Comment history

Occupy Lawrence protesters ask city for help finding new campsite

That's a tougher question. IIRC, cities have a right, to some extent, to selectively enforce statutes. One of the problems the OWL protesters have is that they were also basically camping in the park (on top of "protesting"). In that instance, the city can easily say they don't enforce the ordinance when people walk through the park at night, as doing so would be kind of silly, but chose to enforce it when people literally took up camp after closing hours. So, I guess my response is, it depends, but the city probably has a pretty good counter-argument to a charge of truly discriminatory selective enforcement.

October 25, 2011 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Occupy Lawrence protesters ask city for help finding new campsite

If the ordinance was enacted with a content-neutral purpose, enforcing it is not going to be a violation of the first amendment. If the content-neutral ordinance says the park is closed between 11pm and 6am, and the cops ticket people who are in the park between 11pm and 6am, it really makes little difference why the cops ticketed them. They were in violation of a constitutional ordinance; motive to ticket is really irrelevant. The only motive that matters is that of the Legislature (or city council) when the ordinance was enacted.

October 25, 2011 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Occupy Lawrence protesters ask city for help finding new campsite

You have little/no idea what you are talking about.

October 25, 2011 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Occupy Lawrence protesters ask city for help finding new campsite

The First Amendment allows governments to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. It's quite likely that imposing and enforcing operating hours for a park fall well within those limits.

October 25, 2011 at 3:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal ) ordered to pay Kansas Athletics more than $660,000

"How in the hell did any “reputable” law firm justify these charges?"

Kilpatrick Stockton (KU's primary counsel) is a pretty large Atlanta-based firm. The partners there bill in the $350-450/hr range, which is fairly low for big firm attorneys. Partners in large NYC/Chicago/DC/LA firms bill in the $700-1000/hr range.

Looks like the court decided that an appropriate rate was between $150/hr (junior associates) to $330/hr (Partners).

September 28, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Authorities file new charges in Yellow House investigation


Hasn't your attorney informed you that it might not be a good idea to go blabbing about your case in a public forum? I understand you're trying to drum up support, but seriously, perhaps it would be prudent to keep your mouth shut.

September 14, 2007 at 11:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

'Hawk horde

Looks like the person in charge of captions for the photo gallery needs to learn how to spell PHOG!!

March 9, 2007 at 10:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Retirees say KU burns bridges by raising fees, leaving them out of the loop

I would be willing to be that those who are complaing about the "pampered" professors, yada yada yada, never attended 1 college class. And those on the "University Support Staff" I'm sure are well educated. Where do you expect to go in todays world without an education? And what gives you the right to be vengeful toward those who work hard for years to get a professorship? I'm sorry that KU doesnt pamper it low-level hourly employees who are probobly barely high school grads let along PhD's in various fields. I'm sorry that your bitter because life hasn't taken you where you want it to and that your poor. Probobly should have thought about that when you were younger, maybe heeded someones advice to go to college. You all chose your own paths, and so did the professors. You have no right to chastise them for what they have accomplished simply because it is more than you have. And i'm sure the $75 isn't much money to any of them, it is the principal behind it. I'm sure a retiree from any company would become more and more bitter as they start to see their retirement perks wither away. I don't know why I even bother to read these comments, most of the people who post on here frequently come across as morons, uneducated and jealous of what others have worked hard for. And those of you who do work for the University Support Staff, you should be lucky the university is even here, otherwise you'd probobly be working at wal-mart making even less money and it would be more difficult to make that trailor payment.

July 16, 2006 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Chick-fil-A's feathers ruffled over bar's spinoff campaign

I don't think they are concerned about a "threat" to their multi-million dollar chain, I think it is based in the principal that they came up with the idea, put alot of money behind it to make it their slogan and what they are known for, and they feel it is unfair for any company, big or small, to ride the coattails of their expensive advertising campaign so blatently. And how is this a PR goof? Their is one CFA in this town and it is on campus. You think the students give a d@mn about the fact they sent a cease and desist letter to a local BBQ joint? The more intelligent ones likely understand why (myself included) and the others just think their sandwiches are yummy and don't care.

July 13, 2006 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

CLO fined $10K for abuse of residents

To those who think the money should go to the residents and not into the "State coffers", how do you think the state pays for the program to monitor these places? The money taken in Fines goes back into the program to recoup expenses.

June 7, 2006 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )