It's not a very good answer, though. The internal combustion engine is very wasteful, throwing out 3/4 of the energy in the fuel as heat.
Another Thermodynamic neophyte... It is the rate of heat FLOW from the hot to the cold that gets you power our of a system, so you need to dump a lot of heat.
Actually, internal combustion engines are fairly efficient devices compared to the ideal heat engine considering how much power they produce. Yes, they do dump a LOT of heat, but despite what most people would have you believe, this dumping of heat is necessary to get WORK out of the fuel. Are they ideal? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But given how they are used, with wildly varying power outputs, RPMs and operating conditions, they are amazingly good.
In other words the provision in the Constitution where the Framers wrote that tax bills MUST originate in the House does not actually mean anything.
Who said that? I'm just saying that TECHNICALLY this was a house originated bill and this has been upheld by the courts. I too think it was a underhanded way to get this done, but it's not like the party who was in power could not have gone though the wickets in the *correct* order, they just ran out of time and had to go with the short cut.
Obamacare is unpopular for what it does. The Democrats who pushed it are now out of power, partially because of their complicity in it's passage. The approach which is most likely to succeed in getting rid of it is to keep electing politicians who are going to do away with it.
Concentrate your efforts where it can make a difference. For now, arguing the constitutionality of how it came into being isn't going to help.
Calling it "the same bill" takes mental gymnastics of the highest order. Anybody who can really do that with a straight face should be taken out and shot, for the good of society.
Look, I think it was underhanded too, but technically it was a house bill. This line of attack is decidedly worthless unless you can get the court to side with you, which they apparently haven't and won't. So what are we going to do?
Your efforts would be much better spent attacking what the bill actually DOES and not how it came into being. This thing is decidedly unpopular and in my view needs to be repealed in total, and only by electing politicians who will vote to get rid of it will it go away. Concentrate your efforts on the most likely to succeed.
In case the 500 pages scare off anyone, he's the TDLR version:
1) No Blocking - An ISP can't block legal content for any reason. So Comcast can't decide that you can't get to Disney's website anymore because they are having a cable TV dispute with Disney over ESPN.
2) No Throttling - An ISP can't say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "you've used too much so now you're stuck at dial-up speeds." If they want to have caps - e.g. only 500GB of data per month - they need to clearly specify this limitation. ("the Order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose
promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances")
3) No Paid Prioritization - An ISP can't tell a website that the website will be slowed down unless they pay for "fast lane access." (Note: This doesn't mean the ISP can't sell users faster speeds for more money. Just that ISPs can't try to double-dip by charging web content providers to allow/speed up their traffic through the ISP's network as well as charging users for the Internet access to get the web content.)
All in all, pretty common sense stuff. It's a shame that it had to come down to a government agency saying this, but the ISPs only have themselves (and their greed) to blame.
Not to question your summary, I'm just wondering if you got this summary from someplace or did you have time to read the new rules for yourself? "Net neutrality" might be the executive summary line, but the rules might be about something totally different than what you expect, sort of like the Affordable Healthcare act isn't about affordability or healthcare...
Fair point, but you can get most of the meaning from just reading it and optionally paying attention to the news. It's not like SCOTUS has a secret interpretation that's 180 degrees opposed from a plain reading.
Well... not all ways, but usually.... SCOTUS's opinion on the meaning of some of the constitution has, lets say, evolved over the years and even radically changed on a few points... So to fully appreciate how the constitution is applied as law, there is a lot of reading to do, but if you want to understand the broad concepts, the document itself works and most should read it more often than they do.
Is this one of those things that both is and is not a tax depending on what you need for it to be Constitutional?
What, you mean like Obamacare?
The penalty fee was ruled by SCOTUS to be legal only if it's a tax. The big problem with that is: tax bills all have to originate in the House, but the Obamacare bill originated in the Senate.
Full disclosure, I don't like Obamacare and think it should be repealed in total..
Um, the bill actually *did* originate in the house, at least technically it did. They took a totally unrelated hose bill, stripped everything out and then put the content of the senate bill in. That passed the house and if I recall correctly was sent to conference where because it wasn't any different from the senate bill (surprise) it was deemed passed by both houses and set to the president.
So where I understand what you mean, technically the bill that passed did originate in the house, even if it was an underhanded slight of hand done in the dead of the night for political reasons.
The money quote is " Most incredibly, Harrell tells us that it could absolutely be used in a real vehicle, since it is a scaled down version of the real thing."
Which I think Harrell is somewhat misrepresented into this "it would work in a real car". What he really means is that the DESIGN would work in a real car, if scaled up, made of the right materials and installed.
But I don't believe the design is practical for that. It would leak oil like a sieve with the case split like it is and doesn't have syncro's so your average driver would have serious problems shifting on the go. I'd also guess that the design would be very noisy. Not to mention that I don't think he's claiming to have copied a Toyota transmission, only to have designed and built a "working" transmission suitable for attaching to his scale engine which he previously reverse engineered.
I would like to see this printed on a metal 3D printer and then see if it 1. reasonably works and 2. is a cost-effective alternative to OEM.
Question 1's answer: You could likely get a metal article out of a 3D printer that worked, but it would NOT be durable.
Question 2's answer: Not on your life. IF it was cost effective to 3D print alternative transmission parts, you could bet the OEM's and their parts suppliers would be jumping at the chance to save some coin. For transmission parts, they obviously are not doing that, so it seems obvious that it's not a cost effective approach.
But I think there is a third question you need to ask yourself... Would this be useful for PROTOTYPE work? I think the answer is "Likely so" but I'd like to point out that the durability of a printed metal part is going to be pretty bad and a lot of a prototype transmission will still likely be machined out of steel if it is intended to be functional enough to drive around.
Why are we harping on this? Because he says it would work as a transmission in a real car if you scaled it up to full size. That is obviously hype. It may work LIKE the full sized version does, but it is not and never will be a viable replacement transmission, even for a short time.
Even scaled up to full size it would be useless in your Toyota. If it survived being installed, the first time you released the clutch with it in gear just about everything inside would self destruct. There is a *reason* manufacturers use steel in these things. If plastic worked, they would have GLADLY dumped the weight decades ago.
I'd like to point out though that this transmission is not totally 3D printed. Even as a model, there are metal parts in this thing. All he really did was 3D print the housing and gears and didn't really model the original article exactly but produced a 'working' representation of the actual thing. It has no synchronizers, I'm fairly sure it doesn't have the same gear ratio in each gear and he made the gear teeth much larger. Scaled up and made of metal, this thing wouldn't be all that useable for the average driver. It looks more like a truck transmission (18 wheeler) than something from a car.
As plastic, It wouldn't survive being bolted to the engine and if it did, just starting the engine and releasing the clutch would likely shear off the input shaft, even if it was in neutral. If it survived to that point, there is zero chance you'd get any kind of useful torque though to the wheels. 10 min is totally out of the question.
This will NEVER replace a real transmission for anything but a model plastic model...
Of course it is totally cool as a tool to teach mechanical engineering concepts with...
This one wouldn't survive the engine starting much less than actually make it into gear... Assuming you could actually bolt the thing into place with the proper torque and not bust it first.... Plastic Transmissions, right....
There is still no evidence that any federal laws were broken.
Seriously? You do know she fired an ambassador for doing this very thing when she held office and just the optics look bad. She should have come clean and turned over the whole bunch of e-mails and the server.. But no, we get the E-mail's she wants us to see, and even then only in hard copy, and she DELETED the rest!
No proof? Perhaps, but LOTS of evidence and destruction of same.
There is the political PR side of all this, you are correct.
To you and me she looks stupid because we generally understand what E-mail is and how it works and recognize the smoke and mirror trick she's attempting. But to the less technical, her story is plausible enough to be accepted, even by non-rabid supporters, especially given that those who are already in lock step with her will be repeating the lie as often and as loudly as they can. It's how the left has painted the Republicans as racist and having a "war on women" when neither is true. You just keep saying something over and over and people eventually believe it...
I think they initially miscalculated how damaging this story was and initially where going to just wait it out. However, it started getting too long, with even democrats repeating it so they switched tactics and decided to address it with the whole carefully scripted presser in hopes of being able to make it go away.
Time will tell if this was a good idea or not. Personally I think she should have just let it die unanswered, but I'm guessing that it was starting to get too close to her planned formal announcement that she's running for president and they felt it was better to cut their losses, give out the half answer, and move on. (Her typical "What difference does it make now?" move.)
Just because there are idiots that do no research at Wired, does not mean it is news.
Or that they know what they are talking about.....
You want to copy a Pi? Knock yourself out. http://www.arduino.cc/ even provides you with their hardware designs directly if you want to take their stuff, modify it and even sell it to somebody else.
Then there are the multiple Software Defined Radio projects that have "Open Source" hardware out there. Check out GNU Radio, it connects to a number of "free" hardware designs.
It's not an IMMEDIATE threat when the frat boys are riding a bus to/from some activity, unless that activity is ostensibly to carry out that threat or to incite others to do so. Understand that the participants have not been shown to have the intent to carry out the threat, and as sick as it may sound to some, these kids where (in their minds) just having fun chanting about lynching.
Where this is disgusting, it does not create an immediate danger to anyone, so it remains protected speech under the US's constitution, and is not illegal.
But, need I remind you, free speech rights are not free from consequences if you exercise them. It's not a crime to express negative opinions about your boss, but if you do, he can still fire you if you exercise your rights and voice your opinion.
Read the whole thread... I jumped into this fray because a previous poster claimed that what the frat boys did was "hate speech" and thus "illegal". They where making the argument that because it was illegal speech, they had no right to do it.
So I responded that they did indeed have the right to do it (as stupid as it was), but the college also had a the right to punish them.
Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences. It just means the government cannot put you in jail for saying something, not that your boss cannot fire you for exercising your free speech rights at work.
But this "hate speech" that can be restricted is when the speaker knows there is an IMMEDIATE danger, like inciting a riot. There is a very *wide* latitude given to the speaker in this regard and a very narrow ledge for the government. Government cannot violate free speech rights without a clear and immediate danger caused by the speech, and it's not a crime unless the speaker knows of the danger and still does it.
What these frat boys did wasn't even close to hate speech, by any stretch of the imagination, at lest for those who understand what the "freedom of speech" really is.
There is a catch 22 in the law here... Patents are public records so anybody can just copy a patent and claim they came up with it... If you hide patents from public view, you'd never be able to know if you violated one prior to the holder filing suit, but you'd have a obvious "it's obvious" argument in that case. IMHO: Patents are issued for way too many obvious things and rarely really have any unique content. I wonder if they really are necessary.
"Hate speech" is something like saying "The Holocaust is a hoax". No-one who says that believes it or has any kind of acceptable reason for saying it.
Saying something like "The Holocaust was a good idea" is absolutely deplorable but is protected free speech.
Saying either is PROTECTED under the 1st amendment here in the United States. Now if you are urging a receptive audience to REPEAT the Holocaust, or incite a riot, they can stop and charge you, but you have to be WAY out of line and there must be an immediate danger of a crime happening before the authorities can step in.
Some frat boys singing something is unlikely to rise to such a serious level and this certainly doesn't.
By law in the USA the government can only restrict speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.
Last I checked the Constitution only applies to the government. The/. admins could restrict anything they want to and not be against the law. Any private organization can censor the speech is within their property as they please. Now if this university receives government funds then it's a different story.
I'm not arguing that, I'm answering the previous poster's claim that this was "hate speech" and was thus not protected under the 1st amendment. That is incorrect, this IS protected speech, as hateful and shameful as it may be, and it's a right to express such opinions.
Free speech does not extend to hate speech. No rights are being denied here, since you do not have the right to hate speech.
Which is hopelessly wrong headed, at least in the United States under our constitution. However, free speech does not mean free from consequences. You won't be arrested and charged with a crime for telling your boss off (short of assault), but you might get fired for exercising that right.
No warrants have been issued, no one has been arrested, and no one is in jail.
Please read the post I was responding too:
Free speech does not extend to hate speech. No rights are being denied here, since you do not have the right to hate speech.
This wasn't "hate speech", nor was it illegal, which is why I'm explaining to the previous poster about what freedom of speech actually is in the United States.
I'm not making an argument that says these frat boys are being unfairly treated in the press or by the college, only that the previous poster was wrong trying to call it "hate speech" and thinking it was illegal.
Why do folks keep on bringing up the First Amendment when people act like clowns?
1) the first amendment only prevents the government from slapping you down. This was a slapdown by a private entity.
2) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. Act like a clown, expect them to slap a clown suit on you.
I'm not in disagreement with that. You are free to express your opinion about your boss by right, but your boss is free to fire you when you do.
What I'm saying is that folks need to slow down the knee jerk "there should be a law" reaction to this kind of stupidity and grow some thicker skin when you hear stuff like this. So freedom of speech means you will eventually be offended by somebody and we need to accept that, just as much as it doesn't mean the speaker is free from consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a very good answer, though. The internal combustion engine is very wasteful, throwing out 3/4 of the energy in the fuel as heat.
Another Thermodynamic neophyte... It is the rate of heat FLOW from the hot to the cold that gets you power our of a system, so you need to dump a lot of heat.
Actually, internal combustion engines are fairly efficient devices compared to the ideal heat engine considering how much power they produce. Yes, they do dump a LOT of heat, but despite what most people would have you believe, this dumping of heat is necessary to get WORK out of the fuel. Are they ideal? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But given how they are used, with wildly varying power outputs, RPMs and operating conditions, they are amazingly good.
In other words the provision in the Constitution where the Framers wrote that tax bills MUST originate in the House does not actually mean anything.
Who said that? I'm just saying that TECHNICALLY this was a house originated bill and this has been upheld by the courts. I too think it was a underhanded way to get this done, but it's not like the party who was in power could not have gone though the wickets in the *correct* order, they just ran out of time and had to go with the short cut.
Obamacare is unpopular for what it does. The Democrats who pushed it are now out of power, partially because of their complicity in it's passage. The approach which is most likely to succeed in getting rid of it is to keep electing politicians who are going to do away with it.
Concentrate your efforts where it can make a difference. For now, arguing the constitutionality of how it came into being isn't going to help.
Calling it "the same bill" takes mental gymnastics of the highest order. Anybody who can really do that with a straight face should be taken out and shot, for the good of society.
Look, I think it was underhanded too, but technically it was a house bill. This line of attack is decidedly worthless unless you can get the court to side with you, which they apparently haven't and won't. So what are we going to do?
Your efforts would be much better spent attacking what the bill actually DOES and not how it came into being. This thing is decidedly unpopular and in my view needs to be repealed in total, and only by electing politicians who will vote to get rid of it will it go away. Concentrate your efforts on the most likely to succeed.
In case the 500 pages scare off anyone, he's the TDLR version:
1) No Blocking - An ISP can't block legal content for any reason. So Comcast can't decide that you can't get to Disney's website anymore because they are having a cable TV dispute with Disney over ESPN.
2) No Throttling - An ISP can't say "you have broadband Internet" and then tell you "you've used too much so now you're stuck at dial-up speeds." If they want to have caps - e.g. only 500GB of data per month - they need to clearly specify this limitation. ("the Order builds on the strong foundation established in 2010 and enhances the transparency rule for both end users and edge providers, including by adopting a requirement that broadband providers always must disclose promotional rates, all fees and/or surcharges, and all data caps or data allowances")
3) No Paid Prioritization - An ISP can't tell a website that the website will be slowed down unless they pay for "fast lane access." (Note: This doesn't mean the ISP can't sell users faster speeds for more money. Just that ISPs can't try to double-dip by charging web content providers to allow/speed up their traffic through the ISP's network as well as charging users for the Internet access to get the web content.)
All in all, pretty common sense stuff. It's a shame that it had to come down to a government agency saying this, but the ISPs only have themselves (and their greed) to blame.
Not to question your summary, I'm just wondering if you got this summary from someplace or did you have time to read the new rules for yourself? "Net neutrality" might be the executive summary line, but the rules might be about something totally different than what you expect, sort of like the Affordable Healthcare act isn't about affordability or healthcare...
Fair point, but you can get most of the meaning from just reading it and optionally paying attention to the news. It's not like SCOTUS has a secret interpretation that's 180 degrees opposed from a plain reading.
Well... not all ways, but usually.... SCOTUS's opinion on the meaning of some of the constitution has, lets say, evolved over the years and even radically changed on a few points... So to fully appreciate how the constitution is applied as law, there is a lot of reading to do, but if you want to understand the broad concepts, the document itself works and most should read it more often than they do.
Is this one of those things that both is and is not a tax depending on what you need for it to be Constitutional?
What, you mean like Obamacare? The penalty fee was ruled by SCOTUS to be legal only if it's a tax. The big problem with that is: tax bills all have to originate in the House, but the Obamacare bill originated in the Senate.
Full disclosure, I don't like Obamacare and think it should be repealed in total..
Um, the bill actually *did* originate in the house, at least technically it did. They took a totally unrelated hose bill, stripped everything out and then put the content of the senate bill in. That passed the house and if I recall correctly was sent to conference where because it wasn't any different from the senate bill (surprise) it was deemed passed by both houses and set to the president.
So where I understand what you mean, technically the bill that passed did originate in the house, even if it was an underhanded slight of hand done in the dead of the night for political reasons.
The money quote is " Most incredibly, Harrell tells us that it could absolutely be used in a real vehicle, since it is a scaled down version of the real thing."
Which I think Harrell is somewhat misrepresented into this "it would work in a real car". What he really means is that the DESIGN would work in a real car, if scaled up, made of the right materials and installed.
But I don't believe the design is practical for that. It would leak oil like a sieve with the case split like it is and doesn't have syncro's so your average driver would have serious problems shifting on the go. I'd also guess that the design would be very noisy. Not to mention that I don't think he's claiming to have copied a Toyota transmission, only to have designed and built a "working" transmission suitable for attaching to his scale engine which he previously reverse engineered.
I would like to see this printed on a metal 3D printer and then see if it 1. reasonably works and 2. is a cost-effective alternative to OEM.
Question 1's answer: You could likely get a metal article out of a 3D printer that worked, but it would NOT be durable.
Question 2's answer: Not on your life. IF it was cost effective to 3D print alternative transmission parts, you could bet the OEM's and their parts suppliers would be jumping at the chance to save some coin. For transmission parts, they obviously are not doing that, so it seems obvious that it's not a cost effective approach.
But I think there is a third question you need to ask yourself... Would this be useful for PROTOTYPE work? I think the answer is "Likely so" but I'd like to point out that the durability of a printed metal part is going to be pretty bad and a lot of a prototype transmission will still likely be machined out of steel if it is intended to be functional enough to drive around.
Why are we harping on this? Because he says it would work as a transmission in a real car if you scaled it up to full size. That is obviously hype. It may work LIKE the full sized version does, but it is not and never will be a viable replacement transmission, even for a short time.
It looks a little small to fit in my Toyota...
Even scaled up to full size it would be useless in your Toyota. If it survived being installed, the first time you released the clutch with it in gear just about everything inside would self destruct. There is a *reason* manufacturers use steel in these things. If plastic worked, they would have GLADLY dumped the weight decades ago.
Never last 10 minutes.
You are correct..
I'd like to point out though that this transmission is not totally 3D printed. Even as a model, there are metal parts in this thing. All he really did was 3D print the housing and gears and didn't really model the original article exactly but produced a 'working' representation of the actual thing. It has no synchronizers, I'm fairly sure it doesn't have the same gear ratio in each gear and he made the gear teeth much larger. Scaled up and made of metal, this thing wouldn't be all that useable for the average driver. It looks more like a truck transmission (18 wheeler) than something from a car.
As plastic, It wouldn't survive being bolted to the engine and if it did, just starting the engine and releasing the clutch would likely shear off the input shaft, even if it was in neutral. If it survived to that point, there is zero chance you'd get any kind of useful torque though to the wheels. 10 min is totally out of the question.
This will NEVER replace a real transmission for anything but a model plastic model...
Of course it is totally cool as a tool to teach mechanical engineering concepts with...
This one wouldn't survive the engine starting much less than actually make it into gear... Assuming you could actually bolt the thing into place with the proper torque and not bust it first.... Plastic Transmissions, right....
There is still no evidence that any federal laws were broken.
Seriously? You do know she fired an ambassador for doing this very thing when she held office and just the optics look bad. She should have come clean and turned over the whole bunch of e-mails and the server.. But no, we get the E-mail's she wants us to see, and even then only in hard copy, and she DELETED the rest!
No proof? Perhaps, but LOTS of evidence and destruction of same.
There is the political PR side of all this, you are correct.
To you and me she looks stupid because we generally understand what E-mail is and how it works and recognize the smoke and mirror trick she's attempting. But to the less technical, her story is plausible enough to be accepted, even by non-rabid supporters, especially given that those who are already in lock step with her will be repeating the lie as often and as loudly as they can. It's how the left has painted the Republicans as racist and having a "war on women" when neither is true. You just keep saying something over and over and people eventually believe it...
I think they initially miscalculated how damaging this story was and initially where going to just wait it out. However, it started getting too long, with even democrats repeating it so they switched tactics and decided to address it with the whole carefully scripted presser in hopes of being able to make it go away.
Time will tell if this was a good idea or not. Personally I think she should have just let it die unanswered, but I'm guessing that it was starting to get too close to her planned formal announcement that she's running for president and they felt it was better to cut their losses, give out the half answer, and move on. (Her typical "What difference does it make now?" move.)
Just because there are idiots that do no research at Wired, does not mean it is news.
Or that they know what they are talking about.....
You want to copy a Pi? Knock yourself out. http://www.arduino.cc/ even provides you with their hardware designs directly if you want to take their stuff, modify it and even sell it to somebody else.
Then there are the multiple Software Defined Radio projects that have "Open Source" hardware out there. Check out GNU Radio, it connects to a number of "free" hardware designs.
But it DOES apply to the executive branch, and by extension the State Department..
It's not an IMMEDIATE threat when the frat boys are riding a bus to/from some activity, unless that activity is ostensibly to carry out that threat or to incite others to do so. Understand that the participants have not been shown to have the intent to carry out the threat, and as sick as it may sound to some, these kids where (in their minds) just having fun chanting about lynching.
Where this is disgusting, it does not create an immediate danger to anyone, so it remains protected speech under the US's constitution, and is not illegal.
But, need I remind you, free speech rights are not free from consequences if you exercise them. It's not a crime to express negative opinions about your boss, but if you do, he can still fire you if you exercise your rights and voice your opinion.
Read the whole thread... I jumped into this fray because a previous poster claimed that what the frat boys did was "hate speech" and thus "illegal". They where making the argument that because it was illegal speech, they had no right to do it.
So I responded that they did indeed have the right to do it (as stupid as it was), but the college also had a the right to punish them.
Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences. It just means the government cannot put you in jail for saying something, not that your boss cannot fire you for exercising your free speech rights at work.
Now on that question, I have no answer. Ask the frats, I'm sure they think it's worthwhile.
But this "hate speech" that can be restricted is when the speaker knows there is an IMMEDIATE danger, like inciting a riot. There is a very *wide* latitude given to the speaker in this regard and a very narrow ledge for the government. Government cannot violate free speech rights without a clear and immediate danger caused by the speech, and it's not a crime unless the speaker knows of the danger and still does it.
What these frat boys did wasn't even close to hate speech, by any stretch of the imagination, at lest for those who understand what the "freedom of speech" really is.
There is a catch 22 in the law here... Patents are public records so anybody can just copy a patent and claim they came up with it... If you hide patents from public view, you'd never be able to know if you violated one prior to the holder filing suit, but you'd have a obvious "it's obvious" argument in that case. IMHO: Patents are issued for way too many obvious things and rarely really have any unique content. I wonder if they really are necessary.
"Hate speech" is something like saying "The Holocaust is a hoax". No-one who says that believes it or has any kind of acceptable reason for saying it.
Saying something like "The Holocaust was a good idea" is absolutely deplorable but is protected free speech.
Saying either is PROTECTED under the 1st amendment here in the United States. Now if you are urging a receptive audience to REPEAT the Holocaust, or incite a riot, they can stop and charge you, but you have to be WAY out of line and there must be an immediate danger of a crime happening before the authorities can step in.
Some frat boys singing something is unlikely to rise to such a serious level and this certainly doesn't.
By law in the USA the government can only restrict speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.
Last I checked the Constitution only applies to the government. The /. admins could restrict anything they want to and not be against the law. Any private organization can censor the speech is within their property as they please. Now if this university receives government funds then it's a different story.
I'm not arguing that, I'm answering the previous poster's claim that this was "hate speech" and was thus not protected under the 1st amendment. That is incorrect, this IS protected speech, as hateful and shameful as it may be, and it's a right to express such opinions.
Free speech does not extend to hate speech. No rights are being denied here, since you do not have the right to hate speech.
Which is hopelessly wrong headed, at least in the United States under our constitution. However, free speech does not mean free from consequences. You won't be arrested and charged with a crime for telling your boss off (short of assault), but you might get fired for exercising that right.
These people's "free speech" is still intact.
No warrants have been issued, no one has been arrested, and no one is in jail.
Please read the post I was responding too:
Free speech does not extend to hate speech. No rights are being denied here, since you do not have the right to hate speech.
This wasn't "hate speech", nor was it illegal, which is why I'm explaining to the previous poster about what freedom of speech actually is in the United States. I'm not making an argument that says these frat boys are being unfairly treated in the press or by the college, only that the previous poster was wrong trying to call it "hate speech" and thinking it was illegal.
Why do folks keep on bringing up the First Amendment when people act like clowns?
1) the first amendment only prevents the government from slapping you down. This was a slapdown by a private entity.
2) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences. Act like a clown, expect them to slap a clown suit on you.
I'm not in disagreement with that. You are free to express your opinion about your boss by right, but your boss is free to fire you when you do.
What I'm saying is that folks need to slow down the knee jerk "there should be a law" reaction to this kind of stupidity and grow some thicker skin when you hear stuff like this. So freedom of speech means you will eventually be offended by somebody and we need to accept that, just as much as it doesn't mean the speaker is free from consequences.