Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Limits of Free Speech [View all]COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)186. You are doing your damndest to be outraged and, as such
aren't keeping your eye on the ball. First of all, prohibiting discriminating in hiring does not violate any provision of the Constitution. Prohibiting speech does. Neither fraternities nor their members waive their constitutional rights when they establish chapters at universities and, if they were required to do so, that action would rapidly be found to be unconstitutional. We're not talking about discrimination in this example - we're talking about free speech.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
313 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
the 14th amendment also applies, meaning that the university needs to ensure
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#76
So you think it's unconstitutional to forbid students from engaging in race-based
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#80
Now you're just making stuff up. These students are not 'stating that they had
COLGATE4
Mar 2015
#188
The two students who stated their intent to discriminate against blacks by singing
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#204
In the United States they would be fundamentally unconstitutional, because among other things,
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#226
Fuck.such.laws. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not authoritarian censorship.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#243
Incorrect. The fraternity is university-sanctioned student group and is part of the
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#82
Good lord. Next thing you'll be saying DU can punish posters by banning them for not following its
uppityperson
Mar 2015
#133
as long as racist white guys continue to feel sorry for themselves because
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#134
An officially recognized student group singing songs abour racially lynching other students
cheapdate
Mar 2015
#177
As an aside, shouldn't there at least have been a hearing before they were expelled??
Saboburns
Mar 2015
#230
They were given a right to a swift hearing, accompanied by counsel if they wished.
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#239
If we wont protect racist speech, why bother protecting speech at all. Nobody is worried
NoJusticeNoPeace
Mar 2015
#227
This is an easy one...When I say protect speech, it doesnt mean there arent
NoJusticeNoPeace
Mar 2015
#277
Yes. And the song said that the SAE fraternity would not accept African-Ameircans who wished
JDPriestly
Mar 2015
#43
We should not make criminals out of people making extemely offensive statements or thoughts.
tritsofme
Mar 2015
#3
it is illegal for fraternities on college campuses to discriminate on the basis of race.
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#168
Were they broadcasting those words for public consumption or was there an expectation of privacy?
Throd
Mar 2015
#16
A public (state-ran) university can not have a policy in opposition to the first amendment.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#244
The OP dicused limiting free speach for racists becasue wha they said is unacceptable.
Agnosticsherbet
Mar 2015
#212
I disagree. The racist frat boys are but the low hanging fruit on curbing free speech.
Throd
Mar 2015
#10
Agreed, especially since the university did not expel a student who punched a girl so hard
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#17
insofar as it's private speech, yes. Insofar as it's direct evidence that they engaged
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#74
The "they" in this case are two pledges who have no power to deny entrance based on race..
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#245
Their fraternity taught them that song, fostered an environment where they felt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#252
Conspiracy has an actual legal meaning. You should look it up. Oh wait, nevermind.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#259
The administration busted the chumps were dumb enough to get themselves on video.
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#260
Funny how you sputter with outrage when people criticize racist billboards
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#265
No, I scold people for wanting to take unconstitutional action against racism.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#267
Are you in the same thread as I am? We're discussing a state agency expelling a couple of racists..
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#270
So you can't support the premise upthread so you a) start another thread looking for backup..
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#272
They need to do so *within the law* not outside it. The ends don't justify the means.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#274
Hostile environment is well-established law. There's no first amendment right
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#276
So if a cop holds you overnight for blasphemy but there are never any charges, that's cool, right?
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#34
They were never held overnight or in custody at all and no law enforcement was involved.
mountain grammy
Mar 2015
#37
I read the article from the OP. What, then, exactly, is the author looking for?
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#59
when speech is intended to deprive people of the benefits of public programs
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#69
Then anyone who is pro-marriage equality is enaged in anti-religious discrimination.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#97
I asked someone else this: do you think white students wearing KKK robes should be allowed to
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#99
Again, you keep asking for power yet you won't define the limits of that power.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#101
Systems don't make people free, they just shift around who is being held down and
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#221
wait. You admit the system is broke and corrupt and inherently biased but
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#283
comferring = conferring ... a.k.a. a typo. Seems rather obvious, really.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#306
"I am truly glad you can see yourself endorsing civil rights law. You really had me wondering."
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#308
Didn't the US just assassinate (by drone) someone for hate speech against the US?
delrem
Mar 2015
#41
just like mafia bosses order hits on rivals and witnesses "through speech" nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#66
Public universities, ran by state government-- are subject to the first amendment.
X_Digger
Mar 2015
#242
What everyone seems to forget is that free speech is not free from consequence.
alarimer
Mar 2015
#64
they were punished for creating a hostile environment, which would include their
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#77
no, discrimination as in refusing to admit black students into the fraternity nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#171
This article claims that Westboro picketed 'military funerals'? How precious is straight privilege?
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2015
#87
"You somehow always find a way to argue that racists and bigots rights trump everyone else's."
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#116
No, I'm arguing they have the right to not use me in their promotional materials
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#129
The whatever-it-is codes proposed in the OP didn't mention a "promotional materials" clause.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#141
Laws are constructs of people, not things that are good in and of themselves.
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#120
so why are you complaining that the Duck Dynasty bigot got taken off the air?
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#125
"So what statement got you punished so badly that you are so desperately defending the pro-lynching"
Nuclear Unicorn
Mar 2015
#155
Did you bother to read what I typed? Ok, I'll repeat it. The author defines Westboro actions thus:
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2015
#119
Why are you so much more upset about this than the Ferguson PD's oppression of
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#253
But... "kids will be kids" Spazito! And if that means that they create a hostile environment for
Number23
Mar 2015
#300
With appeals those clowns might be twenty five years old when it works its way through the courts.
DemocratSinceBirth
Mar 2015
#236
So universities should be allowed to limit unpatriotic, anti-war speech, for example? (nt)
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#180
So could a public university specify "no anti-war activity or speech" in its "code of conduct"
Nye Bevan
Mar 2015
#191
Could a public university have a policy saying that "anyone who uses the Lord's name in a profane or
onenote
Mar 2015
#219
Oh, we're supposed to be against free speech and the 1st Amendment, now?
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#224
So you think "hostile atmosphere" civil rights actions are per se unconstitutional?
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#254
No, telling them to STFU would be tantamount to trying to censor their speech.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#284
hostile environment rules are themselves a restriction on speech though, no? nt
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#285
There are differences between restrictions and laws, i.e. government censorship.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#286
I think of Jews in France or Sweden or wherever and wonder if they're clamoring
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#287
in general, I think this topic is not a good one for abstract discussions but is rather
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#291
I agree, but the law professor who wrote the article deliberately drew a larger set of lines.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#292
Being frustrated is fine, but a law professor in particular should know better.
Warren DeMontague
Mar 2015
#294
the whole thing is rather shoddy for a law professor, for one the students would be unlikely to
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#295
derp, for some reason when mountain grammy posted it I got my wires crossed and assumed
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#298
the chant by itself at that moment didn't create a hostile environment, but it revealed practices
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#299
I largely agree, but I think you touch on one key thing, is that the last thing the frat boys
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#303