Expelled Oklahoma U fraternity to sue university, possibly President Boren

[rightwinger]

A government entity with established rules and regulations

Stop defending racists....it will get you nowhere

There's the rub. For many on this thread the race card trumps the 1st ammendment.

There is no such thing as a 'race card,' it's another inane contrivance of the right, like 'political correctness,' or the 'liberal media.'

The problem is many on the right attempt to propagate the lie of a 'race card.'

Indeed, no one seeks to 'trump' the First Amendment, the notion is idiocy, as is the notion that the students' right to 'free speech' was 'violated.'

They were expelled because of what they said. The university is a government entity, an arm of the state. Not a private institution. How is that not a violation of their right to free speech?

Let's go over it: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The university, as an extension of government, falls under that prohibition. It doesn't say unless the speech is icky, or insults people, or clearly shows the speaker to be a total twit. If the university can prohibit one kind of speech, no matter how disgusting and idiotic, it can prohibit other kinds of speech as well. The kid on the video was an asshole. As far as I know, the entire frat was a collection of assholes. But assholes have as much right to spew repulsive nonsense as anyone else.

Still looking for the law that was passed.

It was passed when the Constitution was ratified.

Congress shall pass no law...

What law was passed infringing free speech? Who went to jail?

 

[PratchettFan]

There's the rub. For many on this thread the race card trumps the 1st ammendment.

In this case racist behavior got you expelled.
When you attend a university you agree to conform to certain standards of behavior
Celebrating the lynching of n*ggers who want to join your organization does not meet that standard

Why are you defending racists?

Because, like it or not, racists have the same rights as everyone else. If you take away their rights, your rights go with it. If you aren't willing to stand up for the rights of people you hate, you don't deserve anyone to stand up for you.

Yes they do

They have the right to be held accountable for their actions, just like everyone else. By everyone except conservatives who will defend to the death the right to scream N*gger

The big question is, why aren't you willing to defend it?

I am under no obligation to defend repulsive behavior or those ho are punished because of it

Then you don't deserve the right yourself. Free speech means everyone or it means no one.

 

[PratchettFan]

There's the rub. For many on this thread the race card trumps the 1st ammendment.

There is no such thing as a 'race card,' it's another inane contrivance of the right, like 'political correctness,' or the 'liberal media.'

The problem is many on the right attempt to propagate the lie of a 'race card.'

Indeed, no one seeks to 'trump' the First Amendment, the notion is idiocy, as is the notion that the students' right to 'free speech' was 'violated.'

They were expelled because of what they said. The university is a government entity, an arm of the state. Not a private institution. How is that not a violation of their right to free speech?

Let's go over it: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The university, as an extension of government, falls under that prohibition. It doesn't say unless the speech is icky, or insults people, or clearly shows the speaker to be a total twit. If the university can prohibit one kind of speech, no matter how disgusting and idiotic, it can prohibit other kinds of speech as well. The kid on the video was an asshole. As far as I know, the entire frat was a collection of assholes. But assholes have as much right to spew repulsive nonsense as anyone else.

Still looking for the law that was passed.

It was passed when the Constitution was ratified.

Congress shall pass no law...

What law was passed infringing free speech? Who went to jail?

The students were expelled by an arm of the government. If you don't see that as infringing on them, then it is pointless to even talk to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They're hiring Tim McVeigh's lawyer. To be clear, not that there's anything wrong with that, but,

whoa...lol...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Racists found the limits of free speech

Used to be they could pull that shit anywhere

Oh! So racist speech isn't protected by the first ammendment!

They are protected, they're not going to jail. They still have to follow the schools code of conduct.

Tell me, hypocrite Leftist, if homosexual dating were a violation of the school's code of conduct, which side of the issue would you be on?

I thought so.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Government seeking to single out a particular class of persons for disadvantage motivated solely by who constitutes that class of persons violates the 14th Amendment, having nothing to do with their 'conduct' as gay students.

The OU students were expelled as a consequence of their conduct, not who they are, and not as a consequence of their speech.

Wrong again. I said if homosexual dating were a violation of the school's conduct code, what side would you be on. That's conduct that's being targeted, not who people are. You Lying Leftists cannot conceal your despicable hypocrisy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You have no concept of freedom of speech. It prohibits the government from taking action against you for what you might say

It does nothing to protect you from the consequences of your actions

So the expulsions were not actions taken by a government entity against the students because their message (speech) was deemed inappropriate?
All we have to do is call the expulsions "consequencies" to not have any first ammendment issues! Thanks for schooling us on the 1st ammendment!

A government entity with established rules and regulations

Stop defending racists....it will get you nowhere

There's the rub. For many on this thread the race card trumps the 1st ammendment.

In this case racist behavior got you expelled.
When you attend a university you agree to conform to certain standards of behavior
Celebrating the lynching of n*ggers who want to join your organization does not meet that standard

Why are you defending racists?

Because, like it or not, racists have the same rights as everyone else. If you take away their rights, your rights go with it. If you aren't willing to stand up for the rights of people you hate, you don't deserve anyone to stand up for you.

I'm beginning to have a lot of respect for you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

They're hiring Tim McVeigh's lawyer. To be clear, not that there's anything wrong with that, but,

whoa...lol...

McVeigh was executed. You'd think they would choose a better lawyer, one that brags, "I could have gotten him life".

 

[rightwinger]

In this case racist behavior got you expelled.
When you attend a university you agree to conform to certain standards of behavior
Celebrating the lynching of n*ggers who want to join your organization does not meet that standard

Why are you defending racists?

Because, like it or not, racists have the same rights as everyone else. If you take away their rights, your rights go with it. If you aren't willing to stand up for the rights of people you hate, you don't deserve anyone to stand up for you.

Yes they do

They have the right to be held accountable for their actions, just like everyone else. By everyone except conservatives who will defend to the death the right to scream N*gger

The big question is, why aren't you willing to defend it?

I am under no obligation to defend repulsive behavior or those ho are punished because of it

Then you don't deserve the right yourself. Free speech means everyone or it means no one.

They were free to chant any repulsive thing they want......
The university is free to expel them for it

Nobody can compel a university to admit blatant racists

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The First Amendment isn't there to protect popular speech. It's there to protect unpopular speech, else it wouldn't be needed in the first place.

I've seen plenty of incidents in the past year of anti-Semitic speech right out on public grounds of universities in front of hundreds of students and nothing happened to those instigators.

It seems certain people are a huge 1st Amendment fan until somebody says something they don't like.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no such thing as a 'race card,' it's another inane contrivance of the right, like 'political correctness,' or the 'liberal media.'

The problem is many on the right attempt to propagate the lie of a 'race card.'

Indeed, no one seeks to 'trump' the First Amendment, the notion is idiocy, as is the notion that the students' right to 'free speech' was 'violated.'

They were expelled because of what they said. The university is a government entity, an arm of the state. Not a private institution. How is that not a violation of their right to free speech?

Let's go over it: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The university, as an extension of government, falls under that prohibition. It doesn't say unless the speech is icky, or insults people, or clearly shows the speaker to be a total twit. If the university can prohibit one kind of speech, no matter how disgusting and idiotic, it can prohibit other kinds of speech as well. The kid on the video was an asshole. As far as I know, the entire frat was a collection of assholes. But assholes have as much right to spew repulsive nonsense as anyone else.

Still looking for the law that was passed.

It was passed when the Constitution was ratified.

Congress shall pass no law...

What law was passed infringing free speech? Who went to jail?

The students were expelled by an arm of the government. If you don't see that as infringing on them, then it is pointless to even talk to you.

So?

I worked 33 years for the government and would have been fired if I screamed I would lynch any n*gger who wanted to work for me

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Racists found the limits of free speech

Used to be they could pull that shit anywhere

Oh! So racist speech isn't protected by the first ammendment!

They are protected, they're not going to jail. They still have to follow the schools code of conduct.

Tell me, hypocrite Leftist, if homosexual dating were a violation of the school's code of conduct, which side of the issue would you be on?

I thought so.

The University should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so how exactly would that be in violation of the code of conduct? Do you think there are no gay students attending OU?

You just proved my point.

Hypocrite Leftist.

 

[Steinlight]

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

In this case, it was the feelings of an entire university

Sucks being a racist these days doesn't it?

Guess racists don't have 1st ammendment rights. Don't you see the problem here. The first ammendment doesn't only protect speech that we like or agree with, it protects speech that we hate or disagree with.

You have no understanding of the first amendment

It never says there can be no consequences for what you say

Expulsion is one of those consequences

Yes, in fact the First Amendment is all about consequences. In fact, that is the entire point. It protects you from the State abridging your right to free speech, such as in a State institution implementing speech codes and levying punishment upon you for your speech.

I know this and I am not even an American. Your Bill of Rights is still one of the few things I love about your country and admire them for.

Looks like you need a refresher on your own Constitution

Legally, the University doesn't have a leg to stand on.

PAPISH v. UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI CURATORS, 410 U.S. 667 (1973)

Expulsion of student for distributing on campus a publication assertedly containing "indecent speech" proscribed by a bylaw of a state university's Board of Curators held an impermissible violation of her First Amendment free speech rights since the mere dissemination of ideas on a state university campus cannot be proscribed in the name of "conventions of decency."

Certiorari granted; 464 F.2d 136, reversed.

FindLaw Cases and Codes

You have no concept of freedom of speech. It prohibits the government from taking action against you for what you might say

It does nothing to protect you from the consequences of your actions

Oklahoma University is the government, it is a public university and a state institution, and thus held to the first amendment.

So yes, the 1st Amendment absolutely protects you from the consequences of government action against you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In this case, it was the feelings of an entire university

Sucks being a racist these days doesn't it?

Guess racists don't have 1st ammendment rights. Don't you see the problem here. The first ammendment doesn't only protect speech that we like or agree with, it protects speech that we hate or disagree with.

You have no understanding of the first amendment

It never says there can be no consequences for what you say

Expulsion is one of those consequences

Yes, in fact the First Amendment is all about consequences. In fact, that is the entire point. It protects you from the State abridging your right to free speech, such as in a State institution implementing speech codes and levying punishment upon you for your speech.

I know this and I am not even an American. Your Bill of Rights is still one of the few things I love about your country and admire them for.

Looks like you need a refresher on your own Constitution

Legally, the University doesn't have a leg to stand on.

PAPISH v. UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI CURATORS, 410 U.S. 667 (1973)

Expulsion of student for distributing on campus a publication assertedly containing "indecent speech" proscribed by a bylaw of a state university's Board of Curators held an impermissible violation of her First Amendment free speech rights since the mere dissemination of ideas on a state university campus cannot be proscribed in the name of "conventions of decency."

Certiorari granted; 464 F.2d 136, reversed.

FindLaw Cases and Codes

You have no concept of freedom of speech. It prohibits the government from taking action against you for what you might say

It does nothing to protect you from the consequences of your actions

Oklahoma University is the government, it is a public university and a state institution, and thus held to the first amendment.

So yes, the 1st Amendment absolutely protects you from the consequences of government action against you.

Amazing how a right in the Constitution, Leftists don't recognize, but if this university had discriminated against gay people, which ISN'T protected by the Constitution, then they would be up in arms.

 

[Steinlight]

In this case, it was the feelings of an entire university

Sucks being a racist these days doesn't it?

Guess racists don't have 1st ammendment rights. Don't you see the problem here. The first ammendment doesn't only protect speech that we like or agree with, it protects speech that we hate or disagree with.

You have no understanding of the first amendment

It never says there can be no consequences for what you say

Expulsion is one of those consequences

Yes, in fact the First Amendment is all about consequences. In fact, that is the entire point. It protects you from the State abridging your right to free speech, such as in a State institution implementing speech codes and levying punishment upon you for your speech.

I know this and I am not even an American. Your Bill of Rights is still one of the few things I love about your country and admire them for.

Looks like you need a refresher on your own Constitution

Legally, the University doesn't have a leg to stand on.

PAPISH v. UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI CURATORS, 410 U.S. 667 (1973)

Expulsion of student for distributing on campus a publication assertedly containing "indecent speech" proscribed by a bylaw of a state university's Board of Curators held an impermissible violation of her First Amendment free speech rights since the mere dissemination of ideas on a state university campus cannot be proscribed in the name of "conventions of decency."

Certiorari granted; 464 F.2d 136, reversed.

FindLaw Cases and Codes

You have no concept of freedom of speech. It prohibits the government from taking action against you for what you might say

It does nothing to protect you from the consequences of your actions

Correct.

That one might be subject to adverse actions in the context of private society as a consequence of his speech has nothing whatsoever to do with 'free speech,' as the First Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not the relationship between private persons and/or organizations.

And yet again: the OU students were expelled as a consequence of their conduct, not their speech, no matter how much some on the right attempt to propagate the lie that they were expelled due to their speech.

The racist students remain at liberty to practice their racism, to engage in racist speech whenever they so desire, in any venue they so desire, absent interference by the government, subject to no punitive measures by the government.

That is typical legalistic weaseling.

Saying they weren't expelled for their speech, but for the "code of conduct", is wholly dishonest. The claimed abridgement of the "code of conduct" was their speech, thus they were expelled for the words they said . Look if you are go about advocating expelling people from school for saying the nagger word, have the balls to stand behind your convictions.

But in reality, you are a liar and know your position is morally untenable, so you have to come up with dishonest arguments like this. Not only are your speech codes immoral and repressive absent the law, they are a violation of 1A and standing case law on the matter.

FindLaw Cases and Codes

I hope you die a painful death you piece of shit.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, entirely different situation, you are talking about someone publicly harassing someone at a private firm and a state institution enacting speech codes against someone for what they said among friends at a private function. In fact, the two scenarios is the exact opposite of one another. I at your example.

But please, tell us more about this "code of conduct" that overrides the 1A and established case law on this exact issue .

It is absolutely offensive. It was deliberately edgy humor. I thought it was funny, but maybe that isn't for baby ears like you. It doesn't change the fact that the State are unquestionably the immoral actors for levying punishment upon someone for their speech. Speech codes, particularly for what is said in private, are morally egregious.

You should move on from this issue and into oncoming traffic you worthless piece of shit.

Actually, what they need to do is shut the fuck up and hope they can find another college to take them.

Code of Conduct. They violated it. They're done.

 

[Steinlight]

Nope, entirely different situation, you are talking about someone publicly harassing someone at a private firm and a state institution enacting speech codes against someone for what they said among friends at a private function. In fact, the two scenarios is the exact opposite of one another. I at your example.

But please, tell us more about this "code of conduct" that overrides the 1A and established case law on this exact issue .

It is absolutely offensive. It was deliberately edgy humor. I thought it was funny, but maybe that isn't for baby ears like you. It doesn't change the fact that the State are unquestionably the immoral actors for levying punishment upon someone for their speech. Speech codes, particularly for what is said in private, are morally egregious.

You should move on from this issue and into oncoming traffic you worthless piece of shit.

Actually, what they need to do is shut the fuck up and hope they can find another college to take them.

Code of Conduct. They violated it. They're done.

Your unspecified code of conduct is immoral and illegal under the Constitution and established case law.

Hopefully these kids won't shut the fuck up and will run this piece of shit school through the court system, because they will win. Squeeze every penny out of them that they can.

 

[JoeB131]

They weren't employed by the government.

No, they were in an agreement with a university that they would get a college education in exchange for living up to a student code of conduct. Which they failed to live up to.

The First Amendment isn't there to protect popular speech. It's there to protect unpopular speech, else it wouldn't be needed in the first place.

I've seen plenty of incidents in the past year of anti-Semitic speech right out on public grounds of universities in front of hundreds of students and nothing happened to those instigators.

That's because you guys keep pretending that criticism of Israel is anti-semitism.

 

[JoeB131]

Your unspecified code of conduct is immoral and illegal under the Constitution and established case law.

Hopefully these kids won't shut the fuck up and will run this piece of shit school through the court system, because they will win. Squeeze every penny out of them that they can.

Yeah, try getting this in front of a jury, and then show that jury the tape. That's going to be a lost cause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Papish v. Board of Curators is not applicable to the incident that occurred at OU, as Papish concerned the First Amendment and the University's effort to prohibit the ongoing distribution of material it considered to be obscene, where the University failed to justify the prohibition of the speech pursuant to “the enforce[ment of] reasonable regulations as to the time, place, and manner of speech and its dissemination.”

The expulsion of the OU students had nothing to do with their speech, it was not done in an effort to prohibit the dissemination of their speech, it was not done as a punitive response to their speech, where in theory the students could return to an appropriate venue at OU as private citizens to advocate that African-Americans not be allowed to join a given fraternity.

In order for the expelled OU students to make a First Amendment violation claim they must establish that the expulsion was done in an effort to preempt or restrict their speech, which clearly it was not.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong again. I said if homosexual dating were a violation of the school's conduct code, what side would you be on. That's conduct that's being targeted, not who people are. You Lying Leftists cannot conceal your despicable hypocrisy.

Not really the same thing. If these kids were saying the n-word in the privacy of hteir dorm room, there wouldn't be an issue.

They said it on a bus. Now, if two gay dudes had the butt sex on bus and it was posted on You Tube, they'd probably get thrown off campus, too.