-
No
-
No
-
No
No, but your point (or so I thought) was that “the university may argue that it has the authority to regulate speech because minors may be present”.
So I was pointing out that minors WERE present and even participated in the Westboro Baptist Church protests (and were therefore exposed to the hate speech) & the Supreme Court seemed to think they were still within their rights.
Apparently, most of white America doesn’t have any problems with extremely disproportionate levels of violence meted out by the police and (in)justice system.
I think it’s past time to move this over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
If I were writing a brief for the school, I’d build a solid foundation of how participating in a fraternal organization confers a set of benefits on its members. I would not need to demonstrate that joining a fraternity is a right or that acceptance to one needs to be guaranteed, nor would I need to demonstrate that ALL people who join receive a benefit—just that many people who do choose (and are chosen) do receive emotional and financial support (e.g. comradery during school; networking in the job market, etc.).
Once established, I would explore the member selection process and detail how the culture and character are institutionalized by existing members.
I would close by arguing that by chanting that “there would never be a nigger at SEA,” the participant was actively advocating that an entire protected class be permanently barred from an opportunity to obtain these benefits. They were not merely espousing repugnant (but protected) views, but engaging in, reinforcing, and perpetuating a conspiracy to deny others a fundamental civil right.
I don’t know if this would be estopped by the schools previous statements that they were acting in regards to a hostile educational environment, but from my limited reading I believe this would not fall to the cases cited by Richard Parker.
No, the only difference is you didn’t like the message the frat boys had to say. I don’t like music lyrics that denigrate women and I think men or women who listen to such music are scum who should never be trusted. However out of respect for the 1st amendment I don’t demand that the university expel them for having that taste in music. A lot of people may not have liked the frat boys lyrics, but until the OU adopts and uniformly enforces a policy that the performance of music or spoken word poetry that insults ANY minority, ethnicity, religious or sexual group will result in expulsion what happened to those young men was bias, unfair, and should be illegal.
-
Absolutely, it would make a nice retirement trust. While I wouldn’t have done something so bigoted as the frat boys (I don’t like to insult people as group unless it’s absolutely necessary). I did use the word nigger as a response whenever an African American called me a wetback or a dyke or any other racial or ethnic slur.
-
Absolutely, I would first royally tear them out for doing something so stupid and hateful in public.
-
At the point in which I would be interviewing these young men for high profile positions that required tact, judgment, and the ability to deal with people of different cultures and backgrounds, they would presumably have at least Masters Degrees, so they would be their mid-twenties with considerably more experience as adults in the world than at 19 and 20. I would ask them about the incident and base my decision on how they responded at that point in their lives.
What the students said was despicable, but free speech rights are at risk of erosion if not constantly upheld. Even if it needs a lawsuit.
First of all, the word you are looking for is “biased”, with an “ed” suffix.
Second, we seem to be talking past one another. You wrote that, if things were fair, anybody who was listening to someone like Ice-T on campus should be similarly punished. I pictured some student in their room, listening to something you find offensive, either because they actually enjoyed it, they were being ironic, or they were just curious, or something like that. Then I wondered how that could be equivalent to this frat incident. If someone was going around campus quoting/performing this kind of material, or blasting it through speakers at people, then yes, it might similarly create a hostile learning environment.
I remember one night in college when I watched the infamous documentary about GG Allin. That’s chock full of evil, and yet me watching the movie has nothing in common with this kind of behavior.
In that position anyone with half a brain would be hoping the whole thing goes away ASAP. Suing would be the worst possible thing they could do, it would keep their names in the news for YEARS. Tens of thousands of dollars is nothing to those guys, and the wasted time pales in comparison the harm of this scandal getting even bigger would cause their entire future.
And yet Western Europe, even with its much tighter restrictions on hate speech, has not descended into totalitarianism. Strange. LOL
Anyway.
I wonder what Bricker, et al, thinks of this. It sounds thin to me, but perhaps a decision could be based on it. IANAL, of course.
No one said anything about totalitarianism except you.
Suing, which you’d know if you had troubled yourself to visit the thread before it got dumped into GD, has been universally agreed here to be an absolute end to these dudes’ careers. I hope they do sue, though. Fuck their careers. Live by the First Amendment, die by it.
Figuratively, of course. 
What’s the point of the defense of the First, if not to avoid such? It certainly doesn’t promote social harmony between opposed groups, does it? Hate speech is kinda sucky that way. 
I’ll answer that after you produce a cite that the The Founders were only concerned with protecting speech against the government.
Which is a stupid argument even if it were true, unless you want to frame all issues in an originalist format.
The Dope is not the world. And while some Dopers are intelligent people, this board does not represent the sum total of human experience or intelligence.
- Believe it or not, there is a lot of people who respect the First Amendment.
- There are even more of people who accept honest or believable contrition for pervious wrong doings. I have a young man working for me who I found out did burglarize houses (mostly relatives and friends of his family, but he did steal thousands of dollars of stuff) while a drug addict. But he went to rehab. He changed his life and since he’s worked for me I’ve had no problems with him. I would recommend him as an employee for any number of jobs.
- And regrettably there are plenty of racists who were probably saying “Atta boy” at least in their minds when they heard about this case.
I would hire either of those young men before I would hire an Eminem fan.
Pit me if you want me to keep talking to you about this. You’re basically accusing me of trolling, while doing to me exactly what you are complaining about.
He didn’t accuse you of trolling or anything of the sort. He asked you support an idea that you made repeatedly. That is just a standard board request. I would like to see a cited elaboration on it too.
BTW, Western Europe isn’t a standard we want to use when it comes to free speech rights. The U.S. is still the worldwide leader in that regard while they are still trying to crawl their way through a morass of conflicting ideas. They don’t actually have free speech in the true sense. They don’t even have it in the pseudo-sense unless you happen to agree with their current social ideals. Believe it or not, the U.S. is still the leader in some forms of human rights and free speech is a shining example of that.
However, we could start greatly restricting free speech so that it includes only the polite kind and turn over ‘offenders’ to the same agencies that are so often accused of corruption and abuse for prosecution if you think that is a better solution. I am sure that short video is only one of many such examples in the NSA databases. We could get them to develop algorithms that automatically detect offensive or hate speech uploaded to the internet by anyone along with facial recognition technology. All you have to do then is turn over the offenders to the relevant authorities. Racism, sexism and all other undesirable speech will be wiped out in no time or at least the offenders will be in jail or ruined as retribution.
Whoa, boy, here’s your meds. Wipe the spittle off your face, eat dinner, have a good sleep, and come back to the issue when you’ve had a little more time to reflect. Restricted hate speech does not have to equal being turned over to the NSA.