Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big

[NYcarbineer]

They practiced their free speech, and now they are paying the consequences of their free speech.

Got you down as another for limitations on speech. Thanks.

No one is limiting free speech, you doofus. Do you not understand the First Amendment? First Amendment rights means the Government shall not infringe upon citizens right to say and write what they want. It does NOT protect citizens against penalties for harming reputations, or from being punished for insulting others. The First Amendment will not save your job, or save you from getting kicked out of school over racial slurs.

Ahhh, but you're down with the govt squashing the rights of a baker in colorado. Scurry along. You've just outed yourself.

That business owner had to obtain a state license, idiot.

He was a private owner, dumbass.

He was a business owner, open to the public.

 

[rightwinger]

Violation of the schools code of conduct

Gee, weren't they off-campus and in a closed, private bus?
How far does a code-of-conduct reach?

It was an SAE event

SAE is a fraternal organization resident at OU and sanctioned by the parent organization and the university
What has been shown is that this racist chant was taught to new members and had been performed many times. As can be seen on the tape, this was a very popular song....lynching negroes and all

Both the SAE parent organization and university acknowleged this is not the type of organization they want on campus

Ok, so kick the fraternity off campus, but expelling students is another matter.

They did kick them off campus. SAE kicked them the rest of the way

They were expelled for creating a hostile environment for others......you don't think celebrating lynching creates a hostile environment?

no one that was not on the bus heard the song. where exactly was the hostile environment?

If it was a public bus you would have a valid point, but it was a private vehicle.

When you scream at the top of your lungs, you lose the expectation of privacy

 

[NYcarbineer]

Violation of the schools code of conduct

Gee, weren't they off-campus and in a closed, private bus?
How far does a code-of-conduct reach?

It was an SAE event

SAE is a fraternal organization resident at OU and sanctioned by the parent organization and the university
What has been shown is that this racist chant was taught to new members and had been performed many times. As can be seen on the tape, this was a very popular song....lynching negroes and all

Both the SAE parent organization and university acknowleged this is not the type of organization they want on campus

Ok, so kick the fraternity off campus, but expelling students is another matter.

They did kick them off campus. SAE kicked them the rest of the way

They were expelled for creating a hostile environment for others......you don't think celebrating lynching creates a hostile environment?

no one that was not on the bus heard the song. where exactly was the hostile environment?

If it was a public bus you would have a valid point, but it was a private vehicle.

So you haven't heard the song...

 

[Liminal]

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

NO, what I said was that as soon as they threaten people they have crossed the line. What is it you don't understand? The University is trying to protect its image. If they allowed racist THREATS to stand then that would indicate they support those racist THREATS, no matter how benign the threats. The separation is action verses thought. In other words, I can condemn a movie theater all I want, every day if want. But to go into that theater and shout fire could result in harm. Thus that speech is limited. And in reality the first amendment was intended for speech against the government, not to protect speech that hurt or incited violence.

Do you agree or disagree that a company, university or individual has the right to express their standards and beliefs and enforce those standards and beliefs as long as they are enforced equally? I am really not sure I see the difference you are trying to make between public and private.

racists threats allowed according to the constitution. Here is proof,

Threats of Violence Against Individuals.—The Supreme Court has cited three “reasons why threats of violence are outside the First Amendment”: “protecting individuals from the fear of violence, from the disruption that fear engenders, and from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”980 In Watts v. United States, however, the Court held that only “true” threats are outside the First Amendment.981 The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”982 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”983 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,”’ but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”984

example 2

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., white merchants in Claiborne County, Mississippi, sued the NAACP to recover losses caused by a boycott by black citizens of their businesses, and to enjoin future boycott activity.985 During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”986 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence ....”987 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg… An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”988 While holding that, under Bradenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,989 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”

Example 3,

Judge Alex Kozinski, in one of three dissenting opinions, agreed with the majority’s definition of a true threat, but believed that the majority had failed to apply it, because the speech in this case had not been “communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm....”997 “The difference between a true threat and protected expression,” Judge Kozinski wrote, “is this: A true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls.... Yet the opinion points to no evidence that defendants who prepared the posters would have been understood by a reasonable listener as saying that they will cause the harm.... Given this lack of evidence, the posters can be viewed, at most, as a call to arms for other abortion protesters to harm plaintiffs. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that under Brandenburg, encouragement or even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment....”998 Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.



How many more do you want? We are talking about college kids here in a fraternity the supreme court will laugh at it and not even recognize it. The cases above hold more water than this despite the video. These cases even the racist one was from many eyars ago when rascism and hangings were going on.

So if someone is singing in the shower " I hate blacks and want them all dead" he should be punished?

How about if two gays are in the shower together singing "heterosexauls should be lynched"

when you take your argument to its logical conclusions it falls apart.

Love your sarcasm, dude.

A demure, modest genius now.

 

[Redfish]

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

Good god....is that the best you can come up with?

A college student is accepted or rejected by the university. Their admittance can be revoked at any time

they are accepted based on grades and the ability to pay the tuition. not on their political beliefs.

but not one of you libs has given us the rules of OU that were violated.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Got you down as another for limitations on speech. Thanks.

No one is limiting free speech, you doofus. Do you not understand the First Amendment? First Amendment rights means the Government shall not infringe upon citizens right to say and write what they want. It does NOT protect citizens against penalties for harming reputations, or from being punished for insulting others. The First Amendment will not save your job, or save you from getting kicked out of school over racial slurs.

Ahhh, but you're down with the govt squashing the rights of a baker in colorado. Scurry along. You've just outed yourself.

That business owner had to obtain a state license, idiot.

He was a private owner, dumbass.

He was a business owner, open to the public.

Yes, he was a private owner of a business and his rights were squashed by the govt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe you should have bothered to read the OP:

"Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say..."

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

A college student signs a contract when he chooses to enroll in a school. In such a contract it is likely that the student chooses to agree to comply with a set of rules of conduct;

yes, the student might argue that his actions did not violate the rules he agreed to follow, but otherwise,

he's at the mercy of his contractual obligation.

 

[Redfish]

Gee, weren't they off-campus and in a closed, private bus?
How far does a code-of-conduct reach?

It was an SAE event

SAE is a fraternal organization resident at OU and sanctioned by the parent organization and the university
What has been shown is that this racist chant was taught to new members and had been performed many times. As can be seen on the tape, this was a very popular song....lynching negroes and all

Both the SAE parent organization and university acknowleged this is not the type of organization they want on campus

Ok, so kick the fraternity off campus, but expelling students is another matter.

They did kick them off campus. SAE kicked them the rest of the way

They were expelled for creating a hostile environment for others......you don't think celebrating lynching creates a hostile environment?

no one that was not on the bus heard the song. where exactly was the hostile environment?

If it was a public bus you would have a valid point, but it was a private vehicle.

So you haven't heard the song...

yeah, I heard it and I personally find it offensive, I also find many rap lyrics offensive. If a bus full of a black fraternity was playing anti-white or anti-cop rap on a boom box should they be expelled?

The point is that both are done in a private setting, a bus that was rented by that group, not a public setting.

Are you leftists now wanting to punish people for what they do in private?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

Good god....is that the best you can come up with?

A college student is accepted or rejected by the university. Their admittance can be revoked at any time

they are accepted based on grades and the ability to pay the tuition. not on their political beliefs.

but not one of you libs has given us the rules of OU that were violated.

Do you concede that these students were bound by the rules of OU?

 

[Redfish]

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

A college student signs a contract when he chooses to enroll in a school. In such a contract it is likely that the student chooses to agree to comply with a set of rules of conduct;

yes, the student might argue that his actions did not violate the rules he agreed to follow, but otherwise,

he's at the mercy of his contractual obligation.

OK, then show us the words in the OU student contract that were violated and mandate expelling.

 

[Mac1958]

Are you leftists now wanting to punish people for what they do in private?

Of course they are.

Was that a trick question?

.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If there wasn't a code or rule being violated, then the college just censored free speech and on top of it slandered these students reputation by publicizing this situation in the way that they did, and potentially did financial harm to them.

It's a "public" university. Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say under article 1 of the constitution.

They were expelled, according to David Boren, the OU President, for violating school rules, which forbid students from creating a hostile environment for other students.

That will in no way hold up in court with the video that went public that was cited by the university itself. That is way to broad of a brush and a judge will throw that right out and side with the defendants for violation of free speech. It's not about what was said it's about the fact that the University is saying you cannot say what we deem wrong, so you will be held accountable and be expelled.

2 points,

1.) A university cannot have a rule that censors ANY student from saying what he or she want to say no matter what it is, and that is backed up by the constitution free speech.

2.) A student cannot be silenced by a PUBLIC University for saying what is on his or her mind no matter what was said. Period.

Obviously you are full of shit.

The students violated the code of conduct and the rules they agreed to when they signed the admission forms.

 

[Redfish]

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

Good god....is that the best you can come up with?

A college student is accepted or rejected by the university. Their admittance can be revoked at any time

they are accepted based on grades and the ability to pay the tuition. not on their political beliefs.

but not one of you libs has given us the rules of OU that were violated.

Do you concede that these students were bound by the rules of OU?

of course, but what rules did they violate by singing a racist song on a private bus?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The issue is whether OU had the right to expell them. SAE was perfectly justified in shutting down the chapter, but the actions of OU are a totally different issue.

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

A college student signs a contract when he chooses to enroll in a school. In such a contract it is likely that the student chooses to agree to comply with a set of rules of conduct;

yes, the student might argue that his actions did not violate the rules he agreed to follow, but otherwise,

he's at the mercy of his contractual obligation.

 

[Redfish]

If there wasn't a code or rule being violated, then the college just censored free speech and on top of it slandered these students reputation by publicizing this situation in the way that they did, and potentially did financial harm to them.

It's a "public" university. Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say under article 1 of the constitution.

They were expelled, according to David Boren, the OU President, for violating school rules, which forbid students from creating a hostile environment for other students.

That will in no way hold up in court with the video that went public that was cited by the university itself. That is way to broad of a brush and a judge will throw that right out and side with the defendants for violation of free speech. It's not about what was said it's about the fact that the University is saying you cannot say what we deem wrong, so you will be held accountable and be expelled.

2 points,

1.) A university cannot have a rule that censors ANY student from saying what he or she want to say no matter what it is, and that is backed up by the constitution free speech.

2.) A student cannot be silenced by a PUBLIC University for saying what is on his or her mind no matter what was said. Period.

Obviously you are full of shit.

The students violated the code of conduct and the rules they agreed to when they signed the admission forms.

show us the words in the contract that they violated or STFU

 

[Freewill]

It was an SAE event

SAE is a fraternal organization resident at OU and sanctioned by the parent organization and the university
What has been shown is that this racist chant was taught to new members and had been performed many times. As can be seen on the tape, this was a very popular song....lynching negroes and all

Both the SAE parent organization and university acknowleged this is not the type of organization they want on campus

Ok, so kick the fraternity off campus, but expelling students is another matter.

They did kick them off campus. SAE kicked them the rest of the way

They were expelled for creating a hostile environment for others......you don't think celebrating lynching creates a hostile environment?

no one that was not on the bus heard the song. where exactly was the hostile environment?

If it was a public bus you would have a valid point, but it was a private vehicle.

So you haven't heard the song...

yeah, I heard it and I personally find it offensive, I also find many rap lyrics offensive. If a bus full of a black fraternity was playing anti-white or anti-cop rap on a boom box should they be expelled?

The point is that both are done in a private setting, a bus that was rented by that group, not a public setting.

Are you leftists now wanting to punish people for what they do in private?

In my opinion, as soon as the video went viral they might as well have been singing in Carnegie Hall. Tough world we live in when videos expose abusive cops and racist ranting songs.

 

[Judicial review]

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

A college student signs a contract when he chooses to enroll in a school. In such a contract it is likely that the student chooses to agree to comply with a set of rules of conduct;

yes, the student might argue that his actions did not violate the rules he agreed to follow, but otherwise,

he's at the mercy of his contractual obligation.

OK, then show us the words in the OU student contract that were violated and mandate expelling.

Not relevant. No need to even go there.

 

[rightwinger]

Is there anything any group could say that you would think that the school should act upon? What if this bus were returning from a KKK midnight cross burning, would the school be able to then act upon that situation? You and I both know there are limits to what a person can say, I don't need to bring up yelling fire in a movie theater.

Do you agree that a school, or anyone else, has the right to refuse services? Ever?

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

Good god....is that the best you can come up with?

A college student is accepted or rejected by the university. Their admittance can be revoked at any time

they are accepted based on grades and the ability to pay the tuition. not on their political beliefs.

but not one of you libs has given us the rules of OU that were violated.

They are expected to meet standards of conduct

Celebrating lynching does not meet any standard

 

[Freewill]

Got you down as another for limitations on speech. Thanks.

No one is limiting free speech, you doofus. Do you not understand the First Amendment? First Amendment rights means the Government shall not infringe upon citizens right to say and write what they want. It does NOT protect citizens against penalties for harming reputations, or from being punished for insulting others. The First Amendment will not save your job, or save you from getting kicked out of school over racial slurs.

Ahhh, but you're down with the govt squashing the rights of a baker in colorado. Scurry along. You've just outed yourself.

That business owner had to obtain a state license, idiot.

He was a private owner, dumbass.

He was a business owner, open to the public.

OU is not open to the public?

 

[Redfish]

A government institution which is what a University is classified as CANNOT prohibit free speech. Period.

What is going on you moron is that you want to this PUBLIC university to be a PRIVATE university SO BAD so you can have a POINT, but it's NOT going to happen. STOP TROLLING.

Sure they can

They just can't throw you in jail for it. You can be kicked out at any time for your actions

The Army is a government institution. Do you think you can say anything you want without punishment?

If you are in the Army you are an employee. A college student is the customer, not an employee.

nice try, but ---------------------- FAIL

A college student signs a contract when he chooses to enroll in a school. In such a contract it is likely that the student chooses to agree to comply with a set of rules of conduct;

yes, the student might argue that his actions did not violate the rules he agreed to follow, but otherwise,

he's at the mercy of his contractual obligation.

OK, then show us the words in the OU student contract that were violated and mandate expelling.

Not relevant. No need to even go there.

bullshit, its the only thing that is relevant.