The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

While I find the chant at OU just as offensive as the Nazi march thru Skokie Illinois,  both ought be protected by the 1st amendment.   

^^^ Meaning what? That they shouldn't have been punished for it?

I think the actions by the University (expelling the students), as well as the actions by the national SAE fraternity chapter (shutting down the SAE chapter at OU), were appropriate.

expelling students for speach is worse than anything they said.  When a student can be expelled for saying something that government finds offensive we become a tyranny.

It is easy to defend the 1st amendment when you agree with the speaker.   But that is not what the 1st amendment is about.  Unless you are willing to allow those you find offensive freedom of speech there is no freedom of speech

I got no problem with it.  These are violations of student conduct and the school is acting within their rights to protect their image and their pocketbook.

Expelling students for saying something that 99.99999% of humanity finds offensive isn't tyranny, it's an overdue life lesson...


I agree completely. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, without fear of consequences.

The very definition of freedom of speech is the ability to say anything you want even if 99.999999% of the world finds it offensive without consequences from a government actor

I agree with the national org ending the charter.  But a state school expelling a student for speach is tyranny.

Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say whatever you want..... I thought you were in law? Maybe you want to rephrase what you meant since the always referenced "Can't yell fire at a crowded theater" is used to describe what you can't say.

Dude you are way off base (as is most of the country) on what the First Amendment actually means. We've gone over this very same discussion several times on this board. No one is protected from saying anything they want.

In Hoodie's defense, he's got a point, in that a university rides the line between a private entity and a government entity. 

When you enter a school, you agree to certain conduct.  They can throw you out of school for way less than this.

I have no clue what you guys are talking about.  Off to Google...

^ Basically, video appears of a fraternity changing very racist chant on a bus -- something along the lines of "there will never be a n***** in SAE" and hanging them from a tree.

Video got online.  Students flipped out.  Fraternity closed the chapter.  School banned the fraternity from returning.  President expelled 2 students who organized the chant.

Maybe if we were discussing a different type of activity though. This type of speech isn't protected regardless of it being a government entity. Chanting about hanging a specific race from a tree definitely falls under hate speech.

I don't think the original point is valid at all.  If I'm employed by the government, does this mean I can say whatever I like publicly and there must not ever be any repercussions from my job?

These students were exercising their First Amendment rights.
They will not be arrested by the government for doing so.
The Constitution is safe.

However, there is no part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees a citizen admittance into a public university.

Saw a thorough article on CNN about it.  I get it now.  

And, no, this isn't protected under free speech.  Free speech protects you from being thrown in jail for saying stuff like "The President is an asshole" - which people seem to say a lot these days.

There will always be consequences for your actions.  Always.  I support every action taken against these assholes.

This

Agreed.  It's not even that it's hate speech, though it is.  It's that if you're a bailiff, you can't call people the N-word in the courtroom.  Even though it's a government entity, there is a conduct code that you're breaking.

Why is this even in the news? The media is the main problem by fanning the flames. There are racists, assholes, homophobes, and all other versions of scum on the earth. It's 2015, why is this such a shock to people? Here's a novel idea, if you don't like what someone has to say. You should probably ignore them because they're never going to stop.

It seems that there's a media explosion, riot, or march in the streets every time some asshole says something that the sissified politically correct media doesn't like. It's pure non sense. And anyone that disagrees, I have a tidbit of info for you. There will always be racists, assholes, homophobes, and all other versions of scum on the earth, they aren't going anywhere.

As far as the college and frat kicking them out, I could care less either way. These type people will always have somewhere to go. Black panthers, kkk, or some other group with an unpopular opinion.

I didn't even know this was a thing until i read this thread, so they are doing a terrible flame-fanning job.

This has been all over national news on TV, internet, and news papers for the past few days. Google "racist rant".

I agree with ignoring people who spout off about things you don't agree with, or changing the channel if you don't like a show.  BUT, ignoring people that make vile racist chants about hanging a segment of the population is not something that should be ignored.  Especially, since tax dollars are being used to partially provide them with the forum to make said statements.

the news should fan the flames .. this isn't acceptable behavior in our society any longer .. nothing like a bit of public scorn and humiliation to reinforce that fact.

Of course it's acceptable. You may not like it, but you have to accept it because there is nothing that you can do about it. Public scorn and humiliation will not end this type of thing. A good percentage of people like this are proud of their beliefs.

If someone doesn't like black people, jews, gays, or even ME. So be it, more power to them. I don't agree with the way everyone acts, however there is a danger trying to make people conform to your opinions and standards. Let people live the way they want. As long as they are not breaking laws, physically hurting, or threatening a specific person then there is nothing you can or should do.

This part sounds like you're saying it's not really newsworthy.

And this part sounds like you're saying it should be expected, which is a strange development.  I thought the fact that we elected a black president proved that racism was over in America?

But then this part sounds like what the frat was saying is only a big deal because of politically correct sissies (i.e. it's not really bad at all).  Hmmm.

If you don't like what someone has to say, you should just shut up and ignore them?
I'll make sure to mention that the next time someone talks about new gun restrictions or healthcare legislation!

Of course, the whole "shut up and ignore them" strategy certainly doesn't apply to, say, discussions about sissified politically correct media, does it?

Don't forget about the rap music (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/twitter-morning-joe-rapper_n_6850286.html)!  We have to keep laser focus on the REAL cause of these problems.

Of course there is something that people can do about it. You stand as a prime example. 50-60 years ago, there was a much higher percentage of the population who believed that this sort of blatant racism was acceptable. These days, the number of people like you have been drastically reduced. Who knows, in another 50-60 years, there might not be any racist antisocial nutjobs left at all...

So are you trying to call me a racist or a person who thinks it's acceptable to be a racist in a free society? Because those are two very different things.

Also, let me get this straight. Do you believe that it isn't acceptable for a citizen of the United States to have racist views or opinions? And/or to voice those opinions?

It's a little too late to hide behind the cloak of "I detest what you say, but will defend your right to say it."

See, you were just busy attacking free speech... no, not the racist chants, but everyone who was talking about the racist chants.  So why aren't you willing to defend the right of people to criticize racists?

The fact that you have a bigger issue with the statements of people criticizing racists than the original racist statements sums up your position tidily.

And the fact that you care about what a bigot says or thinks sums up your self esteem issues tidily.

Are you... talking about yourself?  That's extraordinarily direct, even for you.

I mean, I am responding to you, so I guess that means I care what you say and think, right?

On the first...not enough information to make that claim, but enough behavioral psych credits to consider it a distinct possibility. On the second...obviously, as you've stated as much.


You spend enough time twisting things that I doubt that you really want to get anything straight. As for racism, I find all aspects of it to be unacceptable in a modern society.

It seems to me that you care what the guy in the fraternity was saying about black people. Why do you feel the need to have his approval? Why does it matter to you what he thinks of black people? Once you value yourself, you will cease to care what people think or say about you. Maybe you'll "get it" one day, maybe not.

Nothing is being twisted. I asked you a simple straight forward question. In the United States is it a persons right to have racist views and opinions and express those opinions? Yes or no?

It seems to me that you care what the sissified politically correct media talks about. Why do you feel the need to have their approval? Why does it matter to you what they think of "racists"? Once you value yourself, you will cease to care what people think or say about you. Maybe you'll "get it" one day, maybe not.

Grasp this if you can. The racists and bigots of the world are going to say and do what they want. There is nothing that is going to stop them. The media only does it for ratings(ie money). They perpetuate and draw attention to these things which in the end makes the problem worse. I mean really, we all know racists and bigots exist. Does it need to be plastered on tv, newspapers, and the internet 24/7?

The media isn't saying anything about me so that's a moot point. However, the frat guy was saying something about YOU. So lets not change the subject. Why do you care what the frat guy says? Why does he have so much power over your emotions? Don't you have better things to do than worry about what a drunken skinny white guy thinks about you?

Why do you care what is plastered on TV?  If you don't like it, just ignore it.
Why do you allow the media to have so much power over your emotions?
Don't you have better things to do than worry about the hand-wringing of sissified liberals?

Criticizing the criticism is easy, because it's lazy.

You might not have noticed, but I'm in a discussion thread giving my opinion of the topic. I'm not telling anyone who will listen and broadcasting it across the country. But I guess that you can't tell the difference.

I would counter that answering questions with questions is lazy. But what's the point? Round and round you go. You bore me.

When you infringe on someone else's rights, your first ammendment rights no longer apply.

Why does the difference matter?  The Constitution protects private free speech too.

Since I think the point has been made well enough, let's talk about the real issue.  The issue is not what I think racists think about me; you'll notice that I haven't even bothered weighing in on what I think of the frat members themselves.  Their actions speak for themselves.  What I have weighed in on is my opinion of:

- whether the university has the right to ban the frat
- whether the university has the right to expel the students
- the people who claim that "racism was proven over in America" on November 4, 2008
- the people who are perfectly happy to shut down the free speech of those criticizing racists, but insist that we must silently ignore the speech of racists

You fall firmly into the last camp.  And your erstwhile position as Champion of Free Speech is utter BS; you are simply defending a position that... well, to put it charitably, you don't find very offensive.  However, you have no problem whatsoever stifling Free Speech when it's coming from a position you don't agree with; any person who ever criticizes political correctness is necessarily opposing the free speech of PC proponents.

And because this needs to be said:

Hoodie, I find it incredibly brazen of you to post this thread defending fraternity brothers from the repercussions of open racism.  I seem to recall you declaring that when Obama was elected, that singular act proved that racism had been diminished to the point where affirmative action (e.g. minorities getting preferential admissions to universities) should be dismantled (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=22789.msg309476#msg309476) and that the Civil Rights Act can now be repealed (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=22789.msg309288;topicseen#msg309288).

I guess "you can hang them from a tree, but they will never sign with me" must be a post-1970s lyric, crafted in response to the frustration caused by affirmative action policies?  And that fraternities openly chanting about how they won't admit blacks is surely no commentary on the difficulties minorities experience at college?

These things do change racism, though.  When these things are socially unacceptable, it enacts slow change.  There will always be racists.  But there will be less blatant racism if there are social consequences for it.

America still has its share of racism, but it's better than it was in the 60s.  You'd be hard pressed to find people that things blacks shouldn't be able to drink out of the same water-fountain as whites.

Condemn bigotry and there'll be less of it.

This is exactly what I meant when I said:


In short, free speech may not actually be free, but ignorance is far more expensive for us as a species.

Their right to free speech has not been infringed upon. They haven't been thrown in jail for it.

That's where the discussion ends.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that all speech is not protected under the First Amendment. There are types of speech that are not protected.
The reason that this was on the news, is that it was news. Just because you may not think it is significant, does not mean it should not be reported.

I thought all large state universities had a code of conduct. Hate speech would be in direct violation of that. I see no issue with these douchebags being suspended. People get kicked out of university for far less than chanting about hanging their fellow students from trees.

We actually had an issue the other day at my job. Some guy brings in his daughter wearing his full neo nazi clothing for the Magic tournament. (I have a weird life.) Anyway, many others found him completely offensive and the manager had to ask him to cover it up or please leave. He opted to leave and said he will be filing a complaint or something. Seeing that homeboy had no teeth and barely could talk we're not overly worried. And the store reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.

correct not all speach is protected.  For example slander is not protected, fraud is not protected, threats are not protected, yelling fire in theater is not protected.

However  ethnic slurs are protected.

That's 100%. You can get kicked out of school for lots of things that might be legal. If I went to work and started making slurs, I'd be fired but not thrown in prison, and my free speech would not be violated. This whole discussion is ridiculous and I'm glad they got expelled.

Here is the fundamental difference:  it is a STATE school, not a private employer.  The Constitution freedom of speech only says you can't be punished by a government agency for your speach,.  The school by expelling the students punished them for using an offensive term.

Your employer can fire you for that.  The National organization can revoke the charter over that.  But the constitution prohibis the school from expelling them over that

Nobody claimed racism completely ended with Obama's election.  But Obama's election proved the majority of white society had moved past judging who they would hire based on skin color.  Making AA no longer necessary

Racism still exists both at SAE AND Jeremiah Wright's church.  Both are eqally racist and equally offensive.

It absolutely does not and we have been over and over it. What they said is not protected speech.

No, it does not.  It says:

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.

(The 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to the states, so this restriction is not limited to "Congress," as in the original text.)

Your claim that "a government agency may not punish you for your free speech" would logically mean that every government employee could say whatever they want at any time and it would be unconstitutional for them to be suspended or fired.  You could literally stand on the steps of your workplace shouting "My boss, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is an idiot and an asshole," and your employer would be powerless to do anything about it.

Such an interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

Unless your employer is the government, right?

The students in question were not thrown in jail.  Their First Amendment freedoms remain intact.

(http://chainsawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20141204-patreon.png)
but don’t worry! after 10 full minutes of soaking, he turned the hose onto the other house for another 10 minutes. he timed it so it was completely fair

State school or not, try working for the Post Office and walking around doing Zieg Heils, they can fire you for that and rightly so, but they can't imprison you for it. Freedom of speech does not mean free from consequences over the speech.

For the record since 9/11 I believe freedom of speech is in danger, "free speech zones"  during protests and the like, and there are examples, but this isn't one of them.

The 1st amendment does no such thing. Here is the 1st amendment. It applies exclusively to Congress.

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.

If people would actually read all case law and court interpretations on the 1st amendment, they would truly be surprised by what is NOT protected...

The 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states, as well.

Agreed, but I think we're clear that the intent is to not infringe on the rights of the individual. However, attending college is not a right. Otherwise, colleges would not have academic standards and anyone could get in.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Protected+speech