Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Limits of Free Speech [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)183. In this case, no. But this case
would rest more on discrimination grounds anyways.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
313 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
the 14th amendment also applies, meaning that the university needs to ensure
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#76
So you think it's unconstitutional to forbid students from engaging in race-based
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#80
Now you're just making stuff up. These students are not 'stating that they had
COLGATE4
Mar 2015
#188
The two students who stated their intent to discriminate against blacks by singing
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#204
In the United States they would be fundamentally unconstitutional, because among other things,
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#226
Fuck.such.laws. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not authoritarian censorship.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#243
Incorrect. The fraternity is university-sanctioned student group and is part of the
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#82
Good lord. Next thing you'll be saying DU can punish posters by banning them for not following its
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#133
as long as racist white guys continue to feel sorry for themselves because
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#134
An officially recognized student group singing songs abour racially lynching other students
cheapdate
Mar 2015
#177
As an aside, shouldn't there at least have been a hearing before they were expelled??
Saboburns
Mar 2015
#230
They were given a right to a swift hearing, accompanied by counsel if they wished.
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#239
If we wont protect racist speech, why bother protecting speech at all. Nobody is worried
NoJusticeNoPeace
Mar 2015
#227
This is an easy one...When I say protect speech, it doesnt mean there arent
NoJusticeNoPeace
Mar 2015
#277
Yes. And the song said that the SAE fraternity would not accept African-Ameircans who wished
JDPriestly
Mar 2015
#43
We should not make criminals out of people making extemely offensive statements or thoughts.
tritsofme
Mar 2015
#3
it is illegal for fraternities on college campuses to discriminate on the basis of race.
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#168
Were they broadcasting those words for public consumption or was there an expectation of privacy?
Throd
Mar 2015
#16
A public (state-ran) university can not have a policy in opposition to the first amendment.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#244
The OP dicused limiting free speach for racists becasue wha they said is unacceptable.
Agnosticsherbet
Mar 2015
#212
I disagree. The racist frat boys are but the low hanging fruit on curbing free speech.
Throd
Mar 2015
#10
Agreed, especially since the university did not expel a student who punched a girl so hard
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#17
insofar as it's private speech, yes. Insofar as it's direct evidence that they engaged
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#74
The "they" in this case are two pledges who have no power to deny entrance based on race..
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#245
Their fraternity taught them that song, fostered an environment where they felt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#252
Conspiracy has an actual legal meaning. You should look it up. Oh wait, nevermind.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#259
The administration busted the chumps were dumb enough to get themselves on video.
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#260
Funny how you sputter with outrage when people criticize racist billboards
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#265
No, I scold people for wanting to take unconstitutional action against racism.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#267
Are you in the same thread as I am? We're discussing a state agency expelling a couple of racists..
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#270
So you can't support the premise upthread so you a) start another thread looking for backup..
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#272
They need to do so *within the law* not outside it. The ends don't justify the means.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#274
Hostile environment is well-established law. There's no first amendment right
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#276
So if a cop holds you overnight for blasphemy but there are never any charges, that's cool, right?
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#34
They were never held overnight or in custody at all and no law enforcement was involved.
mountain grammy
Mar 2015
#37
I read the article from the OP. What, then, exactly, is the author looking for?
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#59
when speech is intended to deprive people of the benefits of public programs
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#69
Then anyone who is pro-marriage equality is enaged in anti-religious discrimination.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#97
I asked someone else this: do you think white students wearing KKK robes should be allowed to
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#99
Again, you keep asking for power yet you won't define the limits of that power.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#101
Systems don't make people free, they just shift around who is being held down and
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#221
wait. You admit the system is broke and corrupt and inherently biased but
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#283
comferring = conferring ... a.k.a. a typo. Seems rather obvious, really.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#306
"I am truly glad you can see yourself endorsing civil rights law. You really had me wondering."
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#308
Didn't the US just assassinate (by drone) someone for hate speech against the US?
delrem
Mar 2015
#41
just like mafia bosses order hits on rivals and witnesses "through speech" nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#66
Public universities, ran by state government-- are subject to the first amendment.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#242
What everyone seems to forget is that free speech is not free from consequence.
alarimer
Mar 2015
#64
they were punished for creating a hostile environment, which would include their
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#77
no, discrimination as in refusing to admit black students into the fraternity nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#171
This article claims that Westboro picketed 'military funerals'? How precious is straight privilege?
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2015
#87
"You somehow always find a way to argue that racists and bigots rights trump everyone else's."
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#116
No, I'm arguing they have the right to not use me in their promotional materials
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#129
The whatever-it-is codes proposed in the OP didn't mention a "promotional materials" clause.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#141
Laws are constructs of people, not things that are good in and of themselves.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#120
so why are you complaining that the Duck Dynasty bigot got taken off the air?
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#125
"So what statement got you punished so badly that you are so desperately defending the pro-lynching"
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#155
Did you bother to read what I typed? Ok, I'll repeat it. The author defines Westboro actions thus:
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2015
#119
Why are you so much more upset about this than the Ferguson PD's oppression of
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#253
But... "kids will be kids" Spazito! And if that means that they create a hostile environment for
Number23
Mar 2015
#300
With appeals those clowns might be twenty five years old when it works its way through the courts.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2015
#236
So universities should be allowed to limit unpatriotic, anti-war speech, for example? (nt)
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#180
So could a public university specify "no anti-war activity or speech" in its "code of conduct"
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#191
Could a public university have a policy saying that "anyone who uses the Lord's name in a profane or
onenote
Mar 2015
#219
Oh, we're supposed to be against free speech and the 1st Amendment, now?
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#224
So you think "hostile atmosphere" civil rights actions are per se unconstitutional?
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#254
No, telling them to STFU would be tantamount to trying to censor their speech.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#284
hostile environment rules are themselves a restriction on speech though, no? nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#285
There are differences between restrictions and laws, i.e. government censorship.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#286
I think of Jews in France or Sweden or wherever and wonder if they're clamoring
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#287
in general, I think this topic is not a good one for abstract discussions but is rather
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#291
I agree, but the law professor who wrote the article deliberately drew a larger set of lines.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#292
Being frustrated is fine, but a law professor in particular should know better.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#294
the whole thing is rather shoddy for a law professor, for one the students would be unlikely to
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#295
derp, for some reason when mountain grammy posted it I got my wires crossed and assumed
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#298
the chant by itself at that moment didn't create a hostile environment, but it revealed practices
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#299
I largely agree, but I think you touch on one key thing, is that the last thing the frat boys
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#303