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 28th October 2019, 04:36 AM   #81
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I cannot read the Elie Mystal article at Above the Law (I keep getting warnings about this website from my browser, which is odd). Therefore, I do not know what legal arguments he presented and for the time being have no reason to think that Professors Stone and Volokh were wrong. I would gladly chip in to hire a black lawyer to help the Sigma Alpha Epsilon students get reinstated. Maybe they would finally have an epiphany.
And there is an obligation to permit white supremacist organizations like SAE on campus for free speech. Being founded in the jim crow south that is expected.

But clearly there university has no obligation to make students feel safe and if you are making another student feel unsafe it is really their fault to start with. Until you actually assault someone there is no reason for them to feel unsafe from your activities.

So hold your six million more chants outside the jewish student union meetings and that is all free speech.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 07:53 AM   #82
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,244
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Personally I have no issues with racists being fined $50 for being racist, though I suspect if it gets to the SCotUS the law will be over turned.
I agree, lets throw suspected racists into a pond, if they sink, they are innocent.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot 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 28th October 2019, 08:25 AM   #83
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,790
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Personally I have no issues with racists being fined $50 for being racist, though I suspect if it gets to the SCotUS the law will be over turned.
Just racism, or bigotry in general?
theprestige 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 28th October 2019, 08:49 AM   #84
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
let's not stretch the meaning of incitement, shall we?

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yep the violence incited is of course never the fault of the inciters. Like at Charlottsville, there really were fine people on both sides the president said so. And of course the nazi organizers were in no way responsible for any violence that happened.

To suggest otherwise would like like charging an ICE agent for driving a truck into a crowd.
Incitement to violence is a narrow exception to one's rights under the first amendment. I usually suggest reading Ken White's knowledgeable yet accessible essays on these sorts of topics.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides 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 28th October 2019, 08:53 AM   #85
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Incitement to violence is a narrow exception to one's rights under the first amendment. I usually suggest reading Ken White's knowledgeable yet accessible essays on these sorts of topics.
Please they where not inciting violence at all in charlotsville, not a single instance of that was charged so you can't claim that the violence that happened was incited. It just happened and clearly could never have been predicted by the organizers, otherwise they would have faced incitement charges.

Look you are clear constant death to the Jews protests outside synagogues are just the cost of being a jew in america. Like racial harassment is a given if one chooses to be black and go to a white school.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 08:53 AM   #86
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
Is it OK to yell penis in a crowded theater?

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I would think that two drunken guys yelling obscenities might make just about anyone feel unsafe, whether the obscenities are racial slurs directed at them or not. "Drunken and disorderly" sounds like a possible (and, quite appropriately, fairly minor) charge.



I agree that the use of racial slurs should not, in itself, be an offence. However, if an offence is being committed, the motivation of the offenders becomes a matter for consideration, in particular in determining the severity of the punishment. Hate crime should be a subset of existing crime, rather than the criminalisation of hate.

Dave
When the two drunk guys are in the parking lot and the people are in their apartments, the drunk guys are not in a position to do much IMO. If they had been charged as you imply, I probably would have no problem with it, but they were not.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 28th October 2019 at 08:57 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 28th October 2019, 08:54 AM   #87
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,608
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Personally I have no issues with racists being fined $50 for being racist, though I suspect if it gets to the SCotUS the law will be over turned.
Also, thinking about the charge of 'ridicule', is saying an individual slur actually ridicule? I really don't get the use of this charge. Disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, even racial intimidation, I can see. But ridicule?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal 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 28th October 2019, 08:58 AM   #88
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
I don't see a close connection.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Please they where not inciting violence at all in charlotsville, not a single instance of that was charged so you can't claim that the violence that happened was incited. It just happened and clearly could never have been predicted by the organizers, otherwise they would have faced incitement charges.

Look you are clear constant death to the Jews protests outside synagogues are just the cost of being a jew in america. Like racial harassment is a given if one chooses to be black and go to a white school.
With all due respect, this thread is not about Charlottesville, and I don't see the situations as being at all comparable. Nor are the other instances you mention closely comparable IMO. The case at U Oklahoma is closer to the present case at U Connecticut, but the students who were expelled are a bit less sympathetic than these two drunk dudes.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides 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 28th October 2019, 09:03 AM   #89
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,258
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
When the two drunk guys are in the parking lot and the people are in their apartments, the drunk guys are not in a position to do much.
They're in a position to do quite a bit, really; they just need to start throwing things or, in the USA, shooting at stuff. If it's enough to make people in their apartments feel that there's an imminent danger to their property or safety, then there's harm being committed in the form of infringements of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their lives and property.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
If they had been charged as you imply, I probably would have no problem with it, but they were not.
Yes, I fully agree, and that's what I think is wrong with the whole thing. Hate in itself isn't, and shouldn't be, a crime; at most it should be a factor in detyermining punishment for an existing crime. Hence, for example, racially aggravated assault may be considered a more serious form of an existing crime, assault. In this case it seems to me that there was a perfectly reasonable offence to prosecute, which should have been the basis of any charges but for some reason wasn't. Unless, of course, there's more to the story than has come out so far; it wouldn't be the first time that racial aggravation of an existing crime was misreported as the crime itself, which seems to be a common right-wing misdirectionary tactic.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 28th October 2019, 09:06 AM   #90
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
With all due respect, this thread is not about Charlottesville, and I don't see the situations as being at all comparable. Nor are the other instances you mention closely comparable IMO. The case at U Oklahoma is closer to the present case at U Connecticut, but the students who were expelled are a bit less sympathetic than these two drunk dudes.
Why? Drunken singing of a traditional frat song, vs drunken yelling of racial epithets, why do you view one as so much more sympathetic?

And clearly the worst thing was expelling a frat merely for being openly racist, that is a total violation of free speech right there.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 09:08 AM   #91
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,214
ponderingturtle, do you honestly feel that your hyperbole adds value to this discussion?
carlitos 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 28th October 2019, 09:12 AM   #92
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
ponderingturtle, do you honestly feel that your hyperbole adds value to this discussion?
There is no hyperbola, just basic facts about how people here think the first amendment should be treated. Clearly the school can do nothing to prevent racial harassment of the black students doing so would be a violation of the first amendment rights of the racists. That is apparently a basic part of the first amendment.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 09:15 AM   #93
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,344
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
This is a false dichotomy. We don't have to like the speech we are defending, but it is up to us to defend it anyway. The Connecticut ACLU is thoroughly confused about this, arguing for punishment through the university, as opposed to through a criminal prosecution. It is time for me to say: ACLU, you're FIREd.
I'm shocked that the ACLU would take this stance. I hadn't heard it.
phiwum 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 28th October 2019, 10:43 AM   #94
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
Local versus national ACLU

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm shocked that the ACLU would take this stance. I hadn't heard it.
The Connecticut ACLU branch did, and I provided a direct link upthread, but the national statement at the same link is a bit different. Analysis here.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 28th October 2019 at 10:47 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 28th October 2019, 10:44 AM   #95
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The Connecticut br anchdid (and I think I provided a direct link upthread), but the national statement is a bit different. Analysis here.
Yep they said the unsayable the endemic nature of white supremacy with in our police departments, that is right out.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 10:47 AM   #96
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Fine we should stick to more constitutional solutions to such threats, namely firearms as the solution to those acting out in this way. Feel threatened just kill them, then there are no pesky constitutional issues and we can all feel better.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 12:28 PM   #97
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,214
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The Connecticut ACLU branch did, and I provided a direct link upthread, but the national statement at the same link is a bit different. Analysis here.
That statement is shockingly bad, to be coming a chapter of the ACLU? Holy crap. In my opinion, the ACLU has a generational problem, where the free speech purists are all aging out and the new blood has grown up in an era of political correctness and speech codes. I can't find it now, but there was some internal survey that I heard about where they didn't think that "hate speech" was protected. Today, they probably wouldn't defend the Nazis in Skokie.

Here's an article on this tension from back after Charlottesville:
Tensions grow inside ACLU over defending free-speech rights for the far right
carlitos 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 28th October 2019, 12:29 PM   #98
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
That statement is shockingly bad, to be coming a chapter of the ACLU? Holy crap. In my opinion, the ACLU has a generational problem, where the free speech purists are all aging out and the new blood has grown up in an era of political correctness and speech codes. I can't find it now, but there was some internal survey that I heard about where they didn't think that "hate speech" was protected. Today, they probably wouldn't defend the Nazis in Skokie.
Yep the proper constitutional thing to do is stand your ground and shoot the bastards. If the people had simply done that instead of calling the cops everything would be solved and no pesky constitutional issues involved. When in doubt shoot the nazi, they kill enough that it should be easy to justify.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 12:35 PM   #99
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,214
0/10 - you're not even trying at this point
carlitos 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 28th October 2019, 12:38 PM   #100
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
0/10 - you're not even trying at this point
Look it is the constitutional solution to speech that makes you feel threatened. I know threats are protected speech but as long as one feels sufficiently threatened one can open fire. That is the american way to deal with such speech not some "you can't threaten genocide or spout racist crap" type things. Those are protected political speech.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 01:15 PM   #101
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
a shout-out for drunken, loutish behavior

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Why? Drunken singing of a traditional frat song, vs drunken yelling of racial epithets, why do you view one as so much more sympathetic?

And clearly the worst thing was expelling a frat merely for being openly racist, that is a total violation of free speech right there.
The U Connecticut students were just shouting out the p-word and the n-word without calling any one particular person the p-word or the n-word. I do not recall reading that the U Oklahoma students were drunk, and I am making an assumption that the U Connecticut students were drunk, which has been known to happen from time to time on college campuses (and this was a Friday night). The U Oklahoma students were specifically saying that they were discriminating against potential black members. That is why I said words to the effect that they were less sympathetic. YMMV.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 28th October 2019 at 01:55 PM.
Chris_Halkides 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 28th October 2019, 01:19 PM   #102
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,537
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The U Connecticut students were just shouting out the p-word and the n-word without calling any one particular person the p-word or the n-word. The I do not recall reading that the U Oklahoma students were drunk, and I am making an assumption that the U Connecticut students were drunk, which has been known to happen from time to time on college campuses (and this was a Friday night). The U Oklahoma students were specifically saying that they were discriminating against potential black members. That is why I said words to the effect that they were less sympathetic. YMMV.
They were also celebrating murder but they did happen to be not in public but in private. They presented no threat to anyone, the U Conn students were the kind of drunk that people are legitimately afraid will assault them. But they would probably get a pass on the assault to for being drunk I guess.
__________________
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 28th October 2019, 04:12 PM   #103
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,441
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yep the proper constitutional thing to do is stand your ground and shoot the bastards. If the people had simply done that instead of calling the cops everything would be solved and no pesky constitutional issues involved. When in doubt shoot the nazi, they kill enough that it should be easy to justify.
I mean, one of them was wearing a hoodie, which means that they were going to break into a place and steal jewelry, or rape a black woman (you know how white people worship thug culture).

But really, it sounds like the ACLU is a bit more cautious these days, likely in part due to how they botched the Charlottesville white supremacist riots, which they provided legal aid to initially, until they carried out the violence they had repeatedly stated that they would.
Mumbles 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 29th October 2019, 04:36 AM   #104
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,344
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The Connecticut ACLU branch did, and I provided a direct link upthread, but the national statement at the same link is a bit different. Analysis here.
Thanks.
phiwum 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 29th October 2019, 05:01 AM   #105
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,287
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Oh, **** that. Freedom of speech is related to freedom of thought. If others are prohibited in their expression -- or even inhibited -- then I am deprived of accepting or rejecting their ideas. Some people feel content saying they hate the United States. Others want to burn Old Glory. We don't need artless, brainless commissars to tell us one is valid and the other invalid. It's easy to stand up for and protect speech you find mildly disagreeable. The acid test for free speech is upholding that which you despise.
It's impressive how hard you can hit when you step out of your Colbert-like right-wing fake persona.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 29th October 2019, 07:51 AM   #106
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,224
UConn students ARRESTED for 'ridiculing' speech

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
I would support a person's right to offend only insofar as the laws were changed to allow the offended to deal with the issue themselves by beating the ever-loving hell out of the offender without penalty.
Your post offends me. Kindly tell me your address, that I may show up on your doorstep with a baseball bat.

When your preferred method of dealing with offense is law, beware the society where everything is likely to offend someone.
Grizzly Adams 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 1st November 2019, 05:43 PM   #107
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,324
Further commentary from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Eductation.


Quote:
One of the two University of Connecticut students arrested last week by university police officers for using a racial slur made his first appearance in a criminal court on Wednesday, charged with a misdemeanor for violating a state law prohibiting speech that “ridicule[s]” protected classes of people. As FIRE explained in a recent letter to UConn, government actors — including state universities — may not punish this type of speech, however offensive, without violating the First Amendment.

Last week, UConn responded to our letter, saying that the university “wholeheartedly shares FIRE’s steadfast defense of free speech principles,” but advised that the criminal charges were “in the hands of the state of Connecticut.” Per UConn, FIRE’s concerns about the obviously unconstitutional statute are better directed at the state legislature, not the police who enforced it, and the university and its police are now powerless to rescind the charges against the students.

https://www.thefire.org/uconn-we-can...olice-started/


They also did some more historical digging and found that back in 1989, a Student 'Of Colour' was pinged under the same law for the following (Quoted from the New York Times (The archived article is behind a paywall.)):


Quote:
To Nina Wu, a junior at the University of Connecticut, the handmade poster she hung on her dormitory room door a year ago was just a joke. It listed the types of people who were “welcome,”’ “tolerated,” “unwelcome” and “shot on sight.” The last category included “bimbos,” “preppies,” “racists” and, some students say, “homos.” [Wu denied this.]

University officials expelled Miss Wu from all residential and dining halls in April. They found the word “homos” a violation of the student conduct code’s anti-harassment rule, which prohibited “making slurs or epithets based on race, sex, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation.” […] [T]he incident was sparked by two women who felt that the word “bimbos” was directed at them. Disciplinary action was taken only after the official reviewing the complaint found that the poster also contained an anti-homosexual slur.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/11/n...inst-bias.html


The University lost the case against Miss Wu and apparently also lost their copy of the injunction resulting from it, which to quote FIRE,



Quote:
...permanently enjoined the University of Connecticut from enforcing “any . . . policy that interferes with the exercise of First Amendment rights by . . . any other student, when the exercise of such rights is unaccompanied by violence or the imminent threat of violence.”

Oops!
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 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 1st November 2019, 07:56 PM   #108
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,861
lol!
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 2nd November 2019, 02:03 PM   #109
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
Nice work

I think that the incident was a false flag operation performed by undercover FIRE operatives. Their intent was to make the Connecticut chapter of the ACLU, their rival organization in certain respects, look bad.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides 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 4th November 2019, 04:29 PM   #110
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
fighting words?

Austin Bragg and Eugene Volokh wrote a clear summary of free speech as it pertains to public universities and colleges. They note, that "Students at public colleges may not be disciplined for their speech (unless it falls into the narrow First Amendment exceptions, such as true threats of criminal attack, or face-to-face personal insults that are likely to start a fight). That's true even if the speech is seen as evil or offensive, whether racist, sexist, religiously bigoted, unpatriotic, supportive of crime, or whatever else. For instance, a federal appeals court held that public university students can't be disciplined for putting on an "ugly woman" skit at a fraternity event, in which one of the students was in blackface."

I am not a lawyer, but given that the two students were shouting out words to no one in particular, I don't see how this incident falls under the "fighting words" exception. In addition, one legal scholar mentioned that the fighting words exception may not be dead but people are checking its pulse.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides 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 17th January 2020, 02:22 AM   #111
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,625
Court decision:
https://twitter.com/adamsteinbaugh/s...72501646577665
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 17th January 2020, 02:11 PM   #112
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,960
I think the ruling is correct, but then I admit to being pretty much an absolutist when it comes to free speech.
You have to show me a real clear and present danger before I agree to abridging speech,not just some vague reason.
I am really scared that more and more people on both the left and the right want to silence those who do not agree with them.
And never forget that they always have a wonderful sounding reason for taking away people's rights...…...
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 17th January 2020 at 02:19 PM.
dudalb 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 18th January 2020, 10:44 AM   #113
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,589
accelerated rehabilitation

Link From a story on 8 January 2020, "One of the two University of Connecticut students caught on video shouting a racial slur outside a campus apartment complex has been granted a special form of probation that could result in dismissal of the charge...One of the two University of Connecticut students caught on video shouting a racial slur outside a campus apartment complex has been granted a special form of probation that could result in dismissal of the charge." This case and the civil case against the university are clearly separate matters.
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 18th January 2020 at 10:49 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 18th January 2020, 03:14 PM   #114
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,709
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Link From a story on 8 January 2020, "One of the two University of Connecticut students caught on video shouting a racial slur outside a campus apartment complex has been granted a special form of probation that could result in dismissal of the charge...One of the two University of Connecticut students caught on video shouting a racial slur outside a campus apartment complex has been granted a special form of probation that could result in dismissal of the charge." This case and the civil case against the university are clearly separate matters.
I was just about to post similar and I would imagine Mucaj can make a similar deal. But should he? I don't know. It seems to me that a thorough dressing-down ("We are very, very disappointed, young man - is this really the image you want to present as you pursue a nursing degree?") - followed by some sort of restorative justice, like allowing offended students to present their views on why what the men did is wrong and should not be tolerated, would be appropriate here. Not a criminal case.

It seems to me like an opportunity has been lost in a frenzy of adversarial escalation. I don't want some bozo yelling ****** when I'm trying to sleep, but I also don't like being sonically blasted when a car that functions as a giant speaker spews out a bunch of misogynistic garbage while I'm waiting for the light to change. UConn literally made a federal case out of this nonsense. If I were them I'd stand down. Let them finish their nursing degrees. As far as allowing them to live in UConn housing, meh. Maybe they do deserve eviction under some campus code. But making it a criminal matter was a bonehead move IMO, especially if they were still bound by a consent decree from another case.

Last edited by Minoosh; 18th January 2020 at 04:11 PM.
Minoosh 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 18th January 2020, 03:59 PM   #115
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,680
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/city-b...n-out-of-hate/

Motivated by hate? If I call someone an illegal alien for any reason it should not be illegal. "Illegal Alien" is a valid legal term, for one.

Should people be arrested for yelling "Illegal Alien" out the window to anyone at all? I think hell no!

If someone calls me a wop can I call the cops? Idiocy.

The link makes it pretty clear that the prohibition is not just on the words, but on action that is intended to intimidate or deprive people of their rights:
Quote:
The directive goes on to list several examples of acts and comments that would run afoul of the restrictions, including harassing people over their accents or grasp of English, or wielding the threat of a call to Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a tool of hate.
So you can say what you want. But you can't threaten or abuse people. If somebody calls you a "wop" while they are refusing to seat you in a restaurant or rent you an apartment, yes, you can call the cops (or more likely the appropriate civil enforcement authority).

Last edited by Bob001; 18th January 2020 at 04:02 PM.
Bob001 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 19th January 2020, 10:43 PM   #116
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,317
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The link makes it pretty clear that the prohibition is not just on the words, but on action that is intended to intimidate or deprive people of their rights:


So you can say what you want. But you can't threaten or abuse people. If somebody calls you a "wop" while they are refusing to seat you in a restaurant or rent you an apartment, yes, you can call the cops (or more likely the appropriate civil enforcement authority).
What if a couple of drunk college students are yelling "wop" in a parking lot to no one in particular?
CaptainHowdy 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 24th January 2020, 05:36 PM   #117
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,324
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
What if a couple of drunk college students are yelling "wop" in a parking lot to no one in particular?

Well for one thing 'Wop' is not an offensive word, as it refers to 'White' people. For another, the University of Connecticut has been rebuked by another judge for running a sexual assault trial where the 'perp' was given the process due to them...


Quote:
A federal court in Connecticut handed the University of Connecticut a stinging rebuke yesterday, holding that the university likely violated an accused student’s due process rights when it ignored exculpatory evidence and prevented him from questioning witnesses in his sexual misconduct case.

https://www.thefire.org/when-a-judge...ime-to-listen/


I bring this up only because it goes to the mindset of the people running that university.
__________________
"I need hard facts! Bring in the dowsers!"
'America Unearthed' Season 1, Episode 13: Hunt for the Holy Grail

Everybody gets it wrong sometimes...
Graham2001 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 07:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.