<p>Perhaps the school can punish the perpetrator for taping something up in the bathroom. What they can’t do is punish a person for the content of speech unless it fits into one of the limited exceptions–and this simply doesn’t. It’s an easy case, really. It’s only being punished because a lot of people *really, really * don’t like the content.</p>
<p>A public bulletin board is a public forum. I guess a men’s room stall may not be–but if it was only posted in the men’s room stall, it can hardly be claimed to be intimidating to women, unless you want to punish the people who later published it. It’s absurd to argue that this incites any immediate crime (or really, that it incites crime at all, in my opinion). Crude as it is, it’s obviously a work of satire. It’s totally protected speech, and any lawyer who says different is lying to avoid being criticized.</p>
<p>I wonder if this somehow violated some agreement that all students sign or agree to when they enroll. I can see that being the avenue that the school uses for the disciplinary action.</p>
<p>As for criminal punishment, I agree that it’s overboard and can’t imagine that it will result in a conviction, though hard to say without knowing what the charges are.</p>
<p>Note: I’ve seen conflicting reports about where it was posted. Some articles said the men’s room, others said in a co-ed bathroom I think.</p>
<p>Hunt, I’m not sure you aren’t right. I’m just unsure if you are “right.”</p>
<p>I don’t think I could post whatever I wanted to post in my employers hallway without being fired, and I know there is a dress code, though I could probably, at my level, wear whatever I wanted. But, you can definitely get fired for visible tattoos in some places. and, I’m sure that is “speech.” </p>
<p>I don’t like the content, and I don’t believe they should be allowed to post this in school housing, and I’m positive they can be expelled or suspended, but I do question whether it can be prosecuted as criminal. I imagine, however, a student could take it to a civil suit.</p>
If you work for the government, there are limits on this. Miami of Ohio is a public school, and thus it is bound by the requirements of the First Amendment in a way a private employer is not.</p>
<p>Oh, I imagine that they’ll find some way to punish this behavior. But they’ll essentially have to lie about speech rights to do it. It will be unAmerican. But a lot of people will approve of it. Why? Because they don’t really believe in free speech. It makes me sad.</p>
<p>But, I don’t think I can post something promoting rape if I work for the government. </p>
<p>I don’t think I can be put in prison, nor do I think anyone should be put in prison, but I don’t think I can post things about the N word at my government job, either, without losing my job.</p>
<p>I am not sure I understand, Hunt. If free speech is that broadly protected, why are there regulations re: sexual harassment? And couldn’t written or verbal statements like this, were they to be in a workplace (public or private), fall under hostile workplace environment?</p>
<p>But the constitution never promised us speech free from consequences. We are free to express our beliefs, and no government law will be passed to keep us from expressing ourselves, but that does not mean that we cannot be held accountable (fired, expelled from school, censured by our peers, etc.) for it.</p>
<p>As to criminal charges, I confess that I’ve always believed that we cannot be criminally prosecuted for the content of our speech, but I guess even that notion must be in error as someone inciting others to riot or to kill others can be prosecuted, as can the oft referenced individual inciting panic in a crowded movie theater shouting “fire!” We also have restrictions on our speech which could cause a hostile environment related to racism, sexual or religious harassment, etc. Not all speech is protected, yet it seems impossible to find the exact definition of constitutional free speech.</p>
<p>I know the courts have long grappled with how to interpret and apply the first amendment. Clearly not anything goes with regard to speech, but where the line is firmly drawn seems to be a huge matter of contention.</p>
<p>Excuse me, but I did NOT equate the two. Clearly being given suspicious looks is a far cry from being actively harassed by individuals or the police.</p>
<p>Don’t put words in people’s mouths, please.</p>
<p>Regarding the Miami of Ohio incident, is it possible that the potential criminal charges are related to the associated vandalism, not to the speech? (This “vandalism” has not been described anywhere that I’ve seen.)</p>
<p>Oh, it was more in reference to the fact that sometimes people say they can’t go in your dorm room because they don’t have a right to search your room without a warrant, but they do. Just like, your right to “free speech” may be subject to the rules of the organization. Just linking up amendments in my mind.</p>
Some if this is correct – the Constitution does not protect us from having our friends get mad at us for what we say – but some is wrong. The Constitution pretty much DOES protect students from being expelled from a public university because of political objections to something they said, unless what they said or the way in which they said it crossed the line into harassment or inciting to riot or things like that.</p>
<p>soccerguy315 said men were harassed and police called, Jym challenged that and asked for stats and you replied with the suspicious looks comment.</p>
<p>My bad to suggest you equated the two in your response, I suppose it’s really on soccerguy to respond.</p>
The first amendment center president says what Hunt said earlier
There is more, so to avoid quoting too much here, I’d recommend posters read the article. There is no mention in this article of the hallway vandalism that was mentioned in another article.</p>
<p>As for soccerguy’s broad sweeping comments about men being harassed and cops called on playgrounds… I cannot find any news articles as he claims. And since he appears to be a grad student the same age as one of my kids, I wonder how much, if any, experience he has had with small kids and playgrounds that would warrrant what appears to be hyperbole.</p>
<p>soccerguy, I wasn’t implying that the fact that some women have been raped more than once has some correlation to the 1 in 4 stat. What I was trying to get across is that some facts that might seem ‘hard to believe’ are still true.</p>
<p>Sometimes I look twice at dads on a playground because they tend to stand out in the sea of moms. I look twice when I see them pushing a shopping cart with kids in tow too, for the same reason. </p>
<p>Some day may such a sight be an absolutely routine thing. We’re getting there :)</p>
Mr. Gmoser should ask for a refund of whatever he paid for his ConLaw class.</p>
<p>There are exceptions to the protection of speech against government action–but this case doesn’t fall into any of them, and any competent lawyer realizes this. It’s not even a close case.</p>