When did the Elections Council appoint themselves the Thought Police? Candidates who cuss in the upcoming 'Campus-Wide Candidate Speech Forum' are forbidden to say 'hate speech, vulgar/offensive language, and negative campaigning' and will be escorted out by SECURITY if they do so. It's Thursday at 5:30 in MLK.

The following are absolutely
forbidden: hate speech, vulgar/offensive language, and negative campaigning (aka trashing another candidate or party). I know the words "vulgar", "offensive" and even "hate speech" can be ambiguous. Let's put it this way: if you have concerns about what you want to say, you probably shouldn't say it. All inappropriate speeches will be halted immediately. Failure to follow these rules will result in your dismissal from the forum by security, and/or possible censures. Still not sure if what you want to say is okay? Email me ASAP (and not the day of the forum).

I don't think anyone is intending to say racial slurs. But since when does the Elections Council get to regulate the content of the election? They're an appointed body without any power to level censures or regulate what candidates say, much less prohibit 'negative campaigning.'

Needless to say, the laughable threat of 'possible censures' has no basis in the ASUC Constitution. The only possible legal basis to their threats is a prohibition on 'libel and slander' of other candidates, libel and slander being defined by the Judicial Council and punishable by 1 or 2 censures.

The idea of using 'Security' to throw out candidates is even more silly. And do they really think Candidates will get so out of hand they'll need to be policed?

I wouldn't care about silly rules in an unattended 'Campaign Issues Forum' if the Elections Council hadn't already threatened to keep 'vulgarity' out of the ASUC Voter's Guide and challenged Squelch! Candidates on more then one occasion about it. If they keep doing this we'll have to seek a J-Council order to force them to stop interfering with my candidates.Email This Post!