to
employee speech, or not much interested in it.
New School Board Policy
Forbids Criticism
September 26, 2008
By EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
A new San Diego Unified rule bans school board
members from publicly criticizing the
superintendent or his staff.
The controversial restriction is part of a new set
of governance policies passed earlier this month
by the San Diego Unified school board to define
its powers and responsibilities. Board members
hammered out the policies this summer with the
help of paid consultants, hoping to stop their
squabbling and the criticized practice of meddling
in everyday school decisions. They also set
specific goals and timelines for achieving them.
School board members "will not publicly express
individual negative judgments about
superintendent and staff performance," the rule
reads. "Any such judgments of superintendent or
staff performance will be expressed in executive
session." They must also "respect decisions of
the board and … not undermine those decisions"
when speaking publicly.
Willfully violating that or any other rule can lead
to penalties from a private scolding to public
censure and removal from leadership positions
or committees, the policies state.
Discord among employees and the board has
been a persistent issue in San Diego Unified
School District. Its last superintendent, Carl
Cohn, said it had "a culture of conflict." For
example, Gompers Middle School Principal Vince
Riveroll faced public criticism and was abruptly
pulled from his position in 2005 when the school
was seeking to become a charter school
operated independently from the school district;
Riveroll was later reinstated without explanation.
"You don't cross the line of a personal attack
where you are evaluating a person," said school
board member Mitz Lee, adding that she and
other board members will still ask questions of
their staff and share their opinions on policies.
"… I don't understand why people are going to
be worrying about it."
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union
and the open government group Californians
Aware derided the rule, saying it flouts the First
Amendment and cannot be enforced.
"I'm flabbergasted," said David Blair-Loy,
legal director of the regional ACLU chapter.
"This is so outrageous. … It's a complete
violation of speech. It undermines
democracy."... [Maura Larkins comment:
hypocrisy alert!]
Forbids Criticism
September 26, 2008
By EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
A new San Diego Unified rule bans school board
members from publicly criticizing the
superintendent or his staff.
The controversial restriction is part of a new set
of governance policies passed earlier this month
by the San Diego Unified school board to define
its powers and responsibilities. Board members
hammered out the policies this summer with the
help of paid consultants, hoping to stop their
squabbling and the criticized practice of meddling
in everyday school decisions. They also set
specific goals and timelines for achieving them.
School board members "will not publicly express
individual negative judgments about
superintendent and staff performance," the rule
reads. "Any such judgments of superintendent or
staff performance will be expressed in executive
session." They must also "respect decisions of
the board and … not undermine those decisions"
when speaking publicly.
Willfully violating that or any other rule can lead
to penalties from a private scolding to public
censure and removal from leadership positions
or committees, the policies state.
Discord among employees and the board has
been a persistent issue in San Diego Unified
School District. Its last superintendent, Carl
Cohn, said it had "a culture of conflict." For
example, Gompers Middle School Principal Vince
Riveroll faced public criticism and was abruptly
pulled from his position in 2005 when the school
was seeking to become a charter school
operated independently from the school district;
Riveroll was later reinstated without explanation.
"You don't cross the line of a personal attack
where you are evaluating a person," said school
board member Mitz Lee, adding that she and
other board members will still ask questions of
their staff and share their opinions on policies.
"… I don't understand why people are going to
be worrying about it."
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union
and the open government group Californians
Aware derided the rule, saying it flouts the First
Amendment and cannot be enforced.
"I'm flabbergasted," said David Blair-Loy,
legal director of the regional ACLU chapter.
"This is so outrageous. … It's a complete
violation of speech. It undermines
democracy."... [Maura Larkins comment:
hypocrisy alert!]
David Loy's email to Maura
Larkins warning her to stop
discussing school attorneys in
San Diego.
Larkins warning her to stop
discussing school attorneys in
San Diego.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
David Loy's position #1
David Loy's position #2
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
The ACLU should be a pit
bull. But David Loy, the
ACLU counsel, got a Bar
Association award for
"civility". In other words, for
not doing his job.
bull. But David Loy, the
ACLU counsel, got a Bar
Association award for
"civility". In other words, for
not doing his job.
| News, information and ideas about our education system by Maura Larkins |
David Loy's arbitrary and contradictory positions on the First Amendment
David Loy argues that large
corporations and individuals with
deep pockets must be allowed to
suppress speech using the court
system when they are angered by
the criticism.
corporations and individuals with
deep pockets must be allowed to
suppress speech using the court
system when they are angered by
the criticism.
David Loy uses his position at San Diego ACLU to try to stifle
criticism of his lawyer pal Dan Shinoff but he supports hate
speech at UCSD.
I agree that free speech should be allowed at UCSD. But the
confused and ignorant students spouting hate speech should
be challenged openly, not silenced.
If ACLU supported those trying to improve K-12 schools, we
might not have so much ignorance and hate among college
students.
criticism of his lawyer pal Dan Shinoff but he supports hate
speech at UCSD.
I agree that free speech should be allowed at UCSD. But the
confused and ignorant students spouting hate speech should
be challenged openly, not silenced.
If ACLU supported those trying to improve K-12 schools, we
might not have so much ignorance and hate among college
students.
If the ACLU supported the right of teachers to tell the truth about schools, we might be able to better
educate students, resulting in less ignorant hate speech like that coming out of UCLA's student newspaper
The Koala.
educate students, resulting in less ignorant hate speech like that coming out of UCLA's student newspaper
The Koala.
Why doesn't UCSD deal directly with the problem of students with
sloppy thinking? Why sweep it under the rug?
Is UCSD going to give these thoughtless students a diploma and
then send them out to the world with UCSD's endorsement?
sloppy thinking? Why sweep it under the rug?
Is UCSD going to give these thoughtless students a diploma and
then send them out to the world with UCSD's endorsement?
Monday, February 13, 2012
Attorney David Loy of the ACLU tells a
blogger she must remove all mention
of Stutz law firm from her website
The email below was sent to me by Mr. David Loy,
head counsel of the San Diego ACLU, in April 2010.
Shockingly, Loy was trying to silence my criticism of
public school attorneys. At the time of this email, I
had already filed an appeal that I would later win
regarding an injunction by San Diego Superior Court
Judge Judith Hayes.
Judge Hayes ordered me never in my life to mention
the name of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm--not
even to whisper it to my husband, or to seek counsel
from a lawyer, or to report a problem to the police.
The Court of Appeal found this injunction to be
unconstitutional and "exceedingly broad."
But the San Diego ACLU chief counsel insisted that I
should remove all mention of Stutz law firm from my
website! In fact, since I had filed an appeal, the
mandatory aspects of the injunction were stayed and I
was not required to take down my web pages about
Stutz. I think Mr. Loy knew this. It appears that Mr. Loy
himself was intentionally trying to undermine the rule
of law, even though he tried to appear to be
championing it:
from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow
anyone - a government official or a
private person - to disobey a court
order because they believe it is illegal.
Under the law, the proper course is to
seek appellate review of an order,
and/or a stay of the order, rather than
to disobey it. The rule of law in our
system depends on compliance with
court orders until or unless they are
stayed or reversed...
David
Why did Mr. Loy go out of his way to try to get me to
remove all mention of Stutz law firm from my blog?? I
believe that the answer lies in Mr. Loy's relationships
with school attorneys.
The ACLU claims that it does not give legal advice
regarding cases it refuses, but it turns out that this is
false. The ACLU refused my case, but I was given
very specific legal advice by San Diego ACLU
attorney David Loy regarding the defamation case
against me by Stutz law firm.
Mr. Loy never modified his position, even when I won
in the Court of Appeal.
Why was Mr. Loy so determined to make sure that I
obeyed the obviously unconstitutional order of Judge
Judith Hayes? I'm a third-grade teacher, and I knew
the injunction was unconstitutional.
Clearly, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that he was
insisting that I obey an unconstitutional order. I did not
follow Mr. Loy's legal advice; I would rather go to jail
than obey that order. (And, in fact, Stutz law firm
asked Judge Hayes to put me in jail, but she declined.)
Stutz law firm attorney Jack Sleeth argued before the
Court of Appeal that my appeal should be dismissed
because I disobeyed the trial court's order. Attorney
Shawn Martin argued on my behalf that no Appeals
Court had ever dismissed a case because an
appellant disobeyed the very order that was being
appealed.
The Court of Appeal asked Mr. Sleeth if he knew of
any case law to back up his argument that since the
injunction was a sanction, it therefore was not
constrained by the Constitution. He said he had not
been able to find any such case law, but he added, "I
tried, believe me, I tried!" On August 5, 2011 the
California Court of Appeal in San Diego ruled that
Judge Hayes' (and Mr. Loy's) demand was
"exceedingly unconstitutional."
As I walked out of the Court of Appeal after oral
arguments, I was approached by Darren Chaker, who
has a website sporting a photo of himself posing with
a smiling David Blair-Loy, apparently taken at some
ACLU event.
Mr. Chaker advised me to take down my website in
exchange for Stutz law firm's agreement to not to
make me pay attorney's fees. I told Mr. Chaker that I
would rather go to jail. He said, "I'm just advising you
to do this because they are so nasty." Then Mr.
Chaker went over to Jack Sleeth, and walked out of
the courtroom chatting with Mr. Sleeth! Mr. Chaker
later told me that he believed Stutz law firm might
represent him pro bono.
So the question remains, why on earth would David
Blair-Loy try to silence someone who criticized public
school attorneys? Was he serving his own agenda, or
the agenda of the board of the San Diego ACLU?
Perhaps both. Loy's goal seems to be to maintain a
reputation as "highly civil" with his fellow attorneys in
San Diego, particularly those who are tasked by local
schools with the job of limiting free speech.
Loy refused to litigate abuses by school officials at
Southwestern College and other schools, claiming
that litigation is the worst option. More than one of
the beneficiaries of David Loy's gentle approach,
including Southwestern's Raj Chopra, was later
indicted.
Loy refuses to confront schools regarding issues that
seriously damage thousands of students, but seeks
media attention for his little settlements free speech
for a few individual student reports and student
newspapers.
But no, Loy doesn't just refuse to deal with the serious
issues. He actively works to undermine those who are
trying to talk about the big issues.
Why did the ACLU board support Mr. Loy's actions?
Were they trying to please big donors? I talked to
board president David Higgins about this, but he
claimed that he understood nothing about the law. I
explained it to him carefully, but he continued to insist
that he understood none of it. Why is such an
individual in the position of board president of the San
Diego ACLU? My guess is that he was chosen
because he's willing to rubber-stamp every decision
that David Loy makes, no matter how hostile it may be
to civil rights. I conclude that Mr. Higgins does not
really care about the constitution. I suspect he has a
personal agenda that is limited to his own interests.
Attorney David Loy of the ACLU tells a
blogger she must remove all mention
of Stutz law firm from her website
The email below was sent to me by Mr. David Loy,
head counsel of the San Diego ACLU, in April 2010.
Shockingly, Loy was trying to silence my criticism of
public school attorneys. At the time of this email, I
had already filed an appeal that I would later win
regarding an injunction by San Diego Superior Court
Judge Judith Hayes.
Judge Hayes ordered me never in my life to mention
the name of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm--not
even to whisper it to my husband, or to seek counsel
from a lawyer, or to report a problem to the police.
The Court of Appeal found this injunction to be
unconstitutional and "exceedingly broad."
But the San Diego ACLU chief counsel insisted that I
should remove all mention of Stutz law firm from my
website! In fact, since I had filed an appeal, the
mandatory aspects of the injunction were stayed and I
was not required to take down my web pages about
Stutz. I think Mr. Loy knew this. It appears that Mr. Loy
himself was intentionally trying to undermine the rule
of law, even though he tried to appear to be
championing it:
from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow
anyone - a government official or a
private person - to disobey a court
order because they believe it is illegal.
Under the law, the proper course is to
seek appellate review of an order,
and/or a stay of the order, rather than
to disobey it. The rule of law in our
system depends on compliance with
court orders until or unless they are
stayed or reversed...
David
Why did Mr. Loy go out of his way to try to get me to
remove all mention of Stutz law firm from my blog?? I
believe that the answer lies in Mr. Loy's relationships
with school attorneys.
The ACLU claims that it does not give legal advice
regarding cases it refuses, but it turns out that this is
false. The ACLU refused my case, but I was given
very specific legal advice by San Diego ACLU
attorney David Loy regarding the defamation case
against me by Stutz law firm.
Mr. Loy never modified his position, even when I won
in the Court of Appeal.
Why was Mr. Loy so determined to make sure that I
obeyed the obviously unconstitutional order of Judge
Judith Hayes? I'm a third-grade teacher, and I knew
the injunction was unconstitutional.
Clearly, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that he was
insisting that I obey an unconstitutional order. I did not
follow Mr. Loy's legal advice; I would rather go to jail
than obey that order. (And, in fact, Stutz law firm
asked Judge Hayes to put me in jail, but she declined.)
Stutz law firm attorney Jack Sleeth argued before the
Court of Appeal that my appeal should be dismissed
because I disobeyed the trial court's order. Attorney
Shawn Martin argued on my behalf that no Appeals
Court had ever dismissed a case because an
appellant disobeyed the very order that was being
appealed.
The Court of Appeal asked Mr. Sleeth if he knew of
any case law to back up his argument that since the
injunction was a sanction, it therefore was not
constrained by the Constitution. He said he had not
been able to find any such case law, but he added, "I
tried, believe me, I tried!" On August 5, 2011 the
California Court of Appeal in San Diego ruled that
Judge Hayes' (and Mr. Loy's) demand was
"exceedingly unconstitutional."
As I walked out of the Court of Appeal after oral
arguments, I was approached by Darren Chaker, who
has a website sporting a photo of himself posing with
a smiling David Blair-Loy, apparently taken at some
ACLU event.
Mr. Chaker advised me to take down my website in
exchange for Stutz law firm's agreement to not to
make me pay attorney's fees. I told Mr. Chaker that I
would rather go to jail. He said, "I'm just advising you
to do this because they are so nasty." Then Mr.
Chaker went over to Jack Sleeth, and walked out of
the courtroom chatting with Mr. Sleeth! Mr. Chaker
later told me that he believed Stutz law firm might
represent him pro bono.
So the question remains, why on earth would David
Blair-Loy try to silence someone who criticized public
school attorneys? Was he serving his own agenda, or
the agenda of the board of the San Diego ACLU?
Perhaps both. Loy's goal seems to be to maintain a
reputation as "highly civil" with his fellow attorneys in
San Diego, particularly those who are tasked by local
schools with the job of limiting free speech.
Loy refused to litigate abuses by school officials at
Southwestern College and other schools, claiming
that litigation is the worst option. More than one of
the beneficiaries of David Loy's gentle approach,
including Southwestern's Raj Chopra, was later
indicted.
Loy refuses to confront schools regarding issues that
seriously damage thousands of students, but seeks
media attention for his little settlements free speech
for a few individual student reports and student
newspapers.
But no, Loy doesn't just refuse to deal with the serious
issues. He actively works to undermine those who are
trying to talk about the big issues.
Why did the ACLU board support Mr. Loy's actions?
Were they trying to please big donors? I talked to
board president David Higgins about this, but he
claimed that he understood nothing about the law. I
explained it to him carefully, but he continued to insist
that he understood none of it. Why is such an
individual in the position of board president of the San
Diego ACLU? My guess is that he was chosen
because he's willing to rubber-stamp every decision
that David Loy makes, no matter how hostile it may be
to civil rights. I conclude that Mr. Higgins does not
really care about the constitution. I suspect he has a
personal agenda that is limited to his own interests.
San Diego ACLU's David Loy sues UCSD in an
example of David Loy position #2
What's wrong with UCSD administrators?
We need more speech, not less, to address the undercurrents of
hate in our schools.
At the same time, what's wrong with the ACLU?
The ACLU's David Loy demonstrates an alarming pattern of
suppressing free speech regarding his public school pals while
protecting hate speech in other schools.
example of David Loy position #2
What's wrong with UCSD administrators?
We need more speech, not less, to address the undercurrents of
hate in our schools.
At the same time, what's wrong with the ACLU?
The ACLU's David Loy demonstrates an alarming pattern of
suppressing free speech regarding his public school pals while
protecting hate speech in other schools.
ACLU sues UCSD over free speech rights May
2016
Federal complaint
San Diego ACLU's David Loy says UCSD cut student
newspaper funding to curtail speech
Koala vs. Khosla:
Offensive UC Newspaper Demands Funding
By JON CHOWN
Courthouse News
June 02, 2016
SAN DIEGO (CN) — The Koala, a satirical student newspaper
whose motto is "The Worst in Collegiate Journalism Since 1982!"
claims the University of California San Diego cut its funding to
punish it for its speech.
Koala, primarily distributed on the UC San Diego campus, is one of
several publications supported by the Associated Students of
UCSD. It regularly satirizes issues involving ethnicity, sexual
orientation, religion and even people with disabilities.
Its content has drawn complaints for years, but it's managed to
survive. But administrators' decision last year cut all funding to
student publications may have killed it, unless The Koala can win
what it has proclaimed "the trial of the fucking century."
Its Monday complaint in Federal Court seeks an injunction against
UCSD Chancellor Pradeep Khosla, Associated Students of UCSD
President Dominick Suvonnasupa, the Associated Students of
UCSD Financial Controller Tristan Britt.
"There are two core issues: freedom of the press and freedom of
speech," The Koala's attorney David Loy said. "The university
violated both by discriminating against the student press and
discriminating against the viewpoint of one student newspaper."
Attorney Loy, with the ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial
Counties, said the ACLU took the Koala's case because of the
speech and free press issues, and that the case is clearly laid out
in emails and online reports.
The college has tried to shut down The Koala before. In 2002, it
tried to revoke its registration as a student organization after a
member took photos of another student organization's meeting and
made fun of it.
In 2010, all student print media were suspended after The Koala
broadcast an invitation for an event called "The Compton
Cookout," and asked participants to wear chains, cheap clothes
and be loud. Women were told to dress up like "ghetto chicks."
That stirred outrage among the African-American community on
campus.
E-mail threads cited in the complaint reveal a discussion between
administrators on how to quash the paper, dating back to the 2010
incident.
The Koala's Nov. 15, 2016 story, "UCSD Unveils New Dangerous
Space on Campus" uncorked a new flood of complaints and a
renewed effort to stop it.
The story mocked UCSD's new "safe spaces" where students
allegedly are excused from restrictions on insensitivity.
The predictably offensive story reported: "Located in the center of
Library Walk, the new Dangerous Space is the ideal place for
students to do whatever the hell they want," then quoted a fictitious
"Asian nerd," F. Yu, who enjoyed necrophilia.
In the interest of fair and balanced reporting, perhaps, the
complaint cites 15 student complaints against the Koala, including:
"Knowing that my school is funding such a heinous magazine is not
okay and I stand by my fellow students to get it off this campus.
Please cease funding for this awful publication."
And: "I would like to see UCSD dismantle The Koala immediately."
And: "Pull the funds, and make them turn to personal donations if
they way to continue this nonsense. They have the UC stamp/icon
on the paper. UCSD already has a bad racial climate and this is an
obvious contributor that can be eradicated."
And: "I would like the University to shut down the koala newspaper
and the creators of the newspaper should be punished by their
college deans."
Two days after the "Dangerous Space" story was published,
Chancellor Khosla and other top administrators denounced The
Koala "profoundly repugnant, repulsive, attacking and cruel." The
UC San Diego Associated Student Council quickly decided to cut
funding to all student-run publications.
Another UCSD student newspaper, The Guardian, reported that
Associated Student Council President Dominick Suvonnasuna said
the administrators' attack had no bearing on the Student Council's
quick decision to cut funding, that it was a coincidence.
The Koala doubts that.
"However offensive or outrageous it may have been, the article
remains protected free speech on topical issues of public concern,"
the complaint states.
The Koala wants the university enjoined from refusing to provide
funding for campus publications or "otherwise interfering" with the
First Amendment, plus attorneys' fees and costs.
2016
Federal complaint
San Diego ACLU's David Loy says UCSD cut student
newspaper funding to curtail speech
Koala vs. Khosla:
Offensive UC Newspaper Demands Funding
By JON CHOWN
Courthouse News
June 02, 2016
SAN DIEGO (CN) — The Koala, a satirical student newspaper
whose motto is "The Worst in Collegiate Journalism Since 1982!"
claims the University of California San Diego cut its funding to
punish it for its speech.
Koala, primarily distributed on the UC San Diego campus, is one of
several publications supported by the Associated Students of
UCSD. It regularly satirizes issues involving ethnicity, sexual
orientation, religion and even people with disabilities.
Its content has drawn complaints for years, but it's managed to
survive. But administrators' decision last year cut all funding to
student publications may have killed it, unless The Koala can win
what it has proclaimed "the trial of the fucking century."
Its Monday complaint in Federal Court seeks an injunction against
UCSD Chancellor Pradeep Khosla, Associated Students of UCSD
President Dominick Suvonnasupa, the Associated Students of
UCSD Financial Controller Tristan Britt.
"There are two core issues: freedom of the press and freedom of
speech," The Koala's attorney David Loy said. "The university
violated both by discriminating against the student press and
discriminating against the viewpoint of one student newspaper."
Attorney Loy, with the ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial
Counties, said the ACLU took the Koala's case because of the
speech and free press issues, and that the case is clearly laid out
in emails and online reports.
The college has tried to shut down The Koala before. In 2002, it
tried to revoke its registration as a student organization after a
member took photos of another student organization's meeting and
made fun of it.
In 2010, all student print media were suspended after The Koala
broadcast an invitation for an event called "The Compton
Cookout," and asked participants to wear chains, cheap clothes
and be loud. Women were told to dress up like "ghetto chicks."
That stirred outrage among the African-American community on
campus.
E-mail threads cited in the complaint reveal a discussion between
administrators on how to quash the paper, dating back to the 2010
incident.
The Koala's Nov. 15, 2016 story, "UCSD Unveils New Dangerous
Space on Campus" uncorked a new flood of complaints and a
renewed effort to stop it.
The story mocked UCSD's new "safe spaces" where students
allegedly are excused from restrictions on insensitivity.
The predictably offensive story reported: "Located in the center of
Library Walk, the new Dangerous Space is the ideal place for
students to do whatever the hell they want," then quoted a fictitious
"Asian nerd," F. Yu, who enjoyed necrophilia.
In the interest of fair and balanced reporting, perhaps, the
complaint cites 15 student complaints against the Koala, including:
"Knowing that my school is funding such a heinous magazine is not
okay and I stand by my fellow students to get it off this campus.
Please cease funding for this awful publication."
And: "I would like to see UCSD dismantle The Koala immediately."
And: "Pull the funds, and make them turn to personal donations if
they way to continue this nonsense. They have the UC stamp/icon
on the paper. UCSD already has a bad racial climate and this is an
obvious contributor that can be eradicated."
And: "I would like the University to shut down the koala newspaper
and the creators of the newspaper should be punished by their
college deans."
Two days after the "Dangerous Space" story was published,
Chancellor Khosla and other top administrators denounced The
Koala "profoundly repugnant, repulsive, attacking and cruel." The
UC San Diego Associated Student Council quickly decided to cut
funding to all student-run publications.
Another UCSD student newspaper, The Guardian, reported that
Associated Student Council President Dominick Suvonnasuna said
the administrators' attack had no bearing on the Student Council's
quick decision to cut funding, that it was a coincidence.
The Koala doubts that.
"However offensive or outrageous it may have been, the article
remains protected free speech on topical issues of public concern,"
the complaint states.
The Koala wants the university enjoined from refusing to provide
funding for campus publications or "otherwise interfering" with the
First Amendment, plus attorneys' fees and costs.
COURT DOCUMENTS
ACLU v UCSD re Koala
ACLU v UCSD re Koala