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

[bripat9643]

It matters what a reasonable person would perceive it.

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

Nope. What was actually said is all that matters.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

The biggest threat I ever made required no words. The neighbors thought it was a threat, they called the cops, who also thought it was a threat so they stopped by for a chat, and then shortly after that the neighbors moved away. Did I say anything, no, but I sure scared the shit of of them, which was my intent. The words can matter but how a reasonable person would respond to said words matters more.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It matters what a reasonable person would perceive it.

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

Nope. What was actually said is all that matters.

No, that is entirely untrue. That's why stalking is a threat, and you don't have to say a thing.

 

[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.

The biggest threat I ever made required no words. The neighbors thought it was a threat, they called the cops, who also thought it was a threat so they stopped by for a chat, and then shortly after that the neighbors moved away. Did I say anything, no, but I sure scared the shit of of them, which was my intent. The words can matter but how a reasonable person would respond to said words matters more.

Actually talking isn't the only way to send a message. For instance, hanging a dummy by a rope from a tree branch in a person's front yard sends a clear message.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

The biggest threat I ever made required no words. The neighbors thought it was a threat, they called the cops, who also thought it was a threat so they stopped by for a chat, and then shortly after that the neighbors moved away. Did I say anything, no, but I sure scared the shit of of them, which was my intent. The words can matter but how a reasonable person would respond to said words matters more.

Actually talking isn't the only way to send a message. For instance, hanging a dummy by a rope from a tree branch in a person's front yard sends a clear message.

Yep, because of how a reasonable person would react to that. The dummy isn't the threat by itself, it's how a reasonable person would respond to it. Eye of the beholder.

 

[depotoo]

Did you see my post? I think it would boil down to the judge.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases in Higher Education
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

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 actually said is all that matters.

No, that is entirely untrue. That's why slaking is a threat, and you don't have to say a thing.

What the hell is "slaking?"

 

[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.

The biggest threat I ever made required no words. The neighbors thought it was a threat, they called the cops, who also thought it was a threat so they stopped by for a chat, and then shortly after that the neighbors moved away. Did I say anything, no, but I sure scared the shit of of them, which was my intent. The words can matter but how a reasonable person would respond to said words matters more.

Actually talking isn't the only way to send a message. For instance, hanging a dummy by a rope from a tree branch in a person's front yard sends a clear message.

Yep, because of how a reasonable person would react to that. The dummy isn't the threat by itself, it's how a reasonable person would respond to it. Eye of the beholder.

It still matters exactly what was put in the front yard. If some paranoiacs freaked out because some warehouse workers dumped a store manikin on their front yard, the only charge would be littering.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Another point sails right over PMH's head.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It matters what a reasonable person would perceive it.

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

Nope. What was actually said is all that matters.

No, that is entirely untrue. That's why slaking is a threat, and you don't have to say a thing.

What the hell is "slaking?"

Stalking...

 

[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.

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.

Another point sails right over PMH's head.

Not at all. Whitey just can't catch a break you say.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

The biggest threat I ever made required no words. The neighbors thought it was a threat, they called the cops, who also thought it was a threat so they stopped by for a chat, and then shortly after that the neighbors moved away. Did I say anything, no, but I sure scared the shit of of them, which was my intent. The words can matter but how a reasonable person would respond to said words matters more.

Actually talking isn't the only way to send a message. For instance, hanging a dummy by a rope from a tree branch in a person's front yard sends a clear message.

Yep, because of how a reasonable person would react to that. The dummy isn't the threat by itself, it's how a reasonable person would respond to it. Eye of the beholder.

It still matters exactly what was put in the front yard. If some paranoiacs freaked out because some warehouse workers dumped a store manikin on their front yard, the only charge would be littering.

No, what matter is who would a reasonable person perceive such a thing? Eye of the beholder.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

It ain't "the government" zippy. It's the University of Oklahoma.

The university is a branch of the state government, moron.

A branch? Like the Legiative or Judiciary? The public universities of Oklahoma have that much constitutionally protected power?

The actions of OU are appropriate and measured in this case. The university deals with all citizens. Turning a blind eye to blantently racist actions amounts to an endorsement by default.

If being Black in America today is not a crime in and of itself, why endorse racism as accepted in society? Picking a fight or blantently insult, while protected speech, cannot be a part of e culture at our public institutions. It's a matter of protection.

 

[whitehall]

At one time universities and colleges were the centers for free speech and the exchange of ideas and opinions. Now they are incubators for zombies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Whether someone 'supports' the rights of others is irrelevant – 'rights' have nothing to do with the interaction of private persons or organizations.

Rights only apply to the relationship between government and those governed, where Constitutional jurisprudence places limits on how government might seek to restrict our rights, and affords government the framework to enact measures that comport with that jurisprudence; indeed, our rights are inalienable but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, the courts use Constitutional case law to determine when government has enacted a reasonable restriction, and when it has not.

For example, the Second Amendment authorizes government to limit the magazine capacity of firearms, where such a restriction is reasonable and does not 'violate' the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. To advocate for measures limiting magazine capacity is to in no way 'deny' someone his Second Amendment rights until the courts invalidate such a measure. Moreover, one can acknowledge and accept this jurisprudence while at the same time disagree with it, as the courts are authorized by the Constitution to determine what the Constitution means.

Consequently, your support of the rights of others counts if your position is consistent with the applicable case law, whether you agree with the expression or content of those rights or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Incorrect.

The incident at OU concerned conduct, not speech.

And that conduct fomented a hostile environment in violation of school policy, the students were expelled for having violated that policy, not as a consequence of their speech.

 

[Mac1958]

At one time universities and colleges were the centers for free speech and the exchange of ideas and opinions. Now they are incubators for zombies.

Amazing how the people who were screaming about freedom of expression and questioning authority back in the 60's are now doing everything they can to push one agenda, stifle others and intimidate opposing speech.

Irony of ironies.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

Also incorrect.

Because the issue concerns conduct, not speech, no Constitutional rights were 'violated.'

The advocacy of lynching, for example, contributed to a hostile environment prohibited by school policy; where again, expulsion was warranted as a consequence of violating that policy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At one time universities and colleges were the centers for free speech and the exchange of ideas and opinions. Now they are incubators for zombies.

Amazing how the people who were screaming about freedom of expression and questioning authority back in the 60's are now doing everything they can to push one agenda, stifle others and intimidate opposing speech.

Irony of ironies.

.

The incident at OU involved neither speech nor free expression, it involved prohibited conduct; the students are at liberty to freely express themselves and question authority, they are not at liberty to violate a code of conduct they agreed to abide by as a condition of enrollment.

Indeed, the expelled students remain at liberty to express their racism and hate as they see fit, in any manner they see fit, and in any venue they so desire – absent any restrictions, prohibitions, or punitive measures by government.

And no, the expulsions do not constitute a 'punitive measure,' as they were the result of conduct, not speech.

 

[depotoo]

Actually, the code of conduct is questionable as being enforceable, according to recent court cases, I found out.

At one time universities and colleges were the centers for free speech and the exchange of ideas and opinions. Now they are incubators for zombies.

Amazing how the people who were screaming about freedom of expression and questioning authority back in the 60's are now doing everything they can to push one agenda, stifle others and intimidate opposing speech.

Irony of ironies.

.

The incident at OU involved neither speech nor free expression, it involved prohibited conduct; the students are at liberty to freely express themselves and question authority, they are not at liberty to violate a code of conduct they agreed to abide by as a condition of enrollment.

Indeed, the expelled students remain at liberty to express their racism and hate as they see fit, in any manner they see fit, and in any venue they so desire – absent any restrictions, prohibitions, or punitive measures by government.

And no, the expulsions do not constitute a 'punitive measure,' as they were the result of conduct, not speech.