University of Oklahoma expulsions may be speech infringement, experts say

The military is just as much subject to government funding. In both cases, we have an organization whose members volunteer to follow a set Code of Conduct and knowingly agree to consequences if that code is not followed.

Why is the Right trying to enable these students' lack of personal responsibility?

- - - Updated - - -

They are governed by their university's rules, so yes they are. You might not think of them that way, but they are.

- - - Updated - - -

You really do.

Secular humanism has nothing to do with anything you brought up.

 

Then you clearly have no idea what secular humanism means.

 

Yes there are both funded by the government but I believe you're made aware of and sign away some of your civil rights when you join the military.

The Constitution of the United States!

Boy Scout are governed by their own set of rules but that does not give the BOA they right to infringe on it's members civil rights, and there are civil lawsuits to prove thayt.

 

Has nothing to do with their rights to speak.

ONE MORE TIME FOR THE SLOW LEARNERS:
Freedom of Speech does not mean one is Free from Consequences.

So go ahead shoot off you big mouth, that is your right, just do not whine like a little girl when someone closes down your Frat House or fires you from your job, that is their right, you made your choice now live with the results.

 

The problem is the left haters aren't held to the same standard, therefore mentions of free speech restrictions and code of conduct and such are utterly ridiculous. The left haters spew much more vile and offensive crap, and they're TENURED at these same universities. If the dude waving the ISIS flag doesn't illustrate the point, there's no getting through to you. You're too blinded by ideology and bent on winning instead of bent on justice.

 

Yes it is a copy paste of actual court decisions clarifying that not "ALL" speech is protected and why it shouldn't be. IMO if speech causes a problem, say some idiot yells fire in a theater where no fire is, and people are trampled, they should be charged with the results of their own stupidity. Making it a law, will not stop someone who is irresponsibly moronic from doing something like that, but when their irresponsibility causes property damage or death, they should be held accountable for their actions.

Just read this part it is my own words;

If the campus is considered a private entity, they set their own rules, and students are made fully aware of the conduct that is acceptable, and agree to set that example upon gaining admittance. When my son went to college they were informed on their first introduction to campus that racial intolerance or discrimination of any type would not be tolerated. They listed words that were unacceptable in everyday life on campus (obviously part of a lesson plan approved by the school were exempt) and even the word redneck was considered to be discriminatory and unacceptable.

I guess they can fight it but they will never be able to say they didn't know what they were saying would not be tolerated by school rules/regulations.

 

the issue isn't freedom from consequences.... this is a public university. If the Black panther party had a speech on a public university hating whites.... they can't be expelled.

 

Really, you may want to rethink this one my friend.



"Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society".https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

 

Humanism calls for the advancement and improvement of all mankind, especially in regards to rights and freedom. Secular Humanism is the same thing except it's not based on religion.

 

Boy Scouts are a private group.

And these students voluntarily signed away some of their rights when they agreed to follow the school's Code of Conduct. They didn't have to go to the school.

 

My dictionary says - humanism, with regard in particular to the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God. You're right. It's not based in religion. It's based in atheism. Thanks.

 

Please admit to the double standard or just say it doesn't exist. No one is interested in debating free speech restrictions and codes of conduct. Those are obviously diversionary tactics to the real issue of hypocrisy on the left and the injustice of politically correct driven policies and decisions.

 

And more the reason it would be harder to find them guilty of violating members civil rights.

Not at all Questerr, you can't give up your civil rights unless you are made aware that you are.

Hey, like you, I don't agree with what those idiots said, but I also don't agree with students or activists burning the American flag either, however, that is considered speech and also is protected by the 1st amendment.

 

The university can kick you out if you make them look bad. End of story.

 

Yup. And a moral position based on logic and evidence is inherently superior to one based on nothing more than "this book says so".

 

Every school Code of Conduct I have ever read lists potential disciplinary actions for violating it.

These students agreed to the consequences for their actions.

 

If a double standard exists it is at the foot of the people who run the colleges/universities. It is their interpretation of the rules and their own bias that supersedes the rules/guidelines they are supposed to follow and uphold.

This example is obviously not appropriate, give me an example that compares from the opposite end of the spectrum and I will agree or disagree with it but I will not be a part of generalizing political insanity. And when you find something you find equally appalling answer this, in your opinion should students be chanting the equivalent of "...hang a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) from a tree..." on campus or at a school function?

 

Questerr, you can argue all you want, but the fact remains that a government funded school cannot infringe on students civil rights.

I understand you don't like it but, it's in the Constitution, even the ACLU agrees!

 

Stop trying to change to focus of the issue on to something else, the issue is can member of a Frat make racist comments without consequences. Now if you want to start a thread that deals with the other issues then go for it.
Let me ask you simple question, sticking to the topic, do you believe the University has the right to ban the Fraternity for breaking the rules or not and why? No excuses that someone else somewhere else did something just as awful, just answer the question asked.

 

No, it's not about stretching 1A. Conservatives tend to believe that "consequences of one's actions" only apply to those who are not conservative.

Rights are inalienable and cannot be taken or given. One agrees to a certain code of conduct when joining the military. I believe that if one violates that code of conduct, the consequence is a dishonorable discharge.

Civil lawsuits that they typically win, such as the one banning homosexuals, because they are a private organization.

Just because someone is being a hypocrite, it does not mean they are wrong.

 

Because it's not the military. It's a stupid fraternity. Some kids got drunk and said some racist stuff. Who gives a crap. This is mild compared to what goes on in an infantry unit. Everyone insults the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of everyone else's race, religion, mothers and sisters, etc etc, and everyone gets along great at the end of the day. Everyone takes this (*)(*)(*)(*) and themselves too damned seriously. I should be able to insult the hell out of whoever I want and expect the same to be thrown right back at me. None of it should be sensored by anybody. This society needs to grow some thicker skin and quit being a bunch of babies and victims. There, rant complete.

 

As a republican, I can't find anything wrong with the chant to begin with.

 

I seriously doubt any of those effected by the expulsion will be using that defense. Some things are just beyond defensability.

- - - Updated - - -

You are as much of a republican as David Duke. Get real.

 

Not surprising at all forum Cons are dashing to the defense of these racist scum. Birds of a feather...

Remember though... their opposition to Obama is purely based on policy.

 

You may be right about the military, no argument from me, but we're talking about government funded schools and their infringement on students civil rights. Apples and oranges.

Actually, government funded entities are more adherent to constitutional civil rights.

The 1st amendment was written to protect US citizens from government encroaching on their civil rights.

So if you are saying the university is correct in their punishment, I believe you are on the wrong side of the argument.