Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:08 PM

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.

313 replies, 53472 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

313 replies	Author	Time	Post
The Limits of Free Speech (Original post)	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	OP
Sorry, but I disagree, racist speech is free speech, however offensive it is.	GGJohn	Mar 2015	#1
The remedy for offensive speech if more speech. nt	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#4
Absolutely correct. eom.	GGJohn	Mar 2015	#5
+1. Jefferson was right when he first said it.	treestar	Mar 2015	#100
It was actually Justice Louis Brandeis	hifiguy	Mar 2015	#176
Correct	rock	Mar 2015	#12
Same here.	NaturalHigh	Mar 2015	#15
Yes. n/t	distantearlywarning	Mar 2015	#19
They are not arrested	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#27
The government (acting here as a State University) should not have the	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#29
Universities have plenty of power over their students.	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#35
You can't have a rule that violates the First Amendment	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#38
The rules don't violate the first amendment..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#39
Of course they do. The government cannot punish a person for	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#40
The university is a government?	Major Hogwash	Mar 2015	#53
It's a STATE university. As such, it is what in law is	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#65
the 14th amendment also applies, meaning that the university needs to ensure	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#76
Interesting but hypothetical. The students didn't create an atmosphere	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#78
So you think it's unconstitutional to forbid students from engaging in race-based	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#80
No. But that's not what occurred here. You can't stretch	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#81
No, there was illegal discrimination however. nt	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#85
By the students who were expelled? Really?	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#90
" you can hang him from a tree, but he'll never sign with me"	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#94
Now you're just making stuff up. These students are not 'stating that they had	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#188
You are being willfully blind to what they said.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#190
I'm a lawyer with more than 25 years in practice. What I	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#192
You are claiming racist frat boys chanting this little ditty:	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#194
It's not 'evidence' of anything. And yes, lots of them.	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#195
Like you have black friends I'm sure.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#197
Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed to tell me just	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#201
The two students who stated their intent to discriminate against blacks by singing	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#204
Now you have convinced me.	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#206
Toodles. And by the way yes plaintiffs' lawyers	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#208
Bullshit. nt	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#210
So what do you think about laws against hate speech?	ismnotwasm	Mar 2015	#179
In general terms I'm opposed to them. 'Hate speech' is a	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#184
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
In addition, full enjoyment of the benefits of the system	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#79
Incorrect. The fraternity is university-sanctioned student group and is part of the	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#82
It's not the fraternity that's being charged with anything.	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#92
there is a RIGHT to not be discriminated against.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#95
You are doing your damndest to be outraged and, as such	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#186
Zzzzxx. The song referred explicitly	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#193
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#110
not every illegal act is punishable by a criminal sentence.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#111
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#114
The university punished those engaged	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#118
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#124
Sure they can	cyberswede	Mar 2015	#130
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
Yep	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#232
WHAT?!?!!11	cyberswede	Mar 2015	#136
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#156
Yes, they do. Welcome to DU.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#131
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#159
No, just that it is an appropriate one nt	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#160
An officially recognized student group singing songs abour racially lynching other students	cheapdate	Mar 2015	#177
To answer your question, in my legal opinion	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#185
I think "You can hang 'em from a tree" crossed a line.	cheapdate	Mar 2015	#207
What line, legally speaking? It's your opinion that	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#209
The "line" between protected speech and a threat of violence.	cheapdate	Mar 2015	#211
For a threat to be actionable it must be clear and inciting	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#213
Free speech limits cases are rarely clear or simple.	cheapdate	Mar 2015	#215
It's not muddled, it's nuanced.	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#222
What makes you certain they weren't serious?	cheapdate	Mar 2015	#235
What makes you certain that they were?	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#248
FWIW I agree with you	Saboburns	Mar 2015	#216
It always depends on whose ox is being gored.	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#223
As an aside, shouldn't there at least have been a hearing before they were expelled??	Saboburns	Mar 2015	#230
They had a right to appeal the decision before it went into effect.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#237
er, um	Saboburns	Mar 2015	#238
They were given a right to a swift hearing, accompanied by counsel if they wished.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#239
Good	Saboburns	Mar 2015	#240
I agree that they should have had some type of a	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#249
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#107
Of course I read the article, the entire article..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#163
But they were punished by being expelled,	GGJohn	Mar 2015	#48
Exactly, and I want the racist slime buckets right out in the open	Warpy	Mar 2015	#46
I generally agree, but I don't want to avoid them,	GGJohn	Mar 2015	#49
Couldn't agree more.	hifiguy	Mar 2015	#175
If we wont protect racist speech, why bother protecting speech at all. Nobody is worried	NoJusticeNoPeace	Mar 2015	#227
OMG!!!!!	GGJohn	Mar 2015	#241
This is an easy one...When I say protect speech, it doesnt mean there arent	NoJusticeNoPeace	Mar 2015	#277
I also defend the use of codes of conduct. n/t	Adrahil	Mar 2015	#269
Context is everything.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#2
Yes. And the song said that the SAE fraternity would not accept African-Ameircans who wished	JDPriestly	Mar 2015	#43
Bingo! nt	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#51
We should not make criminals out of people making extemely offensive statements or thoughts.	tritsofme	Mar 2015	#3
They are not criminals	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#28
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#161
I don't think that's exactly what geek is saying..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#164
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#165
it is illegal for fraternities on college campuses to discriminate on the basis of race.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#168
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#172
Speech that incites to violence is illegal	dissentient	Mar 2015	#6
Agreed. They would be considered "fighting words",	Nye Bevan	Mar 2015	#14
Were they broadcasting those words for public consumption or was there an expectation of privacy?	Throd	Mar 2015	#16
I was addressing the hypothetical situation in the post.	Nye Bevan	Mar 2015	#18
It doesn't matter..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#30
A public (state-ran) university can not have a policy in opposition to the first amendment.	X_Digger	Mar 2015	#244
So who decides what is free speech and what is not?	Agnosticsherbet	Mar 2015	#7
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#105
Some judges are appointed by politicians.	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#108
Don Siegelman doesn't. nt	valerief	Mar 2015	#139
Your honor, I rest my case.	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#143
The OP dicused limiting free speach for racists becasue wha they said is unacceptable.	Agnosticsherbet	Mar 2015	#212
This article is racist and should be banned!	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#8
If this article truly was racist	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#54
The point of my post	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#55
Still not sure of your position here.	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#88
You're confused about what 'free speech' is. The protection of	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#202
Which also makes it subject to the Fourteenth Amendment	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#218
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. It's not a violation of equal protection	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#220
The equal protection clause	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#258
If these boys had been hauled off to jail	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#93
"those boys" huh?	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#98
Huh?	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#104
This brings up a point about the media	sadoldgirl	Mar 2015	#9
Factually incorrect	Telcontar	Mar 2015	#11
If I am wrong I apologize,but	sadoldgirl	Mar 2015	#22
Then someone could claim Thom Hartman lied. See how the slope gets slippery?	onenote	Mar 2015	#23
Here is a detailed explanation	Telcontar	Mar 2015	#25
I disagree. The racist frat boys are but the low hanging fruit on curbing free speech.	Throd	Mar 2015	#10
A slap on the wrist, OK, but expulsion is PC gone mad.	Yorktown	Mar 2015	#13
Agreed, especially since the university did not expel a student who punched a girl so hard	Nye Bevan	Mar 2015	#17
Didn't know that. Agreed. Total loss of proportions.	Yorktown	Mar 2015	#20
That was completely different and you know it!	Dr. Strange	Mar 2015	#21
Expulsion is the choice of the president of the university	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#31
The President of the University is still subject to the First Amendment	onenote	Mar 2015	#57
The song stated that there would never be an African-American in SAE.	JDPriestly	Mar 2015	#44
normally one goes through a degree of due process before penalizing someone	onenote	Mar 2015	#58
They didn't violate a law, they were never arrested	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#103
I was responding to the post above mine	onenote	Mar 2015	#151
Sorry if I offended you.	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#157
Nope. Because the frat boys did not make policy.	Yorktown	Mar 2015	#313
No, it's well-deserved.	alarimer	Mar 2015	#61
The students should not have been expelled.	Jenoch	Mar 2015	#24
I disagree.	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#32
Why?	Jenoch	Mar 2015	#36
I apologize.	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#45
I don't know what rules they broke,	Jenoch	Mar 2015	#47
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
That's not really an answer, now is it?	X_Digger	Mar 2015	#255
There was an ongoing conspiracy to violate civil rights laws by	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#256
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
Butbutbut.. conspuracy, dagnabbit!	X_Digger	Mar 2015	#262
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
You jumped in and freaked out because people	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#268
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
No, your whining that people objected to racism from a past thread.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#271
So you can't support the premise upthread so you a) start another thread looking for backup..	X_Digger	Mar 2015	#272
My point is that Jim Crow needs to be stamped out, and that anyone	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#273
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
Can't seem to nail down a theory, can you?	X_Digger	Mar 2015	#278
all of the above.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#279
The words come out of my mouth just fine, thanks. They don't need your help.	X_Digger	Mar 2015	#282
No. Wait, not just no, but fuck no.	X_Digger	Mar 2015	#26
There were no criminal charges..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#33
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
you can ask the Jews of Europe how free speech is working for them.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#60
The French authorities have arrested Bridget Bardot numerous times for	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#63
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
Care to answer the question?	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#158
Why did you truncate the spelling of the word "nigger"?	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#162
I truncated the spelling out of consideration for others	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#217
Systems don't make people free, they just shift around who is being held down and	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#221
And yet after all this discussion you still haven't answered the question.	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#263
wait. You admit the system is broke and corrupt and inherently biased but	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#283
What the fuck is "comfering more power"	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#305
comferring = conferring ... a.k.a. a typo. Seems rather obvious, really.	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#306
I didn't notice the typo,	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#307
"I am truly glad you can see yourself endorsing civil rights law. You really had me wondering."	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#308
What you said is perfect	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#261
You're entirely welcome.	thucythucy	Mar 2015	#264
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#167
Didn't the US just assassinate (by drone) someone for hate speech against the US?	delrem	Mar 2015	#41
No. They killed him because he was	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#52
How did he participate? Yes: through speech.	delrem	Mar 2015	#62
just like mafia bosses order hits on rivals and witnesses "through speech" nt	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#66
Not that I'm aware of.	delrem	Mar 2015	#68
here is just one example	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#70
OK. very slim evidence, with no conviction or substantiation, but OK.	delrem	Mar 2015	#83
It's outside the US and part of a war	treestar	Mar 2015	#102
I'm sure!	delrem	Mar 2015	#135
The Constitution doesn't apply to non-US persons.	jeff47	Mar 2015	#115
Absolutely! Hellfire missiles apply!	delrem	Mar 2015	#123
Yes, they do. But pretending that is not the case doesn't help. (nt)	jeff47	Mar 2015	#132
Who's pretending that's not the case? Not me.	delrem	Mar 2015	#140
So you're gonna delete your post then?	jeff47	Mar 2015	#147
You might want to read post #83, Jeff.	delrem	Mar 2015	#214
Sadly true!	JDPriestly	Mar 2015	#42
why cannot people understand	DonCoquixote	Mar 2015	#50
Lots of things are privileges, not rights	onenote	Mar 2015	#56
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
No. The real issue here is whether the government can	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#67
do you think the KKK should be able to start a whites-only	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#71
Not a First Amendment issue. There is no constitutional	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#72
there's no constitutional right to a college education either nt	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#73
That's true. But that's also not what is at issue	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#75
they were punished for creating a hostile environment, which would include their	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#77
Really? What 'hostile environment' did they create????	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#84
um, racial discrimination? nt	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#86
Hostile environment is a specific, legally defined term.	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#89
so you are saying that discrimination and hostile environment are	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#91
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#170
no, discrimination as in refusing to admit black students into the fraternity nt	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#171
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#174
You do realize, don't you, that the fraternity has black members?	hack89	Mar 2015	#196
Last one pledged 14 years ago.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#198
For that particular chapter.	hack89	Mar 2015	#199
this particular chapter. I make no claims about the national body.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#200
"Where you cannot name a specific person discriminated	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#178
No, I'm saying hostile environment is one sub-set	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#189
I view the video as hostile	Yonx	Mar 2015	#311
This message was self-deleted by its author	Yonx	Mar 2015	#310
This article claims that Westboro picketed 'military funerals'? How precious is straight privilege?	Bluenorthwest	Mar 2015	#87
The Westboro Church picketing is different..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#96
"the network had every right to suspend him as an offending employee"	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#106
Bullshit and more bullshit.	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#109
"You somehow always find a way to argue that racists and bigots rights trump everyone else's."	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#116
you just argued that A&E should have no first amendment right to avoid	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#122
You're arguing your employer can fire you for posting on DU.	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#126
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
Which is why laws were made to protect those trying to form unions..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#113
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
I think the issue is laws vs policy..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#146
So you have no idea what employment law is?	jeff47	Mar 2015	#127
You wrote --	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#142
Nope, but denying reality is a very dumb tactic. (nt)	jeff47	Mar 2015	#145
I don't see how I can be accused of denying reality when I wrote	Nuclear Unicorn	Mar 2015	#149
And if that was what I replied to, it might have been relevant.	jeff47	Mar 2015	#153
"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
The students' right to appeal was spelled out in President Boren's letter...	Spazito	Mar 2015	#112
and there you go. They have the right to appeal.	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#117
Yep, due process was afforded them...	Spazito	Mar 2015	#121
Yep, they will slink away	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#128
Slink away, yes, learn a lesson in life and reality, I doubt it...	Spazito	Mar 2015	#138
You're probably correct..	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#150
Convicting someone of a violation and then telling	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#250
Why are you so much more upset about this than the Ferguson PD's oppression of	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#253
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#257
It wasn't a "conviction", it was a decision made by the President of OSU...	Spazito	Mar 2015	#275
Do you have any idea of what "Due Process" means?	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#280
I do...	Spazito	Mar 2015	#281
But... "kids will be kids" Spazito! And if that means that they create a hostile environment for	Number23	Mar 2015	#300
Yep, some of the posts in this thread are...	Spazito	Mar 2015	#301
Bad cases make bad law	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2015	#137
the actual adage is "Hard cases make bad law"	onenote	Mar 2015	#234
With appeals those clowns might be twenty five years old when it works its way through the courts.	DemocratSinceBirth	Mar 2015	#236
You'd think the offenders would want to keep their heads down and	tblue37	Mar 2015	#144
Which is why the punishment was so appropriate.	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#152
Be careful what you wish for . . .	YarnAddict	Mar 2015	#148
Yes, we do have to be careful, I agree.	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#154
State universities are state actors	Kurska	Mar 2015	#166
They have a right to enforce rules and regulations	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#169
They do not have a right to impose free speech restrictions.	Kurska	Mar 2015	#173
Students and faculty at state universities are barred	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#181
You have to prove intent to harass, intimidate or menace.	Kurska	Mar 2015	#182
In this case, no. But this case	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#183
DING DING DING! We have a winner.	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#203
So universities should be allowed to limit unpatriotic, anti-war speech, for example? (nt)	Nye Bevan	Mar 2015	#180
I'm sure you mean unpatriotic AND anti war speech	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#187
So could a public university specify "no anti-war activity or speech" in its "code of conduct"	Nye Bevan	Mar 2015	#191
Unfortunately, if it were a private university it probably could.	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#205
Yes I think so too	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#229
Theoretically yes, I guess they could	mountain grammy	Mar 2015	#228
Could a public university have a policy saying that "anyone who uses the Lord's name in a profane or	onenote	Mar 2015	#219
it's not fairly subjective, it's totally subjective.	Warren DeMontague	Mar 2015	#225
+1,000,000 n/t	X_Digger	Mar 2015	#246
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
I'm probably closer to that situation than you are.	Warren DeMontague	Mar 2015	#288
If you want the real answer, look at the immigrant populations	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#289
Yet Again, it has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.	Warren DeMontague	Mar 2015	#290
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
i agreed with the platitudes, and the frustration. nt	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#293
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
Kent Greenfield is a "he", isn't he?	Warren DeMontague	Mar 2015	#296
derp, for some reason when mountain grammy posted it I got my wires crossed and assumed	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#298
Thats a wtf for sure.	Warren DeMontague	Mar 2015	#309
hostile environment rules are a restriction on conduct	onenote	Mar 2015	#297
the chant by itself at that moment didn't create a hostile environment, but it revealed practices	geek tragedy	Mar 2015	#299
if we're discussing the two students	onenote	Mar 2015	#302
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
No doubt.	onenote	Mar 2015	#304
Not very well thought out.	phil89	Mar 2015	#231
No such thing as free speech	The Rob Black Show	Mar 2015	#233
I believe whites who supported blacks were also lynched...	graegoyle	Mar 2015	#247
Are you seriously trying to argue that singing that song	COLGATE4	Mar 2015	#251
Message auto-removed	Name removed	Mar 2015	#266
There were violations here	Yonx	Mar 2015	#312

Response to mountain grammy (Original post)

Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:15 PM

GGJohn (9,951 posts)

1. Sorry, but I disagree, racist speech is free speech, however offensive it is.

I may not like the speech, but I defend the right to say it.

The Limits of Free Speech

1. Sorry, but I disagree, racist speech is free speech, however offensive it is.

4. The remedy for offensive speech if more speech. nt

5. Absolutely correct. eom.

100. +1. Jefferson was right when he first said it.

176. It was actually Justice Louis Brandeis

12. Correct

15. Same here.

19. Yes. n/t

27. They are not arrested

29. The government (acting here as a State University) should not have the

35. Universities have plenty of power over their students.

38. You can't have a rule that violates the First Amendment

39. The rules don't violate the first amendment..

40. Of course they do. The government cannot punish a person for

53. The university is a government?

65. It's a STATE university. As such, it is what in law is

76. the 14th amendment also applies, meaning that the university needs to ensure

78. Interesting but hypothetical. The students didn't create an atmosphere

80. So you think it's unconstitutional to forbid students from engaging in race-based

81. No. But that's not what occurred here. You can't stretch

85. No, there was illegal discrimination however. nt

90. By the students who were expelled? Really?

94. " you can hang him from a tree, but he'll never sign with me"

188. Now you're just making stuff up. These students are not 'stating that they had

190. You are being willfully blind to what they said.

192. I'm a lawyer with more than 25 years in practice. What I

194. You are claiming racist frat boys chanting this little ditty:

195. It's not 'evidence' of anything. And yes, lots of them.

197. Like you have black friends I'm sure.

201. Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed to tell me just

204. The two students who stated their intent to discriminate against blacks by singing

206. Now you have convinced me.

208. Toodles. And by the way yes plaintiffs' lawyers

210. Bullshit. nt

179. So what do you think about laws against hate speech?

184. In general terms I'm opposed to them. 'Hate speech' is a

226. In the United States they would be fundamentally unconstitutional, because among other things,

243. Fuck.such.laws. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not authoritarian censorship.

79. In addition, full enjoyment of the benefits of the system

82. Incorrect. The fraternity is university-sanctioned student group and is part of the

92. It's not the fraternity that's being charged with anything.

95. there is a RIGHT to not be discriminated against.

186. You are doing your damndest to be outraged and, as such

193. Zzzzxx. The song referred explicitly

111. not every illegal act is punishable by a criminal sentence.

118. The university punished those engaged

130. Sure they can

133. Good lord. Next thing you'll be saying DU can punish posters by banning them for not following its

134. as long as racist white guys continue to feel sorry for themselves because

232. Yep

136. WHAT?!?!!11

131. Yes, they do. Welcome to DU.

160. No, just that it is an appropriate one nt

177. An officially recognized student group singing songs abour racially lynching other students

185. To answer your question, in my legal opinion

207. I think "You can hang 'em from a tree" crossed a line.

209. What line, legally speaking? It's your opinion that

211. The "line" between protected speech and a threat of violence.

213. For a threat to be actionable it must be clear and inciting

215. Free speech limits cases are rarely clear or simple.

222. It's not muddled, it's nuanced.

235. What makes you certain they weren't serious?

248. What makes you certain that they were?

216. FWIW I agree with you

223. It always depends on whose ox is being gored.

230. As an aside, shouldn't there at least have been a hearing before they were expelled??

237. They had a right to appeal the decision before it went into effect.

238. er, um

239. They were given a right to a swift hearing, accompanied by counsel if they wished.

240. Good

249. I agree that they should have had some type of a

163. Of course I read the article, the entire article..

48. But they were punished by being expelled,

46. Exactly, and I want the racist slime buckets right out in the open

49. I generally agree, but I don't want to avoid them,

175. Couldn't agree more.

227. If we wont protect racist speech, why bother protecting speech at all. Nobody is worried

241. OMG!!!!!

277. This is an easy one...When I say protect speech, it doesnt mean there arent

274. They need to do so within the law not outside it. The ends don't justify the means.