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 22nd October 2019, 02:30 PM   #1
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,796
UConn students ARRESTED for 'ridiculing' speech

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13898


The two students both were charged under CGS 53-37, ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race," Reitz said

In a 2018 column for Reason, University of California at Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh called the statute under which the men were charged "obviously unconstitutional, because it suppresses speech based on its content (and viewpoint), and because there's no First Amendment exception for speech that insults based on race or religion."
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 22nd October 2019, 07:33 PM   #2
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,822
Just got through reading about this and came to see if anyone had posted anything. Should be an interesting thread. I'm shocked nobody has responded yet

I read in the article that Massachusetts has, or is working on a law where saying "bitch" is illegal, and we all already know that in New York the term "illegal alien" is banned speech.

Banned speech.

I'm not sure moving out of California is going to be far enough for me anymore. Then again I would never move to one of these states. I've had enough of this type of bullcrap here in Cali.

I would think a sensible judge would overturn this law mentioned in the OP, but I have no confidence in people's intelligence anymore.

If we need laws to protect people's feelings then there is no end in sight to this. You better practice being perfect in public because these intolerant people will not stand for any mistakes!

Who thinks these laws are a good idea - show of hands? I'd show you mine but I'd probably get arrested for "vulgar hand signalling".
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.

Last edited by mgidm86; 22nd October 2019 at 07:35 PM.
mgidm86 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 22nd October 2019, 08:29 PM   #3
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,914
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.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 22nd October 2019, 10:40 PM   #4
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,537
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.
And I have no issue with universities having to pay out millions of dollars in settlements when they violate peoples' right to free speech.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 22nd October 2019, 11:30 PM   #5
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,634
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Personally I have no issues with racists being fined $50 for being racist
I do. Why would you ever empower government to punish thought crimes?
__________________
"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 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 23rd October 2019, 12:37 AM   #6
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,393
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.
Are you in favour of the statute as it is written according to the link in the OP?
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt 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 23rd October 2019, 01:24 AM   #7
Graham2001
Graduate Poster
 
Graham2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,313
Here is a somewhat better source for the incident covered in the Op.


https://www.thefire.org/university-o...f-racial-slur/
__________________
"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 23rd October 2019, 03:39 AM   #8
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,796
government knows best
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 23rd October 2019, 04:00 AM   #9
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,928
Quote:
Even if you find this speech undeserving of sympathy, empowering authorities to investigate and penalize racially-offensive commentary will be abused.

Is the point that the first amendment was abused by students to yell racist slurs?
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 23rd October 2019, 04:23 AM   #10
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,176
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I do.
So do I.

Ostracisation (?) is a better solution.
__________________
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 23rd October 2019, 05:32 AM   #11
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 32,710
Originally Posted by Graham2001 View Post
Here is a somewhat better source for the incident covered in the Op.


https://www.thefire.org/university-o...f-racial-slur/
Someone dusted off a hundred plus year old law, that was rarely used before, and found a new way to apply it? Yep, there's justice in action.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."
Mike! 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 23rd October 2019, 05:42 AM   #12
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Seems to me like other charges like disorderly conduct would have been a better fit.

Strange decision by campus police to pursue this charge unless some key info is missing.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster 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 23rd October 2019, 06:14 AM   #13
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 8,678
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Personally I have no issues with racists being fined $50 for being racist,...
I do. The idea of people being fined under obviously unconstitutional laws is troubling, and should have no place in the 21st century. The viral video would have sufficed to trash the students in the court of public opinion, and outed them, doing sufficient damage.


Quote:
...though I suspect if it gets to the SCotUS the law will be over turned.
Well, it would have to. It's ridiculous, to jump on that descriptor.

Wonder why they chose that law, knowing it would eventually get tossed? Disturbing the peace, etc would have flown. But they chose an offense which is doomed.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
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 23rd October 2019, 06:18 AM   #14
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,822
From the articles, it is unclear to me if this was actually verbal harassment of residents of nearby housing, silly shouting of nasty words by drunk or stupid people, or a loud but overheard conversion between the people charged. I would be much less sympathetic if it was intentional harrasment. One should have the right to say what one thinks, but if one's primary purpose to attack others and make them afraid or ridiculed in their homes, I question if it truly is a freedom of speech issue. I understand from the second article the complexities. But I would like to learn more of the actual facts.

Last edited by Giordano; 23rd October 2019 at 06:23 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 23rd October 2019, 06:22 AM   #15
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13898


The two students both were charged under CGS 53-37, ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race," Reitz said

In a 2018 column for Reason, University of California at Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh called the statute under which the men were charged "obviously unconstitutional, because it suppresses speech based on its content (and viewpoint), and because there's no First Amendment exception for speech that insults based on race or religion."
Having known folks who work there, things are that Politically Correct there, it's not sirprising. Pathetic, but not sirprising.
rockysmith76 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 23rd October 2019, 06:23 AM   #16
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 378
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.
That's the slippery slope with the False Dicotomy of being Politically Correct. The reality is that "Free Speech" is a double edged sword. On one end the freedom to post cat videos, and on the other the Klan.
rockysmith76 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 23rd October 2019, 09:42 AM   #17
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,867
I don't care enough to read the article because this perpetual whining of first amendment violations gets obnoxiously old.

The title says ARRESTED and someone alluded to a $50 fine. Which one is it because it's probably not both?
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 23rd October 2019, 09:51 AM   #18
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I don't care enough to read the article because this perpetual whining of first amendment violations gets obnoxiously old.

The title says ARRESTED and someone alluded to a $50 fine. Which one is it because it's probably not both?
Either the law was abused or it could be some Campus code of conduct thing, if the law, then it's overblown SNowflakism.
rockysmith76 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 23rd October 2019, 09:51 AM   #19
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,981
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I don't care enough to read the article because this perpetual whining of first amendment violations gets obnoxiously old.

The title says ARRESTED and someone alluded to a $50 fine. Which one is it because it's probably not both?
Why not both?

A fine is the outcome of a judicial process. An arrest is a precursor to a judicial process.

You arrest someone, you charge them, you put them on trial, you issue a verdict, and you impose a sentence: a $50 fine.
theprestige 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 23rd October 2019, 10:29 AM   #20
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,867
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
Either the law was abused or it could be some Campus code of conduct thing, if the law, then it's overblown SNowflakism.
Ok, that certainly didn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Why not both?
Never once said it couldn't be.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A fine is the outcome of a judicial process. An arrest is a precursor to a judicial process.
I assure you I am absolutely and entirely familiar with the legal process. My over-familiarity with it causes me to get pulled over for exactly **** all to this day.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You arrest someone, you charge them, you put them on trial, you issue a verdict, and you impose a sentence: a $50 fine.
Great. Most charges that come with a $50 fine don't require an arrest. I feel like something is off.

In MN if you get arrested with an ounce of weed or less it's a $75 fine for instance. There is absolutely no arrest at all. Reckless driving in ND, a bit over $100 and still no arrest. I was just curious if it was ********, if someone actually got arrested or if this is just more hyperbole about MAH RIGHTZ!
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 23rd October 2019 at 10:36 AM.
plague311 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 23rd October 2019, 10:32 AM   #21
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,432
The funny thing about this one is that universities often take heat for failing to protect free speech, but the university's charter is almost certainly (as a public school) crafted to prevent punishment of constitutionally protected speech.

It's the state, in this instance, that has some vintage and almost certainly unconstitutional prohibition on 'ridicule'.

I assume these students will win whatever lawsuits follow, and I wish them well in their future careers in finance.
mumblethrax 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 23rd October 2019, 01:41 PM   #22
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,307
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13898


The two students both were charged under CGS 53-37, ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race," Reitz said

In a 2018 column for Reason, University of California at Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh called the statute under which the men were charged "obviously unconstitutional, because it suppresses speech based on its content (and viewpoint), and because there's no First Amendment exception for speech that insults based on race or religion."
It's always been against the law to say things that racial majorities find offensive. That UCLA professor has an imperfect, and frankly racist, interpretation of the law.
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 23rd October 2019, 02:09 PM   #23
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,817
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I do. The idea of people being fined under obviously unconstitutional laws is troubling, and should have no place in the 21st century. The viral video would have sufficed to trash the students in the court of public opinion, and outed them, doing sufficient damage.




Well, it would have to. It's ridiculous, to jump on that descriptor.

Wonder why they chose that law, knowing it would eventually get tossed? Disturbing the peace, etc would have flown. But they chose an offense which is doomed.
In particular, I agree with the author of the linked article... this law may actually be legal but inapplicable. It appears to address commercial speech, which may have a lot of statute excluding it from full constitutional protection, but these guys were not advertising their business. I expect a judge will spike it.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 23rd October 2019, 02:17 PM   #24
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,981
Depends on the goal, I guess.

"Don't worry if the university comes after you and makes your life hell for a year or two, they won't be able to make it stick in court", said no student ever.

By the time this gets thrown out of court, it will have already incurred unjust costs to student which can't really be recouped. That's a pretty decent sword to hang over the head of anyone else who might be thinking of doing something legal but that you want to push back on.
theprestige 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 23rd October 2019, 03:37 PM   #25
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
vulgar words

Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
From the articles, it is unclear to me if this was actually verbal harassment of residents of nearby housing, silly shouting of nasty words by drunk or stupid people, or a loud but overheard conversion between the people charged. I would be much less sympathetic if it was intentional harrasment. One should have the right to say what one thinks, but if one's primary purpose to attack others and make them afraid or ridiculed in their homes, I question if it truly is a freedom of speech issue. I understand from the second article the complexities. But I would like to learn more of the actual facts.
The article at FIRE quotes a student paper as follows: "The investigation showed that the males walked back through the apartment complex after leaving a local business and played a game in which they yelled vulgar words [the Courant reports that they were saying “penis”]. As they walked through the parking lot, [the students] switched to saying a racial epithet that was heard by witnesses."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 23rd October 2019, 03:45 PM   #26
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
bad misdemeanor laws

Attorney Scott Greenfield wrote, "There is a good chance that the case will be dismissed, although there is similarly a good chance that the kids will be offered some opportunistic outcome to bail out of the prosecution without consequence as well. As Eugene Volokh says, bad misdemeanor laws are rarely appealed as it’s just not worth the cost and effort, and so they remain on the books to be seized when no other law will do the trick." I added the link to Professor Volokh's opinion piece at the NY Daily News.
__________________
“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; 23rd October 2019 at 03:53 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 23rd October 2019, 03:51 PM   #27
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
30 days

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I don't care enough to read the article because this perpetual whining of first amendment violations gets obnoxiously old.

The title says ARRESTED and someone alluded to a $50 fine. Which one is it because it's probably not both?
"Two University of Connecticut students are being prosecuted for “ridicule on account of creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race,” according to the Washington Post. If convicted, they could be sentenced to up to 30 days in jail." Link to NYDN Op-Ed.

Nick Gillespie at Reason also indicated that the maximum penalty is 30 days.
__________________
“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; 23rd October 2019 at 04:00 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 23rd October 2019, 04:36 PM   #28
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,034
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Just got through reading about this and came to see if anyone had posted anything. Should be an interesting thread. I'm shocked nobody has responded yet

I read in the article that Massachusetts has, or is working on a law where saying "bitch" is illegal, and we all already know that in New York the term "illegal alien" is banned speech.

Banned speech.

I'm not sure moving out of California is going to be far enough for me anymore. Then again I would never move to one of these states. I've had enough of this type of bullcrap here in Cali.

I would think a sensible judge would overturn this law mentioned in the OP, but I have no confidence in people's intelligence anymore.

If we need laws to protect people's feelings then there is no end in sight to this. You better practice being perfect in public because these intolerant people will not stand for any mistakes!

Who thinks these laws are a good idea - show of hands? I'd show you mine but I'd probably get arrested for "vulgar hand signalling".

No it isn't. We all know that's the lie some are pushing but it is just wrong.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 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 23rd October 2019, 05:04 PM   #29
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,159
"If you can't say '****,' then you can't say '**** the government.'" -- Lenny Bruce
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain 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 23rd October 2019, 05:06 PM   #30
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,297
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Just got through reading about this and came to see if anyone had posted anything. Should be an interesting thread. I'm shocked nobody has responded yet
Frankly, I assumed bad faith as soon as I saw the OP, so I ignored it for a while. Not that I'm in favor of what amount to random arrests (anyone who reads my posts should know I'm against them, actually), but I figured I'd wait until a better source was posted.

Quote:
I read in the article that Massachusetts has, or is working on a law where saying "bitch" is illegal, and we all already know that in New York the term "illegal alien" is banned speech.
You mean the NYC law that, in reality, only adds terms like "illegal alien" to already existing laws against leveling threats such as threatening to call ICE on people? Because that's not actually outlawing the term in and of itself.

Quote:
Who thinks these laws are a good idea - show of hands? I'd show you mine but I'd probably get arrested for "vulgar hand signalling".
Good idea!

And then we can do a quick search for how many of those who object to this law, also defended police when:

Prof. Gates was arrested for supposedly making too much noise while being harassed by police in his own home;

When Eric Garner was falsely arrested, and choked, for selling loose cigarettes, which everyone now agrees he was not doing;

When Officer Barrel Roll arrested a bikini-clad teenager for leaving, after he rolled around, screamed like a lunatic, and ordered her to leave the area;

or when Sandra Bland was arrested for asking why she should put out her cigarette after being pulled over for a minor violation.

I've noticed certain patterns on this board, and let's just say I'm a bit curious.
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 23rd October 2019, 05:48 PM   #31
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
Possible expulsion as well

Reason's Nick Gillespie also wrote, "According to The Washington Post, Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj are also facing possible expulsion from UConn for violating the school's code of conduct." I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that at a public university, one has the same free speech rights as anywhere else. Professor Geoffrey Stone wrote about a not entirely dissimilar incident at the University of Oklahoma, "Needless to say, such language is abhorrent. But the University of Oklahoma cannot constitutionally expel the students for this expression."
__________________
“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; 23rd October 2019 at 07:02 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 23rd October 2019, 06:46 PM   #32
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,914
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
And I have no issue with universities having to pay out millions of dollars in settlements when they violate peoples' right to free speech.
The University didn't make the law.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I do. Why would you ever empower government to punish thought crimes?
It stops being a thought when it comes out of your mouth.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I do. The idea of people being fined under obviously unconstitutional laws is troubling, and should have no place in the 21st century. The viral video would have sufficed to trash the students in the court of public opinion, and outed them, doing sufficient damage.
Not being an American, you constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed on in my eyes. As such I am quite fine with the idea of attacking others verbally because of their physical differences to you being an $50 fine offence. Might make racists and other bigots think twice before opening their yaps.

Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
That's the slippery slope with the False Dicotomy of being Politically Correct. The reality is that "Free Speech" is a double edged sword. On one end the freedom to post cat videos, and on the other the Klan.
I suggest you check your fallacies. Slippery Slope is one, and Political Correctness isn't a False Dichotomy. As to the rest, Cat videos are rarely used as a means of attacking and terrorising other people, racist and bigoted language is.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
"If you can't say '****,' then you can't say '**** the government.'" -- Lenny Bruce
There is a major difference between being able to attack the Government verbally, and attacking other people in order to denigrate and terrorise them.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 23rd October 2019 at 06:48 PM.
PhantomWolf 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 23rd October 2019, 07:12 PM   #33
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,822
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No it isn't. We all know that's the lie some are pushing but it is just wrong.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/26/city-b...n-out-of-hate/

Quote:
It’s now against the law in New York City to threaten someone with a call to immigration authorities or refer to them as an “illegal alien” when motivated by 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.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 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 23rd October 2019, 09:39 PM   #34
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,914
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.
If they are calling immigration authorities on someone because of hate, then they are effectively wasting police time with a false allegation.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 23rd October 2019, 11:55 PM   #35
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,537
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The University didn't make the law.
It was the UConn police who investigated, and arrested, them:

Quote:
UConn President Thomas Katsouleas released a statement reacting to the arrests, saying, “It is supportive of our core values to pursue accountability, through due process, for an egregious assault on our community that has caused considerable harm. I’m grateful for the university’s collective effort in responding to this incident, especially the hard work of the UConn Police Department, which has been investigating the case since it was reported.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 23rd October 2019, 11:59 PM   #36
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,537
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
There is a major difference between being able to attack the Government verbally, and attacking other people in order to denigrate and terrorise them.
They weren't denigrating or terrorising anyone. They were playing a game in which they randomly shouted out vulgar words as they left a party.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 October 2019, 03:36 AM   #37
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,501
Oklahoma was not OK

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Reason's Nick Gillespie also wrote, "According to The Washington Post, Jarred Karal and Ryan Mucaj are also facing possible expulsion from UConn for violating the school's code of conduct." I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that at a public university, one has the same free speech rights as anywhere else. Professor Geoffrey Stone wrote about a not entirely dissimilar incident at the University of Oklahoma, "Needless to say, such language is abhorrent. But the University of Oklahoma cannot constitutionally expel the students for this expression."
Professor Stone continued, "In light of those precedents, it seems clear that the University of Oklahoma violated the First Amendment when it expelled the SAE students for their offensively racist expression." The situation at UConn looks similar to me from the point of view of the law that Professor Stone cites.
__________________
“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; 24th October 2019 at 04:06 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 24th October 2019, 04:12 AM   #38
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,176
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
It stops being a thought when it comes out of your mouth.
But it doesn't stop being a thought crime. Obviously thought crimes can't punish thoughts themselves, right? They punish their expression.
__________________
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 24th October 2019, 06:57 AM   #39
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
The funny thing about this one is that universities often take heat for failing to protect free speech, but the university's charter is almost certainly (as a public school) crafted to prevent punishment of constitutionally protected speech.

It's the state, in this instance, that has some vintage and almost certainly unconstitutional prohibition on 'ridicule'.

I assume these students will win whatever lawsuits follow, and I wish them well in their future careers in finance.
To your point on the State being where this looks iffy, there are entire websites out there with messed old timey laws that make no sense in the modern era.
rockysmith76 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 24th October 2019, 06:58 AM   #40
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No it isn't. We all know that's the lie some are pushing but it is just wrong.
It should be properly illegal Immigrant
rockysmith76 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
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 10:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.