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 24th October 2019, 07:00 AM   #41
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
It was the UConn police who investigated, and arrested, them:
who, on the Campus, are the equivalent of State Police, not private security.
rockysmith76 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, 07:44 AM   #42
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 6,933
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
...they could be sentenced to up to 30 days in jail....that the maximum penalty is 30 days.
I snipped all the **** that was irrelevant. So no one was arrested is what I'm understanding as no one has posted someone being arrested?

I'm fully aware of what misdemeanors carry with regards to penalties.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
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."
I don't know who Professor Geoffrey Stone is but he's absolutely wrong. Free speech, and codes of conduct are two separate things. The school can expel kids for almost any breach of code of conduct.
__________________
"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 24th October 2019, 08:06 AM   #43
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
Chicago Statement on free speech on campus

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I snipped all the **** that was irrelevant. So no one was arrested is what I'm understanding as no one has posted someone being arrested?

I'm fully aware of what misdemeanors carry with regards to penalties.



I don't know who Professor Geoffrey Stone is but he's absolutely wrong. Free speech, and codes of conduct are two separate things. The school can expel kids for almost any breach of code of conduct.
He was the dean of the law school at the University of Chicago. He chaired the committee which wrote the Chicago Statement concerning free speech on campus. Link to Wikipedia entry here.

Now strictly speaking he has not yet publicly spoken about the incident at the University of Connecticut. However he cited two cases in the link I posted to his essay at Huffington Post, which both indicated that public universities may not discipline students for their use of protected speech. Private universities are another matter.
__________________
“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 08:50 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, 08:16 AM   #44
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
yes, they were arrested

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I snipped all the **** that was irrelevant. So no one was arrested is what I'm understanding as no one has posted someone being arrested?
From the previously posted link to FIRE: "Two students at the University of Connecticut were arrested Monday by the University of Connecticut Police Department for saying the n-word loudly enough for others to hear." According to the Hartford Courant (as reported in WaPo), they were released after promising to return at a later date.
__________________
“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 08:19 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, 08:30 AM   #45
applecorped
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,796
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.
this
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 24th October 2019, 08:38 AM   #46
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,432
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I don't know who Professor Geoffrey Stone is but he's absolutely wrong. Free speech, and codes of conduct are two separate things. The school can expel kids for almost any breach of code of conduct.
I don't think codes of conduct and free speech are so neatly separable. Public universities can and have written codes of conduct that suppress protected speech.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=1&oi=scholarr

And I think this history is precisely why the university didn't subject the students to academic discipline, which surely would have been more serious than the slap on the wrist they'd likely get from violating this archaic provision about ridicule--because they can't.
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 24th October 2019, 08:49 AM   #47
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
Healy v. James; possible expulsion

Professor Stone wrote, "In Healy v. James, for example, a state college in 1969 refused recognition to a proposed student chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The college argued that its denial of recognition was justified because SDS adhered to “a philosophy of violence and disruption.” This was especially worrisome, the college explained, at a time of widespread disruption on college campuses, often accompanied by trespass, vandalism, and arson.

The Supreme Court held that the college could not constitutionally deny recognition to SDS, even though its advocacy of violence and disruption might well be 'repugnant'...The 'critical line,' the Court held, is whether the speech in question was likely to incite imminent lawless action. Short of that, the speech — and the organization — were protected by the First Amendment." Professor Stone also cited Papish in his opinion piece.

In a previous comment, I noted that the students may be subject to expulsion. From WaPo: "[Spokeswoman Stephanie] Reitz said the university is investigating whether Karal and Mucaj violated the student code of conduct, which could result in additional penalties as severe as expulsion."
__________________
“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 09:09 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, 10:49 AM   #48
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,837
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
"If you can't say '****,' then you can't say '**** the government.'" -- Lenny Bruce
<snip>

No one is regulating private opinions. You are free to hate whoever you want to hate. But your public conduct, what you say and do to other people, can and should be subject to limits.


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rule 12.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28

Last edited by Loss Leader; 24th October 2019 at 11:10 AM.
ChristianProgressive 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, 11:22 AM   #49
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 13,182
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
I read in the article that Massachusetts has, or is working on a law where saying "bitch" is illegal,
This sounds discriminatory. It would unfairly affect gay men.

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.
There's a difference between denigrating and terrorizing. True threats of violence, even against the government, are not protected.

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post

No one is regulating private opinions. You are free to hate whoever you want to hate. But your public conduct, what you say and do to other people, can and should be subject to limits.
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.
__________________
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 24th October 2019, 11:26 AM   #50
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,730
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
No one is regulating private opinions. You are free to hate whoever you want to hate. But your public conduct, what you say and do to other people, can and should be subject to limits.
And it is. For example, you are not legally permitted to threaten violence against people. But the limits cannot, should not, and do not prevent people from being offensive.
__________________
"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 24th October 2019, 03:14 PM   #51
ChristianProgressive
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,837
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And it is. For example, you are not legally permitted to threaten violence against people. But the limits cannot, should not, and do not prevent people from being offensive.
Show me in the Constitution where you have the right to inflict hate on other people.

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.

Hate speech = fighting words.
__________________
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man." - Matthew 24:37

"And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." - Luke 21:28
ChristianProgressive 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, 06:21 PM   #52
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
The ACLU weighs in.

David Cole, national legal director of the national ACLU, had the following reaction: "Although the conduct reported in this incident is reprehensible, it is not criminal. The First Amendment protects even offensive and hateful speech, so long as it does not rise to the level of incitement to violence, criminal harassment, or true threats. Link.
__________________
“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 24th October 2019, 07:30 PM   #53
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,039
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.
Unsurprisingly, the New York Post is wrong. There was even a thread about it. The law does not make the term illegal.

It confirms your bias though, so it's just as good as truth right?
__________________
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 24th October 2019, 07:37 PM   #54
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
Public universities

Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I don't know who Professor Geoffrey Stone is but he's absolutely wrong. Free speech, and codes of conduct are two separate things. The school can expel kids for almost any breach of code of conduct.
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh wrote, "Indeed, public universities can’t even impose viewpoint-discriminatory campus speech codes, though such codes are enforced only through administrative discipline."
__________________
“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 24th October 2019, 10:59 PM   #55
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Unsurprisingly, the New York Post is wrong. There was even a thread about it. The law does not make the term illegal.

It confirms your bias though, so it's just as good as truth right?
No, New York state does not make the term "illegal alien" illegal in a criminal sense. But residents of New York City face a fine of up to a quarter million dollars for calling somebody an illegal or threatening to call ICE on them. I assume this is because they don't want a concerned citizen to tip off an illegal by acting hostile and telling them that ICE is on the way. If you threaten them, they can go into hiding before ICE can swoop in a whisk them off to a concentration camp.

Meanwhile, Connecticut has a law that lets cops arrest people for saying ******. Not actually calling a ****** a ******. Just saying ****** 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 25th October 2019, 06:45 AM   #56
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Show me in the Constitution where you have the right to inflict hate on other people.

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.

Hate speech = fighting words.
Interesting World you live in. Like it or not, one edge of the Free Speech sword is the right to offend.

Your desired way is not better, it's the gateway to Predictive Policing and Thought Crime nonsense.
rockysmith76 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 25th October 2019, 07:52 AM   #57
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
Connecticut and Oklahoma

My cynical take on the U Conn. administration is that they pushed for the arrests knowing full well that the students could not be reasonably be expected to be convicted. Nevertheless, the arrests provided a means of public shaming and a fig leaf that the university did something.

"As a public institution, UConn bears a constitutional responsibility to ensure students of color have equal access to education, which means equal access to a learning environment where they are safe. To date, the school has not taken the steps necessary to fulfill that obligation, and until its internal disciplinary process is complete, it remains to be seen whether the school will take adequate action to hold the two arrested students accountable.” This portion of the response of Connecticut's ACLU chapter implies that since the students cannot be convicted, that they should be disciplined through U. Connecticut's process. I am no longer surprised by the the ACLU's position, given their recent history. The two U Conn. students might be expelled, as happened at the University of Oklahoma, but Professor Volokh believed that doing so was unconstitutional. However, challenging an expulsion would be expensive.
__________________
“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; 25th October 2019 at 07:53 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 25th October 2019, 07:58 AM   #58
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
My cynical take on the U Conn. administration is that they pushed for the arrests knowing full well that the students could not be reasonably be expected to be convicted. Nevertheless, the arrests provided a means of public shaming and a fig leaf that the university did something.
there was a pro trump speaker two years ago who assaulted an activist who attempted to steal his speech. Both were arrested, and then the charges dropped quietly afterwards. This kind of thing isn't new to there.
rockysmith76 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 25th October 2019, 10:43 AM   #59
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,432
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
But residents of New York City face a fine of up to a quarter million dollars for calling somebody an illegal or threatening to call ICE on them.
That's also not true. Immigration status is a protected class in NYC, so calling someone an illegal alien with intent to demean constitutes discrimination in the usual contexts where that matters (employment, housing, public accommodation).

It's not really any different than an employer getting hit with a discrimination suit for referring to an employee as "Jew" with an intent to demean.
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 25th October 2019, 11:03 AM   #60
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,600
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Show me in the Constitution where you have the right to inflict hate on other people.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

...

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

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.

Hate speech = fighting words.
Show us where in the Constitution the concept of "fighting words" is dealt with.
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 25th October 2019, 11:35 AM   #61
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,730
Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive View Post
Show me in the Constitution where you have the right to inflict hate on other people.
carlitos kindly addressed this part already.

Quote:
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.

Hate speech = fighting words.
And what should qualify as offensive? Should drawing a picture of Mohamed count? How about calling someone a brownshirt? Is that offensive? How do you judge? Who gets to judge?
__________________
"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 25th October 2019, 11:46 AM   #62
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
carlitos kindly addressed this part already.



And what should qualify as offensive? Should drawing a picture of Mohamed count? How about calling someone a brownshirt? Is that offensive? How do you judge? Who gets to judge?
Apparently he thinks the Snowflakes should. meh.
rockysmith76 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 25th October 2019, 12:05 PM   #63
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,184
I love also the complete lack of nuance between saying a word out loud and specifically insulting a person with that word.

Next, we start cleansing such language from the books.

Then we make sure Alexa is pinging houses where such words a verbalized.
Pterodactyl 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 26th October 2019, 07:54 AM   #64
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,020
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Who gets to judge?
Probably a judge. Maybe a jury?
Matthew Best 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 26th October 2019, 08:16 AM   #65
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,281
Originally Posted by Pterodactyl View Post
I love also the complete lack of nuance between saying a word out loud and specifically insulting a person with that word.

Next, we start cleansing such language from the books.

Then we make sure Alexa is pinging houses where such words a verbalized.
In high school, my boy read out loud a passage from a book involving the word "******". He read the word out loud and noticed those who followed did not. I don't know if the skipped the word or substituted "the n word".

Nothing was said about his choice.

I occasionally read a passage from Huck Finn and skip the word as distracting from my point, but I see nothing wrong with reading it out loud in class. The offense is part of the point of 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 27th October 2019, 04:03 PM   #66
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Is the point that the first amendment was abused by students to yell racist slurs?
That and rape threats on the internet of course.
__________________
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 27th October 2019, 04:08 PM   #67
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
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.

Why would drunk harassment be different from sober harassment? What crimes does being drunk get one out of committing?
__________________
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 27th October 2019, 04:11 PM   #68
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
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.



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.



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.
You make it sound like killing and arresting blacks for being where they should be is some kind of problem, we have racist whites to campaign for, not some snowflake issue like cops murdering people.
__________________
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 27th October 2019, 04:14 PM   #69
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
If they are calling immigration authorities on someone because of hate, then they are effectively wasting police time with a false allegation.
Is it a waste of time though to put proper fear into the community which is the whole point for both the police and the one reporting it? Seems like it is doing the intended job the president wants and so can not be called wasting their time.

What next they wasted their own time when they rounded up all the brown people at meat packing plants regardless of immigration status? That is just plain silly.
__________________
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 27th October 2019, 04:18 PM   #70
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Professor Stone wrote, "In Healy v. James, for example, a state college in 1969 refused recognition to a proposed student chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The college argued that its denial of recognition was justified because SDS adhered to “a philosophy of violence and disruption.” This was especially worrisome, the college explained, at a time of widespread disruption on college campuses, often accompanied by trespass, vandalism, and arson.

The Supreme Court held that the college could not constitutionally deny recognition to SDS, even though its advocacy of violence and disruption might well be 'repugnant'...The 'critical line,' the Court held, is whether the speech in question was likely to incite imminent lawless action. Short of that, the speech — and the organization — were protected by the First Amendment." Professor Stone also cited Papish in his opinion piece.

In a previous comment, I noted that the students may be subject to expulsion. From WaPo: "[Spokeswoman Stephanie] Reitz said the university is investigating whether Karal and Mucaj violated the student code of conduct, which could result in additional penalties as severe as expulsion."
And yet for just stating that there would never be a n-word in Sigma Alpha epsilon. They got kicked off campus for that, clearly you need to go help them and their first amendment case.

https://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/819073...-song-reaction
__________________
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 27th October 2019, 04:23 PM   #71
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
There's a difference between denigrating and terrorizing. True threats of violence, even against the government, are not protected.
BUt the fun silly harmless ones like rape threats those are of course fine and protected speech. I mean they have to be otherwise there would be a real issue with all the people who send them out all the time. They are noble free speech warriors.

Hence why the ICE officer got off with driving into a crowd of jews, that was deemed protected free speech.


Quote:
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.
Yep nothing threatening about calls to violence as long as they aren't personnel. Say we need to kill one jew and it is a crime, say we need to kill all the jews and it is just politics and protected 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 27th October 2019, 04:25 PM   #72
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
David Cole, national legal director of the national ACLU, had the following reaction: "Although the conduct reported in this incident is reprehensible, it is not criminal. The First Amendment protects even offensive and hateful speech, so long as it does not rise to the level of incitement to violence, criminal harassment, or true threats. Link.
Yep that is why we have to help nazis no matter what past or predicted threats they have made until there is violence then we can only act against the violent people and pretend that most of the nazi's are fine people.
__________________
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 27th October 2019, 04:28 PM   #73
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
My cynical take on the U Conn. administration is that they pushed for the arrests knowing full well that the students could not be reasonably be expected to be convicted. Nevertheless, the arrests provided a means of public shaming and a fig leaf that the university did something.

"As a public institution, UConn bears a constitutional responsibility to ensure students of color have equal access to education, which means equal access to a learning environment where they are safe. To date, the school has not taken the steps necessary to fulfill that obligation, and until its internal disciplinary process is complete, it remains to be seen whether the school will take adequate action to hold the two arrested students accountable.” This portion of the response of Connecticut's ACLU chapter implies that since the students cannot be convicted, that they should be disciplined through U. Connecticut's process. I am no longer surprised by the the ACLU's position, given their recent history. The two U Conn. students might be expelled, as happened at the University of Oklahoma, but Professor Volokh believed that doing so was unconstitutional. However, challenging an expulsion would be expensive.
If they can't deal with constant racist harassment then they don't deserve education. Harrasment is something minorities and women just have to accept and pretend never happened. That is a clear result of the first amendment. Like how the supreme court gets to have safe zones around entering court from protesters but abortion clinics do not, the rights that exists simply apply differently for different people as our founders intended.

Blacks simply should know better than to expect to feel safe in Connecticut.
__________________
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 27th October 2019, 05:26 PM   #74
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,730
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Probably a judge. Maybe a jury?
They might get the final say, but someone else decides for it to get to that point, and it can wreck your life in the process. And I don't trust anyone, including a judge and jury, to decide whether me offending someone should be illegal.
__________________
"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 28th October 2019, 03:39 AM   #75
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
two drunk dudes yelling

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
If they can't deal with constant racist harassment then they don't deserve education. Harrasment is something minorities and women just have to accept and pretend never happened. That is a clear result of the first amendment. Like how the supreme court gets to have safe zones around entering court from protesters but abortion clinics do not, the rights that exists simply apply differently for different people as our founders intended.

Blacks simply should know better than to expect to feel safe in Connecticut.
If two drunk guys yell out bad words to no one and particular, that should not cause anyone to feel unsafe. Nor should subjective feelings of safety or lack thereof be a reason to overturn years of precedent with respect to the first amendment.
__________________
“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 28th October 2019, 03:43 AM   #76
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
Contradictions in Connecticut

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yep that is why we have to help nazis no matter what past or predicted threats they have made until there is violence then we can only act against the violent people and pretend that most of the nazi's are fine people.
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.
__________________
“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; 28th October 2019 at 04:03 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, 03:55 AM   #77
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,513
expulsions at U of Oklahoma

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And yet for just stating that there would never be a n-word in Sigma Alpha epsilon. They got kicked off campus for that, clearly you need to go help them and their first amendment case.

https://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/819073...-song-reaction
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.
__________________
“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 28th October 2019, 04:01 AM   #78
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
If two drunk guys yell out bad words to no one and particular, that should not cause anyone to feel unsafe. Nor should subjective feelings of safety or lack thereof be a reason to overturn years of precedent with respect to the first amendment.
Of course basic harassment is nothing to worry about. And always listen to the Cis Straight White Guy for when others should feel safe or not.
__________________
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, 04:09 AM   #79
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: 29,844
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
If two drunk guys yell out bad words to no one and particular, that should not cause anyone to feel unsafe.
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.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Nor should subjective feelings of safety or lack thereof be a reason to overturn years of precedent with respect to the first amendment.
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
__________________
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, 04:23 AM   #80
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,178
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.
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.
__________________
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
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 04:54 PM.
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.