Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I fail to make the comparison. Care to use an example people haven't already condemned?
And if you want to throw the protesters in there, throw the Police in there too. I can show you a clip where an officer's telling a camera man "I will f____ kill you" over not being in his "restricted area."
Neither of those incidents take away the magnitude of this situation.
Clearly the kids in Oklahoma deserve condemnation. But inciting a riot in Ferguson resulted in no legal action under the guise of free speech.
The cop sounds like scum and his comments are clearly not protected.
Yeah, it can, in the sense that the charter for a student organization can be revoked because of violations of pre-determined agreements. There are a number of reasons for this. A public state school is not an arm of the federal government, which is what the First Amendment governs and protects. Moreover, federal protections of free speech do not preclude criticisms of any ensuing speech; anyone engaging in free speech is completely liable to have his or her speech be open to criticism or rebuttal; no foul there.
Further, the "harm principle," which is open to interpretation without a doubt, may come into play, and it may come to bear on libelous, slanderous, seditious, or "fighting words" speech. Freedom of speech rights do not mean being able to say whatever one wants without sanction; they rather mean being able to say what one wants without criminal prosecution on a federal level so long as standards of the "harm principle" are not violated, and I do understand that what the "harm principle" means is murky. But that is why we humans make hopefully well-intentioned arguments and try to figure out what things mean over time. That said, free speech very well may entail consequences at other levels than the federal, which is exactly what is happening at OU. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Just because I can say whatever I want doesn't mean that I should, nor does it mean that I should abandon thinking about the consequences of what I say. And just because I have been granted a right does not mean that I should expect not to be criticized for exercising it.
@diva360: it's good to see that we have a constitutional scholar in the forum The First Amendment applies to the states via the incorporation principle in the 14th Amendment. This is protected speech whether you like it or not.
I spent 7 years in higher education as a student. Moreover, I have recently passed the bar exam. Trust me when I write that I know a great deal more about the First Amendment than you do
Again, the issue isn't whether a university may expel students for violating its code of conduct. Rather, the issue is whether such actions by a university may be taken for what amounts to mere disagreements with protected speech. If a campus code of conduct authorizes adverse actions to be taken against speech merely because the university (in this case, a public university, which is key to the analysis) objects to the language used, that portion of the campus code of conduct is unconstitutional (at least as applied) and unenforceable.
Here, for example, is a portion from the Rutgers University Student Code of Conduct:
"As members of the University community, students are expected to uphold our stated values by maintaining a high standard of conduct. Because the University establishes high standards for membership, its standards of conduct may exceed federal, state, or local requirements.
Students are expected to take responsibility for their conduct. Disciplinary consequences therefore serve both educational and deterrence objectives."
The University, through authority given to it by its Board of Governors, is responsible for communicating behavioral expectations to students and the consequences for violating standards."
These OU students were singing a racist song and the singers all knew the words to this despicable song. ...This "singing" was as hateful as it gets and in my opinion these men deserve the condemnation and consequences they are receiving from the press, the public, and the school.
I agree with all of the above, except the consequences from the school part. As despicable as the chant was, it's protected free speech so the students cannot be expelled from a public school for that.
That said, it is entireley within the rights of the press and the public to condemn the students' action in this case, soundly and repeatedly. The students may have the right to free speech, but there WILL be very real consequences in the court of public opinion for exercising it in this case. I doubt any of them are employable at this point, a consequence they deserve. Good luck paying off those college loans, idiots.
A public school can't force people to surrender their constitutional rights as a prerequisite for admission, or at least it shouldn't be able to do so.
Yes, they can. Every college has a code of conduct. Students can be expelled for all kinds of things that are not necessarily against the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
Nope it's a state school and students free speech rights have been litigated before. Hence why you can burn an American flag on campus without repercussions.
If they could be legally expelled they would have been expelled by now.
Nope. All colleges and universities have explicit disciplinary procedures, including provisions for students to have opportunities to defend their actions. I would think that all the experts in constitutional law who are so zealously protecting "free speech" would realize that due process takes time.
I spent 7 years in higher education as a student. Moreover, I have recently passed the bar exam. Trust me when I write that I know a great deal more about the First Amendment than you do
Again, the issue isn't whether a university may expel students for violating its code of conduct. Rather, the issue is whether such an action by a university may be taken for what amounts to mere disagreements with protected speech. If a campus code of conduct authorizes adverse actions to be taken against speech merely because the university (in this case, a public university, which is key to the analysis) objects to the language used, that portion of the campus code of conduct is unconstitutional (at least as applied) and unenforceable.
Your analysis is simplistic. "Merely because the university objects to the language used"? You can try to minimize the students' actions in this case, but violations of the code of conduct are not "merely" nor are they arbitrary in this case. The students were openly advocating racist behavior. Excluding a group of people from a fraternity because of their race is racist behavior. The school's code of conduct is written because the school acknowledges its obligation to defend students' rights to free speech, but the school also acknowledges its obligation to defend students' right to learn in an atmosphere where racism and hatred is absent. The school cannot and does not prohibit students' freedom of thought, free to be racist, or freedom of speech. The school can and does prohibit acts of racism which may contribute to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation on a campus where minority students are attending to pursue an education.
While I think the school should complete a full and thorough investigation of this incident before handing down any judgments, I also think that at this point the University's repudiation of this kind of behavior is appropriate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The First Amendment applies to the states via the incorporation principle in the 14th Amendment. This is protected speech whether you like it or not.
