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

[Mac1958]

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.

Do you think that will matter to people like this?

Intimidate, punish, control, control, control.

.

 

[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?"

Stalking...

What does stalking have to do with speech? Stalking is behavior.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The point obviously went over your head.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No, it's not the eye of the beholder, nitwit. You just said it isn't the eye of the beholder. The interpretation of a reasonable person is not the eye of whoever beholds the event. That's what "the eye of the beholder" means - whoever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of you born again free speech 1st amendment zealots were among those who threw a fit of Duke U's call to prayer bells,

aren't you?

Not to mention your opposition to the so-called ground zero mosque.

 

[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.

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?

No, not like the legislative or Judiciary. Regardless of how you classify it, it's a branch of the state government. It was created by the state government. It's funded by the state government, and it's controlled by the state government. So how is it not a branch of the state government?

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.

Wrong, they are violations of the First Amendment. I know you wipe your ass on the Constitution, so you think trashing the First Amendment is "measured and appropriate." fortunately some of us still respect the Constitution.

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.

The First Amendment protects racist speech. I know that makes petulant little toadies like you cry, but that's the way it is. If you don't like it, then pass an amendment to the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Brainwashing mills.

 

[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?

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.

Where does the Constitution say that our rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions? It doesn't. It certain doesn't say government can place a limit on the size of ammunition magazines.

Furthermore, where are the courts authorized to determine what the Constitution means? Can you please point out the language that says that?

The case law is an ignominious litany of hand picked political hacks rationalizing government assaults on the Constitution. That's all it is.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So the government can censor movies because conduct is being filmed, not speech?

You're an astounding imbecile

 

[bripat9643]

Some of you born again free speech 1st amendment zealots were among those who threw a fit of Duke U's call to prayer bells,

aren't you?

Not to mention your opposition to the so-called ground zero mosque.

Aside from the astounding hypocrisy of Duke, it's a private university, so it can do what it likes in that regard.

Although I found the plan to build a mosque on ground zero profoundly offensive, I acknowledge they had a right to do it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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...

What does stalking have to do with speech? Stalking is behavior.

That's correct, a threat without using words. It's not what is said, it's what the other reasonable person believes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

No, it's not the eye of the beholder, nitwit. You just said it isn't the eye of the beholder. The interpretation of a reasonable person is not the eye of whoever beholds the event. That's what "the eye of the beholder" means - whoever.

What the other person, a reasonable person, would take as a threat is a threat, dummy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No, it's not the eye of the beholder, nitwit. You just said it isn't the eye of the beholder. The interpretation of a reasonable person is not the eye of whoever beholds the event. That's what "the eye of the beholder" means - whoever.

What the other person, a reasonable person, would take as a threat is a threat, dummy.

As always, you didn't get the point. A "reasonable person" is not the "eye of the beholder."

 

[bripat9643]

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...

What does stalking have to do with speech? Stalking is behavior.

That's correct, a threat without using words. It's not what is said, it's what the other reasonable person believes.

Stalking isn't actually a threat, although it does scare people. I also find someone hyped on Meth walking naked in the street to be scary, but that doesn't mean that person is threatening me.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Still avoiding the point I am making.

Who decides what is offensive enough for expulsion and not?

Who are you to decide that calling someone a ****** is MORE hurtful than calling someone a cheap Jew?

Or why is calling someone a towel head more offensive than calling someone a yammie head?

The point is, the school determines who should and who should not be hurt by words.....and thus who should and who should not be disciplined.

I bet one thing for sure......if the chant was "no jews allowed"....the frat may have been closed down, no one would have been kicked off campus....and lets be real...it never would have even made the news.