HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » mountain grammy » Journal
Page: 1

mountain grammy

Profile Information

Name: Pat
Gender: Female
Hometown: NYC
Home country: America
Current location: Grand Lake, Co.
Member since: Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:55 AM
Number of posts: 22,184

Journal Archives

The Limits of Free Speech

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment would protect even the racist chant at the University of Oklahoma—but it shouldn't.
KENT GREENFIELDMAR 13 2015, 10:54 AM ET

Reuters
Members of a fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were recently filmed chanting that they’d rather see a black student lynched than as a member of their clan. The now viral video of dapper, privileged white men shouting, “There will never be a nigger at SAE, you can hang him from a tree” reminds us of our greatest national shame. The chant has been roundly condemned as abhorrent. But after university president David Boren announced the expulsion of two students leading the chants, prominent legal scholars from the right and left have come to their defense. The university is a public institution, they say, and punishing the students for what they said—no matter how vile—violates the First Amendment’s commitment to “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” discourse.

Oklahoma could make a decent argument that the students’ chant created a hostile educational environment and was thus unprotected speech, but these scholars are likely correct as a predictive matter. If this situation were litigated before the current Supreme Court, the students would almost certainly win. The frat boys’ howls are reminiscent of the Westboro Baptist Church’s “God hates fags” protests near military funerals, which the Supreme Court protected a few years ago. And while public university hate-speech codes have never been litigated at the Supreme Court, they have been trounced in lower courts.

Yet is the slippery slope so slick that we cannot fathom any restrictions on the worst speech? Is the slope so steep that we cannot recognize the harms flowing from assertions of privileged hatred subjecting whole populations to fear of violence? Does it really risk tyranny to expel a couple of racist punks?

If that is what the First Amendment means, I dissent.


You can read the whole article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-limits-of-free-speech/387718/

It's a good article posted on another thread by a poster who's intent was to defend racist speech. The article is a clear argument for why we shouldn't.
Posted by mountain grammy | Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:08 PM (313 replies)

As a "Good Democrat" I want an experienced, tested, moderate candidate....

BULLSHIT I WANT A CANDIDATE WHO CAN WIN

This is too important. I see Hillary buried in dark money. Campaign ads worse than we've seen before, and we think we've seen it all. What this will do, in my opinion, is what it did last year; discourage voting. It's not enough to fuck with the voting machines and enact voter restrictions. it's important for voters to be disgusted enough to stay home.

And, while Hillary may not be a first choice, ok she's not mine, try to imagine a Republican government in an era of global climate change and extreme weather disruptions the likes of which we've never seen. OK, got that picture in your mind?

Hillary's far ahead in the polls, so what. Do you think that scares the billionaires who plan on buying this election? They couldn't succeed with Obama because his skills at speaking and reaching out to people cut through the noise. I don't think Hillary can do that with the same success as Obama and, I'm sorry to say, neither can Bernie Sanders. In America, it's not the qualifications that matter, it's the star power. In Senator Warren we have both, and we need her badly.

In my very humble opinion, on this day, March 12, 2015, with no links provided, I think Elizabeth Warren is the best hope for the Democratic party to keep the White House in 2016, and she just might have the strength to carry the House and Senate. We need a winner in 2016. People listen to her, people believe her, people like her, and people won't like the dark money ads against her.

Being the eternal optimist, I think something will happen to get Warren into the race. It really has to. Losing the White House in 2016 cannot be an option.
Posted by mountain grammy | Thu Mar 12, 2015, 10:39 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1