I'm a totalitarian twit for suggesting that government agencies should not be allowed to punish citizens for the content of their speech? I guess I just don't understand "totalitarian".
I'm saying that a government agency can point out that society has ideas about what society finds acceptable but government agencies are not allowed to hold opinions of this nature nor take any type of punitive action against perfectly legal and constitutional actions and behaviors.
I'm saying that if the university is holding expulsion or such over their heads, then their freedom of speech has been taken away by a government agency and that is clearly unconstitutional.
If they are kicked out of a private organization that chooses to not be associated with such idiots, then no, their freedom of expression has not been hindered as the private organizations (inherited from its other members) is also in play here.
Obviously you don't understand modern society. If someone that looks vaguely similar to your pale-skinned child breaks my window, i come talk to you and every other parent of pale-skinned children. However, I my darker-skinned child breaks your window, you don't come to me; you go talk the other parents of pale-skinned children and assess why you collectively pushed my child into that behavior.
It is only threatening if it was being directed towards an actual individual or group. In other words, I could be stupid and repeat their words now and I would not be threatening anyone. But if you, whitroth, were black and I were to make it clear that I was directing my words to you or suggesting that others take this action against you, then that could be considered threatening.
Yes, sometimes stupid people being stupid is nothing more than stupid people being stupid and sometimes it is more.
I think at lest 9 very important people disagree with you. Further, unfortunately for you, those 9 people just happen to be the only 9 whose opinions currently matter in these United States.
Is that treally true (not the military part)? If a public university can make you give up rights to attend it, can the same government make you give up rights to receive welfare payments? Let's try this out.
According to you, if I attend a public university and I am not on a full ride scholarship then I am paying at least a portion of my own way (or find a sponsor such as a parent or loan guarantor) and but the state still has the legal right to demand that I give up my right to say bad things about black people.
Now the tough question: If I am receiving welfare assistance from that very same government, does the state also retain the right to demand that I give up my right to say bad things about politicians or republicans or black people or white people?
If the answer is not the same to both questions, please explain why. Why is one form of state assistance different in this regard (1st amendment) than another?
But the question really is this: Is it legitimate for the government to require that you give up your 1st amendment rights as a condition of attending a government run institution of higher learning? What if the university also had them sign a waiver that stated that the student could be strip searched by Oklahoma State Police at any time anywhere, whether on university property or not, without a further warrant or probable cause? Would that also be legitimate?
The State of Oklahoma is not a government? In what crazy universe do you live in that States are not considered "the government". Next you'll be telling me that the nice lady that takes my property tax check every year that helps pay for road maintenance and the local elementary and high schools is actually working for a private company as well.
Exactly. Yet if they were to participate in a drive by shooting or be killed by one, then they would be classified as children by all groups opposed to the private ownership of guns for the purpose of compiling statistics.
And yet you just showed how freedom of assembly is simply tossed out the door in you want to charge a person for the privilege of eating the food you give them. Exactly why is requiring a person to give up his rights under the Bill of Rights compatible with the Bill of Rights? What's next, no search warrant required to search a business because it is a "public accommodation"?, On what basis do we keep retain our 4th amendment rights while owning a business but not our 1st amendment?
But if the university in question is a government agency then how can the university hand out punishment (restrict free speech) and still be in conformity with the case law you just cited?
This particular university is a government agency. How do we get from a public high school is the government so we cannot let a single student utter anything remoteless religious lest it be construed as government endorsement to this state owned and run university is in no way connected to any government? It would be okay for the national organization to disband this chapter but no government agency should be doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a totalitarian twit for suggesting that government agencies should not be allowed to punish citizens for the content of their speech? I guess I just don't understand "totalitarian".
Seriously? They are a state agency no different from state parks and public high schools.
I'm assuming your are using a t-bone or bone-in ribeye and not some wimpy new your strip?
Maybe he thinks the UK is the 51st of our 57 states he was talking about a while back.
I'm saying that a government agency can point out that society has ideas about what society finds acceptable but government agencies are not allowed to hold opinions of this nature nor take any type of punitive action against perfectly legal and constitutional actions and behaviors.
I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with the sentiments they are expressing as my opinion of that is not pertinent to the discussion.
I'm saying that if the university is holding expulsion or such over their heads, then their freedom of speech has been taken away by a government agency and that is clearly unconstitutional.
If they are kicked out of a private organization that chooses to not be associated with such idiots, then no, their freedom of expression has not been hindered as the private organizations (inherited from its other members) is also in play here.
No, my income is derived from people directly paying to use our product on a subscription basis.
Obviously you don't understand modern society. If someone that looks vaguely similar to your pale-skinned child breaks my window, i come talk to you and every other parent of pale-skinned children. However, I my darker-skinned child breaks your window, you don't come to me; you go talk the other parents of pale-skinned children and assess why you collectively pushed my child into that behavior.
It is only threatening if it was being directed towards an actual individual or group. In other words, I could be stupid and repeat their words now and I would not be threatening anyone. But if you, whitroth, were black and I were to make it clear that I was directing my words to you or suggesting that others take this action against you, then that could be considered threatening.
Yes, sometimes stupid people being stupid is nothing more than stupid people being stupid and sometimes it is more.
I think at lest 9 very important people disagree with you. Further, unfortunately for you, those 9 people just happen to be the only 9 whose opinions currently matter in these United States.
I hear that all colors and genders do. I'm not experienced enough to know if that is fact or just gossip though.
Oh no, they can be racist; jut not sexist.
One more fact: Prior to WWII, the army was somewhat integrated and FDR (a God to the left) helped segregate it.
Fact: Lyndon B. Johnson routinely called blacks niggers and was always reminding them to stay in their place. LBJ is not really ancient history.
Is that treally true (not the military part)? If a public university can make you give up rights to attend it, can the same government make you give up rights to receive welfare payments? Let's try this out.
According to you, if I attend a public university and I am not on a full ride scholarship then I am paying at least a portion of my own way (or find a sponsor such as a parent or loan guarantor) and but the state still has the legal right to demand that I give up my right to say bad things about black people.
Now the tough question: If I am receiving welfare assistance from that very same government, does the state also retain the right to demand that I give up my right to say bad things about politicians or republicans or black people or white people?
If the answer is not the same to both questions, please explain why. Why is one form of state assistance different in this regard (1st amendment) than another?
But the question really is this: Is it legitimate for the government to require that you give up your 1st amendment rights as a condition of attending a government run institution of higher learning? What if the university also had them sign a waiver that stated that the student could be strip searched by Oklahoma State Police at any time anywhere, whether on university property or not, without a further warrant or probable cause? Would that also be legitimate?
same owner though.
The State of Oklahoma is not a government? In what crazy universe do you live in that States are not considered "the government". Next you'll be telling me that the nice lady that takes my property tax check every year that helps pay for road maintenance and the local elementary and high schools is actually working for a private company as well.
Exactly. Yet if they were to participate in a drive by shooting or be killed by one, then they would be classified as children by all groups opposed to the private ownership of guns for the purpose of compiling statistics.
And yet you just showed how freedom of assembly is simply tossed out the door in you want to charge a person for the privilege of eating the food you give them. Exactly why is requiring a person to give up his rights under the Bill of Rights compatible with the Bill of Rights? What's next, no search warrant required to search a business because it is a "public accommodation"?, On what basis do we keep retain our 4th amendment rights while owning a business but not our 1st amendment?
And government at all levels have the same restrictions.
No but they pay money for people to say it on stage and call it entertainment.
Yup, those fools in Norman sure did have the weight of the entire system behind them!
But if the university in question is a government agency then how can the university hand out punishment (restrict free speech) and still be in conformity with the case law you just cited?
This particular university is a government agency. How do we get from a public high school is the government so we cannot let a single student utter anything remoteless religious lest it be construed as government endorsement to this state owned and run university is in no way connected to any government? It would be okay for the national organization to disband this chapter but no government agency should be doing so.