The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look

[DQ12]

To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.

Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.

Right.  I agree with Rage that the punishment on its face isn't all that burdensome, but the issue is whether the school/government can legally carry out any punishment (whether its imprisonment, expulsion or just censure or censorship) in this situation. 

These little "proxy war" cases set important policy precedents. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.

Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.

The severity of the punishment is pretty critical to how damaged the student is by his rights being violated. If the court were to rule in the student's favor, how else would you grant the award? As far as I can tell, the student wasn't censored, suspended, expelled, or damaged in any way financially. If he were compensated for the time it took him to write an apology (an apology he wasn't required to even give to anyone), the damages would come out to what? Maybe $10?

If the school made him delete his post, that is a different issue, and he should absolutely be allowed to put the original back up. I might have missed that. A school giving a kid a writing assignment is not worth going to court over, though.

[Spracne]

To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.

Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.

The severity of the punishment is pretty critical to how damaged the student is by his rights being violated. If the court were to rule in the student's favor, how else would you grant the award? As far as I can tell, the student wasn't censored, suspended, expelled, or damaged in any way financially. If he were compensated for the time it took him to write an apology (an apology he wasn't required to even give to anyone), the damages would come out to what? Maybe $10?

If the school made him delete his post, that is a different issue, and he should absolutely be allowed to put the original back up. I might have missed that. A school giving a kid a writing assignment is not worth going to court over, though.

His damages aren't limited to money damages. The more important relief would be an injunction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.

Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.

The severity of the punishment is pretty critical to how damaged the student is by his rights being violated. If the court were to rule in the student's favor, how else would you grant the award? As far as I can tell, the student wasn't censored, suspended, expelled, or damaged in any way financially. If he were compensated for the time it took him to write an apology (an apology he wasn't required to even give to anyone), the damages would come out to what? Maybe $10?

If the school made him delete his post, that is a different issue, and he should absolutely be allowed to put the original back up. I might have missed that. A school giving a kid a writing assignment is not worth going to court over, though.

His damages aren't limited to money damages. The more important relief would be an injunction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What would the injunction accomplish and what would it relieve? It appears he has already fully served the punishment.

[Spracne]

To me, this is only really debatable because the statement was made outside of a school setting, albeit in public. I don't see what the school did as censorship, and as far as punishments go, the punishment was very light. I don't see any damages to the kid who did what appears to me about 5 minutes worth of editing and had to write a brief apology to nobody.

Why does the severity of the punishment seem to matter so much to you? Just curious since you continue to bring it up.

The severity of the punishment is pretty critical to how damaged the student is by his rights being violated. If the court were to rule in the student's favor, how else would you grant the award? As far as I can tell, the student wasn't censored, suspended, expelled, or damaged in any way financially. If he were compensated for the time it took him to write an apology (an apology he wasn't required to even give to anyone), the damages would come out to what? Maybe $10?

If the school made him delete his post, that is a different issue, and he should absolutely be allowed to put the original back up. I might have missed that. A school giving a kid a writing assignment is not worth going to court over, though.

His damages aren't limited to money damages. The more important relief would be an injunction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What would the injunction accomplish and what would it relieve? It appears he has already fully served the punishment.

Prevent future harm to him and others?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think the future harm from all of this is unpreventable at this point. Anyone typing his name into google is going to see that post. The school did their best to help him out of that situation, but this lawsuit basically reversed all of that.

[Spracne]

I think the future harm from all of this is unpreventable at this point. Anyone typing his name into google is going to see that post. The school did their best to help him out of that situation, but this lawsuit basically reversed all of that.

Are you merely being argumentative? This case is about whether a campus speech code is unconstitutional either on its face or as applied. He's either courageous or foolhardy for bringing suit, but we need these speech codes to undergo constitutional scrutiny, because they've long been suspect.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rage Against the McKee]

I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.

[Spracne]

I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.

But in cases like this the act of suppressing or compelling speech is itself the harm, in terms of legal standing. Honestly, who cares about the severity of the punishment? I'm just glad to have cases like this working their way up the ladder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kat Kid]

It's sort of a tough case, imo. The school didn't make the kid change what he said. They just made him change how he said it, which is more along the lines of what a school should be doing with assignments they issue. It's murky because the kid said it on social media and not on a school assignment, but I really don't see it as damaging at all to the kid. He's getting a better overall learning experience from the "punishment" than he would be without it, at no cost to him.

They absolutely made him change what he said. 

Saying "eff NAZIS" is different than saying "I disagree with Nazis."  The same is true with "eff ABORTION PROPONENTS" and "I disagree with those who favor abortion."  You and me and the school admins are free to think one message is more professional, or more civil, or more effective using any vague standard we choose, but government/schools usually can't punish that kind of speech.

The distinction here is that it was a grad school.  Again, I don't see any relevant distinction between a public grad school and a public university or high school.

High Schools have pretty wide latitude to censor students.

I'm not sure they can be content based though (for otherwise protected speech) except for Morse ("bong hits for jesus") situations where a student is advocating for illegal drug use on a field trip.  This situation isn't in the same ballpark imo as Morse.

I guess it depends a bit on where the speech occurred, but they get pretty wide latitude. In loco parents is still a concept that is established and schools can make some pretty wide claims to be acting in the best interests of students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree.  "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO.  If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.

I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.

If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that.  It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.

I think you would be surprised how much schools get involved with stuff "wholly unrelated to the school" as a practical matter and I am not even talking about just mandatory reporter stuff.  Like schools, for instance, can administer drug tests of students in any extra-curricular activity. This includes co-curricular activities such as debate, band, orchestra, clubs etc. It is an incredibly broad authority. I could pretty easily imagine that a school policy governing social media posts (especially for a team sport or an extra curricular or something) would be upheld.  I know schools often involve themselves in "cyber bullying" but they often have taken to just involving the police to absolve themselves of the headache.  As for pure speech outside of school, I could imagine some examples but haven't seen anything personally that would apply I don't think.  Which again, I think is what makes this example so egregious.  Then again, I haven't seen whether or not the school had the "in" with this being posted using a school's internet/computer (from the library?) or whatever, which is how a lot of incidents of inappropriate use of tech or whatever that take place off school grounds end up involving school punishments if students are using school tablets.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.

But in cases like this the act of suppressing or compelling speech is itself the harm, in terms of legal standing. Honestly, who cares about the severity of the punishment? I'm just glad to have cases like this working their way up the ladder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m not sure if they forced him to delete the original post, but I’m guessing they didn’t. If they let him keep it, I don’t think they suppressed his speech. It’s also hard to claim they compelled speech, given they gave him the option to not give the apology to anyone.

Given that the original post basically made a “Nazis weren’t so bad” sort of claim, and that this guy shares a college campus with Jewish students, the school would be remiss to not at the very least inform the student of how incredibly stupid his post was and suggest better ways to express his opinion.

[Kat Kid]

I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.

But in cases like this the act of suppressing or compelling speech is itself the harm, in terms of legal standing. Honestly, who cares about the severity of the punishment? I'm just glad to have cases like this working their way up the ladder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m not sure if they forced him to delete the original post, but I’m guessing they didn’t. If they let him keep it, I don’t think they suppressed his speech. It’s also hard to claim they compelled speech, given they gave him the option to not give the apology to anyone.

Given that the original post basically made a “Nazis weren’t so bad” sort of claim, and that this guy shares a college campus with Jewish students, the school would be remiss to not at the very least inform the student of how incredibly stupid his post was and suggest better ways to express his opinion.

It won't take you long to read pro-life people before you come across the Holocaust analogy bud, it wasn't like this guy thought it up by himself.

[8manpick]

The school was remiss to have said anything, that’s the whole point.

[michigancat]

I agree.  "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO.  If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.

I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.

Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class. And there was precedence in the case where a nursing student was expelled for

Also, I think this could be considered a pretty significant "injury":

Next, the letter
informed Hunt that the professionalism violation would be noted in the recommendation letter
the Dean would provide to residency training programs, but that in the future Hunt could petition
CSPE to remove the notation.

If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that.  It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.

It was pretty clearly cited in the ruling:

The Eighth Circuit rejected Keefe’s First Amendment claim. It noted that “many courts
have upheld enforcement of academy requirements of professionalism and fitness, particularly
for a program training licensed medical professionals. Fitness to practice as a health care
professional goes beyond satisfactory performance of academic course work.” Id. at 530. Thus,
given the strong state interest in regulating the health professions, the Eight Circuit held that
“teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a
professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First
Amendment.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322.24.0.pdf

[Spracne]

I would rather see a case get constitutional scrutiny where the punishment was clearly punishment. I'm honestly not sure this qualifies.

But in cases like this the act of suppressing or compelling speech is itself the harm, in terms of legal standing. Honestly, who cares about the severity of the punishment? I'm just glad to have cases like this working their way up the ladder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m not sure if they forced him to delete the original post, but I’m guessing they didn’t. If they let him keep it, I don’t think they suppressed his speech. It’s also hard to claim they compelled speech, given they gave him the option to not give the apology to anyone.

Given that the original post basically made a “Nazis weren’t so bad” sort of claim, and that this guy shares a college campus with Jewish students, the school would be remiss to not at the very least inform the student of how incredibly stupid his post was and suggest better ways to express his opinion.

Yes, but the speech wasn't directed at any specific person, so it's still protected speech.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

I agree.  "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO.  If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.

I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.

Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class. And there was precedence in the case where a nursing student was expelled for

Also, I think this could be considered a pretty significant "injury":

Next, the letter
informed Hunt that the professionalism violation would be noted in the recommendation letter
the Dean would provide to residency training programs, but that in the future Hunt could petition
CSPE to remove the notation.

If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that.  It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.

It was pretty clearly cited in the ruling:

The Eighth Circuit rejected Keefe’s First Amendment claim. It noted that “many courts
have upheld enforcement of academy requirements of professionalism and fitness, particularly
for a program training licensed medical professionals. Fitness to practice as a health care
professional goes beyond satisfactory performance of academic course work.” Id. at 530. Thus,
given the strong state interest in regulating the health professions, the Eight Circuit held that
“teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a
professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First
Amendment.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322.24.0.pdf

There's no way that's how the First Amendment works with Social Media.  Just because a listener could read your words in a particular spot doesn't give the government free reign to impose time place and manner restrictions based on where the words were read.

[michigancat]

I agree.  "Where the speech occurred" is the central issue IMO.  If this kid gets up in his class and shouts "eff ABORTION," obviously that's disruptive and the school could rightfully punish him for that statement in that setting.

I can't think of any precedent that gives the school the right to punish a student for protected speech whose content and time/place/manner are wholly unrelated to the school.

Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class. And there was precedence in the case where a nursing student was expelled for

Also, I think this could be considered a pretty significant "injury":

Next, the letter
informed Hunt that the professionalism violation would be noted in the recommendation letter
the Dean would provide to residency training programs, but that in the future Hunt could petition
CSPE to remove the notation.

If the distinction is "undergrads/highschools, etc. can't act this way, but graduate schools can because [graduate schools have a greater interest in the professional conduct of its students or something]" I can live with that.  It would be a weird distinction and one I would disagree with, but that's the only distinction that makes any sense.

It was pretty clearly cited in the ruling:

The Eighth Circuit rejected Keefe’s First Amendment claim. It noted that “many courts
have upheld enforcement of academy requirements of professionalism and fitness, particularly
for a program training licensed medical professionals. Fitness to practice as a health care
professional goes beyond satisfactory performance of academic course work.” Id. at 530. Thus,
given the strong state interest in regulating the health professions, the Eight Circuit held that
“teaching and enforcing viewpoint-neutral professional codes of ethics are a legitimate part of a
professional school’s curriculum that do not, at least on their face, run afoul of the First
Amendment.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322/gov.uscourts.nmd.340322.24.0.pdf

There's no way that's how the First Amendment works with Social Media.  Just because a listener could read your words in a particular spot doesn't give the government free reign to impose time place and manner restrictions based on where the words were read.

huh? Did I say that?

I'm not even saying this guy's initial post was disruptive, I just disagree with your assertion that the time and location of a social media post really matters if it contains threatening or disruptive content. (Maybe there is legal precedence, when I read the summary linked in the original article it seemed like it's still being figured out)

[DQ12]

There's no way that's how the First Amendment works with Social Media.  Just because a listener could read your words in a particular spot doesn't give the government free reign to impose time place and manner restrictions based on where the words were read.

huh? Did I say that?

I'm not even saying this guy's initial post was disruptive, I just disagree with your assertion that the time and location of a social media post really matters if it contains threatening or disruptive content. (Maybe there is legal precedence, when I read the summary linked in the original article it seemed like it's still being figured out)

I guess I could have misread what you meant, but I think you did say that with this:

Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class.

My point is that, there is an absolute clear and rational difference between speaking in a classroom during a class and posting something to FB, twitter, or gE.  Time/place/manner restrictions have been recognized forever and they make perfect sense.

I agree that if the online opinion was threatening (within the meaning of the first amendment), then the time and place at which he made it isn't significant.  I don't think it's correct to stretch "disruptive" to that same extent.  Otherwise, any online opinion some students disagree with could be labeled disruptive. If you don't like someone's spicy hot political takes online (or on TV, or in a book or painting or song), you have a range of options: don't friend them, don't follow them, ignore them, read them for fun, think worse of the person, do whatever you want.  We're all subject to opinions we disagree with every day. 

If someone disrupts class though, you can't help but be subject to that disruption.  If gone unpunished, that student has free reign to continue to waste the time and money of those teaching and attending the class.  I don't think a school or any other government body has any right to punish a student for tweeting that "BLACK LIVES MATTER" (despite its potential to offend), whereas I think an outburst like that (or "ABORTION IS MURDER") is certainly punishable if shouted out during the middle of a Chem 200 class. 
 
Generally speaking, the government entity shouldn't have any more authority over your online speech than it does over your speech in any other public forum -- which is to say, it should have next to none. 

[michigancat]

There's no way that's how the First Amendment works with Social Media.  Just because a listener could read your words in a particular spot doesn't give the government free reign to impose time place and manner restrictions based on where the words were read.

huh? Did I say that?

I'm not even saying this guy's initial post was disruptive, I just disagree with your assertion that the time and location of a social media post really matters if it contains threatening or disruptive content. (Maybe there is legal precedence, when I read the summary linked in the original article it seemed like it's still being figured out)

I guess I could have misread what you meant, but I think you did say that with this:

Eh I think it's pretty different with social media - "where the speech occurred" is really "everywhere" when you post crap online. Fellow students saw it, so it was like yelling "eff ABORTIONS" within clear earshot of everyone in his school. Which, even if it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, could arguably be disruptive to class.

My point is that, there is an absolute clear and rational difference between speaking in a classroom during a class and posting something to FB, twitter, or gE.  Time/place/manner restrictions have been recognized forever and they make perfect sense.

I agree that if the online opinion was threatening (within the meaning of the first amendment), then the time and place at which he made it isn't significant.  I don't think it's correct to stretch "disruptive" to that same extent.  Otherwise, any online opinion some students disagree with could be labeled disruptive. If you don't like someone's spicy hot political takes online (or on TV, or in a book or painting or song), you have a range of options: don't friend them, don't follow them, ignore them, read them for fun, think worse of the person, do whatever you want.  We're all subject to opinions we disagree with every day. 

If someone disrupts class though, you can't help but be subject to that disruption.  If gone unpunished, that student has free reign to continue to waste the time and money of those teaching and attending the class.  I don't think a school or any other government body has any right to punish a student for tweeting that "BLACK LIVES MATTER" (despite its potential to offend), whereas I think an outburst like that (or "ABORTION IS MURDER") is certainly punishable if shouted out during the middle of a Chem 200 class. 
 
Generally speaking, the government entity shouldn't have any more authority over your online speech than it does over your speech in any other public forum -- which is to say, it should have next to none. 

yeah it's clearly less "disruptive" to post something online, but a social media post can still be disruptive and not be avoided by fellow students. If this guy had posted something like "man, there are a bunch of girls I'd like to eff in my anatomy class" online, it isn't the same as announcing it in class and doesn't threaten or directly mention anyone, but it could still make female students forced to attend class and work with him uncomfortable and disrupt the class environment. I'm not necessarily saying the school has any right to punish this type of speech, just pointing out that it can be disruptive without directly interrupting a class.

[renocat]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/14/university-of-wisconsin-madison-students-say-ice-cream-marginalizes-muslim-vegans/
These PC nazi want the college to ban the sell of ice cream on campus because it hurts the feelings of Muslims and vegans.
Good Gawd!!
Tender panzys need to come into the real and leave their binkies and diapers.

[Kat Kid]

This is pretty bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/us/politics/rutgers-jewish-education-civil-rights.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Feducation

[steve dave]

Treason

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1043057116695556096?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[8manpick]

Dumb Canadian has no idea what treason is

[Kat Kid]

Dumb Canadian has no idea what treason is

Treason to the crown. They are all closet monarchists up there.

[Dugout DickStone]

Dumb Canadian has no idea what treason is

he must be super stupid