If you only care about Rights (or content) you agree with, do you really care about them at all?

[PaintMyHouse]

ROFL! You guys are the world's biggest morons. "Creating a hostile environment" is just an excuse for violating their First Amendment rights. When the KKK burns a cross at their local chapter headquarters, is that "creating a hostile environment?" You bet your ass it is, but it's still protected by the First Amendment.

It is, as long as they didn't sign an agreement not to do such things. If the KKK guy works for me, and they can trace him back to me, he's out like shit through a goose. My clients are of all races so I can't have him working for me. He can sue, but I'll win. And if he was wearing his school colors, his eduction gets moved to the public library.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you really want the government telling people what they can and cannot say?

What part of they already do did you never learn? It's not if my little infant, it's when and what.

No, the EPA does not tell people they can't criticize the EPA. Government employees are not free to say what they like, but all employees are hired at will, which means they can be dismissed for any cause.

The EPA has to approve what they publish and who they speak to in their role as an employee of the EPA. Rights are limited, now you know.

 

[bripat9643]

All the recent discussion about the OU incident, and the ongoing 2nd amendment discussions has led me to ask this question.

If you say you support the rights of others, does it really count if you only support said rights only when you agree with the expression or content of those rights?

Obviously not. Notice how all the liberal turds in this forum are supporting OU. They believe government has the right to silence speech they find offensive.

Free expression is one thing. These kids were given codes of conduct which they must follow. If they didn't like them, go somewhere else.

A government entity cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates constitutional rights. No person was confronted when those idiots sang that song. No person was directly harassed.

FIRE has been fighting codes like this (and winning) for decades now.

Bullshit Marty. It's not exactly rocket science to realize students, even college students, do not have the same first amendment rights in the university context as adults in free society have. And, even then, you put something on social media your boss doesn't like, they can fire you. You may think you're in an alternate universe, immune to realities of law and commerce, but you're not.

Yes they do have the same rights, dumbshit.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you really want the government telling people what they can and cannot say?

What part of they already do did you never learn? It's not if my little infant, it's when and what.

No, the EPA does not tell people they can't criticize the EPA. Government employees are not free to say what they like, but all employees are hired at will, which means they can be dismissed for any cause.

The EPA has to approve what they publish and who they speak to in their role as an employee of the EPA. Rights are limited, now you know.

I'm not talking about EPA employees. I'm talking about anyone who is subject to EPA regulations, which means everyone.

 

[bripat9643]

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

 

[Jarhead]

I do not believe a school has the right to determine the SPEECH code of conduct based on their OWN belief system.

Of course they do. It affects the reputation of the school. It affects whether or not other kids, particularly minorities, will want to attend their school.

You are missing my point.

I get it as it pertains to reputation. But if you have a school where such speech is running rampant to the point where it affects your reputation, then you have a bigger issue.

But that aside....

My point is...
students using racial slurs will offend some students
students claiming the American Flag is disturbing will offend other students
Professors saying that conservatives are selfish will offend other students
Professors saying progressives frown on the ability of the minority will offend other students

But when a University expels based on one of the above, but not for the others above, then the university board is using their own belief system to determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.

And that is why we have freedom of speech. For no one can truly say what is and what is not appropriate compared to something else.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Do you really want the government telling people what they can and cannot say?

What part of they already do did you never learn? It's not if my little infant, it's when and what.

No, the EPA does not tell people they can't criticize the EPA. Government employees are not free to say what they like, but all employees are hired at will, which means they can be dismissed for any cause.

The EPA has to approve what they publish and who they speak to in their role as an employee of the EPA. Rights are limited, now you know.

I'm not talking about EPA employees. I'm talking about anyone who is subject to EPA regulations, which means everyone.

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

Nope, it's an insult, but saying you'd like to hang me from a tree can be a threat, depending upon the setting and the context.

Threats are curious things, they are often in the eyes of the beholder and the law recognizes that.

 

[Jarhead]

I am offended when I hear someone say ******
I am offended when someone says conservatives are selfish people

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

Nope, it's an insult, but saying you'd like to hang me from a tree can be a threat, depending upon the setting and the context.

Threats are curious things, they are often in the eyes of the beholder and the law recognizes that.

actually, threats are in the eyes of the offerer....it is the context it is offered...not the mood of the person who receives it.

Saying "I will squash you" when playing a game of scrabble will never stand up in a court of law if the receiver was in a shit ass mood and claimed he or she felt threatened.

 

[Nosmo King]

All the recent discussion about the OU incident, and the ongoing 2nd amendment discussions has led me to ask this question.

If you say you support the rights of others, does it really count if you only support said rights only when you agree with the expression or content of those rights?

Obviously not. Notice how all the liberal turds in this forum are supporting OU. They believe government has the right to silence speech they find offensive.

It ain't "the government" zippy. It's the University of Oklahoma.

 

[Jarhead]

All the recent discussion about the OU incident, and the ongoing 2nd amendment discussions has led me to ask this question.

If you say you support the rights of others, does it really count if you only support said rights only when you agree with the expression or content of those rights?

Obviously not. Notice how all the liberal turds in this forum are supporting OU. They believe government has the right to silence speech they find offensive.

It ain't "the government" zippy. It's the University of Oklahoma.

your post is a victim of not seeing what brought up "government". It was a post a while back by someone who was debating the topic on the opposing side....and the conversion went into "comparing".

 

[Jarhead]

I do not believe a school has the right to determine the SPEECH code of conduct based on their OWN belief system.

Of course they do. It affects the reputation of the school. It affects whether or not other kids, particularly minorities, will want to attend their school.

You are missing my point.

I get it as it pertains to reputation. But if you have a school where such speech is running rampant to the point where it affects your reputation, then you have a bigger issue.

But that aside....

My point is...
students using racial slurs will offend some students
students claiming the American Flag is disturbing will offend other students
Professors saying that conservatives are selfish will offend other students
Professors saying progressives frown on the ability of the minority will offend other students

But when a University expels based on one of the above, but not for the others above, then the university board is using their own belief system to determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.

And that is why we have freedom of speech. For no one can truly say what is and what is not appropriate compared to something else.

I was hoping for an intelligent response to my post above.it is a viable point for the debate...

And by intelligent response, I don't mean "your post does not warrant an intelligent response"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I am offended when I hear someone say ******
I am offended when someone says conservatives are selfish people

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

Nope, it's an insult, but saying you'd like to hang me from a tree can be a threat, depending upon the setting and the context.

Threats are curious things, they are often in the eyes of the beholder and the law recognizes that.

actually, threats are in the eyes of the offerer....it is the context it is offered...not the mood of the person who receives it.

Saying "I will squash you" when playing a game of scrabble will never stand up in a court of law if the receiver was in a shit ass mood and claimed he or she felt threatened.

Context matters but what also matters is who the threat was made to and how they took it. It's not just what was said and by whom.

Like this: California laws on Criminal Threats Penal Code 422 PC

 

[bripat9643]

Do you really want the government telling people what they can and cannot say?

What part of they already do did you never learn? It's not if my little infant, it's when and what.

No, the EPA does not tell people they can't criticize the EPA. Government employees are not free to say what they like, but all employees are hired at will, which means they can be dismissed for any cause.

The EPA has to approve what they publish and who they speak to in their role as an employee of the EPA. Rights are limited, now you know.

I'm not talking about EPA employees. I'm talking about anyone who is subject to EPA regulations, which means everyone.

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What part of they already do did you never learn? It's not if my little infant, it's when and what.

No, the EPA does not tell people they can't criticize the EPA. Government employees are not free to say what they like, but all employees are hired at will, which means they can be dismissed for any cause.

The EPA has to approve what they publish and who they speak to in their role as an employee of the EPA. Rights are limited, now you know.

I'm not talking about EPA employees. I'm talking about anyone who is subject to EPA regulations, which means everyone.

The TSA doesn't limit my speech either, as long as I suggest hijacking a plane while sitting in my underwear at home and not standing in the security line at the airport. A time and a place my little infant, learn it. What I can say here I can't say at the airport, not without finding my ass locked in a room for a few hours or days. Grownups know this, and it's time that you did as well.

If you talk about actually hijacking the plane you are about to board, then you are threatening to commit criminal violence. That isn't protected. However, if you simply made a joke about the plane being hijacked, the TSA has no authority to stop you. I know the TSA does stop you, but that's a violation of the First Amendment. The fact that no one has taken the TSA to court over it only proves that we are a nation of sheep who meekly comply with the orders our masters give us.

No one has taken the issue to court because anyone with a brain knows not only will the lose but the court would say you were lucky they didn't shoot you dead you goddamned idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

All the recent discussion about the OU incident, and the ongoing 2nd amendment discussions has led me to ask this question.

If you say you support the rights of others, does it really count if you only support said rights only when you agree with the expression or content of those rights?

Obviously not. Notice how all the liberal turds in this forum are supporting OU. They believe government has the right to silence speech they find offensive.

It ain't "the government" zippy. It's the University of Oklahoma.

The university is a branch of the state government, moron.

 

[Jarhead]

I am offended when I hear someone say ******
I am offended when someone says conservatives are selfish people

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

Nope, it's an insult, but saying you'd like to hang me from a tree can be a threat, depending upon the setting and the context.

Threats are curious things, they are often in the eyes of the beholder and the law recognizes that.

actually, threats are in the eyes of the offerer....it is the context it is offered...not the mood of the person who receives it.

Saying "I will squash you" when playing a game of scrabble will never stand up in a court of law if the receiver was in a shit ass mood and claimed he or she felt threatened.

Context matters but what also matters is who the threat was made to and how they took it. It's not just what was said and by whom.

Like this: California laws on Criminal Threats Penal Code 422 PC

Actually, I believe your link supports my point...

If I were to say I will squash you during a scrabble game and you were in a shit ass mood and decide to press charges of it being a threat to your well being, you would have a hard time convincing a court that all of the following supports your claim (per your link...especially number 1):

A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and

1. that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,
2. the threat is specific and unequivocal and
3. you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.

 

[Jarhead]

I do not believe a school has the right to determine the SPEECH code of conduct based on their OWN belief system.

Of course they do. It affects the reputation of the school. It affects whether or not other kids, particularly minorities, will want to attend their school.

You are missing my point.

I get it as it pertains to reputation. But if you have a school where such speech is running rampant to the point where it affects your reputation, then you have a bigger issue.

But that aside....

My point is...
students using racial slurs will offend some students
students claiming the American Flag is disturbing will offend other students
Professors saying that conservatives are selfish will offend other students
Professors saying progressives frown on the ability of the minority will offend other students

But when a University expels based on one of the above, but not for the others above, then the university board is using their own belief system to determine what speech is appropriate and what speech is not.

And that is why we have freedom of speech. For no one can truly say what is and what is not appropriate compared to something else.

I was hoping for an intelligent response to my post above.it is a viable point for the debate...

And by intelligent response, I don't mean "your post does not warrant an intelligent response"

Cant get a response to the above. Why is that? It is the crux of the debate and most certainly the crux of the first amendment....

 

[bripat9643]

Had the kids looked like this, Bripat and Co. couldn't expel them fast enough, but a white kid, well you can't get rid of him, that's unfair, as if life isn't.

Carrying guns is a physical threat to people. Calling them names isn't.

A bomb threat doesn't require a bomb, but it's still illegal. Time to grow up now.

A bomb threat is still a threat of physical violence. Calling you a bootlicking turd is not a threat of any kind.

Nope, it's an insult, but saying you'd like to hang me from a tree can be a threat, depending upon the setting and the context.

Threats are curious things, they are often in the eyes of the beholder and the law recognizes that.

Doubtful. Saying I will hang you from a tree is clearly a threat. I've told many people I would like to strangle them and no one ever called the cops. And, no, threats are not in the eyes of the beholder.