Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big

[Redfish]

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

NO, what I said was that as soon as they threaten people they have crossed the line. What is it you don't understand? The University is trying to protect its image. If they allowed racist THREATS to stand then that would indicate they support those racist THREATS, no matter how benign the threats. The separation is action verses thought. In other words, I can condemn a movie theater all I want, every day if want. But to go into that theater and shout fire could result in harm. Thus that speech is limited. And in reality the first amendment was intended for speech against the government, not to protect speech that hurt or incited violence.

Do you agree or disagree that a company, university or individual has the right to express their standards and beliefs and enforce those standards and beliefs as long as they are enforced equally? I am really not sure I see the difference you are trying to make between public and private.

Does the song constitute a credible threat? I doubt it. The song was not sung at or towards Black students nor does it seem that the frat members would actualy linch a student.

I agree, totally benign, but a threat none the less and unless the university supports such threats they have to act.

What it is, is a mindset. In other words OU has standards and beliefs that they should be able to enforce as long as they are enforced equally. What OU is saying, in my opinion, is that they do not support such statements no matter how unlikely they are to be acted upon.

so you advocate punishing thoughts and opinions?

Nope, never even implied as much. I am for people, universities and corporation having standards and beliefs and being able to act upon those standards and beliefs as long as it is done equally. I would think that in almost any setting singing about hanging someone because of the color of their skin would, or should, be unacceptable, no matter how benign. Isn't it time that we the people did something about the racial divide since Obama seems to just wish to drive a wedge?

So if a bus load of blacks were found to be signing about killing whitey I would expect the Universtity to act in the very same way.

So would I, but they would not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They practiced their free speech, and now they are paying the consequences of their free speech.

Indeed, Je suis Charlie.

Or were you talking about something else?

.

When you violate school rules you pay the consequences. So sad.

which rules did they violate by singing stupid racist song on a closed bus? When you sing in the shower should someone make sure that your song doesn't offend someone?

They sang on a bus filled with kids with cellphone cameras.

 

[Freewill]

I don't think anyone is entertaining that idea.

Maybe you should have bothered to read the OP:

"Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say..."

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

You're making a circular argument. A university may not be able to prohibit free speech, but not all speech qualifies as protected free speech.

I agree, if the students were signing that politicians should be lynched for what they did with Obamacare that would be somewhat protected.

 

[Judicial review]

I don't think anyone is entertaining that idea.

Maybe you should have bothered to read the OP:

"Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say..."

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

NO, what I said was that as soon as they threaten people they have crossed the line. What is it you don't understand? The University is trying to protect its image. If they allowed racist THREATS to stand then that would indicate they support those racist THREATS, no matter how benign the threats. The separation is action verses thought. In other words, I can condemn a movie theater all I want, every day if want. But to go into that theater and shout fire could result in harm. Thus that speech is limited. And in reality the first amendment was intended for speech against the government, not to protect speech that hurt or incited violence.

Do you agree or disagree that a company, university or individual has the right to express their standards and beliefs and enforce those standards and beliefs as long as they are enforced equally? I am really not sure I see the difference you are trying to make between public and private.

racists threats allowed according to the constitution. Here is proof,

Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

example 2

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg… An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”

Example 3,

Judge Alex Kozinski, in one of three dissenting opinions, agreed with the majority’s definition of a true threat, but believed that the majority had failed to apply it, because the speech in this case had not been “communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm....”997 “The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls.... Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm.... Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment....”998 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.



How many more do you want? We are talking about college kids here in a fraternity the supreme court will laugh at it and not even recognize it. The cases above hold more water than this despite the video. These cases even the racist one was from many eyars ago when rascism and hangings were going on.

 

[Redfish]

OU basically just shut down free speech.

They practiced their free speech, and now they are paying the consequences of their free speech.

Got you down as another for limitations on speech. Thanks.

No one is limiting free speech, you doofus. Do you not understand the First Amendment? First Amendment rights means the Government shall not infringe upon citizens right to say and write what they want. It does NOT protect citizens against penalties for harming reputations, or from being punished for insulting others. The First Amendment will not save your job, or save you from getting kicked out of school over racial slurs.

Ahhh, but you're down with the govt squashing the rights of a baker in colorado. Scurry along. You've just outed yourself.

That business owner had to obtain a state license, idiot.

a state university is not licensed by the state???????????

so in your small mind a university can refuse service to someone it does not agree with, but a florist cannot????????? really?

 

[Mac1958]

They practiced their free speech, and now they are paying the consequences of their free speech.

Indeed, Je suis Charlie.

Or were you talking about something else?

.

When you violate school rules you pay the consequences. So sad.

which rules did they violate by singing stupid racist song on a closed bus? When you sing in the shower should someone make sure that your song doesn't offend someone?

Yeah, I'm curious about this too. Perhaps there were rules that were broken, and perhaps the punishment fits the crime.

So what are the specifics on that, I wonder?

.

 

[rightwinger]

The idea that when you're a student you have the right to say anything you want, any time, under any circumstances,

and be protected from any consequences is so absurd that it's hard to believe anyone could even think that.

I don't think anyone is entertaining that idea.

Maybe you should have bothered to read the OP:

"Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say..."

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

 

[Redfish]

Maybe you should have bothered to read the OP:

"Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say..."

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

NO, what I said was that as soon as they threaten people they have crossed the line. What is it you don't understand? The University is trying to protect its image. If they allowed racist THREATS to stand then that would indicate they support those racist THREATS, no matter how benign the threats. The separation is action verses thought. In other words, I can condemn a movie theater all I want, every day if want. But to go into that theater and shout fire could result in harm. Thus that speech is limited. And in reality the first amendment was intended for speech against the government, not to protect speech that hurt or incited violence.

Do you agree or disagree that a company, university or individual has the right to express their standards and beliefs and enforce those standards and beliefs as long as they are enforced equally? I am really not sure I see the difference you are trying to make between public and private.

racists threats allowed according to the constitution. Here is proof,

Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

example 2

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg… An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”

Example 3,

Judge Alex Kozinski, in one of three dissenting opinions, agreed with the majority’s definition of a true threat, but believed that the majority had failed to apply it, because the speech in this case had not been “communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm....”997 “The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls.... Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm.... Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment....”998 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.



How many more do you want? We are talking about college kids here in a fraternity the supreme court will laugh at it and not even recognize it. The cases above hold more water than this despite the video. These cases even the racist one was from many eyars ago when rascism and hangings were going on.

So if someone is singing in the shower " I hate blacks and want them all dead" he should be punished?

How about if two gays are in the shower together singing "heterosexauls should be lynched"

when you take your argument to its logical conclusions it falls apart.

 

[bodecea]

They practiced their free speech, and now they are paying the consequences of their free speech.

Indeed, Je suis Charlie.

Or were you talking about something else?

.

When you violate school rules you pay the consequences. So sad.

which rules did they violate by singing stupid racist song on a closed bus? When you sing in the shower should someone make sure that your song doesn't offend someone?

They sang on a bus filled with kids with cellphone cameras.

Yeah...really really stupid, eh? Probably not smart enough for college then.

 

[bodecea]

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

NO, what I said was that as soon as they threaten people they have crossed the line. What is it you don't understand? The University is trying to protect its image. If they allowed racist THREATS to stand then that would indicate they support those racist THREATS, no matter how benign the threats. The separation is action verses thought. In other words, I can condemn a movie theater all I want, every day if want. But to go into that theater and shout fire could result in harm. Thus that speech is limited. And in reality the first amendment was intended for speech against the government, not to protect speech that hurt or incited violence.

Do you agree or disagree that a company, university or individual has the right to express their standards and beliefs and enforce those standards and beliefs as long as they are enforced equally? I am really not sure I see the difference you are trying to make between public and private.

racists threats allowed according to the constitution. Here is proof,

Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

example 2

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg… An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”

Example 3,

Judge Alex Kozinski, in one of three dissenting opinions, agreed with the majority’s definition of a true threat, but believed that the majority had failed to apply it, because the speech in this case had not been “communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm....”997 “The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls.... Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm.... Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment....”998 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.



How many more do you want? We are talking about college kids here in a fraternity the supreme court will laugh at it and not even recognize it. The cases above hold more water than this despite the video. These cases even the racist one was from many eyars ago when rascism and hangings were going on.

So if someone is singing in the shower " I hate blacks and want them all dead" he should be punished?

How about if two gays are in the shower together singing "heterosexauls should be lynched"

when you take your argument to its logical conclusions it falls apart.

Yeah...your analogy is a typical RW analogy right there. Bravo.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

They practiced their free speech, and now they are paying the consequences of their free speech.

Got you down as another for limitations on speech. Thanks.

No one is limiting free speech, you doofus. Do you not understand the First Amendment? First Amendment rights means the Government shall not infringe upon citizens right to say and write what they want. It does NOT protect citizens against penalties for harming reputations, or from being punished for insulting others. The First Amendment will not save your job, or save you from getting kicked out of school over racial slurs.

Ahhh, but you're down with the govt squashing the rights of a baker in colorado. Scurry along. You've just outed yourself.

That business owner had to obtain a state license, idiot.

a state university is not licensed by the state???????????

so in your small mind a university can refuse service to someone it does not agree with, but a florist cannot????????? really?

They really do hate free speech.

 

[Redfish]

I don't think anyone is entertaining that idea.

Maybe you should have bothered to read the OP:

"Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say..."

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

 

[Redfish]

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

NO, what I said was that as soon as they threaten people they have crossed the line. What is it you don't understand? The University is trying to protect its image. If they allowed racist THREATS to stand then that would indicate they support those racist THREATS, no matter how benign the threats. The separation is action verses thought. In other words, I can condemn a movie theater all I want, every day if want. But to go into that theater and shout fire could result in harm. Thus that speech is limited. And in reality the first amendment was intended for speech against the government, not to protect speech that hurt or incited violence.

Do you agree or disagree that a company, university or individual has the right to express their standards and beliefs and enforce those standards and beliefs as long as they are enforced equally? I am really not sure I see the difference you are trying to make between public and private.

racists threats allowed according to the constitution. Here is proof,

Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

example 2

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg… An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”

Example 3,

Judge Alex Kozinski, in one of three dissenting opinions, agreed with the majority’s definition of a true threat, but believed that the majority had failed to apply it, because the speech in this case had not been “communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm....”997 “The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls.... Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm.... Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment....”998 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.



How many more do you want? We are talking about college kids here in a fraternity the supreme court will laugh at it and not even recognize it. The cases above hold more water than this despite the video. These cases even the racist one was from many eyars ago when rascism and hangings were going on.

So if someone is singing in the shower " I hate blacks and want them all dead" he should be punished?

How about if two gays are in the shower together singing "heterosexauls should be lynched"

when you take your argument to its logical conclusions it falls apart.

Yeah...your analogy is a typical RW analogy right there. Bravo.

'
Right, we understand, logical thinking is the enemy of liberalism.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

OU basically just shut down free speech.

They practiced their free speech, and now they are paying the consequences of their free speech.

Got you down as another for limitations on speech. Thanks.

No one is limiting free speech, you doofus. Do you not understand the First Amendment? First Amendment rights means the Government shall not infringe upon citizens right to say and write what they want. It does NOT protect citizens against penalties for harming reputations, or from being punished for insulting others. The First Amendment will not save your job, or save you from getting kicked out of school over racial slurs.

Ahhh, but you're down with the govt squashing the rights of a baker in colorado. Scurry along. You've just outed yourself.

That business owner had to obtain a state license, idiot.

He was a private owner, dumbass.

 

[Liminal]

Maybe you should have bothered to read the OP:

"Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say..."

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

NO, what I said was that as soon as they threaten people they have crossed the line. What is it you don't understand? The University is trying to protect its image. If they allowed racist THREATS to stand then that would indicate they support those racist THREATS, no matter how benign the threats. The separation is action verses thought. In other words, I can condemn a movie theater all I want, every day if want. But to go into that theater and shout fire could result in harm. Thus that speech is limited. And in reality the first amendment was intended for speech against the government, not to protect speech that hurt or incited violence.

Do you agree or disagree that a company, university or individual has the right to express their standards and beliefs and enforce those standards and beliefs as long as they are enforced equally? I am really not sure I see the difference you are trying to make between public and private.

racists threats allowed according to the constitution. Here is proof,

Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

example 2

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg… An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”

Example 3,

Judge Alex Kozinski, in one of three dissenting opinions, agreed with the majority’s definition of a true threat, but believed that the majority had failed to apply it, because the speech in this case had not been “communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm....”997 “The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls.... Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm.... Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment....”998 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.



How many more do you want? We are talking about college kids here in a fraternity the supreme court will laugh at it and not even recognize it. The cases above hold more water than this despite the video. These cases even the racist one was from many eyars ago when rascism and hangings were going on.

As if you can put constitutional law into perspective. This forum sure is lucky to have so many constitutional scholars posting here.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody arrested them

They didn't stomp on anybody's rights, so they broke no laws. They are innocent. What reason did the university have to expel them?

Violation of the schools code of conduct

Gee, weren't they off-campus and in a closed, private bus?
How far does a code-of-conduct reach?

It was an SAE event

SAE is a fraternal organization resident at OU and sanctioned by the parent organization and the university
What has been shown is that this racist chant was taught to new members and had been performed many times. As can be seen on the tape, this was a very popular song....lynching negroes and all

Both the SAE parent organization and university acknowleged this is not the type of organization they want on campus

Ok, so kick the fraternity off campus, but expelling students is another matter.

They did kick them off campus. SAE kicked them the rest of the way

They were expelled for creating a hostile environment for others......you don't think celebrating lynching creates a hostile environment?

 

[Judicial review]

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

NO, what I said was that as soon as they threaten people they have crossed the line. What is it you don't understand? The University is trying to protect its image. If they allowed racist THREATS to stand then that would indicate they support those racist THREATS, no matter how benign the threats. The separation is action verses thought. In other words, I can condemn a movie theater all I want, every day if want. But to go into that theater and shout fire could result in harm. Thus that speech is limited. And in reality the first amendment was intended for speech against the government, not to protect speech that hurt or incited violence.

Do you agree or disagree that a company, university or individual has the right to express their standards and beliefs and enforce those standards and beliefs as long as they are enforced equally? I am really not sure I see the difference you are trying to make between public and private.

racists threats allowed according to the constitution. Here is proof,

Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

example 2

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg… An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”

Example 3,

Judge Alex Kozinski, in one of three dissenting opinions, agreed with the majority’s definition of a true threat, but believed that the majority had failed to apply it, because the speech in this case had not been “communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm....”997 “The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls.... Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm.... Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment....”998 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.



How many more do you want? We are talking about college kids here in a fraternity the supreme court will laugh at it and not even recognize it. The cases above hold more water than this despite the video. These cases even the racist one was from many eyars ago when rascism and hangings were going on.

So if someone is singing in the shower " I hate blacks and want them all dead" he should be punished?

How about if two gays are in the shower together singing "heterosexauls should be lynched"

when you take your argument to its logical conclusions it falls apart.

Love your sarcasm, dude.

 

[Pogo]

Unsub

Dumbass.

What in the fuck are you talking about?

You heard me. Did I stutter?

I guess it was your ::cough:: links to whatever in the wide world of fuck you're talking about.
Or are you so arrogant you think you don't need them?

You need a link to prove that students were expelled for racist chants? Watch any news station MSNBC or foxnews.

Ah. No wonder.
I don't have a TV. That's for morons. You're gonna have to break a sweat and essplain yourself.
It's prolly gonna be one of the reasons I don't have TV in the first place.

By far your worst post here on usmb. I said I'm the last poster you'd want to debate on this site because I have the biggest balls and I'm very unpredictable And a genius.

Even the blacks on Hannity said free speech was violated And potential lawsuits should be filed by these students against the university. Hannity was destroyed on fox tonight.

"The blacks on Hannity" huh....

Pretty much sums up the cesspool you swim in watching that thing. I find that since I gave it up, these pseudonews "issues" come up regularly on this board as if of some sort of legitimate import. And once examined it's always a dud. TV plays its viewers like a cheap banjo with that shit. Candy for the easily impressed. Fear and loathing, boogabooga! Yawn.

Obviously it's not important enough to link whatever the fuck you're talking about so clearly it's not important enough to be a thread.

"The blacks on Hannity". SMGDH...

Do your mind a favor and kill your television. I mean literally.

Unsubscribed.

 

[Redfish]

They didn't stomp on anybody's rights, so they broke no laws. They are innocent. What reason did the university have to expel them?

Violation of the schools code of conduct

Gee, weren't they off-campus and in a closed, private bus?
How far does a code-of-conduct reach?

It was an SAE event

SAE is a fraternal organization resident at OU and sanctioned by the parent organization and the university
What has been shown is that this racist chant was taught to new members and had been performed many times. As can be seen on the tape, this was a very popular song....lynching negroes and all

Both the SAE parent organization and university acknowleged this is not the type of organization they want on campus

Ok, so kick the fraternity off campus, but expelling students is another matter.

They did kick them off campus. SAE kicked them the rest of the way

They were expelled for creating a hostile environment for others......you don't think celebrating lynching creates a hostile environment?

no one that was not on the bus heard the song. where exactly was the hostile environment?

If it was a public bus you would have a valid point, but it was a private vehicle.

 

[rightwinger]

Maybe you should have bothered to read the OP:

"Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say..."

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

Good god....is that the best you can come up with?

A college student is accepted or rejected by the university. Their admittance can be revoked at any time