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.
You're speculating and reaching, and such speculation is insufficient to impose restrictions on protected speech. Note, restrictions of First Amendment rights are subject to strict scrutiny under judicial review and speculation that something is occurring doesn't give rise to a compelling government interest in restricting speech (we wouldn't even need to get to the second part of the strict scrutiny analysis).
I'm challenging your legal argument. And I would point out that YOU are not a judge, so your conclusion that my arguments are insufficient to impose restrictions on protected speech is your opinion. And not a particularly good one, given the large number of cases and legal decisions where schools' limits on free speech have been upheld.
As for "speculation that something is occurring", I've addressed that now three times. What part of full and thorough investigation by the University do you not understand?
Your conflation of expulsion with arrest and imprisonment is bizarre.
The Constitution guarantees your right to free speech. But consequences from exercising that right still exist. And the school isn't just responding to a song. They are responding to the message of that song, and the suggestion of systemic discrimination being practiced by the fraternity.
Sure it is. And one who doesn't understand that government action (do show me where "arrest and imprisonment" has been the sole basis for prohibited government action under the First Amendment . . . you won't find it because it doesn't exist) for First Amendment purposes tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the document.
This isn't a question about whether consequences for exercising free speech rights exists. The question is, again, who can impose such consequences. Under the First Amendment the government (and a public university constitutes "the government" for First Amendment purposes) may not do so. Damn, this concept isn't difficult to comprehend at all.
As for my response to "message," read my preceding post where I explain that such speculation isn't actionable under the First Amendment. Damn!
Your conflation of expulsion with arrest and imprisonment is bizarre.
No, it's not. OSU is a public school, and therefore a government entity. Expulsion would be an act of the government, which in this case would be a violation of the students' First Amendment rights.
They absolutely have the right of free speech....thru are controlled by the university and Greek system... they can spout off all they want in non sanctioned activities and off campus
Sure it is. And one who doesn't understand that government action (do show me where "arrest and imprisonment" has been the sole basis for prohibited government action under the First Amendment . . . you won't find it because it doesn't exist) for First Amendment purposes tells me all I need to know about your understanding of the document.
This isn't a question about whether consequences for exercising free speech rights exists. The question is, again, who can impose such consequences. Under the First Amendment the government (and a public university constitutes "the government" for First Amendment purposes) may not do so. Damn, this concept isn't difficult to comprehend at all.
As for my response to "message," read my preceding post where I explain that such speculation isn't actionable under the First Amendment. Damn!
What is difficult to comprehend is that you graduated law school without the knowledge of the ample precedent that exists for schools limiting freedom of speech. The school can impose consequences, the government can impose consequences, because as a society we have to balance the rights of one group against the rights of another, and balancing those rights involves limitations on freedom. The limits are intended to maximize freedom for all. The courts exist to determine what those limits should be.
As for your response to "message", try comprehending "full and thorough investigation". Presumably a full and thorough investigation is meant to put an end to speculation by establishing facts.
I'm challenging your legal argument. And I would point out that YOU are not a judge, so your conclusion that my arguments are insufficient to impose restrictions on protected speech is your opinion. And not a particularly good one, given the large number of cases and legal decisions where schools' limits on free speech have been upheld.
As for "speculation that something is occurring", I've addressed that now three times. What part of full and thorough investigation by the University do you not understand?
You're writing nonsense. Challenge my legal argument with something other than what amounts to "I think" this is banned and other incoherent and nonexistent legal principles. I went through the legal standard of review for imposing restrictions on speech and explained to you why your argument falls flat to overcoming that standard of review. The legal standard of review is judge-made (not something that I came up with). See, Citizens United v. FEC and any other Court opinion on the First Amendment for an overview of that standard of review.
But, again, you don't have to take my word for it. The Supreme Court protected speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio by a KKK member that:
Quote:
made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "******s", "Jews", and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July.
That, by any objective nature, is more "threatening," both in context and in language, than what these SAE members said. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled that this is protected speech.
I'm not a judge (I am, however, someone who has passed the Bar Exam), but that doesn't mean that I do not understand the legal framework behind interpreting and applying the First Amendment. You, however, clearly do not, especially if you continue to make such arguments in light of Brandenburg, etc.
Challenge my legal argument with actual case precedent and law.
By the way, the precedent that exists for restricting speech in schools primarily deals with speech in primary/secondary schools, NOT universities where adults are enrolled.
No, it's not. OSU is a public school, and therefore a government entity. Expulsion would be an act of the government, which in this case would be a violation of the students' First Amendment rights.
The students don't get to exercise rights at the expense of the rights of others. The school's code of conduct is intended to establish the limits the school has established so that the school's purpose, providing an education, can be met. And the courts have ruled over and over and over in favor of school's imposing such limits.
I have no problem with the school doing that. They don't have a constitutional right to attend that school and the school can do that if you violate their expectations of conduct.
The students don't get to exercise rights at the expense of the rights of others. The school's code of conduct is intended to establish the limits the school has established so that the school's purpose, providing an education, can be met. And the courts have ruled over and over and over in favor of school's imposing such limits.
Again, false. The rulings "over and over and over in favor of school's imposing such limits" almost exclusively deal with primary/secondary schools where school systems bear much greater legal responsibility for minors. The same analysis does not apply to the university setting, where adults have chosen to further their education.
To the extent that they do not, they are limited in reach generally, and meant to prohibit organizations that are "organs of the university" from engaging in certain activities or to enforce certain classroom behavior, not to control student speech in an informal, non-academic setting.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 03-10-2015 at 09:22 AM..
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.
