There Will Never Be A N****r At SAE!

Post Reply New Topic

*sigh* last post i think for me

Yes, as the professor argues that we should interpret the kid's rant as "discriminatory workplace speech" despite it did not happen in a workplace, and despite that at least one kid - the 19 year old - had no power to affect discrimination. GOOD LUCK on getting a court to buy that.

Maybe the university can though.

With regards to obscenity, this site belongs to Alex, and as shown earlier on wiki, "speech owned by others" is except from the 1st amendment. Alex does not have to grant us unrestrained speech. This is also how some employees can get in hot water for posting at work. They may not "own" the speech if they posted from the employer's computer.

You can say whatever you want, but legally that university is not allowed to expel those students for what they said, no matter how noxious. I'm defending racists, that takes courage these days, as morons are quick to attempt to slime you by association.

I've provided legal briefs and statements from civil rights organizations supporting my view, what do you have besides your own ignorant opinion?

I am just asking you how can you honestly call that hate speech only when we have the plain facts in front of us. This fraternity has no black members and they are saying they won't sign any black members. Uh, it's not rocket science to reach the conclusion that's discrimination based on race. It goes beyond hate speech.

Anyway, I apologize for implying it's you who I am frustrated with when it's really these alumni who have me aggravated because of the tactics they use. They are who frustrate me. It is they who appear cowardly to me since they refuse to acknowledge what appears to be reality. I just have a difficult time dealing with people who pull this kind of underhanded sneakiness where they act one way then when they get called on it they duck and won't own up to stuff. It just irritates me.

According to webster- principle: a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions.

This is my understanding also. My principles tell me that racism is wrong and my training as a social scientist tells me that this sort of attitude and behavior from a group of upper class white males has the potential to do lots of damage to lots of lives in the future. Therefore, it's a big deal in my estimation.


As far as respect for the bill of rights is concerned, I have plenty... The reason I'm comparing your position to that of a religious fundamentalist goes back to the question of critical thinking.

First amendment speech protection is meant to protect political dissent in the main and more generally unpopular opinions. However, as that Atlantic article I posted shows, there is a wide variance as to how the first amendment can be interpreted. Let me quote it AGAIN:
source

As you can see for yourself, both of those decisions predate the civil rights movement and the dreaded rise of *gasp* political correctness.

Some other things those decisions predate are the death of American common sense, the rise of UNCRITICAL, black and white thinking in the American public sphere, and the spread of political fundamentalism.

I mean, look at that first ruling. It's unanimous. Let me say that again.

UNANIMOUS.

U N A N I M O U S.

The court unanimously agreed that “those words which by their very utterance inflict injury … are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” They made that ruling over 80 years ago, and guess what? Free speech did not wither and die, and the United States did not slip into tyranny.

Let's, for a moment, consider Canada and most of Europe. They all have laws restricting hate speech that are tougher than the SC ruling cited above, and guess what? They all seem to have robust democracies complete with political debate too.

So, when I -->THINK<-- about stuff like that, it makes me question the validity of arguments that hold (nearly) all speech, no matter how offensive and idiotic, as sacred. And, it makes me skeptical of warnings that assert that sanctioning drunken frat boys for acting like racist a**holes will somehow have a chilling effect on public discourse and start us down some slippery slope toward despotism!

It's just silly.

All speech is not sacred and worthy of protection. Songs that advocate hanging n****rs from trees certainly aren't.




As the two rulings I cited above demonstrate, your position is not as strong or as FUNDAMENTALLY ABSOLUTE as you seem to think. And, those rulings are still on the books... That's not to say that they might not be struck down by the current court, but it does suggest that reasonable, intelligent people can disagree on these matters. I think I'll go and try to find some, because there obviously aren't any here.

Okay, so you've proven your ability to use a dictionary, good show. You still don't seem to understand the meaning of the word though, such as a commitment to said principle even when it enables certain behaviors the holder disagrees with, due to the understanding that the erosion of the principle is more important, such as defending the right to make unpopular speech. Racism is bad, censorship is worse, should be simple enough to understand.




Ironic, as you've yet to display any, while I've explained my reasoning and backed it with citation.



Interestingly, you seem to share an opinion with Robert Bork, hardly a bastion of liberalism:


http://www.thenation.com/article/171877/bork-legacy



Stupidity doesn't get any less stupid when you repeat it. The Court has thought a lot of things were okay over the years, slavery, eugenics, and internment amongst them; does that make you more likely to support those things?



Where you can be thrown in jail for making the wrong joke, engaging in the wrong conspiracy theory, or offending the wrong people; no thank you. How about Saudi Arabia? I hear they have laws on speech that you may support.



Perhaps thinking isn't your strong suit.



American Jurisprudence would disagree.




Perhaps the kids forum would be a better fit, they might be more accepting of your position on criminalizing the hurting of feelings and mean words.

'Cop killer' song is protected. The American Civil Liberties Union even publicly defended this as free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop_Killer_(song)

Vice President Quayle branded 'Cop Killer' 'obscene', sound familiar ?

Bob Marley's, "I shot the Sheriff" too promotes killing police.

If hate speech is not allowed, then you can't read safely from holy books anymore. Most holy books advocate killing infidels, other tribes, or people who break some arbitrary rule. Round up the clergy!

Just for fun, notice how Goonsqad's position on free speech is identical to that of religious extremists who call for blasphemy laws; not similar to, identical.

I just read a write up in the Sunday Oklahoman about how the main victim of this racism are the people of Oklahoma because these kinds of incidents take a hit on economic development which is what I have said all along to people. You only hurt yourself. That's the nitty gritty bottom line. Who cares about freedom of speech if you alienate people from doing business in your desperately poor state? Says in the paper it does harm the local economies. Image does matter. So think about things.

If you look at what SAE says about the True Gentleman Experience, pair it with this ugliness that has been festering, which do you really think is going to attract people? I am on Team True Gentlemen and I urge you to be, too.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 15 Mar 2015, 5:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Well, I certainly cannot argue with anything you said, because you really didn't say anything.

However, I do have one last observation.

I think it's pretty interesting that when you *cite* Supreme Court rulings they're somehow always legitimate and prove that your position is based in some immutable moral principle... but when somebody else cites other SC rulings that happen to clash with your world view they're invalid and akin to supporting slavery or whatever.

Gee, it must be swell being you, always being unequivocally and absolutely right, having the surety of a zealot.

And where exactly is that happening in any countries with hate speech laws? Seriously, I'd like to know.

My position and the ruling Dox is so afraid of that he won't even quote it, states that “those words which by their very utterance inflict injury … are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.”

And hell, I don't even really want to stop that speech. I just want to restrict it to the point that it doesn't disrupt the education of other students, who, by the way, are entitled to equal protection/consideration under the constitution...



I know, I know. I'm a radical, repressive and unreasonable bastard. I'm like one of those a**holes from ISIS. Next thing Doxie knows, I'll be sawing the heads off my neighbors for... well, I'm not sure, but Dox is. I'm sure he'll chime in and help us out.

If we did allow some [un]reasonable regulation of speech on university campuses, it could lead us down a slippery slope I guess. Hell, the government might decide to interfere with other venues for speech. They might even set up an entire organization and name it something like, oh I dunno, the FCC, lets say. And then they might empower that organization to regulate speech on government controlled airwaves! They might try to stop people from saying words like s**t, piss, f**k, c**t, cocksucker, Motherf***er, and tits on PUBLIC AIRWAVES simply because some people find those words offensive!

Oh the humanity! what a blow to free speech that would be.

Did someone say they were thinking about suing the FCC? On what grounds?

The FCC restricts free speech on PUBLIC AIRWAVES!

I think we need to take up a collection and sue the FCC ourselves! We need to correct this violation of Dox's, and others*, principles before they* start sh*****g kittens!





*These words make my statement broad, rather than specific, and therefore protected speech.

Last edited by GoonSquad on 15 Mar 2015, 6:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hehe, I was being facetious. Who knew the FCC censored anything?

My sense of humor is very strange.

My point is that it isn't happening. It is hate speech and it is allowed. Why allow one type of hate speech but not another one? Just because it's in the bible or koran? If that evil s**t is ok, that means pretty much anything goes. Why ban books like Mein Kampf but not the holy books that are equally horrible? Should people be kicked out of a government-funded institution if they are holocaust deniers? That is extremely offensive to holocaust survivors and their relatives, but people are allowed to be holocaust deniers. I personally prefer that people can give their opinion, that way at least we know who are the bigots, the racists, the fundies.

And your point about censoring bleep-words is sort of an argument against ANY censorship at all. Arbitrarily censoring some cusswords is just so silly. We all know what they said anyway. It is really contempt for the viewers, they believe we can't handle a few f***s in a tv show. I live in the Netherlands and the bleeping really only happens on English-language shows, you know, from the countries that are supposed to have the most freedom of speech.

Are you in the US? Mein Kampf isn't banned here.