Well hello there SAE

[8manpick]

Fine, enjoy fascism

[8manpick]

The idea that the first amendment only protects the entitled classes is asinine also. The only reason that the proletariat are allowed to protest the wrongs  of the bourgeoisie is the first amendment, picking and choosing when to abide but it is a bullshit copout

[MakeItRain]

So we're still doing that thing where we're treating some universities like they're in the executive branch of the government and others like they operate Paul's Mower Service? Pretty convenient way to punt on fixing the problem.

[8manpick]

It's absolutely not the universities problem, it's a societal problem

[michigancat]

https://www.hrhub.com/doc/workplace-racial-slurs-are-not-protected-as-f-0003

^this seems somewhat relevant

[star seed 7]

So we're still doing that thing where we're treating some universities like they're in the executive branch of the government and others like they operate Paul's Mower Service? Pretty convenient way to punt on fixing the problem.

well there is one pretty big difference between mcc and k-state that you seem to be ignoring

[MakeItRain]

So we're still doing that thing where we're treating some universities like they're in the executive branch of the government and others like they operate Paul's Mower Service? Pretty convenient way to punt on fixing the problem.

well there is one pretty big difference between mcc and k-state that you seem to be ignoring

What's that?

[SkinnyBenny]

I have seen one Zack Morris is trash video and it was great. Will watch more. Personally, this is my favorite SBTB video alive:

[DQ12]

Feel free to be a 1st amendment extremist if you'd like...

My position is actually not extreme at all.  I'm not advocating for any change or extension of the already established rules.  I'm saying that it's a bad idea for universities to violate those rules.  You're the 1st amendment extremist here.  You're the one saying that the 1st amendment protects too much speech and needs to be curtailed. 

You don't think public schools should be seen as government entities.  That's a fine idea to have, but here's the deal: the rules say that they are.  The rules say that students can wear black armbands to school in protest of the vietnam war, and they can call police "motherfuckers" on campus, and they can have and share any number of other controversial opinions.  If they did these things at MCC, then the students could get expelled.  But at K-State and Alabama and MHS and every other public school in the country, students have speech rights, and those speech rights include speech that you and i find reprehensible.  Those are the rules.

Viewing the university punishing this girl the same as state sponsored censorship is amazingly nearsighted and narrow.

That's exactly what happened here though.  The university didn't like what the girl said on her snapchat so they expelled her.  Your position would also permit schools to expel students for attending a BLM march.  Obviously you and I agree that attending a BLM march is "better" than dropping racist remarks on a snapchat, but 60 years ago, a significant portion of society would've come out the other way. 

Allowing schools to pick and choose which viewpoints their students are allowed to have is dangerous.  Saying "ok don't make controversial/disruptive racist remarks or you're expelled" opens the doors to public schools expelling students for any other disruptive viewpoints that may have actual worth (i.e. the Missouri protests).  In my view, it's better to not discriminate based on viewpoint, and to have enough faith that "better" ideas will prevail over "worse" ones in the general discourse.  This isn't a radical or extremist view - it's the backbone of what "free speech" means and why we have it. 

It's honestly a little surprising to me that you're being so shortsighted here. 

[michigancat]

Dlew, at what point does speech like this turn into harassment? Like if she called an individual an N-word, that would almost definitely fall under the school's harassment policy. https://studentconduct.sa.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/09/2017-Code-of-Student-Conduct-FINAL.pdf

Do you think universities should have policies that attempt to restrict verbal harassment? Does the fact that she announces she hates all black people make what this girl did OK?

What if a professor had said they hated all black people? Is that also free speech, or does that infringe on the rights of students to receive an education in a safe environment? Should they be allowed to keep their job?

I don't think BLM protests are a good comparison because it would be a huge stretch to consider that type of speech harassment. Who is BLM wanting to oppress/make feel unsafe?

[Rage Against the McKee]

There really isn't a problem until the girl sues the school and still can't get re-enrolled.

[catastrophe]

Dlew, at what point does speech like this turn into harassment? Like if she called an individual an N-word, that would almost definitely fall under the school's harassment policy. https://studentconduct.sa.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2017/09/2017-Code-of-Student-Conduct-FINAL.pdf

Do you think universities should have policies that attempt to restrict verbal harassment? Does the fact that she announces she hates all black people make what this girl did OK?

What if a professor had said they hated all black people? Is that also free speech, or does that infringe on the rights of students to receive an education in a safe environment? Should they be allowed to keep their job?

I don't think BLM protests are a good comparison because it would be a huge stretch to consider that type of speech harassment. Who is BLM wanting to oppress/make feel unsafe?

It is tough to draw lines that apply neatly to every scenario, but one pretty clear distinction is speech that is threatening.  Using the n-word in most circumstances probably rises to this level.  The main point is that the government (including its agents, such as administrators of public schools) cannot put blanket restrictions on the CONTENT of speech.  I believe they can restrict harassing and threatening speech, but there has to be more do it than something like "you said this certain word."

[DQ12]

There's also a difference when speech is directed at a single person.  I.e. I walk up on the street to someone and call them a racial slur.  That's fighting words, man, and the Court has described that as unprotected.  I don't know about a professor showing racial hatred.  I'd hope they could be canned.

[Spracne]

Not only does the speech have to be directed at a specific person (not a group), but it has to actually be likely to incite violence in order to not be protected speech. The likelihood aspect is important.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[michigancat]

There's also a difference when speech is directed at a single person.  I.e. I walk up on the street to someone and call them a racial slur.  That's fighting words, man, and the Court has described that as unprotected.  I don't know about a professor showing racial hatred.  I'd hope they could be canned.

So, I think what you're saying is:

"You're a n-word" to an individual: harassment/fighting words
"I hate all n-words" to the internet but no one in particular: protected speech

what about

"I hate all n-words" to a black person? Is that protected speech?

[DQ12]

There's also a difference when speech is directed at a single person.  I.e. I walk up on the street to someone and call them a racial slur.  That's fighting words, man, and the Court has described that as unprotected.  I don't know about a professor showing racial hatred.  I'd hope they could be canned.

So, I think what you're saying is:

"You're a n-word" to an individual: harassment/fighting words
"I hate all n-words" to the internet but no one in particular: protected speech

Right

what about

"I hate all n-words" to a black person? Is that protected speech?

Good question.  I'm not sure.

[8manpick]

Not only does the speech have to be directed at a specific person (not a group), but it has to actually be likely to incite violence in order to not be protected speech. The likelihood aspect is important.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

What is the legal distinction here between violence and harassment? Is harassment necessarily unprotected?

[Spracne]

Not only does the speech have to be directed at a specific person (not a group), but it has to actually be likely to incite violence in order to not be protected speech. The likelihood aspect is important.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

What is the legal distinction here between violence and harassment? Is harassment necessarily unprotected?

I'm not entirely sure what everyone means by the term harassment ITT. But remember that in the First Amendment context we are only considering government-directed punishment of speech--either state or federal. Also, you can get around First Amendment issues by punishing conduct rather than speech, or even some type of speech/conduct hybrid. And even when speech is protected (i.e., not within one of the few categories of unprotected speech), it may still be punished if there are sufficiently weighty constitutional interests on the other side of the balance.

[hemmy]

Agree that you cannot compromise freedom of speech. Taking even part of it away in the name of protecting someone from speech they don't like is absurd.