If you only care about Rights (or content) you agree with, do you really care about them at all?

[Jarhead]

Obviously not. Notice how all the liberal turds in this forum are supporting OU. They believe government has the right to silence speech they find offensive.

Free expression is one thing. These kids were given codes of conduct which they must follow. If they didn't like them, go somewhere else.

A government entity cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates constitutional rights. No person was confronted when those idiots sang that song. No person was directly harassed.

FIRE has been fighting codes like this (and winning) for decades now.

Bullshit Marty. It's not exactly rocket science to realize students, even college students, do not have the same first amendment rights in the university context as adults in free society have. And, even then, you put something on social media your boss doesn't like, they can fire you. You may think you're in an alternate universe, immune to realities of law and commerce, but you're not.

Students were horribly insulted when the student legislative board discussed banning flags, including the American Flag in the building lobby for other students may find it offensive. Why do they have the right to say things that may be deemed as insulting, but others don't?

Sure, you will say they are not the same thing. But that is your opinion. Some students were brought up in military families where they were told that their fathers died for what the American Flag stands for. It is not your place to determine how important the American Flag is to them.

The school moved very quickly to preserve its reputation in the American flag situation, too.

This misguided legislation was not endorsed or supported in any way by the campus leadership, the University of California, or the broader student body. The views of a handful of students passing a resolution do not represent the opinions of the nearly 30,000 students on this campus, and have no influence on the policies and practices of the university.

UCI student executive council vetoes flag resolution UCIrvine News

Yet no one was expelled.

You see, the university has set its own bar as to what is hate speech....and if it is speech that bothers them, (the faculty or the board), then it is OK to expel. If it doesn't bother them, but may bother others, they will put a stop to it, but not take any action against the students.

I do not believe a school has the right to determine the SPEECH code of conduct based on their OWN belief system. It shows favoritism toward their own.

A SPEECH code of conduct should be universal...and yes, it will have to be somewhat liberal for it is difficult to break down what is right and what is wrong as it pertains to speech....but that's the point....freedom of speech is considered freedom of speech for a reason. We do not have freedom of action for that can be truly harmful....but freedom of speech is due to the fact that moist, if not all, should have the ability to allow hateful speech to roll off their shoulders.

We were taught very young....."sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"

It should be applied here.

 

[g5000]

Making a video isn't harassing anyone.

That chant created a hostile environment. "You can hang 'em from a tree, but a ****** will never sign with me".

That video also damaged the reputation of UO. The university has every right to defend itself against slanderous behavior.

End of story. Case closed.

 

[bendog]

Superb, simply superb. and even sublime.

 

[g5000]

Yet no one was expelled.

Ah. So you are butthurt that they didn't get the same punishment a bunch of ******-hanging good old boys got, eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All the recent discussion about the OU incident, and the ongoing 2nd amendment discussions has led me to ask this question.

If you say you support the rights of others, does it really count if you only support said rights only when you agree with the expression or content of those rights?

Here's the deal boys, the real world. Here, in America, you can pretty much shoot your mouth off and say anything you like, anywhere you like. That being said, what you can't do is expect every dumbass thing you might say not to get your ass fired or thrown out of school. If you want to stand on the street corner and scream that Jesus is Lord, or the End is Near, or God hates Fags, knock yourself out I will defend you to the death. If however you say that the girl at the cash register has a cute ass and you'd really like to drill her to the boss, and it's his goddamned daughter so he fires you on the spot, you're on your own.

I once suggested a password to a girl decades ago that was NSFW, and was promptly fired. That wasn't Free Speech, that was Fucking Dumb.

Wrong. Private companies can do what they like in response to what you say. Public universities, on the other hand are legally bound by the terms of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You're just a big fat ignoramus who doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about.

Stop being a child my little infant. You sound just like one with your big fat doodyhead comment.

 

[g5000]

I do not believe a school has the right to determine the SPEECH code of conduct based on their OWN belief system.

Of course they do. It affects the reputation of the school. It affects whether or not other kids, particularly minorities, will want to attend their school.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who raised you people to believe that rights don't have limitations, wolves or Ayn Rand, meaning the same thing.

 

[Skylar]

OU has a student code of conduct

21 Mental harassment, being intentional conduct extreme or outrageous, or calculated to cause severe embarrassment, humiliation, shame, fright, grief or intimidation To constitute mental harassment, the conduct must be of such a nature that a reasonable person would not tolerate it.
27 Racial harassment is subjecting any person to differential treatment on the basis of race without legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason When harassment is primarily racial in nature, the provisions of the Racial and Ethnic Harassment Policy shall apply

RACIAL AND ETHNIC HARASSMENT POLICY
I Introduction Diversity is one of the strengths of our society as well as one of the hallmarks of a great university The University of Oklahoma supports diversity and therefore is committed to maintaining employment and educational settings which are multicultural, multiethnic and multiracial Respecting cultural differences and promoting dignity among all members of the University community are responsibilities each of us must share


2 The University shall not subject an individual to different treatment on the basis of race by effectively causing, encouraging, accepting, tolerating or failing to correct a racially hostile environment of which it has notice.

on top of this there are also organization codes of conducts, which are on campus property. (Frat house was on campus property)

Making a video isn't harassing anyone. If the OU code of conduct violates the First Amendment, it's illegal. End of story.

How so? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence.

 

[bripat9643]

A government entity cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates constitutional rights.

Where'd you get that dumbass idea from? You never head of the Military? Free Speech doesn't mean you can say anything you like, anywhere you like, and never has.

Yes, it actually does. The military is a separate issue.

Nope. Every government agency has a code of conduct which regulates the behavior and speech of its employees.

Without exception.

A student is not an employee. Students pay tuition, and their parents pay taxes. The university is legally bound to respect their constitutional rights, just as the Social Security Administration is legally bound to respect your constitutional rights. They cannot be dismissed for any reason that violates the Constitution or the Bill of rights.

 

[bendog]

Making a video isn't harassing anyone.

That chant created a hostile environment. "You can hang 'em from a tree, but a ****** will never sign with me".

That video also damaged the reputation of UO. The university has every right to defend itself against slanderous behavior.

End of story. Case closed.

That's it in a nutshell. The discipline is not about speech but creating a hostile environment.

Balancing the First Amendment vs. racist chants at the University of Oklahoma - Chicago Tribune

Somewhat similarly, students do have free speech, but the exercise may not disrupt the educational process

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

 

[bripat9643]

All the recent discussion about the OU incident, and the ongoing 2nd amendment discussions has led me to ask this question.

If you say you support the rights of others, does it really count if you only support said rights only when you agree with the expression or content of those rights?

Obviously not. Notice how all the liberal turds in this forum are supporting OU. They believe government has the right to silence speech they find offensive.

Free expression is one thing. These kids were given codes of conduct which they must follow. If they didn't like them, go somewhere else.

Nope. The university is a branch of the state government. As such it has no authority to violate the First Amendment rights of its students. Do you really want the government telling people what they can and cannot say?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you really want the government telling people what they can and cannot say?

What part of they already do did you never learn? It's not if my little infant, it's when and what.

Saying this school sucks because of all the damn ******* on video means you now get your wish, you get to go to a school with fewer *******, maybe, if they accept you, which they don't have to.

 

[bripat9643]

Making a video isn't harassing anyone.

That chant created a hostile environment. "You can hang 'em from a tree, but a ****** will never sign with me".

That video also damaged the reputation of UO. The university has every right to defend itself against slanderous behavior.

End of story. Case closed.

That's it in a nutshell. The discipline is not about speech but creating a hostile environment.

Balancing the First Amendment vs. racist chants at the University of Oklahoma - Chicago Tribune

Somewhat similarly, students do have free speech, but the exercise may not disrupt the educational process

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ROFL! You guys are the world's biggest morons. "Creating a hostile environment" is just an excuse for violating their First Amendment rights. When the KKK burns a cross at their local chapter headquarters, is that "creating a hostile environment?" You bet your ass it is, but it's still protected by the First Amendment.

It's truly sad to see what a pathetic gang of servile boot-licking toadies liberals have become.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you really want the government telling people what they can and cannot say?

What part of they already do did you never learn? It's not if my little infant, it's when and what.

No, the EPA does not tell people they can't criticize the EPA. Government employees are not free to say what they like, but all employees are hired at will, which means they can be dismissed for any cause.

 

[depotoo]

U.S. Supreme Court Cases in Higher Education
Seems that depending on the judge, which way this could go, if they are sued.

Free Speech Rights
The social unrest on and off campus that led to the demise of in loco parentis also helped to enhance student free speech rights. Following on Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), a secondary school case wherein the justices upheld the right of students to wear black armbands to school in protest of American activity in Vietnam, the Supreme Court turned to higher education. In Healy v. James (1972), the Court upheld the free speech rights of students who wished to form a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society, even though officials feared that the group’s presence would be disruptive. The Court posited that officials at the college could not restrict a group’s speech or right to associate simply because they thought that the group’s views were abhorrent.
Among other student free speech cases, perhaps the most notable is Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984), in which the Supreme Court developed time, place, and manner restrictions for campus demonstrations. The Court further addressed hate speech regulations in cases such as R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) in invalidating a city ordinance designed to ban hate crimes. Relying on the Court’s reasoning in R.A.V., lower courts have invalidated campus hate speech regulations in cases including Doe v. University of Michigan (1989). In the area of free speech, courts have weighed the rights of public colleges and universities against the free speech rights of their students, reaching mixed results depending on the circumstances.

Does an employer have rules of conduct? What happens if someone disregards those rules of conduct, let's say at a party, where you are representative of the employer?
Just because we have free speech, we also agree to have that free speech squashed in certain situations in life. When those students were accepted to and agreed to become students of that University, and their frat, they were given rules of conduct. If they felt they were too stringent on their rights to free speech, they could then decide not to go there. Their own decision of remaining a student there, under those rules made them responsible to adhere to them., or suffer the consequences, if they chose not to.

I'm sorry, but they did not live within the code of conduct. When they threw in hanging from a tree, that constitutes a racially hostile environment. It also represents conduct of such a nature a reasonable person would not tolerate it.

If these guys were friends, living off campus and had done this, free speech applies. Representing an organization sanctioned by the university? Not so much. Jmho.

That part of the code of conduct is unconstitutional on its face. And I am forgetting the part of the constitution that removes rights from you when you join a fraternity. Care to enlighten me?

Free speech rights are only quashed in very strict circumstances. Joining the military is one, fighting words is another, "yelling fire in a crowded building is another" A bunch of drunk kids singling vile racists songs does not elevate to any of those conditions.

I agree it doesn't elevate to the level of those conditions. But that kind of speech isn't outlawed. But depending on the circumstances, it can come with consequences.

You have no right to *consequence* free speech. If such were the case, you could tell your boss to gargle your sack in front of important client and he couldn't fire you for it.

Please separate private and public functions.

Please separate private and public functions.

Good luck with that.

Example, let's say that I work for Obama and do my job well during the week but on weekends I call him, publicly, a stupid ****** who shouldn't be President, which is my right to say. I have the right alright, I just don't have an income come Monday. See how that works?

You serve at the sufferance of Obama, you are not a student at a public university. If you are a civil servant however, you actually would have protections.

 

[g5000]

I love topics like these. It really exposes the people who have no clue about constitutional issues.

 

[bripat9643]

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

 

[G.T.]

I mean ... philosophically speaking, or constitutionally speaking.......or what?

 

[bendog]

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

Priceless.