College student faces charges for expressing conservative opinions

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The coming dark age: A student senator at the University of Southern California (USC) faces removal from office merely because he is a conservative.

The complaint against him cites three charges, all absurd. The best however is this one:

The third violation Ellenhorn is accused of also concerns a Campus Reform article, but in this case, he is charged with failing to secure permission before filming the “Consent Carnival” that was held on campus in January by several student groups. The complaint specifies that university rules require approval “for any filming required as part of an event (including footage for use on YouTube, Facebook, and other online platforms).”

In other words, according to the fascist making the charges, no one is allowed to film anything on this so-called college campus without first obtaining permission first from school authorities. Such a charge demonstrates that this fascist has a complete lack of understanding of the concept of freedom, or the first amendment.


  • Wayne

    It’s getting weirder by the week now.

    -When I attended a State College in the late 70’s, it was a (written) “violation of the student code of conduct” to post “any printed matter,” without first getting a literal “stamp of approval” from the “office of student-life.” –
    -College employee’s regularly ripped down any flyer’s that did not have that stamp. When Reagan was elected in ’80, tons of anti Republican flyer’s went up non-stop. None of which had the Stamp & none of which were ever torn down.

  • Garry

    The first step in setting up a police state is establishing an ungodly number of rules. The second step is selective enforcement.

  • wayne

    Amen to that!

    –I’ve heard it said, “we all commit at least one “felony” per day.”
    When they get around to “rounding us up” (he said sarcastically) it will all be under some “perfectly legal” pretense. (It wouldn’t be “right,” but it would be “legal.”)

    Our Rule of Law should be equally enforced to all, regardless of outcome.
    Lack of “virtuous” Leader’s = lack of “virtuous” Laws.

  • Wodun

    Ya, I think there is a 100% chance that filming without approval has been done on campus for various activist events, probably even the one in question, without anyone getting in trouble. And as we have seen when Democrats protest, none of the rules apply to them.

    If this kid is removed from office, he should consider it a badge of honor for his civil disobedience and then sue.

  • Edward

    Garry wrote at March 9, 2016 at 11:51 am: “The first step in setting up a police state is establishing an ungodly number of rules. The second step is selective enforcement.”

    The second step is underway, as so many people now (mis)use the phrase “prosecutorial discretion.” This discretion is whether to prosecute, plea bargain, or pursue other forms of disciplinary action, not whether to ignore the charges and let the offender go free, but that is how it is being discussed, these days.

    That is supposed to be the distinction between selective enforcement and prosecutorial discretion. Selective enforcement is still universally acknowledged as a bad thing, which is why the more palatable phrase is now being (mis)used. This allows the abusers of power to look like they are not abusive at all.

    Jimenez seems to be abusing the system in order to get her way. People get away with abusing the system, because there is little down side to the tactic. She can only win, because to lose her case only allows the status quo, and there is no harm to her. But if she wins, she intimidates all others who disagree with her and emboldens all who agree with her to continue abusing the system, harming her opponents.

    Thus, our own system of freedom allows for the formation of the very tyranny that our Founding Fathers feared would happen. It is not only We the People who must be eternally vigilant, but those who adjudicate disputes must discourage the abuse of their system of justice.

  • Wayne

    Edward wrote in part:
    “That is supposed to be the distinction between selective enforcement and prosecutorial discretion.”

    Excellent point; huge difference between “selective” & “discretion.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *