ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th March 2015, 05:14 AM   #201
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Infringement on free speech depends on being related to the educational mission of that (class, classroom, offical school paper, etc.) and isn't in general, and certainly not on a private bus with a private organization.

There's a case winding its way through the courts where a female professor blocked a student's comments against abortion. Unfortunately, her course syllabus advertised open discussion of the issue. This is a double no-no because government could block particular issues in the class, say, but not particular viewpoints about it while allowing others. And the syllabus flat-out stated open discussion about it, anyway.

ETA: Was it a privately-rented bus?
Yet is applies to things like students at a parade even if they did not attend school that day.

It would be an interesting case if brought, and I could see it going either way. Of course I think the expelled students would be first rate idiots to bring the case.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 05:21 AM   #202
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
I don't think I have seen a single constitutional scholar assert the the expulsion was constitutional.
How many opinions have you found on it?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 05:23 AM   #203
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't recall surrendering anything.

ETA: Do you know of a case in which a federal circuit court (or above) ruled adult students were not required to abide by the published anti-harassment policies at a public university?
Chris_Halkides' link mentions some relevant cases. In particular, Papish v. University of Missouri. The Supreme Court held that the university could not expel a student for distributing offensive fliers.

And I'm not sure why you think the "published anti-harassment policies" are the key here. Putting a policy in writing which infringes upon a student's constitutional rights doesn't make that infringement OK.

This is also a useful link for finding relevant cases:
http://lawhighereducation.org/66-fre...-students.html
You will find that higher ed free speech cases have been ruled considerably differently than primary ed cases.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 05:28 AM   #204
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So with out those rights the school can never expel students for any out of class behavior?
I suggested nothing of the sort. Rather, a state school cannot justify an expulsion on freedom of association grounds (though a private school might be able to). It must find other legitimate reasons for expulsion, which it may have, depending upon the behavior in question.

Quote:
There are plenty of expulsions for such reasons regardless of any criminal findings or even if the claims would equal a crime.
And? What's your point? How does that relate to this case? You seem to be arguing against a straw man here.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 05:31 AM   #205
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I suggested nothing of the sort. Rather, a state school cannot justify an expulsion on freedom of association grounds (though a private school might be able to). It must find other legitimate reasons for expulsion, which it may have, depending upon the behavior in question.



And? What's your point? How does that relate to this case? You seem to be arguing against a straw man here.
So when can the state refuse to deal with people aside from proven criminal issues? As representatives of the state why is the school so different from any other state agency which can't refuse service to someone for such things?

Or can the DMV refuse to serve people for what reasons now?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 05:48 AM   #206
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So when can the state refuse to deal with people aside from proven criminal issues? As representatives of the state why is the school so different from any other state agency which can't refuse service to someone for such things?

Or can the DMV refuse to serve people for what reasons now?
Wait, what?

My entire point was that the state could NOT arbitrarily refuse to deal with people like a private individual can. Now you're asking me to outline when they can? Why would I do that? You're not making any sense.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 06:49 AM   #207
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
How many opinions have you found on it?
A dozen or so.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 09:31 AM   #208
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,234
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You say that like those are mutually exclusive. But they aren't.
Ummm, ...

Sorry, but I do not understand your statement.
__________________
On 16 MAY 2017 Paul Bethke discussed some of the sexual prohibitions of his god regarding man-to-man sex acts and woman-to-woman sex acts: "So not only lesbian acts but also anal sex.."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11840580

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 09:39 AM   #209
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Ummm, ...

Sorry, but I do not understand your statement.
OK, let's go back to the post I responded to.

Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
In a way, I sure would like to see those stupid, idiotic, racists sue the school for getting expelled because it would be really great seeing them trying to argue in court that they were just exercising their constitutional rights as opposed to being stupid, idiotic, racists.
You said you wanted to see them argue that they were doing one thing ("exercising their constitutional rights") and not another ("being stupid, idiotic, racists"). Your "as opposed to" indicates that they could not do both. But they are not mutually exclusive, so they can do both.

You have a constitutional right to be stupid, idiotic, and racist. That right cannot be taken away without fatally crippling freedom of speech. Is that the price we want to pay to combat racism and stupidity, in what will likely be a losing war anyways?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 09:43 AM   #210
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Ummm, ...

Sorry, but I do not understand your statement.
I understood it to mean that there is a constitutional right to act like a stupid racist.

See Skokie v. The Nazi Party, see also, IOTA XI CHAPTER OF SIGMA CHI FRATERNITY; v. GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY;

Sorry for the all caps! I copied and pasted it from the case.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

Last edited by The Big Dog; 12th March 2015 at 09:44 AM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 09:48 AM   #211
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,354
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Wait, what?

My entire point was that the state could NOT arbitrarily refuse to deal with people like a private individual can. Now you're asking me to outline when they can? Why would I do that? You're not making any sense.
I am saying that a college is different from other state institutions. And that it is held to different standards. No other non law enforcement state institution can punish allegations of sexual assault for example.

With all of that, I don't know what the courts would say.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 10:04 AM   #212
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
I am saying that a college is different from other state institutions. And that it is held to different standards.
Not different enough, and not in a way that helps the university in this case. In fact, it's rather the reverse. From Healy v. James:
Yet the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large. Quite to the contrary, "[t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools." Shelton v. Tucker,364 U. S. 479, 364 U. S. 487 (1960). The college classroom, with its surrounding environs, is peculiarly the "marketplace of ideas,'" and we break no new constitutional ground in reaffirming this Nation's dedication to safeguarding academic freedom.
I find no evidence for the position that state universities have more leeway to violate free speech rights than other government agencies.

Quote:
No other non law enforcement state institution can punish allegations of sexual assault for example.
Freudian slip there?

Colleges are not permitted to punish people for allegations of sexual assault, and they have been successfully sued on occasions where they did. There must be some actual evidence for it. And seeing as how sexual assault is not merely not constitutionally protected, it is actually criminal, that's not exactly a useful precedent for punishing not merely legal but constitutionally protected behavior.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 10:36 AM   #213
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Not different enough, and not in a way that helps the university in this case. In fact, it's rather the reverse. From Healy v. James:
Yet the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that, because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large. Quite to the contrary, "[t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools." Shelton v. Tucker,364 U. S. 479, 364 U. S. 487 (1960). The college classroom, with its surrounding environs, is peculiarly the "marketplace of ideas,'" and we break no new constitutional ground in reaffirming this Nation's dedication to safeguarding academic freedom.
I find no evidence for the position that state universities have more leeway to violate free speech rights than other government agencies.



Freudian slip there?

Colleges are not permitted to punish people for allegations of sexual assault, and they have been successfully sued on occasions where they did. There must be some actual evidence for it. And seeing as how sexual assault is not merely not constitutionally protected, it is actually criminal, that's not exactly a useful precedent for punishing not merely legal but constitutionally protected behavior.
Colleges, even public ones, have the right to expel students for actions that violate the college's scholastic criteria, such as cheating on exams. The broader question here, that courts have interpreted in different ways, is if a student can be expelled for damaging the learning environment for other students. Most have agreed that actively disrupting a class, even when using otherwise legal means (yelling obscenities at the lecturer), damages the learning environment and properly can be the basis of an expulsion. Hate speech has been viewed in multiple ways by courts, even for public institutions. But it is not established as clearly illegal for a public institution to expel a student on this basis.

But, I am glad to hear that you support the ACLU position on this:
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 10:49 AM   #214
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,234
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
OK, let's go back to the post I responded to.



You said you wanted to see them argue that they were doing one thing ("exercising their constitutional rights") and not another ("being stupid, idiotic, racists"). Your "as opposed to" indicates that they could not do both. But they are not mutually exclusive, so they can do both.

You have a constitutional right to be stupid, idiotic, and racist. That right cannot be taken away without fatally crippling freedom of speech. Is that the price we want to pay to combat racism and stupidity, in what will likely be a losing war anyways?
OK, thanks for the clarification.

I was not trying to imply what you said that I may have implied so I hope this clears up the issue for you.
__________________
On 16 MAY 2017 Paul Bethke discussed some of the sexual prohibitions of his god regarding man-to-man sex acts and woman-to-woman sex acts: "So not only lesbian acts but also anal sex.."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11840580

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2015, 07:49 PM   #215
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,531
They are free to say what they like.

But they must accept the social consequences.

The first amendment only constrains the state.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 12:42 AM   #216
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
The broader question here, that courts have interpreted in different ways, is if a student can be expelled for damaging the learning environment for other students. Most have agreed that actively disrupting a class, even when using otherwise legal means (yelling obscenities at the lecturer), damages the learning environment and properly can be the basis of an expulsion. Hate speech has been viewed in multiple ways by courts, even for public institutions.
But how is what they did damaging to the learning environment? Is the argument that black students merely knowing that a classmate is that racist is damaging to the learning environment, so anyone who is known to be racist can be expelled?
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 12:58 AM   #217
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,955
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
But how is what they did damaging to the learning environment? Is the argument that black students merely knowing that a classmate is that racist is damaging to the learning environment, so anyone who is known to be racist can be expelled?
I can see how some fuzzy-headed liberal judge might construe that attending class or eating lunch with your back to the door with people who were known to have joyfully sung about lynching people of your race, just might not be conducive to the best of academic environments.

So the operative term in your question is "that racist". Not merely "racist". I think black people AND white people attend schools knowing that there are people of the other ethnic persuasion who just plain "don't like your kind". But "that racist" in this case refers to singing songs that glorify excluding blacks from your house and refers to lynching them.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 06:20 AM   #218
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,043
Public universities

Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
They are free to say what they like.

But they must accept the social consequences.

The first amendment only constrains the state.
The University of Oklahoma is a public university. Geoffrey R. Stone wrote, "Similarly, in Papish v. University of Missouri, the Court held that a state university could not constitutionally expel a student for distributing on campus a student newspaper containing a political cartoon depicting policemen raping the Statue of Liberty and an article using the phrase "****************." Because the student was expelled for "the disapproved content" of her speech, the Court held that the university violated her rights under the First Amendment." Given that one of Professor Stone's areas of expertise is the first amendment and that he recently helped draft a document on freedom of speech on campus for the University of Chicago, I suspect he is on solid ground. I don't know Eugene Volokh's credentials as well, but he made similar points in an article in the Washington Post, citing an incident at George Mason University.
EDT
16.5 discussed the George Mason case upthread
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 13th March 2015 at 08:06 AM.
Chris_Halkides is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 07:51 AM   #219
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The University of Oklahoma is a public university. Geoffrey R. Stone wrote, "Similarly, in Papish v. University of Missouri, the Court held that a state university could not constitutionally expel a student for distributing on campus a student newspaper containing a political cartoon depicting policemen raping the Statue of Liberty and an article using the phrase "****************." Because the student was expelled for "the disapproved content" of her speech, the Court held that the university violated her rights under the First Amendment." Given that one of Professor Stone's areas of expertise is the first amendment and that he recently helped draft a document on this subject for the University of Chicago, I suspect he is on solid ground. I don't know Eugene Volokh's credentials as well, but he made similar points in an article in the Washington Post, citing an incident at George Mason University.
I cited the George Mason case up above.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 08:49 AM   #220
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,731
I would to note several aspects of law and morality (the two are, as you probably know, not the same).
Law
As I previously noted, courts have varied in how they interpret a conflict between First Amendment rights and practical aspects of behavior. in the George Mason case cited above, the appeals court disagreed with the local court, and held that the fraternity action, as performed, did not violate the rules of the University. The court stated that, "Although appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on free expression are permissible, a state university may not suppress expression because it finds that expression offensive." Thus, as I read it, it is possible for a state university to restrict free expression when the court deems it appropriate, just not because the University finfs retroactively such behavior offensive. In my reading of the court decision in this case, at least part of the decision was because the fraternity did not violate any of the rules the University had created in advance, not that the university did not have any right to create rules that restrict behavior.

Many (not all) courts deem it appropriate to restrict free expression when it harms the "learning environment." Some posters have asked: how is a little song "harming the learning environment?" Well, as pointed out by others, the song included the proposal to lynch black students, an action that has occurred in the recent past. Depending on if a reasonable person would consider this a real threat or not, the threat alone could be elevated to a criminal action. I don't know the people involved, but I suspect that it was not a threat that was likely to be physically realized. But none the less, I would find it quite disturbing to my learning environment if someone in my class threatened to kill all Jews, or called Jews horrible names. Just exactly how would you feel if before class someone came up to you and said: "I hate [name your group] and I'm going to get you when you don't expect it!" Would you just dismiss it and pay attention to your physics class because you think that they are unlikely to be able to go through with it?
It is interesting that "conservatives" agree with the ACLU on the dominance of the First Amendment in these issues.

And don't tell me to put on my big boy pants, because it is the person making the threats and calling the names who is acting childish.


Finally, I would point out that in many University charters, part of what they seek to teach people is to accept others of different ethnic, religious, gender. etc. backgrounds. So making fun of and threats against these others is, by definition, interfering with the learning process.

All courts agree that there is the need to draw a line; free expression is not completely free even in state universities. You can't yell fire in a crowded room, and you can't yell obscenities to a professor in the middle of class. I think that most people agree that if you want to circulate a newspaper filled with clearly political speech, even such odd metaphors as raping the Statue of Liberty, you are engaging in protected speech that doesn't threaten anyone and should be allowed. But other forms of "speech" involving verbal attacks on others at the same institution have practical consequences and therefore don't get an immediate pass- they need to be thought through and the conflict between freedom of speech and the freedom of others to a healthy educational environment determined carefully and balanced. It is well established in court that children in state K-12 schools don't have complete freedom of expression, and that even legal actions, such as calling other people names, can be prohibited. Going to a state college removes some of these restrictions, but not necessarily all. It is interesting that "conservatives" agree with the ACLU on the dominance of the First Amendment in this balance.

Last legal point: people are usually freer to say whatever they wish in private, but fraternities have an odd, semi-official relationship to the University, and usually have to obey University rules.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 09:09 AM   #221
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,731
Morality

I remain intrigued by how some believe that one can only achieve true freedom in the USA if one is allowed to say awful, demeaning things to coworkers or fellow students on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. This, apparently, is the most crucial freedom. It is not enough that one can make these statements privately; one has to be allowed to make these statements in the work or scholastic environment. And just being allowed to say things about the person as an individual is not enough; one must be allowed to insult their entire religion, race, gender, etc.

The other existing restrictions on freedom, which almost everyone quietly accepts and are important for a functional society, are apparently much lesser issues, or no issue at all. I cannot legally walk down my street naked, for the sole reason that it might offend someone else. I cannot legally lie to someone to sell them my car. I cannot go into the headquarters of a business and start insulting the CEO's mother. I cannot drunkenly sing late at night under my neighbor's window. Don't all of these restrict my freedom? Yet, it is the "right" to publicly call someone a xxxx based on their race, religion, etc. that is really crucial for true freedom as far as some posters are concerned.

I suspect that many of the posters wanting unbridled freedom of expression of a fraternity to express racist jokes and songs would think twice about the "freedom" of another college student to ban the American Flag from the classroom or to verbally support the actions of ISIS (which I believe is still quite legal). But I am happy to be corrected on this if I am wrong.

Last edited by Giordano; 13th March 2015 at 09:11 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 09:10 AM   #222
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
The court stated that, "Although appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on free expression are permissible, a state university may not suppress expression because it finds that expression offensive." Thus, as I read it, it is possible for a state university to restrict free expression when the court deems it appropriate, just not because the University finfs retroactively such behavior offensive.
This is not accurate. "appropriate time, place and manner restrictions" Means time (not 2:00 am), location (not inside a dorm cafeteria) and manner (ie. no massive speakers set up in the quad), and prohibits suppression based on the content.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 09:15 AM   #223
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Many (not all) courts deem it appropriate to restrict free expression when it harms the "learning environment." Some posters have asked: how is a little song "harming the learning environment?" Well, as pointed out by others, the song included the proposal to lynch black students, an action that has occurred in the recent past. Depending on if a reasonable person would consider this a real threat or not, the threat alone could be elevated to a criminal action. I don't know the people involved, but I suspect that it was not a threat that was likely to be physically realized. But none the less, I would find it quite disturbing to my learning environment if someone in my class threatened to kill all Jews, or called Jews horrible names. Just exactly how would you feel if before class someone came up to you and said: "I hate [name your group] and I'm going to get you when you don't expect it!" Would you just dismiss it and pay attention to your physics class because you think that they are unlikely to be able to go through with it?
No. If the speech does not occur in the learning environment (and it didn't), then it cannot reasonably be ruled to upset the learning environment.

Otherwise, there is no limit to the reach of speech censorship in the name of "learning environment".

Quote:
It is interesting that "conservatives" agree with the ACLU on the dominance of the First Amendment in these issues.
Does that surprise you? It shouldn't.

Quote:
Finally, I would point out that in many University charters, part of what they seek to teach people is to accept others of different ethnic, religious, gender. etc. backgrounds. So making fun of and threats against these others is, by definition, interfering with the learning process.
First off, these are NOT threats in the legal sense (which is the only relevant sense here). Second, you seem to have confused "learning" with "indoctrination". Under this theory, any speech which is counter to whatever the University decides to teach is then "interfering with the learning process", which would mean that the University could censor any objections to anything it teaches. This is an absurdity.

Quote:
Last legal point: people are usually freer to say whatever they wish in private, but fraternities have an odd, semi-official relationship to the University, and usually have to obey University rules.
Which may permit sanctions against the fraternities even if the speech is constitutionally protected. But it does not permit sanctions against individuals.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 09:25 AM   #224
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I remain intrigued by how some believe that one can only achieve true freedom in the USA if one is allowed to say awful, demeaning things to coworkers or fellow students on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. This, apparently, is the most crucial freedom. It is not enough that one can make these statements privately; one has to be allowed to make these statements in the work or scholastic environment. And just being allowed to say things about the person as an individual is not enough; one must be allowed to insult their entire religion, race, gender, etc.
If you only defend speech that you agree with, you are not a free speech advocate, you are a partisan hack. If you only defend speech that the majority agree with, you are a coward.

Quote:
The other existing restrictions on freedom, which almost everyone quietly accepts and are important for a functional society, are apparently much lesser issues, or no issue at all.
Because they do not prevent the expression of unpopular opinion.

Quote:
I suspect that many of the posters wanting unbridled freedom of expression of a fraternity to express racist jokes and songs would think twice about the "freedom" of another college student to ban the American Flag from the classroom or to verbally support the actions of ISIS (which I believe is still quite legal). But I am happy to be corrected on this if I am wrong.
You are very confused. Students cannot ban the American flag from the classroom because they do not have the authority to do so. That has nothing to do with their freedom of speech.

And yes, as reprehensible as support for ISIS is, it should not be made illegal, and public universities should not be able to punish students for doing so. This position is actually quite common among conservatives.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 09:27 AM   #225
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
This is not accurate. "appropriate time, place and manner restrictions" Means time (not 2:00 am), location (not inside a dorm cafeteria) and manner (ie. no massive speakers set up in the quad), and prohibits suppression based on the content.
If you read my post, I expressly stated that the court allowed for restrictions on free expression at the appropriate time, place and manner. I directly quoted from the court decision in stating this concept. Obviously, as noted in the very same decision that I quoted, the court believed the University in this case under consideration had not met those criteria. You are interpreting what you would consider appropriate restrictions. Clearly not all courts have, or will, agree with you. And even the same court might well disagree with you on another case.

Last edited by Giordano; 13th March 2015 at 09:28 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 09:46 AM   #226
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you only defend speech that you agree with, you are not a free speech advocate, you are a partisan hack. If you only defend speech that the majority agree with, you are a coward.



Because they do not prevent the expression of unpopular opinion.



You are very confused. Students cannot ban the American flag from the classroom because they do not have the authority to do so. That has nothing to do with their freedom of speech.

And yes, as reprehensible as support for ISIS is, it should not be made illegal, and public universities should not be able to punish students for doing so. This position is actually quite common among conservatives.
1. I have been happy to support unpopular opinions, and I am a strong supporter of the rights of the Nazi party and KKK to hold their views and to demonstrate their views in public. And they even threaten "my particular group."

That is not even under question here. What is under question is if someone enrolled in a state university can, as a member of a state university-recognized group, insult another else expressly based on their ethnicity. religion, etc. (not just as an individual, which is allowed). They can do it as a private citizen, or even publicly, as long as it is not affiliated in some manner with a University. I would not advocate expelling anyone for their views if expressed exclusively as a private citizen. And I note again this is not a law, but a University policy, and the USA has long held that the right to free speech is much more encompassing as it involves laws versus societal consequences.

2. Many of the prohibited actions I mentioned are a right of freedom of expression. I believe that being nude is an expression of an unpopular opinion (that clothing is restraining and artificial). Being able to sing your support of Hitler under a window at 2 AM is expression of an unpopular opinion. These are illegal not because the opinion itself is illegal, but because the circumstances will offend others. You can be nude at home, or sing your support of Hitler in a parade, all legally. You can call me a xxxx (ethnic slur) in private all you want, or even in a political march. You just can't call me a xxxx in my classroom, or in an email to me in your capacity as one of my students, because it is disruptive to the functioning of my institution.

3. Glad to hear you would support verbal praise of ISIS; I still question just how many conservatives agree with you.

Last edited by Giordano; 13th March 2015 at 09:50 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 09:54 AM   #227
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
If you read my post, I expressly stated that the court allowed for restrictions on free expression at the appropriate time, place and manner. I directly quoted from the court decision in stating this concept. Obviously, as noted in the very same decision that I quoted, the court believed the University in this case under consideration had not met those criteria. You are interpreting what you would consider appropriate restrictions. Clearly not all courts have, or will, agree with you. And even the same court might well disagree with you on another case.
Again, that is not accurate. The issue in the case was not time/place/manner restriction, it was based on content.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 10:09 AM   #228
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
1. I have been happy to support unpopular opinions, and I am a strong supporter of the rights of the Nazi party and KKK to hold their views and to demonstrate their views in public. And they even threaten "my particular group."

That is not even under question here.
It is very much under question here.

Quote:
What is under question is if someone enrolled in a state university can, as a member of a state university-recognized group, insult another else expressly based on their ethnicity. religion, etc. (not just as an individual, which is allowed).
No. You do not surrender your free speech rights when you join a fraternity. The University is within its rights to sanction the fraternity. It is not within its rights to expel the students.

Quote:
I would not advocate expelling anyone for their views if expressed exclusively as a private citizen.
Joining a fraternity is not analogous to becoming a a government employee. They are still private citizens, and the category you are trying to construct in order to justify content-based restrictions on speech have no legal basis.

Quote:
And I note again this is not a law, but a University policy, and the USA has long held that the right to free speech is much more encompassing as it involves laws versus societal consequences.
The university is a part of the state. Expulsion is not merely a "societal consequence".

Quote:
2. Many of the prohibited actions I mentioned are a right of freedom of expression. I believe that being nude is an expression of an unpopular opinion (that clothing is restraining and artificial). Being able to sing your support of Hitler under a window at 2 AM is expression of an unpopular opinion. These are illegal not because the opinion itself is illegal, but because the circumstances will offend others.
No. These are not prohibited merely because they offend, because these opinions can offend even when expressed in a legally protected manner. Your understanding of the law in this regard is sorely lacking. If offense is what determines whether speech is prohibited or not, then there is no freedom of speech at all.

Quote:
3. Glad to hear you would support verbal praise of ISIS; I still question just how many conservatives agree with you.
First, you misrepresent my position. I do not support verbal praise of ISIS, I condemn it. It is reprehensible. Rather, I oppose any effort by the state to prohibit it. These are not the same things at all, and you should be mindful of the distinction.

And lots of conservatives would agree with me. Not all, I'm sure, because not all conservatives support free speech, just like not all liberals do. But a lot would. Your continued insinuation to the contrary serves no purpose but to poison the well.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 10:21 AM   #229
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Again, that is not accurate. The issue in the case was not time/place/manner restriction, it was based on content.
If you read the entire decision, the court agreed that government agencies can regulate conduct, but that "in this case, however, GMU did not seek to regulate any conduct whatsoever. It was not the conduct of renting the auditorium, holding Derby Days, raising money for charity, providing entertainment, or performing a skit which prompted GMU to discipline the members of Sigma Chi. To the contrary, it was the expressive message conveyed by the skit which was perceived as offensive by several student groups which prompted GMU to discipline the fraternity. This skit contained more than a kernel of expression; therefore, the activity demands First Amendment protection."

As I maintained, the courts have routinely balanced free expression rights with practical limitations, and that freedom of expression does not give a free pass to all forms of conduct. The decision also clearly indicated that GMU did nothing to formulate and inform the fraternity of formal rules against the conduct under question in advance.

Once again, I am not attempting to predict what a given court might decide in this case. If you look at the established litigation, I don't think that you could predict either. I will state that as a individual, I believe that the balance between freedom of expression, and the practical consequences of the actions of the frat, move the balance toward expelling the students (although I have some sympathy for the ACLU position in this regards against expelling the students). This was a fraternity-initiated song, one that is affiliated with a state university. Rather than emphasize that a state affiliated organization (the University) should not infringe the freedom of expression of a citizen, overall I favor just the opposite: that a state-affiliated organization (the fraternity) should not support discrimination against a person based on their race.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 10:29 AM   #230
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It is very much under question here.



No. You do not surrender your free speech rights when you join a fraternity. The University is within its rights to sanction the fraternity. It is not within its rights to expel the students.



Joining a fraternity is not analogous to becoming a a government employee. They are still private citizens, and the category you are trying to construct in order to justify content-based restrictions on speech have no legal basis.



The university is a part of the state. Expulsion is not merely a "societal consequence".



No. These are not prohibited merely because they offend, because these opinions can offend even when expressed in a legally protected manner. Your understanding of the law in this regard is sorely lacking. If offense is what determines whether speech is prohibited or not, then there is no freedom of speech at all.



First, you misrepresent my position. I do not support verbal praise of ISIS, I condemn it. It is reprehensible. Rather, I oppose any effort by the state to prohibit it. These are not the same things at all, and you should be mindful of the distinction.

And lots of conservatives would agree with me. Not all, I'm sure, because not all conservatives support free speech, just like not all liberals do. But a lot would. Your continued insinuation to the contrary serves no purpose but to poison the well.
This is one reason I stopped posting in another political thread. I don't feel the need to repeat myself more loudly, or to further clarify the points that I believe I already posted quite clearly. I have no interest in arguing distortions of what I stated, nor arguing broad statements that do not relate to the actual laws or court decisions.

Perhaps some may find this approach enjoyable, but I don't.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 10:43 AM   #231
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Rather than emphasize that a state affiliated organization (the University) should not infringe the freedom of expression of a citizen, overall I favor just the opposite: that a state-affiliated organization (the fraternity) should not support discrimination against a person based on their race.
Those are not opposites, in fact that is a false dichotomy.
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 06:43 PM   #232
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Racist OU chapter banned by national organization

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And I'm not sure why you think the "published anti-harassment policies" are the key here.
Perhaps because the students voluntarily subscribe their signatures to the student code of conduct, which prohibits race-based harassment, among other things.

http://www.ou.edu/eoo/policies-proce...imination.html
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th March 2015 at 06:47 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 06:49 PM   #233
TheGoldcountry
Illuminator
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,807
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Those are not opposites, in fact that is a false dichotomy.
When you ignore certain words, yes. Most of us read all of them.

Look above. I agreed to a code of conduct when I went to a publicly funded university. One of the main things was made clear- no hate speech. I attended a seminar that was mandatory.

That was 25 years ago. I can't think things have changed much.

Perhaps the seminar was mandatory for people living in dormitories, I did live in one for three months.
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

Last edited by TheGoldcountry; 13th March 2015 at 06:54 PM.
TheGoldcountry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 06:55 PM   #234
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,299
Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
When you ignore certain words, yes. Most of us read all of them.
I read all of yours, did you mean to add some words to support your point, or shall we take your "words" for it?
__________________
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 07:19 PM   #235
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Perhaps because the students voluntarily subscribe their signatures to the student code of conduct, which prohibits race-based harassment, among other things.
It seems be a stretch for the word "harassment" or the term "directed at" (from the definition from the given link) to apply to something that didn't happen in the presence of any minorities and was never intended to reach them.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 07:22 PM   #236
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
It seems be a stretch for the word "harassment" or the term "directed at" (from the definition from the given link) to apply to something that didn't happen in the presence of any minorities and was never intended to reach them.

“The University does not discriminate or permit discrimination by any member of its community against any individual based on race…”

Does it seem like a stretch to say that SAE’s stated whites-only policy counts as discrimination?
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 07:34 PM   #237
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
“The University does not discriminate or permit discrimination by any member of its community against any individual based on race…”

Does it seem like a stretch to say that SAE’s stated whites-only policy counts as discrimination?
If you want to say that the chant/song was an admission of discrimination, okay, but that's not the same thing harassment. If you're going to quote the code of conduct for why it's legal to expel them, please be precise.
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 08:00 PM   #238
TheGoldcountry
Illuminator
 
TheGoldcountry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,807
If you sing a song with clearly bigoted and racist intent without regard to whom might hear it, yes, I count that as harassment.

Is it your point to say that it's only harassment if they sing it in class?
__________________
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten
I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505
TheGoldcountry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 08:03 PM   #239
d4m10n
Master Poster
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
If you want to say that the chant/song was an admission of discrimination, okay, but that's not the same thing harassment. If you're going to quote the code of conduct for why it's legal to expel them, please be precise.
There is no reason to choose just one or the other.

From the same link that I provided earlier:

Quote:
Harassment as a form of discrimination is defined as verbal or physical conduct that is directed at an individual or a group because of race, color, sex..., sexual orientation, genetic information, religion, political beliefs, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or veteran status when such conduct is sufficiently severe, pervasive and objectively offensive so as to have the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s or group’s academic or work performance or of creating a hostile academic or work environment viewed by examining a totality of the circumstances from the standpoint of a reasonable person with the same characteristics as the purported recipient of the harassing conduct.
It is possible to harass people and discriminate against them at the same time, of course.

Originally Posted by Matthew Cline View Post
It seems be a stretch for the word "harassment" or the term "directed at" (from the definition from the given link) to apply to something that didn't happen in the presence of any minorities and was never intended to reach them.
Maybe you're right about that. In fact, I sincerely hope SAE's lawyers make that argument in court.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; 13th March 2015 at 08:12 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2015, 08:07 PM   #240
Matthew Cline
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry View Post
If you sing a song with clearly bigoted and racist intent without regard to whom might hear it [emphasis added], yes, I count that as harassment.
They were doing it in private. Or is it your position that the ubiquitousness of cell phones with recording capabilities means that something is only truly private if there's only one person?
__________________
The National Society for Oh My God What IS That Thing Run and Save Yourselves Oh God No No No No No: join today!
Matthew Cline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.