cyberdad wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The constitution overrides all laws.
According to the chronicle of higher education (another paywall US publication) there have been hundreds of students expelled across US colleges and universities for posting racist slurs on social media.
A lot of them were expelled during the George Floyd protests in 2020
https://www.diverseeducation.com/studen ... or-resignsOne of the Missouri State university adminstrators, Dr Cliff Smart, in the above link states "
the public university is “legally required to uphold the principles of free speech” embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution."
This means all of the cases where expulsion was enacted the adminstrators were aware they breached the US constitution laws pertaining to free speech. Despite legal action (in many cases) from the racist students the university decisions are upheld.
So why is that? Because most US colleges and Universities have policies that prioritise diversity and inclusion. For example Brown University (a prominent Ivy league university) enacted a anti-harrassment bill in 1989 that recognised that making racist remarks is an act of hate speech. Since 1989 this expanded from video recordings or publications to include social media, Since Brown other universities have also introduced bills against racist hate speech including Stanford, Tufts and the Universities of California and Wisconsin.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/12/us/s ... peech.htmlFrom the above link 1991 link A Brown spokesman, Mark Nickel, said that in past years students found guilty of serious behavioral violations had been dismissed and asked not to return but that the term expulsion was not used until about two years ago. Expulsion means a student is never permitted to return, while dismissal means a student may reapply after a specified period. Act of New President.
Throughout the US, university officials have adopted codes forbidding oral, written or even symbolic attacks on individuals or small groups of individuals on the basis of their sex, race, ethnic origin, color, handicap, religion or sexual preference.
According to legal experts
https://mclellan.law.msu.edu/questions/ ... sts-onlineThe Supreme Court has identified a few categories of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment (which means the government can censor them). These unprotected categories are:
Fighting words
Incitement speech
True threatsTrue threats are statements that show that the speaker
intends to hurt a specific person or group of people. Racist tweets can therefore be interpreted by university administrators as threatening.
In the case of Ms Miller in the Univ of Missouri her act also breaches incitement speech as she was egging people to take acts of violence against black people.
Without seeing the article I can not say if the codes are constitutional or if the expelled students committed hate crimes. I can say that wokes can be just as caviar about breaking the constitution as MAGA’s can be. I can say these codes are regularly thrown out.
Hate speech is protected free speech, even on college campuses October 25, 2017Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and Jesse H. Choper distinguished professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law .He is the co-author, with Howard Gillman, of Free Speech on Campus (Yale University Press, 2017).
Quote:
We should refuse to allow hateful speakers on campus,” a campus faculty member said.
The statement was met with resounding applause. I mentally prepared for the response to what I was going to say next.
It was September, and I was at a forum at which several professors, including me, discussed free speech issues before a large audience of students at the University of California Berkeley. Several faculty and students had already implored Chancellor Carol Christ to revoke the invitations of conservative provocateurs Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter to speak on campus, and their declarations were met with enthusiasm.
Finally, I spoke up. “Be clear that if Chancellor Christ were to exclude speakers based on their viewpoint, she would get sued and lose,” I said. “The speakers would get an injunction and be allowed to speak. They would recover attorneys’ fees and maybe money damages. They would be portrayed as victims. And since they would get to speak anyway, nothing would be gained.”
No one applauded.
I have been dean of Berkeley’s law school for several months. But before I arrived at campus, the university, home of the free speech movement of the 1960s, had become a battleground for a new kind of campus speech debate.
I have been teaching First Amendment law to law students and undergraduates for more than 37 years. I have also litigated free speech cases, including at the Supreme Court.
Students today are driven by a desire to protect their classmates from hate speech
Disputes over free speech on campus have long occurred, but today is different. Usually in the past, it was students who wanted to speak out and campus administrators who tried to stop demonstrations. Now it often is about outside speakers and outside disruptors, like the radical leftist protest group antifa. The campus is just the place for their battle.
At Berkeley and elsewhere, it is now often students and faculty calling for preventing the speakers while campus officials are steadfastly protecting freedom of expression.
In my seminars the past two years (before Berkeley, I was at UC Irvine’s law school), I was surprised by how much the students wanted campuses to stop offensive speech — and the degree to which they trusted campus officials to have the power to do so. A 2015 survey by the Pew Research Institute said that four in 10 college students believe the government should be able to prevent people from publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups.
While teaching our class on free speech on campus at UC Irvine, Chancellor Howard Gillman and I realized that the students’ desire to restrict hurtful speech came from laudable instincts. This is the first generation of college students to be taught from a young age that bullying is wrong; they have internalized this message. Many spoke powerfully of instances in which they or their friends had suffered from hurtful speech. They want to make campuses inclusive for all, and they know that hate speech causes great harm, especially among those who have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education.
But I worry, too, that students do not realize the degree to which free speech has been essential for the advancement of rights and equality. There would not have been a 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, without the women’s suffrage movement and its widespread demonstrations. The civil rights protests of the 1960s — lunch counter sit-ins, the march on Selma, demonstrations on campuses — were essential to bringing about the end of segregation.
Those events, though, are ancient history for my students. I worry that they equate freedom of speech more with the vitriol of the anonymous messaging app Yik Yak than the anti-Vietnam War protests I participated in when I was in college. I was surprised by how little our students knew about the history of free speech, including the outbreak of McCarthyism, when faculty and students suffered greatly from the lack of legal protection for expression and academic freedom
Every effort by the government to regulate hate speech has been declared unconstitutional. Over 25 years ago, more than 350 colleges and universities adopted hate speech codes. But every court to consider such a hate speech code declared it to be unconstitutional. The codes inevitably were far too vague in terms of what speech was permitted and what was prohibited. Of course, free speech is not absolute and can be punished when it incites illegal activity, constitutes a “true threat” that causes a person to fear imminent harm to his or her physical safety, or rises to the level of prohibited harassment.
This does not mean that campuses are powerless in the face of disruptive or hateful speech. Even though there is a First Amendment right to speak, that does not mean that protesters have the right to demonstrate in the middle of a freeway at rush hour. A campus surely could prohibit a large demonstration in a classroom building while classes are in session. Campuses can regulate when and where speech takes place in order to prevent disruption of school activities. Controversial speakers can be placed in auditoriums where it is easier to assure safety and prevent disruptions. Demonstrations can be placed in areas away from where classes are in session.
Bolding=mine
Who am I to believe you or the expert? Every case means plenty of progressive judges were throwing these speech codes out. Hate speech is protected, Hate crime is not. The difference is imminent threat such as this.
Chicago man did ‘Nazi march,’ threatened to burn rabbi in gas oven, prosecutors sayQuote:
Chicago man who claimed to be a Nazi threatened to burn a rabbi in a gas oven and yelled “Heil Hitler” while doing a “Nazi march” outside a Jewish high school on Sunday, prosecutors allege.
Jay Bollyn, 69, appeared in bond court on Tuesday to face two counts of felony hate crimes and two misdemeanors. Judge Susana Ortiz ordered him to pay a $10,000 bail deposit to go home on electronic monitoring.
The incident began shortly before 11 a.m. Sunday outside Bais Yaakov High School of Chicago, 5800 North Kimball, where parent-teacher conferences were occurring.
Bollyn, who was near a fence outside the school, asked a witness if they were Jewish and made anti-Semitic comments, Assistant State’s Attorney Rhianna Biernat said. School staff members saw the interaction escalate into a verbal altercation, so they notified a rabbi about what they saw.
The rabbi, who also serves as head of security for other private Jewish schools, stepped outside to intervene.
Bollyn redirected his anti-Semitic rant toward the rabbi and threatened to burn the rabbi in a gas oven, Biernat said. He allegedly lunged toward the rabbi and then claimed to be a Nazi — and even showed off his “Nazi haircut.”
Biernat went on to say that when the Chicago police showed up, Bollyn was marching like a Nazi after shouting “Heil Hitler.” Officers took Bollyn into custody.
His assistant public defender, Matthew Shepard, argued that there were no injuries during the alleged incident, and “it sounds like mere words” were said.
He is on probation for filing a false complaint and has been convicted of five misdemeanors this year, according to Biernat. Judge Ortiz ordered him held without bail on a probation violation until the judge handling that case reviews the new allegations.
The Turning Point supporter typing on her computer was not an imminent threat. I have not read anything indicting the Turning Point supporter was engaging in a campaign of harassment. If she was that is another story.
The administers can believe whatever they want, the constitution is not on their side.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
15 Dec 2022, 5:46 pm
,Condemnation as well banning its appearance would be preferancial....... IMHO this is a vile and digusting policy that the college apparently adhears to. 
