i see things havent changed that much

ok, i guess the protest wasnt a disruption. nor were any number of journalists coming to get the story or anything


nothing occurred here
baghdadbob.jpg
 
side note: if all of you were posting about how they should be expelled i would probably be arguing that they had the 1st Amendment right to say those things
 
so caring about irrelevant principles at a time when we can clearly look at things case to case and determine whether or not free speech was worth protecting is far more important than like. making it known how disgusting and awful someone's speech was with fair punishment. that's pretty inhuman lol. inb4 protecting free speech no matter what is the most humane thing with some dumb ass quote from a guy who lived hundreds of years ago that probably had ööööty, godawful views on things like black people himself. the world isn't so black and white, we're capable of looking at things individually and acting on them according to what's good.
 
BuzzCzar said:
side note: if all of you were posting about how they should be expelled i would probably be arguing that they had the 1st Amendment right to say those things
Click to expand...

so you're just a contrarian is what you're saying.
 
SAE has a right to close the chapter, the president of OU has a right to allocate SAE land to another organization, but I don't know if legally they're allowed to expel the students for this. And I bet they sue and they get a settlement. It's one thing to have your name blackened by this for a while until people forget about it and it's another thing to be expelled from college.
 
BuzzCzar said:
if you post pictures of you wearing it to bed on Facebook and the student body learns about it, then it does
Click to expand...

Do what?

If I post a dick shot to Facebook, am I arrested for indecent exposure?

Kicking the frat off campus I get. Kicking the kids out of school is ridiculous.
 
beej67 said:
Do what?

If I post a dick shot to Facebook, am I arrested for indecent exposure?

Kicking the frat off campus I get. Kicking the kids out of school is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

you'd probably be fired if it became public. even if you were working for the government you might still get fired.
since you're working for yourself, your clients might drop you. or maybe they like that sort of thing and you get more clients.
 
For what it's worth, CNN just had a segment with a lawyer who essentially said the school overstepped its bounds by expelling them.
 
Let's look at it from another point of view. Obviously the freedom of speech is the argument for the SAE students who got expelled. what about the school? Can they not claim that SAE actions caused possible material damages to the school due to implications on its reputation? I know it's not the same as a private business but if I had an employee who was caught on camera doing exactly what the SAE students were doing, I could claim that my employee's actions were damaging to the reputation of the firm and has a very negative impact on the clientele. Isn't there a provision in law that applies to public institutions as well? After all, OU may be a public institution but they rely on student tuitions as well and a negative impact on the reputation of the school could impact it.

If not then what sort of actions can a public university take to stop their school becoming rampant with bigoted speech? We all seem to agree that they had a right to disallow SAE from using their frat house. But what about student organizations that don't rely on any kind of school funds or property? If the school simply cannot expel students from making the college seem like a safe haven for racists, what could it do?
 
gtzulu said:
So if you attend a school you have no private or separate space whatsoever where you can exercise freedom of speech? If someone surreptitiously, without your permission, records you anywhere saying or doing something deemed inappropriate to the school, you should be punished by the school? That's ridiculous.

Imagine you have a job, everything you ever did or said in private, away from your job, was made public, and your employer would fire you if they didn't like any of it! Almost all of us would be fired.

I think a pertinent question in this case is did the people making the chant know whether the recording would be made public. Otherwise they may have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, being in a private vehicle (presumably). I disagree with these expulsions unless they made or shared their racist comments in or on university property and they had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this happens all the time. People get fired from their job for doing or saying things in public that are unacceptable to their employer. If I was the leader of a KKK rally in my town and my boss saw it, he would fire me.

Here's what the constitution has to say:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Again, you have the constitutionally guaranteed right to say what you want. It does not say that you have implication-free free speech. What you say matters. I'm 100% certain that there is some sort of policy or student guidelines / code that you sign when you go to school there, which protects the university in this setting. Its the same with employment contracts.
 
EffinDane said:
But this simply isn't true. Government-funded institutions cannot prevent or punish someone for political, opinionated, or otherwise controversial speech. The school does not have that freedom. Period.
Click to expand...

Here's their conduct policy.

Here's #1 in prohibited conduct:

Abusive conduct: Unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating. These circumstances could include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, and whether it is threatening or humiliating. This includes physically abusing a person or holding a person against his or her will. Simple teasing, offhanded comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to abusive conduct.
 
TechPhi97 said:
Again, you have the constitutionally guaranteed right to say what you want. It does not say that you have implication-free free speech. What you say matters. I'm 100% certain that there is some sort of policy or student guidelines / code that you sign when you go to school there, which protects the university in this setting. Its the same with employment contracts.
Click to expand...

That's literally exactly what the 1st Amendment means when it comes to dealing with government and government institutions. It/they cannot prevent you, intimidate you, or punish you for expressing yourself.

TechPhi97 said:
Here's their conduct policy.

Here's #1 in prohibited conduct:

Abusive conduct: Unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating. These circumstances could include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, and whether it is threatening or humiliating. This includes physically abusing a person or holding a person against his or her will. Simple teasing, offhanded comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to abusive conduct.
Click to expand...

This incident was isolated, offhand, and by no definition of the word 'serious' as it was not directed at anyone in particular and contained no threats. The fact that 'serious' has differing standards to different people means that when this code of conduct finds itself squaring off against the Bill of Rights, its going to lose decidedly. Restrictive, worm-word speech/conduct codes at school almost universally lose against legal challenges.

OU is dumb as they have now turned jerkoff overprivileged racist fratboys into free speech martyrs who will prove it in court.
 
EffinDane said:
That's literally exactly what the 1st Amendment means when it comes to dealing with government and government institutions. It/they cannot prevent you, intimidate you, or punish you for expressing yourself.



This incident was isolated, offhand, and by no definition of the word 'serious' as it was not directed at anyone in particular and contained no threats.

OU is dumb as they have now turned jerkoff overprivileged racist fratboys into free speech martyrs who will prove it in court.
Click to expand...

Singing songs about lynching minorities causing an uproar in the community resulting in SAE kicking its own members off and gathering national media attention is definitely serious. Your argument for acquittal is weak, counselor.
 
Akinji07 said:
Singing songs about lynching minorities causing an uproar in the community resulting in SAE kicking its own members off and gathering national media attention is definitely serious. Your argument for acquittal is weak, counselor.
Click to expand...

It's really not. It's digusting, abhorrent, etc., but what is the fallout from the video? A football player flips? A frat closes one of its own chapters? So what?

If these kids surrounded another black student and started singing this cheer, then you are in the realm of "serious." Right now, its just "stupid".

edit: also, I had updated my post before you quoted with a little more explanation of "serious"
 
Akinji07 said:
Singing songs about lynching minorities causing an uproar in the community resulting in SAE kicking its own members off and gathering national media attention is definitely serious. Your argument for acquittal is weak, counselor.
Click to expand...

Singing in a private setting does not constitute causing an uproar. Had they done it on a public setting, then you might have some ground to stand on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top