General Discussion

onenote

(46,217 posts)

117. And I'm simply pointing out

Mon Mar 16, 2015, 12:54 PM

Mar 2015

that the issue of whether speech that offends -- not just petty speech -- but speech that strikes a deep chord -- is protected by the Constitution is a settled matter. Now that doesn't mean that judges don't get to decide cases, but you need to recognize that there isn't anything particularly special going on here -- certainly no more so than the offensiveness of Westboro Baptist Church. The right arguably infringed here is the right of the students to engage in offensive speech. There is no "conflicting" right of individuals to be shielded from offensive speech (except in very narrow circumstances which under the current state of the law do not apply here).

I suppose in a way we're in agreement -- if these students had decided to sue (and they appear to have forfeited that right by withdrawing from the university and foregoing their procedural due process rights which would appear to be a prerequisite to any legal action on their part), we agree that bringing such a suit would not be inappropriate and would not be a frivolous action on their part given the current state of the law.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

144 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Philly buses ordered to accept ads featuring Hitler & 1941 Palestinian leader [View all] ND-Dem Mar 2015 OP

appalling that they're forced to carry hate messages. cali Mar 2015 #1

The First Amendment certainly protects some very distasteful speech (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #2

DC Metro got slapped down when it tried to bar pro-marijuana reform ads. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2015 #4

Someone should put up one with Bibi and Bush. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #3

Could we mix in some porno with that? daredtowork Mar 2015 #34

Perhaps Bush painting a nude Bibi. JaneyVee Mar 2015 #60

That should hit the limits of free speech somehow daredtowork Mar 2015 #5

You're certainly welcome to place ads that refer to Jew-hating in the New Testament, Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #6

I Have No Problem RobinA Mar 2015 #109

How is this in anyway comparable to those examples? NuclearDem Mar 2015 #10

I think its closest to the "fire" one daredtowork Mar 2015 #20

Actually, I think you're vastly misinformed about the 1st Amendment, and you're also dragging out a Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #35

I get your drift - and you are saying this is "KKK giving march down mainstreet" daredtowork Mar 2015 #41

Again, I don't think you really understand the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #52

I remember when the KKK wanted to march in Skokie & the ACLU argued for them. Demit Mar 2015 #57

roving american mobs? snooper2 Mar 2015 #119

yep, happened after 9/11 daredtowork Mar 2015 #120

more like putting up a photo of catholics with hitler + some ND-Dem Mar 2015 #29

I'm wondering how much effort leftynyc Mar 2015 #106

you haven't seen the anti-catholic threads here? ND-Dem Mar 2015 #128

You're making my point leftynyc Mar 2015 #140

i disagree with both points. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #141

Let me know when you've leftynyc Mar 2015 #142

I didn't realize that the criteria of 'truth' was 'longevity at DU'. But no problem, now I know. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #143

It is actually pretty close to hanging a noose. nt redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #102

Progressive icons like William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan onenote Mar 2015 #32

I think it's more difficult than that to determine the limits of free speech daredtowork Mar 2015 #33

you have the 1st Amendment right to 'deliberate' about it all you want. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #36

You STILL can't scream fire in a crowded theater daredtowork Mar 2015 #39

Saying something offensive - even REALLY offensive - is not screaming fire in a crowded theater Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #53

You must have stopped following the First Amendment sometime in the 1920s I guess onenote Mar 2015 #58

My view is not that narrow - I'm outraged over how easy it is for corps to get away with SLAPP cases daredtowork Mar 2015 #61

Basically it's shorthand for "any speech I dont like" Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #69

As I said, I leave it up to a Judge daredtowork Mar 2015 #70

I think if you're actually interested in the subject, you might consider actually reading some of Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #73

One of my favorite books is the ALA's Freedom of Information Manual daredtowork Mar 2015 #77

Again, it's not a reading list. It's SCOTUS decisions specifically pertaining to "incitement". Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #78

I do think it COULD be incitement daredtowork Mar 2015 #81

There's no privacy being violated when someone says "all frimhatzes are big stinky warbnozzles" Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #83

The privacy law doesn't have to be the specific "other law" in this case. nt daredtowork Mar 2015 #86

so every time someone says the word shit should it be left to a judge onenote Mar 2015 #107

Nope, where did I say that? nt daredtowork Mar 2015 #111

You seem to think that decided questions of law should still be brought for a judge every time. onenote Mar 2015 #112

For heaven's sake daredtowork Mar 2015 #114

And I'm simply pointing out onenote Mar 2015 #117

Westboro Baptist is a great comparison daredtowork Mar 2015 #118

No shit. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #37

Well people on both sides of the aisle take turns squealing about free speech daredtowork Mar 2015 #40

What other rights? Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #54

If your speech directly endangers my life and limb, then that's a limit. daredtowork Mar 2015 #62

Brandenburg v. Ohio onenote Mar 2015 #64

What I think hardly matters daredtowork Mar 2015 #71

If you read those decisions, they were written by judges. On the supreme court. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #75

You're the one not listening daredtowork Mar 2015 #90

Okay, then, serious answer? Talk to a lawyer. Or talk to several lawyers. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #91

I take it seriously, too daredtowork Mar 2015 #104

Brandenburg v. Ohio. Also Street v. New York (1969) Cohen v. California (71) Gooding v. Wilson (74) Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #68

I'm not a lawyer daredtowork Mar 2015 #72

Wow, you've really got the keywords down, huh. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #74

Coached by who? daredtowork Mar 2015 #80

A noose in the workplace could be a direct threat of bodily harm, for one. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #82

Yes, I wasn't sure arrests were involved once I thought about it daredtowork Mar 2015 #85

I think the answer is, pretty clearly, only a direct threat constitutes an actual direct threat. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #92

The swastika isn't a weapon daredtowork Mar 2015 #94

A picture of a noose isn't a weapon, either. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #96

Not to knock all your examples daredtowork Mar 2015 #97

Well we're gonna have to disagree. But I suggest you take it up with experts in the law. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #99

It's not disagreement daredtowork Mar 2015 #103

There is no chance this Supreme Court is going to expand what constitutes incitement onenote Mar 2015 #108

Burning the Quran is a one time act daredtowork Mar 2015 #113

i doubt it. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #48

We should ask them directly Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #55

The same level of Jew hating is found in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," for KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #76

Is that the legal standard we are going for now? Oktober Mar 2015 #87

And it sounds suspiciously like you've been reading my other comments daredtowork Mar 2015 #88

So... Two things... Oktober Mar 2015 #89

It's even scarier that guys like you are constantly projecting on to everyone else daredtowork Mar 2015 #93

Lots of words... Oktober Mar 2015 #98

And you go on and on with it daredtowork Mar 2015 #100

Atheist ads are still out, though. Right? Iggo Mar 2015 #7

Wrong. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #9

is 'human events' now an accepted reference at DU? figures. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #12

I'm not familiar with that site, just picked it at random from the Google results. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #14

i tried googling for the article and photo using various search terms but couldn't ND-Dem Mar 2015 #16

When I google the phrase atheist ads "dc metro" it's the 6th result (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #17

interesting. I don't get any 'human events' results on the front page (haven't looked at ND-Dem Mar 2015 #18

Here you go... Princess Turandot Mar 2015 #43

i don't think you got the point ND-Dem Mar 2015 #50

I googled it and it the showed as 4th article down. Inkfreak Mar 2015 #59

Didn't show up 4th, or 6th, or even on the front page when I googled it. And it's ND-Dem Mar 2015 #129

Member since January 2015... Inkfreak Mar 2015 #138

Is that a Philly bus, from this year? Or a D.C. bus, from 2009? Iggo Mar 2015 #15

Well, I suppose someone could always do a "Jews killed our savior" bus ad. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2015 #8

If 'inflammatory' is the standard, then the ad should not go up. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #38

The worst part about this story is the ad is true. Archae Mar 2015 #11

and officials of various faith groups, ethnicities, and nationalities cooperated with the ND-Dem Mar 2015 #13

Yes, they did. Archae Mar 2015 #19

Is that 'hatred' in the Koran? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #26

It's hatred period. Archae Mar 2015 #30

in the torah too; they're all 3 variations on the same texts and they all share the ND-Dem Mar 2015 #51

The Koran itself JonLP24 Mar 2015 #42

So he was, but so, sadly, were lots of leaders of that time LeftishBrit Mar 2015 #45

The point of the ad is to incite anti-Muslim feeling, period. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #130

Exactly LeftishBrit Mar 2015 #131

I'd like to see some group try getting hate ads for other groups on. It would be ND-Dem Mar 2015 #133

Actually, UKIP do try it regularly with 'immigrants' LeftishBrit Mar 2015 #134

the point of this ad is similar to those who bring up USS Liberty JI7 Mar 2015 #46

The only point I can see to these ads is to claim that Islam = hatred of Jews. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #49

Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #21

What's wrong with the judge's name? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #22

�obviously Jewish... PCIntern Mar 2015 #23

Mitchell Goldberg Dr. Strange Mar 2015 #24

This message was self-deleted by its author NuclearDem Mar 2015 #25

Blatant display of anti-Semitism only hidden by one vote. Pretty pathetic. tritsofme Mar 2015 #135

Please explain how your reference to the judge's last name isn't an geek tragedy Mar 2015 #27

Jewish judges should be restricted on what they can rule on? former9thward Mar 2015 #28

Great hide. Thanks jury! (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #31

Wow. So the buses can be ORDERED to accept blatant hate-messages? LeftishBrit Mar 2015 #44

thanks for that. geller sounds like a peach. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #47

Yeah, I figured it was Geller - or someone like her War Horse Mar 2015 #56

City busses should stay clear of politics or anything controversial Reter Mar 2015 #63

So we should do away with all public fora an only allow speech on private property? onenote Mar 2015 #65

Maybe they should display this photo next to it. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #66

+100. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #67

Squaring the circle: Israel is operating its own system of apartheid in KingCharlemagne Mar 2015 #84

That's pretty dumb MFrohike Mar 2015 #79

I look forward to seeing the ads featuring hitler and shamir. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #95

Both of his parents and two of his sisters were killed in the Holocaust. tritsofme Mar 2015 #136

Maybe; but apparently Lehi was looking to ally with the fascists ND-Dem Mar 2015 #137

I don't see how the 1st Ammendment necessary implies that people need to be provided with a platform redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #101

The status of advertising on publicly owned buses under the public forum doctrine is contentious onenote Mar 2015 #115

Interesting. I was thinking it was more complicated than "this is free speech". redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #122

I'll answer the only part that is easy to answer onenote Mar 2015 #123

Thanks. redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #124

Whether its the OU incident, the Logan Act, charging Ernst with an Article 88 violation onenote Mar 2015 #125

Here's another one: redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #127

I can't imagine any claim for damages onenote Mar 2015 #132

well, that is one way to put an open target hopemountain Mar 2015 #105

That argument is called "heckler's veto" and it's generally been rejected. Jim Lane Mar 2015 #110

thank you for sharing this argument hopemountain Mar 2015 #139

The judge's reasoning is that the government can't play favorites Jim Lane Mar 2015 #144

We found an elegant solution when those popped up in SF KamaAina Mar 2015 #116

I can see this being "discrimination at the work place" against Muslim bus drivers and therefore redgreenandblue Mar 2015 #121

PHILLY AREA: VERIZON's new "ONE AMERICA" TV channel RJMacReady Mar 2015 #126