Are you saying that they needed help with understanding what their rights were? That was one of the issues central to the actual protests, the police trampling on their right to assemble and dissent.
I'm saying it wouldn't have been the worst thing to have some advocates who knew their way around first amendment law. Bubbles and I kicked the idea around. But let's not get lost in the weeds -- I only brought it up because you implied that some in this thread were only interested in protecting free speech in certain situations. The point is, is that I gave a crap about it then just like I do now.
1. I said a university can expel/suspend someone for hate speech, because it's happened and it's happened more than once, you argued the legality of that. I never disagreed with your assessment of weather it's legal or illegal it is only that it has happened. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I asked.
Right. But just because a university
can do that doesn't mean they
should do that or are
allowed to do that. It has to do with what you asked because when people assume that universities
can suspend students based on the content of their speech, implicit in that assumption is that they're
allowed to do it. They aren't. If I said "public universities can expel a student if the university finds out he's gay" you'd say bullshit, and rightly so.
2. That message from the police department is in no way an infringement on anyone's rights, you are being incredibly hysterical for even suggesting it. People itt gave you a good reason why in the current climate at that school why the cops should be around if someone feels unsafe. If someone is walking alone and a guy comes up to them with a crowbar in their hands and says "whatcha up to n-word" they should just keep beeboping along like everything is gucci? What do you care if the UMPD wants to create extra work for themselves? It's been two days since that happened and we have had no reports of cops telling people what they can and can't say.
MIR, man, that is wrong. Sure, people in this thread imagined a good reason -- if it was merely precautionary to deescalate a potential situation (like in your hypothetical), by all means, call the cops. Trouble is, the police plainly said in the email "[w]hile cases of hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes,
if the individual(s) identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action." (
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/10/missouri-u-police-call-us-about-harmful-or-hurtful-speech/) Again, that's bullshit under the First Amendment because university action = state action. Maybe the police were making the same point you were, and meant that "the university CAN take disciplinary action even though that would be against the law." Anyhow police telling students the university can punish them based on the content of their protected speech is wrong.
You took exception to me saying I didn't care about that lady telling that dude to back up to take pictures or that other lady saying she was annoyed by the first amendment, which is fine I guess. I didn't say you shouldn't be mad, I'm just wondering why you seem so heated. The next time an athlete or celeb shields their face from a camera will it be met with the same level of righteous indignation?
I don't know that I took exception to you saying you didn't care about the quad thing. You asked why people were upset by some of the First Amendment stuff and I explained why i was and why i think this stuff is important. I won't address the celebrity/athlete comparison because the comparison is pretty ridiculous.
And, if I'm coming across as a jerk about this, I don't mean to. I'm passionate about First Amendment protections, and I also think the students have the right message. I think its best for all parties that the message is advanced and fostered in a way that is also on the right side of all civil liberties.
4.I'm not at all sure why you posted the aclu link, I haven't read anyone on here excusing anyone taking away the rights of someone else away. Did I miss someone advocating for Melissa Click or anyone saying Mark Schibecker and Tim Tai were wrong? Was there another case where someone's first amendment rights were stripped that I missed?
Well, you've been a bit dismissive about the whole first amendment issue here. You asked why it's upsetting and I let you know why I find it concerning. I posted the ACLU link to let you know that it wasn't just the FSDs and Daxs of the world that were concerned about the speech rights implications in all of this.
