^ I am a firm believer in allowing anyone to bring suit if they believe they have been harmed in any way. I don’t have to agree with their stance or whatever reason they have or their legal argument. However, that doesn’t preclude me from having an opinion on their case and it’s merits.
Well Emily, if your opinion is merely that something is clear to you, then I do not know what to say but that it is not clear to me, and we should agree to disagree. If your opinion is that something is clear to you because of previous case law, then I guess we may have a fruitful discussion.
@RondoInBFlat
I think we’re more or less on the same page there then. I’d just argue that the people making the laws, are often prone to making decisions that are not always logical. And you affirm that yourself with showing how we needed Civil Rights Laws. The law should be the supreme authority. But the law and constitution are flexible. The question is identifying when we need to change these laws.
That’s not necessary. My children are happy, healthy, thriving, doing quite well at college/grad school/life in spite of the fact that their world has people with unreasonable beliefs. They know that they have good parents who have given them great opportunities, love, and other wonderful things. Because they had loving parents and access to good education, they have great coping skills in order to deal with the unpleasant things and ideas life may throw at them.
TheAtlantic, That’s why I asked you - would you change the First Amendment when it comes to hate speech? Since you said no, I am not sure what more there is to discuss here. This issue is a First Amendment issue and no public entity can punish the kids in any way, if you go by case law and interpretation by a vast majority of Constitutional scholars. I got worried when you seemed to indicate that even though the kids are on the right side of the law here, they should still be punished, somehow.
That’s a dangerous slippery slope.
Exactly. No one here disputes that consequences for speech are a part of life in the private sector. In fact, on this forum, going against terms of service can and will get a poster banned. I wonder if everyone here has read the TOS.
"Well Emily, if your opinion is merely that something is clear to you, then I do not know what to say but that it is not clear to me, and we should agree to disagree. If your opinion is that something is clear to you because of previous case law, then I guess we may have a fruitful discussion. "
I cited case law for why I hold my position regarding this case. There have been rulings by the Court that free speech in public schools is not absolute. That is case law. Now, whether these restrictions apply to post secondary schools, I will leave up to the Court to decide, if and when a case is brought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_%28First_Amendment%29
The following is from the Supreme Court unanimous opinion in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire:
The following is from the EEOC:
The following is from the Stanford Daily:
If the two SAE students who were expelled filed suit for violation of their first amendment rights, Boren could claim that the expulsion of the two were justified by the need to protect other students from harassment as required by Title IX and the limits to free speech as provided in Chaplinsky. Both are reasonable justifications for the expulsion of these students. Ultimately the Supreme Court would then need to decide if further limits on the Chaplinsky ruling are justified.
At this time it does not appear that the two students will appeal their expulsion.
I can’t remember who was asking about what we thought of the potential SAE lawsuit, but I say bring it on. It would be an epic mistake for SAE.
“Mr. Rice, you said in your apology that you were taught this song. Who taught it to you? Remember you are under oath.”
“Miss Tridelta Clapping Along, is this the first time you heard your SAE friends singing this song? How many times have you heard it?”
“Mr. Pettit, on the video you were shown trying to stop someone from recording your singing. Who was that person?”
“Mr. Frat President, had you ever heard this song sung by your fraternity brothers? What did you do to stop them?”
“Mr. Taught-SAE-Pledges, this is Ace Reporter from CNN. Could you answer some questions for us? How many times have you sung this song at SAE? Are there any other racist songs you sing?”
“Here now the news. Joe Taught-SAE-Pledges-The-Song testified today in the SAE trial. <show pictures=”" of="" joe="" taught,="" unflattering="" ones="" from="" the="" facebook="" page="" his="" sorority="" friends.=""> Mr. Taught declined to speak to reporters."
" Joe Taught, Bob Frat President Testify in Racist Song Trial. I am not a racist, said Joe Taught. <big pictures="" of="" fraternity="" members,="" with="" names,="" above="" the="" fold=""> More pictures on page 3!"<big pictures="" of="" fraternity="" members,="" with="" names,="" above="" the="" fold="">
Boren is trying to investigate the racist frat. Do they really want to hand him subpoena power?
Pass the popcorn.
@RondoInBFlat I’ve always upheld that Boren’s actions were not legal, though I was personally in support of them. I believe these students have the right to speak as they see fit, and can sue the school or do whatever they need as is their right. At the same time, I hope what they said follows them until the end of time, and I am emphatically happy that they were expelled. In my opinion, public and private institutions should be able to punish students for actions that have a negative impact on the university, even if what they were doing was constitutionally sound. That’s where our disconnect lies. (I think) you believe this can lead to a slippery slope that expands censorship greatly, while I don’t think it will come to fruition.
@cardinalfang @Swimkidsdad I thought your post at 968 and 969 were extremely well reasoned and intelligent!!!
I’m not seeing a problem with a lawsuit that leads to the identification of the exact perpetrators in this case. That would be part of the point of it. If I was an SAE who had never participated, it would be important to me to have my name cleared.
As I understand it, the two “leaders” are not part of the group who hired Jones.
I suppose. If you think, “I joined a racist social brotherhood that sings racist songs about excluding black guys and lynching them, but I never sang the songs myself” counts as clearing one’s name. Many people might wonder why this person voluntarily associated with the racist singers in the first place, and why this person continued to associate with the racist singers. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
I have heard someone in my extended family make racist jokes. That does not make me a racist. Most thinking people understand this.
Emily, With all due respect, a trivially true statement that free speech is not absolute has very little bearing on whether hate speech is constitutionally protected (which it is). I will not go back to post the opinions of legal scholars who showed how Boren is on shaky legal grounds as they have been reiterated many times.
Swimkidsdad, if you look further up this thread the opinions of Constitutional scholars have been posted. You may want to read them. They show several more recent examples of case law. I don’t know if you are a lawyer, but the lawyers on this thread seem to all agree that Boren is on shaky legal grounds (please correct me if I am wrong).
TheAtlantic, I think reading a bit of history about what lack of free speech protections did to the Eastern Bloc countries in the post WWII period will show you why those of us who do have First Amendment protections should cherish it, downsides and all.
I particularly encourage you to read a seminal essay by Vaclav Havel - The Power of the Powerless.
Problem is, no public institution is exempt from the Constitution. You either go private, or you ask for a repeal of the First Amendment. Those are the only two choices.
Some public University President may decide that allowing anyone but white kids in is bad for the image of the University. They may write a code book that DNA testing to prove 100% White European heritage is a must, and any kid failing that will be expelled. Who do you think would protect minority kids then? In your world, the University President has absolute rights to trample over the Constitution. In mine, he gets kicked out because the Constitution is supreme.
See the trouble of going against the Constitution and in favor of personal opinions?
A general comment. I find it amusing that some are making omnious statements about how bringing the lawsuit will spell doom for the kids. I wonder what they are afraid of? The courts ruling against Boren? 
Has a feel to it, I must say, of something like, nice career there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it, eh?
Unfortunately, we can’t choose our family members but we can choose our friends and which groups to belong to. For instance, I wouldn’t allow my son to join the Boy Scouts because of their positions on several issues.
By that same logic, all of us who are Democrats are now members of the thought police ala Boren.
Obviously that would be a rather unintelligent conclusion. In a big group, actions are never homogeneous. If a Chairman of the NASDAQ ran a Ponzi scheme, doesn’t mean that all NASDAQ market makers are tainted by it.
“By that same logic, all of us who are Democrats are now members of the thought police ala Boren.”
Hogwash.
I agree that it is hogwash, Emily, just as it is hogwash that all members of the fraternity must be racists because of one group that sang one song for 10 seconds. I don’t know what Boren was thinking.
That you cannot see the difference between being a member of the fraternity chapter and being a member of one of the two major political parties in this country is astonishing.