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

[NYcarbineer]

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?

People should believe what they think is right, without regard to what the government may say is currently a right or not a right.

Should a person who believes in the right to bear arms have to believe in the right to an abortion?

That question revolves around what people think IS a right. I don't see the word abortion in the Constitution, however I do see Free Speech in there.

You have no idea how the Constitution works.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

The EPA has to approve what they publish and who they speak to in their role as an employee of the EPA. Rights are limited, now you know.

I'm not talking about EPA employees. I'm talking about anyone who is subject to EPA regulations, which means everyone.

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

if the punk were able to prove that the University did NOT expel someone who was accused of saying something that someone else found to be offensive, the punk would probably win.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

Nope, it's an insult, but saying you'd like to hang me from a tree can be a threat, depending upon the setting and the context.

Threats are curious things, they are often in the eyes of the beholder and the law recognizes that.

Doubtful. Saying I will hang you from a tree is clearly a threat. I've told many people I would like to strangle them and no one ever called the cops. And, no, threats are not in the eyes of the beholder.

they are strictly in he context. Even the link that PMH offered to support his position shows it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I am offended when I hear someone say ******
I am offended when someone says conservatives are selfish people

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

Nope, it's an insult, but saying you'd like to hang me from a tree can be a threat, depending upon the setting and the context.

Threats are curious things, they are often in the eyes of the beholder and the law recognizes that.

actually, threats are in the eyes of the offerer....it is the context it is offered...not the mood of the person who receives it.

Saying "I will squash you" when playing a game of scrabble will never stand up in a court of law if the receiver was in a shit ass mood and claimed he or she felt threatened.

Context matters but what also matters is who the threat was made to and how they took it. It's not just what was said and by whom.

Like this: California laws on Criminal Threats Penal Code 422 PC

Actually, I believe your link supports my point...

If I were to say I will squash you during a scrabble game and you were in a shit ass mood and decide to press charges of it being a threat to your well being, you would have a hard time convincing a court that all of the following supports your claim (per your link...especially number 1):

A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and

1. that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,
2. the threat is specific and unequivocal and
3. you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.

It all gets taken into account. Who said what to whom, when and where, under what conditions, and did they believe the threat was real? As number 1 shows, if the other person believes it, now we have an issue. Was "I'm gonna kill you tonight" said while handing me a beer at a poker game or right after I fired you? That matters as does how do I perceive the threat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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)

No single person was actually harassed. Having your feelings hurt by a video is not being harassed.

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.

If they agreed to a code of conduct they may very well have agreed to limitations on their speech.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The EPA has to approve what they publish and who they speak to in their role as an employee of the EPA. Rights are limited, now you know.

I'm not talking about EPA employees. I'm talking about anyone who is subject to EPA regulations, which means everyone.

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

if the punk were able to prove that the University did NOT expel someone who was accused of saying something that someone else found to be offensive, the punk would probably win.

He can try, but he signed a code, and he'll lose more than likely. That video isn't going to make any friends in a jury trial.

 

[bripat9643]

I am offended when I hear someone say ******
I am offended when someone says conservatives are selfish people

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

Nope, it's an insult, but saying you'd like to hang me from a tree can be a threat, depending upon the setting and the context.

Threats are curious things, they are often in the eyes of the beholder and the law recognizes that.

actually, threats are in the eyes of the offerer....it is the context it is offered...not the mood of the person who receives it.

Saying "I will squash you" when playing a game of scrabble will never stand up in a court of law if the receiver was in a shit ass mood and claimed he or she felt threatened.

Context matters but what also matters is who the threat was made to and how they took it. It's not just what was said and by whom.

Like this: California laws on Criminal Threats Penal Code 422 PC

Actually, I believe your link supports my point...

If I were to say I will squash you during a scrabble game and you were in a shit ass mood and decide to press charges of it being a threat to your well being, you would have a hard time convincing a court that all of the following supports your claim (per your link...especially number 1):

A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and

1. that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,
2. the threat is specific and unequivocal and
3. you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.

It all gets taken into account. Who said what to whom, when and where, under what conditions, and did they believe the threat was real? As number 1 shows, if the other person believes it, now we have an issue. Was "I'm gonna kill you tonight" said while handing me a beer at a poker game or right after I fired you? That matters as does how do I perceive the threat.

It doesn't matter how the person perceives it. He could be a paranoid schizophrenic. It matters what a reasonable person would perceive it. We aren't obligated to make our speech conform to something that wouldn't upset a crazy person. "Good morning" might be interpreted as a threat by such a person.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And, no, threats are not in the eyes of the beholder.

Oh but they can be, and are: Elonis v. United States SCOTUSblog

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not talking about EPA employees. I'm talking about anyone who is subject to EPA regulations, which means everyone.

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

if the punk were able to prove that the University did NOT expel someone who was accused of saying something that someone else found to be offensive, the punk would probably win.

He can try, but he signed a code, and he'll lose more than likely. That video isn't going to make any friends in a jury trial.

but the code does not define offensive speech. So if someone said "conservatives are evil" and a student complained for he found it offensive and they did not expel that student, then they can not expel any student for breaking the "code"....
Who defines what speech is more hateful than other speech?
A black man finds ****** offensive
a conservative finds it offensive to be called evil and selfish.

Who to say one is more offensive than the other?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No single person was actually harassed. Having your feelings hurt by a video is not being harassed.

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.

If they agreed to a code of conduct they may very well have agreed to limitations on their speech.

The university isn't allowed to impose limitations on their speech as part of any "code of conduct." It also isn't allowed to search their dorm rooms without a warrant. They are adults with full constitutional rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It matters what a reasonable person would perceive it.

That's correct, what was heard, not what was said.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not talking about EPA employees. I'm talking about anyone who is subject to EPA regulations, which means everyone.

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

if the punk were able to prove that the University did NOT expel someone who was accused of saying something that someone else found to be offensive, the punk would probably win.

He can try, but he signed a code, and he'll lose more than likely. That video isn't going to make any friends in a jury trial.

If he loses, it will be because of prejudice, not because of any rational understanding of the law.

 

[bendog]

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.

You are missing my point.

I get it as it pertains to reputation. But if you have a school where such speech is running rampant to the point where it affects your reputation, then you have a bigger issue.

But that aside....

My point is...
students using racial slurs will offend some students
students claiming the American Flag is disturbing will offend other students
Professors saying that conservatives are selfish will offend other students
Professors saying progressives frown on the ability of the minority will offend other students

But when a University expels based on one of the above, but not for the others above, then the university board is using their own belief system to determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.

And that is why we have freedom of speech. For no one can truly say what is and what is not appropriate compared to something else.

I was hoping for an intelligent response to my post above.it is a viable point for the debate...

And by intelligent response, I don't mean "your post does not warrant an intelligent response"

Cant get a response to the above. Why is that? It is the crux of the debate and most certainly the crux of the first amendment....

You've received at least two responses. In a nutshell, students' free speech may be curtailed if it disrupts the educational process, and additionally conduct may be proscribed if it creates a hostile environment for education, and the latter was what David Boren used at Univ of Ok.

Your focus of offensive speech misses the above issues, and offensiveness is irrelevant. The effect on the educational process is the issue.

As for your concern that a university could prohibit only actions offensive to its own belief systems, that again misses the issue. If liberal or conservative actions'speech create a hostile environment, then they equally may, and should be, curtailed. If a student feels a university unfairly curtails one group and not another, they may sue on equal protection and due process.

I only respond because I do not want you complaining "no one responded so I win." I need to clean up my work for the weekend.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

if the punk were able to prove that the University did NOT expel someone who was accused of saying something that someone else found to be offensive, the punk would probably win.

He can try, but he signed a code, and he'll lose more than likely. That video isn't going to make any friends in a jury trial.

but the code does not define offensive speech. So if someone said "conservatives are evil" and a student complained for he found it offensive and they did not expel that student, then they can not expel any student for breaking the "code"....
Who defines what speech is more hateful than other speech?
A black man finds ****** offensive
a conservative finds it offensive to be called evil and selfish.

Who to say one is more offensive than the other?

The university set the code, and according to the code the code was broken. Fair or not that is what the student agreed to.

An a reasonable person knows there's a big difference between suggesting that Cons are selfish pigs versus suggesting that they should be swinging from the trees.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

if the punk were able to prove that the University did NOT expel someone who was accused of saying something that someone else found to be offensive, the punk would probably win.

He can try, but he signed a code, and he'll lose more than likely. That video isn't going to make any friends in a jury trial.

If he loses, it will be because of prejudice, not because of any rational understanding of the law.

Poor poor whitey, he just can't catch a break.

 

[bripat9643]

And, no, threats are not in the eyes of the beholder.

Oh but they can be, and are: Elonis v. United States SCOTUSblog

I don't see anything that looks like an actual decision on that page.

 

[bripat9643]

It matters what a reasonable person would perceive it.

That's correct, what was heard, not what was said.

Nope, what was said is what counts. If because of say, wind, the plaintiff said he heard something different than what was actually said, his case would get thrown out. I'm not responsible for all the communication obstacles that may affect what you hear.

 

[Jarhead]

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

if the punk were able to prove that the University did NOT expel someone who was accused of saying something that someone else found to be offensive, the punk would probably win.

He can try, but he signed a code, and he'll lose more than likely. That video isn't going to make any friends in a jury trial.

but the code does not define offensive speech. So if someone said "conservatives are evil" and a student complained for he found it offensive and they did not expel that student, then they can not expel any student for breaking the "code"....
Who defines what speech is more hateful than other speech?
A black man finds ****** offensive
a conservative finds it offensive to be called evil and selfish.

Who to say one is more offensive than the other?

The university set the code, and according to the code the code was broken. Fair or not that is what the student agreed to.

An a reasonable person knows there's a big difference between suggesting that Cons are selfish pigs versus suggesting that they should be swinging from the trees.

actually, you are wrong about that.

The word ****** is a word. A derogatory word. A word used to negatively define people of color. A word that offers your opinion of that group of people.

Calling a group of people evil and selfish is offering your opinion and designed to define those people in your opinion.

You may say they are completely different because one doesn't bother you.......but that does not mean it is any less hurtful to someone else.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

if the punk were able to prove that the University did NOT expel someone who was accused of saying something that someone else found to be offensive, the punk would probably win.

He can try, but he signed a code, and he'll lose more than likely. That video isn't going to make any friends in a jury trial.

but the code does not define offensive speech. So if someone said "conservatives are evil" and a student complained for he found it offensive and they did not expel that student, then they can not expel any student for breaking the "code"....
Who defines what speech is more hateful than other speech?
A black man finds ****** offensive
a conservative finds it offensive to be called evil and selfish.

Who to say one is more offensive than the other?

The university set the code, and according to the code the code was broken. Fair or not that is what the student agreed to.

An a reasonable person knows there's a big difference between suggesting that Cons are selfish pigs versus suggesting that they should be swinging from the trees.

actually, you are wrong about that.

The word ****** is a word. A derogatory word. A word used to negatively define people of color. A word that offers your opinion of that group of people.

Calling a group of people evil and selfish is offering your opinion and designed to define those people in your opinion.

You may say they are completely different because one doesn't bother you.......but that does not mean it is any less hurtful to someone else.

In this country it's best to avoid saying ****** and hanging in the same sentence. I think these college kids know that now.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You are missing my point.

I get it as it pertains to reputation. But if you have a school where such speech is running rampant to the point where it affects your reputation, then you have a bigger issue.

But that aside....

My point is...
students using racial slurs will offend some students
students claiming the American Flag is disturbing will offend other students
Professors saying that conservatives are selfish will offend other students
Professors saying progressives frown on the ability of the minority will offend other students

But when a University expels based on one of the above, but not for the others above, then the university board is using their own belief system to determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.

And that is why we have freedom of speech. For no one can truly say what is and what is not appropriate compared to something else.

I was hoping for an intelligent response to my post above.it is a viable point for the debate...

And by intelligent response, I don't mean "your post does not warrant an intelligent response"

Cant get a response to the above. Why is that? It is the crux of the debate and most certainly the crux of the first amendment....

You've received at least two responses. In a nutshell, students' free speech may be curtailed if it disrupts the educational process, and additionally conduct may be proscribed if it creates a hostile environment for education, and the latter was what David Boren used at Univ of Ok.

Your focus of offensive speech misses the above issues, and offensiveness is irrelevant. The effect on the educational process is the issue.

As for your concern that a university could prohibit only actions offensive to its own belief systems, that again misses the issue. If liberal or conservative actions'speech create a hostile environment, then they equally may, and should be, curtailed. If a student feels a university unfairly curtails one group and not another, they may sue on equal protection and due process.

I only respond because I do not want you complaining "no one responded so I win." I need to clean up my work for the weekend.

On that basis the university can control speech in the classroom, but it's not a basis for control what people say in their own residences. The phrase "hostile environment" is so vague that it opens the door for censoring any speech whatsoever. Is saying "frat boys are racist pigs" creating a "hostile environment?" A lawyer could easily make an argument that it does. I would argue that most of the leftwing protesting that goes on at college campuses creates a "hostile environment." Certainly, shouting down guest speakers who happen to be conservatives creates a hostile environment, but you don't seen any universities trying to clamp down on that.