‘‘I think the whole strategy of the board of trustees has been to do these modest increases every single year, to make it seem like it’s not that bad,’’ said Paul Weiskel, a junior at UMass Boston who was involved in last fall’s Occupy protests on campus. ‘‘In the end, it’s the same result, which is pricing out the people the university was meant to serve.’’
--more--"
Related: UMass board OK’s 4.9% fee hike
You know it's all a bu$ine$$, right, kids?
Also see:
Pride Parade celebrates in style, with great joy
You remember what I said about protest coverage?
Nurses union protests Boston Medical Center cuts
Protesters urge ban on use of shock therapy at center
Hey, there may even come a time when you can no longer protest:
"High court blocks lawsuit against Secret Service; Protester claimed his arrest violated free-speech rights" by Adam Liptak | New York Times, June 05, 2012
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday against a protester who said his free-speech rights had been violated when Secret Service agents arrested him after he made remarks critical of the Bush administration’s war policies.
SS has their own problems.
Related: Whore Hearing
Down to a whisper, ain't it?
The case arose from a 2006 visit by Vice President Dick Cheney to a mall in Beaver Creek, Colo. A Secret Service agent assigned to protect the vice president said he heard a man say into a cellphone that he planned to ask Cheney “how many kids he’s killed today.’’
The man, Steven Howards, later approached Cheney and said Bush administration “policies in Iraq are disgusting.’’
That frikkin' war criminal is lucky he's still alive.
Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said the dispute over the manner of the touch “does not affect our analysis.’’
One agent, Virgil D. Reichle, later confronted Howards and asked him if he had assaulted the vice president. Howards denied having touched Cheney and said, “If you don’t want other people sharing their opinions, you should have him avoid public places.’’
Reichle arrested Howards on assault charges and turned him over to the local authorities. He was charged with harassment under state law, but those charges were dropped.
Howards sued, saying the arrest had violated his First Amendment rights. A divided three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit allowed the case to proceed.
Howards’s false statement about not touching Cheney was reason enough to arrest him under the Fourth Amendment, the appeals court said. But it added that his First Amendment rights might have been violated because his remarks could have “substantially motivated’’ agents to take action against him.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying the Secret Service agents could not be sued. They were entitled, Thomas wrote, to the qualified immunity available to government officials when the legal principle said to bar their conduct was not “clearly established.’’
***************************
In another action Monday, the court ruled that Indianapolis was not required to refund sewer assessments to taxpayers who had made lump-sum payments when it forgave the remaining payments to those who had decided to pay in installments.
That seems discriminatory and unfair!
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority in the 6-to-3 decision, said the city had not violated the Constitution’s equal-protection clause because there was a rational reason to treat the two kinds of taxpayers differently. Refunding money already paid would give rise to administrative complications, he wrote.
Translation: It would have been a bummer for the city to rebate the extra loot.
No wonder the Supreme Court is an all time low approval.
--more--"
Related: Occupying My Time With the Boston Globe
What a waste.
