KSU football team refusing to practice or play

[starkvegasdawg]

Until a student is expelled from campus for a supposedly racist and/or threatening tweet. I say supposedly because I can't find what the tweet says, but if there was no threat made I don't see grounds for expulsion. The first amendment guarantees your right to be an utter revolting shit if you want to be one. Is KSU now going to have twitter police monitoring every student's tweets? I just wish I knew what the tweet said. If it was just along the lines of a certain race or group is a bunch of subhuman garbage and I wish they weren't here then that is despicable but I see no grounds for expulsion. If the student added "and I wish they were all dead and I'm going to start making that happen" then you possibly have an entirely different ballgame as you have entered threat territory.

[ShotgunDawg]

Social media has a good chance of being the fall of civilization

[chef dixon]

He said "congratulations to George Floyd for being 1 month drug free." Kid is the founder of America First group on their campus. He's deserves whatever comes his way in my opinion.

[starkvegasdawg]

Social media has a good chance of being the fall of civilization

If this is successful (and it probably will be) I can't wait for a tweet from a player that is racist to make it public and demands for his expulsion to crank up.

This whole damn country is turning on itself. It's really getting sad and scary. Someone gets offended and instead of putting on your big boy pants and saying 17 it and moving on with life you have to drop down in the floor and have an adult version of a temper tantrum and start demanding all this bullshit and rioting and looting. 17 me, people, does nobody have a backbone anymore?

In the 1700's, severely out manned and out gunned we kicked the shit out of the British and won our freedom. In the early to mid 1900's we kicked the shit out of fascism and nazism twice. In the 1990's we kicked the shit out of the world's third largest army that was attempting to take over a region. In the early 2000's, in just a few weeks, we kicked the shit out of an army that fought the Soviet war machine to a years long quagmire. This country used to have balls and fortitude. Now we can't go about our day to day lives because of the logo on a 17ing bottle of pancake syrup.

[starkvegasdawg]

He said "congratulations to George Floyd for being 1 month drug free." Kid is the founder of America First group on their campus. He's deserves whatever comes his way in my opinion.

Revolting. Despicable. Not worthy of expulsion.

[chef dixon]

Revolting. Despicable. Not worthy of expulsion.

I'm not really sure how it works legally but if Kansas state doesn't want him representing them especially with an organization on their campus I understand that. But you're probably correct in that they may not have that authority legally. If they had known he had tweeted something similar to this prior to applying they could simply deny him admission.

[coastratdog]

Free speech is 17ed.

[Rex54]

He's deserves whatever comes his way in my opinion.
So this is where we are...


Free speech is 17ed
100%

https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/e/evelynbeatricehall/109645/evelynbeatricehall1-2x.jpg

This idea has become so beaten down between tech censorship and the woke corporations holding your livelihood in their hands. People have to conform to their employer's politics or face financial ruin. The decline of worker's rights in this country has been a disgrace.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbTqukMWkAIo3OT?format=jpg&name=small

[BeardoMSU]

Free speech is 17ed.

Not really. Schools expel people all the time for saying/doing reprehensible things.

[starkvegasdawg]

Not really. Schools expel people all the time for saying/doing reprehensible things.
So free speech has been 17ed for a while then you're saying?

[Rex54]

Not really. Schools expel people all the time for saying/doing reprehensible things.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbYifk-XYAEnK0H?format=jpg&name=large

[William Tecumsah Sherman]

What did the student tweet?

[BeardoMSU]

So free speech has been 17ed for a while then you're saying?

No, I'm just saying it's always worked like this.

[Rex54]

What did the student tweet?
He said "Congrats to George Floyd for being one month drug free"

I heard edgier jokes in the 4th Grade but wokeness is the new religion and Floyd a Saint so the modern Inquisition must come down hard on the heretic.

[GreenheadDawg]

It?s only allowed if it?s liberal propaganda. Right Beardo?

[chef dixon]

So this is where we are...


100%

https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/e/evelynbeatricehall/109645/evelynbeatricehall1-2x.jpg

This idea has become so beaten down between tech censorship and the woke corporations holding your livelihood in their hands. People have to conform to their employer's politics or face financial ruin. The decline of worker's rights in this country has been a disgrace.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbTqukMWkAIo3OT?format=jpg&name=small

What is free speech supposed to protect you from? I mean he ain't getting arrested. Give me a constitution lesson because you are clearly much more of a bonafide patriot than I am. KSU doesn't want to associate with him seems like within their right to me.

Also no one is forcing you and your buddy to get on social media. Play at your own risk, especially if y'all think it's the downfall of society.

[starkvegasdawg]

What is free speech supposed to protect you from? I mean he ain't getting arrested. Give me a constitution lesson because you are clearly much more of a bonafide patriot than I am. KSU doesn't want to associate with him seems like within their right to me.

Also no one is forcing you and your buddy to get on social media. Play at your own risk, especially if y'all think it's the downfall of society.

It's supposed to protect you from getting kicked out of school for making a bad joke.

[maroonmania]

Not really. Schools expel people all the time for saying/doing reprehensible things.

Yes, basically first amendment free speech is just about the fact that there can't be laws on the books that prevent someone's right to express their opinion (including even a disgusting one like this K-State student). However, there are non-legal consequences of someone speaking their mind every day. Colleges set their own admission standards as to who they will accept and set their own student conduct policies for their own campus. Even if someone gets kicked out of college for vulgar speech, it doesn't mean their first amendment right was violated as long as they aren't legally prosecuted. Even if this guy was kicked out of K-State nobody is stopping him from exercising his free speech rights. He can keep on saying what he wants to say but he just won't be saying it as a K-State student.

[turkish]

Every good black comedian I?ve ever watched makes jokes just as racially off-color as that. And I only mention black comics because I don?t really like white comics, so I don?t watch them.

[maroonmania]

Every good black comedian I?ve ever watched makes jokes just as racially off-color as that. And I only mention black comics because I don?t really like white comics, so I don?t watch them.

True, but most colleges have to try and uphold some kind of conduct standards for their students. Most comics don't have any standards.

[chef dixon]

Yes, basically first amendment free speech is just about the fact that there can't be laws on the books that prevent someone's right to express their opinion (including even a disgusting one like this K-State student). However, there are non-legal consequences of someone speaking their mind every day. Colleges set their own admission standards as to who they will accept and set their own student conduct policies for their own campus. Even if someone gets kicked out of college for vulgar speech, it doesn't mean their first amendment right was violated as long as they aren't legally prosecuted. Even if this guy was kicked out of K-State nobody is stopping him from exercising his free speech rights. He can keep on saying what he wants to say but he just won't be saying it as a K-State student.

Exactly

[Jack Lambert]

They will play football. They are not this stupid. It is a bluff.

[msstate7]

True, but most colleges have to try and uphold some kind of conduct standards for their students. Most comics don't have any standards.

That's fine. Enforce it evenly though. Professors say much worse than this all the time with no consequence.

[Rex54]

Some of you need a refresher...

https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

[smootness]

I don't know what KSU's legal rights are on this one, and I am generally a supporter of 'You can do what you want and then you face whatever consequences come.' But in this case it would just be because a mob got angry enough. And I don't like the idea of one group of people singling out another and demanding something happen to him and have it done. Just not the way I want society to operate.

[Political Hack]

Seems to me both parties are exhibiting their free speech. University is just caught in the middle. Be interesting to see what they do.

[dantheman4248]

So free speech has been 17ed for a while then you're saying?

No, you just don't understand how free speech actually works.

The first amendment protects you from government retaliation.

The first amendment does not force everyone else to cowtow to what you say and how you say it.

The first amendment does not protect you from others expressing their criticism.

The first amendment allows Kansas State to say they do not want to be represented or associated with something.

It would be a violation of first amendment rights if they FORCED Kansas State to keep this person.

You can't view free speech as this free reign for one person to be an utter ****. Everyone has free speech. You can't impede on others free speech (in this case someone disassociating with someone over difference of opinion) just because someone else has free speech. That would be denying someone else's free speech rights. Your rights end where someone else's begins.

[Really Clark?]

KSU is a public university, in the sense of free speech they have to be very careful to not overstep constitutional rights as a recognized entity of the government. This is had been settled by the Supreme Court for decades. This goes in every direction of political and moral speech. Free speech is one of foundations of the liberal arts of universities and the universities have wanted that protection as much as private individuals, groups, etc.

[confucius say]

What is free speech supposed to protect you from? I mean he ain't getting arrested. Give me a constitution lesson because you are clearly much more of a bonafide patriot than I am. KSU doesn't want to associate with him seems like within their right to me.

Also no one is forcing you and your buddy to get on social media. Play at your own risk, especially if y'all think it's the downfall of society.

Free speech protects you from the government (not a private entity, it can suppress your speech all it wants), including a state university, suppressing your protected speech or from retaliating against you for engaging in protected speech (expulsion would be a form of retaliation).

So, the question here is whether the students speech is protected. As a general rule, all speech, including hate speech, is protected unless it fits into one of the unprotected categories. Those unprotected categories are obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threat, child porn.

I don't think a cruel, stupid comment about George Floyd being drug free for a month fits into one of those categories. Elementary and high schools have more leeway to punish speech that creates a "substantial disruption," but that isn't applicable in college settings, where free speech and the exchange of ideas is fostered. Below is a link to an article that discusses this issue.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/23/first-amendment-response-first-response-racism-campus

[Really Clark?]

Free speech protects you from the government (not a private entity, it can suppress your speech all it wants), including a state university, suppressing your protected speech or from retaliating against you for engaging in protected speech (expulsion would be a form of retaliation).

So, the question here is whether the students speech is protected. As a general rule, all speech, including hate speech, is protected unless it fits into one of the unprotected categories. Those unprotected categories are obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, true threat, child porn.

I don't think a cruel, stupid comment about George Floyd being drug free for a month fits into one of those categories. Elementary and high schools have more leeway to punish speech that creates a "substantial disruption," but that isn't applicable in college settings, where free speech and the exchange of ideas is fostered. Below is a link to an article that discusses this issue.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/23/first-amendment-response-first-response-racism-campus

Obscenity is protected at universities, Supreme Court rules on that in the 70’s as well.

[Rex54]

It would be a violation of first amendment rights if they FORCED Kansas State to keep this person.

Are you truly this stupid?

[HancockCountyDog]

It's supposed to protect you from getting kicked out of school for making a bad joke.

Is it really?

I'm pretty sure you can't say whatever you want and be free from repercussions. He is not going to jail for his statements, but my guess is that KSU has a policy that gives them a great deal of leeway to expel students based on their conduct. They could argue that he was attempting to incite a riot or protest. I'm not sure I would agree, but that is what I would argue if I was KSU and they were kicking him out of school.

They don't have to expel him, but the football team doesn't have to play or practice either - I mean, freedom of expression and all. So if KSU wants to keep the kid in school, that seems perfectly fine. Its also perfectly fine for the football players to decide to not play.

Everyone can make their own decision. I genuinely don't see the problem.

[smootness]

The irony of situations like this is that if no one brought his tweet to public attention, a few people that saw it would laugh and the others who saw it would think he's a terrible person and avoid him. And that would be it.

By bringing it to attention and then coming after him for it, they have made it very public. And sure, many think he's a terrible person, but they've also created a sense of martyrdom and brought many more to his side than would have been there otherwise.

So by 'standing for what is right,' they have ensured that more people are actually against them.

[Really Clark?]

Guys, this issue has been settled in courts already, all the way to the Supreme Court. A public university CANNOT infringe on his first amendment rights, and when argued at the Supreme Court level over students, it has been over them being expelled multiple times. And we are talking about speech from both extremes of the political divide. It’s been shot down by the Supreme Court time and time again.

[Commercecomet24]

Social media has a good chance of being the fall of civilization

I'm afraid you're right and it's already begun. It doesn't even have to be true for people to post it as true. If it's on the internet or social media it must be true. Outer limits did an episode on this very thing happening back in the 90s. Group think over rules independent thought whether true or not. The seed just has to be planted for it fo start to grow.

[starkvegasdawg]

Is it really?

I'm pretty sure you can't say whatever you want and be free from repercussions. He is not going to jail for his statements, but my guess is that KSU has a policy that gives them a great deal of leeway to expel students based on their conduct. They could argue that he was attempting to incite a riot or protest. I'm not sure I would agree, but that is what I would argue if I was KSU and they were kicking him out of school.

They don't have to expel him, but the football team doesn't have to play or practice either - I mean, freedom of expression and all. So if KSU wants to keep the kid in school, that seems perfectly fine. Its also perfectly fine for the football players to decide to not play.

Everyone can make their own decision. I genuinely don't see the problem.

A school has no control over what students say unless they are representing the school in an official capacity. Any being a student does not fall under that. A campus with the enrollment of a major university is going to have students of all walks of life and beliefs. Many of them will have beliefs well out of the mainstream on both extremes. Their comments on personal social media pages do no harm to the university. They are not a reflection of the university so they should have the right to say what they wish so long as it isn't a threat to a particular person or group. Now, if they're on a university email system or social media platform then completely different. If somebody said kill all gays on a msstate.edu email then I could see some sort of action being warranted.

[Gutter Cobreh]

He said "Congrats to George Floyd for being one month drug free"

I heard edgier jokes in the 4th Grade but wokeness is the new religion and Floyd a Saint so the modern Inquisition must come down hard on the heretic.

I'm sorry COVID cut your 4th grade year short...***

[DeltaChicagoDog]

He said "congratulations to George Floyd for being 1 month drug free." Kid is the founder of America First group on their campus. He's deserves whatever comes his way in my opinion.

Was the comment made on the campus group's social media account or the private account of an individual? In terms of legal argument/precedent, is this distinction relevant?

[coachnorm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmd6CHah7Wg


This is why the racist punk needs to be properly dealt with. Kent State University not Kansas State University? The youth of America are itching for a fight against conservative America. It is always wise to understand if you are outnumbered, out gunned, and out motivated. Kansas State has to pick its poison.

[chef dixon]

The irony is this kid is essentially saying "there are consequences for your behavior" in regards to George Floyd

[confucius say]

Guys, this issue has been settled in courts already, all the way to the Supreme Court. A public university CANNOT infringe on his first amendment rights, and when argued at the Supreme Court level over students, it has been over them being expelled multiple times. And we are talking about speech from both extremes of the political divide. It’s been shot down by the Supreme Court time and time again.

Correct. I tried to explain the analysis above briefly (my bad on missing on the obscenity category).

[maroonmania]

That's fine. Enforce it evenly though. Professors say much worse than this all the time with no consequence.

And I'm in no way saying KSU SHOULD do something to this guy. I'm just saying that universities do have the ability to set standards of student conduct which includes if someone is saying offensive things to other students. Hate speech against another race or something along those lines would normally be something a university would not want to tolerate but I don't know that an insensitive comment like this about Floyd would even rise to that. Its a very slippery slope for a college institution to know where to draw the line. And social media has made this problem a much bigger issue. In the past, really only media, politicians, celebrities, etc. had a platform for everyone to know what they are saying. Now, with online social media, every stupid comment by every Tom, Dick and Harry is out there for the world to see.

[Rex54]

Hate speech

No such thing, legally.

[maroonmania]

Guys, this issue has been settled in courts already, all the way to the Supreme Court. A public university CANNOT infringe on his first amendment rights, and when argued at the Supreme Court level over students, it has been over them being expelled multiple times. And we are talking about speech from both extremes of the political divide. It?s been shot down by the Supreme Court time and time again.

Political speech is definitely protected. If I as a student ran around calling every black person on campus that I saw the 'N' word, I don't think that is protected. Didn't Georgia dismiss a student for calling Justin Fields that?

[dawgday166]

Hypothetical here.

Kapernick was paid by NFL and represented NFL. While I definitely didn't agree with what happened there, their ratings did take a hit for it and they made a financial (and also political) decision.

On flip side ... the student is paying KSU for an education. So KSU is selling an education to the student. What if a business didn't want to sell something to a known protester cause of tweets they made that were controversial or racist against whites? What if the protester couldn't buy groceries at Walmart because of hateful tweets against whites?

What the kid said may be callous and cold but doesn't necessarily make him evil. And the kid doesn't "represent" the university in any capacity.

[Cowbell]

I hope they call the players bluffs and make them show up or pull scholarships. I was all for flag removal but this is crossing the line for me. At some point we have to understand that we will always have to live life with people that we don't like and that see things differently than us. It's part of being a mature person. Some people never mature and it seems that the majority of our youngest generation may not either.

[William Tecumsah Sherman]

The moral of the story is this: Pause for just a few seconds and think about what you are about to put on social media. Social media has lead to self destruction in a lot of cases

[William Tecumsah Sherman]

And also: Don?t allow yourself to be offended by everything every idiot says!

[dawgday166]

And also: Don?t allow yourself to be offended by everything every idiot says!

This is the big one IMO. They're gonna be banning Chris Rock before long.

[DownwardDawg]

And also: Don?t allow yourself to be offended by everything every idiot says!

I agree with both of your statements. I was gonna say this same thing. Stop being offended!!! Grow some balls. People say and do stupid shit all the time. Don’t give them the time of day if you don’t like what they are saying.

[Really Clark?]

Political speech is definitely protected. If I as a student ran around calling every black person on campus that I saw the 'N' word, I don't think that is protected. Didn't Georgia dismiss a student for calling Justin Fields that?

No they didn?t, he was dismissed from the baseball team, not the school and you will find that the Supreme Court has consistently struck down expelling students for racist speech on college campuses unless it incites immediate violence. Schools who have tried to write student code of conduct rules trying to eliminate free speech in some form have not fared well in the courts because just being offensive to a group of people for various reasons but the biggest is they all leave too much gray area for free speech rights to be subverted...and it?s a broad spectrum of right, left, race, culture, etc. speech that the Supreme Court has struck down from public universities attempting to restrict speech. Including cases about racist speech. And the ACLU, who most people identify as strictly as defending left side ideology the vast majority of the time, have also fought hard for right wing extremist speech as well on college campuses. Read a bunch of these decisions guys, I?m not saying that KSU won?t expell him, I?m saying they will lose and lose badly in this case, if he sues them. The Supreme Court has allowed much stronger language, much stronger racists remarks, much harsher bigotry ideals and speech at Universities. Faculty and students alike have said, organized, published, etc. much much worse and been found to have had their rights infringed upon by public universities who expell/fire them for such speech.

[confucius say]

No they didn?t, he was dismissed from the baseball team, not the school and you will find that the Supreme Court has consistently struck down expelling students for racist speech on college campuses unless it incites immediate violence. Schools who have tried to write student code of conduct rules trying to eliminate free speech in some form have not fared well in the courts because just being offensive to a group of people for various reasons but the biggest is they all leave too much gray area for free speech rights to be subverted...and it?s a broad spectrum of right, left, race, culture, etc. speech that the Supreme Court has struck down from public universities attempting to restrict speech. Including cases about racist speech. And the ACLU, who most people identify as strictly as defending left side ideology the vast majority of the time, have also fought hard for right wing extremist speech as well on college campuses. Read a bunch of these decisions guys, I?m not saying that KSU won?t expell him, I?m saying they will lose and lose badly in this case, if he sues them. The Supreme Court has allowed much stronger language, much stronger racists remarks, much harsher bigotry ideals and speech at Universities. Faculty and students alike have said, organized, published, etc. much much worse and been found to have had their rights infringed upon by public universities who expell/fire them for such speech.

Right on target. And please pay attention to the use of the word "immediate" here. KSU could prob get away with removing this kid from any school sponsored civic group he was the president of, but kicking him out of school would put them on the wrong end of a lawsuit. What he said was distasteful and seen even as racist, but it's protected speech.

[dantheman4248]

Reading up more, Sounds like the likeliest scenario is that KSU will kick him out and settle out of court because they'll be ruled against. Similar cases around the country have had that outcome.

[DeputyDawg94]

I?d be willing to bet that there?s a few players threatening to boycott that have songs on their playlist that glorify killing police, pimping out ho?s, slapping bitches and killing other human beings because they don?t wear the same color Nike shoes.
I?m offended by that but I don?t drop in the Walmart parking lot and cry like a baby every time I hear it.
People need to man the F up!!!

[Rex54]

Reading up more, Sounds like the likeliest scenario is that KSU will kick him out and settle out of court.

I guarantee you that is not the likeliest scenario......

[dantheman4248]

I guarantee you that is not the likeliest scenario......

Says the guy who can't offer another that is more likely (there isn't. KSU will bend the knee to the players and then settle that case out of court.) Also says the guy who quits arguments when he says something incredibly stupid.

Take a debate class before spewing idiotic opinions, it would help you not come off as incredibly stupid.

[Rex54]

Says the guy who can't offer another that is more likely (there isn't. KSU will bend the knee to the players and then settle that case out of court.) Also says the guy who quits arguments when he says something incredibly stupid.

Take a debate class before spewing idiotic opinions, it would help you not come off as incredibly stupid.

The likeliest scenario is "KSU does not expel the student"

[BiscuitEater]

I say supposedly because I can't find what the tweet says, but if there was no threat made I don't see grounds for expulsion. The first amendment guarantees your right to be an utter revolting shit if you want to be one..

Slight correction. Courts have continued to say First amendment means government cannot limit your speech. BUT, that doesn't mean you have 'unlimited' freedom of speech. You can legally fired for something you say.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

[maroonmania]

No they didn?t, he was dismissed from the baseball team, not the school and you will find that the Supreme Court has consistently struck down expelling students for racist speech on college campuses unless it incites immediate violence. Schools who have tried to write student code of conduct rules trying to eliminate free speech in some form have not fared well in the courts because just being offensive to a group of people for various reasons but the biggest is they all leave too much gray area for free speech rights to be subverted...and it?s a broad spectrum of right, left, race, culture, etc. speech that the Supreme Court has struck down from public universities attempting to restrict speech. Including cases about racist speech. And the ACLU, who most people identify as strictly as defending left side ideology the vast majority of the time, have also fought hard for right wing extremist speech as well on college campuses. Read a bunch of these decisions guys, I?m not saying that KSU won?t expell him, I?m saying they will lose and lose badly in this case, if he sues them. The Supreme Court has allowed much stronger language, much stronger racists remarks, much harsher bigotry ideals and speech at Universities. Faculty and students alike have said, organized, published, etc. much much worse and been found to have had their rights infringed upon by public universities who expell/fire them for such speech.

Well, there is one for you. NCAA allows Justin Fields to transfer without sitting out on the basis of the actions of one GA student who the U of GA is forced to keep enrolled. I really thought he had been dismissed from school.

[starkvegasdawg]

Slight correction. Courts have continued to say First amendment means government cannot limit your speech. BUT, that doesn't mean you have 'unlimited' freedom of speech. You can legally fired for something you say.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech



I see getting fired because you can be deemed representing your company. This is a student only. He does not work for the university. He is paying the university for a service. He is a customer of the university. Be like Walmart refusing to sell something to somebody because of a tweet they made.

[Jarius]

No, you just don't understand how free speech actually works.

The first amendment protects you from government retaliation.

The first amendment does not force everyone else to cowtow to what you say and how you say it.

The first amendment does not protect you from others expressing their criticism.

The first amendment allows Kansas State to say they do not want to be represented or associated with something.

It would be a violation of first amendment rights if they FORCED Kansas State to keep this person.

You can't view free speech as this free reign for one person to be an utter ****. Everyone has free speech. You can't impede on others free speech (in this case someone disassociating with someone over difference of opinion) just because someone else has free speech. That would be denying someone else's free speech rights. Your rights end where someone else's begins.

Yes. Kind of like NFL teams were well within their rights to not want Kap representing them. When you are full of ignorance and say stupid things for the world to see, you have consequences. Just not legal ones.

[dawgday166]

I?d be willing to bet that there?s a few players threatening to boycott that have songs on their playlist that glorify killing police, pimping out ho?s, slapping bitches and killing other human beings because they don?t wear the same color Nike shoes.
I?m offended by that but I don?t drop in the Walmart parking lot and cry like a baby every time I hear it.
People need to man the F up!!!

Would be willing to bet so too.

[Rex54]

I see getting fired because you can be deemed representing your company.

This is another trend that needs to go if we are to have a free and open society. Corporations have entirely too much power and worker's rights have been cut to the bone in America.

[Quaoarsking]

Do they have any players we want?

[Matt3467]

What the guy said is very distasteful and insensitive but I fail to see what is inherently racist about it. On the other hand here are tweets from a Cambridge professor that definitely are racist but instead of being punished she was rewarded with a full professorship. There is a double standard here and there's no doubt about it.

https://i.postimg.cc/bwzwN0BC/WLDM-Prof.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/d03QGsvG/WLDM-Prof-Prom.jpg

[chef dixon]

What the guy said is very distasteful and insensitive but I fail to see what is inherently racist about it. On the other hand here are tweets from a Cambridge professor that definitely are racist but instead of being punished she was rewarded with a full professorship. There is a double standard here and there's no doubt about it.

https://i.postimg.cc/bwzwN0BC/WLDM-Prof.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/d03QGsvG/WLDM-Prof-Prom.jpg

Your point is valid, but I'm not sure why people are using an example from a completely different country to defend rights in the USA.

[msstate7]

Your point is valid, but I'm not sure why people are using an example from a completely different country to defend rights in the USA.

Few years back, but this one jogged the memory...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/texas-a-m-wont-fire-professor-who-called-for-killing-white-people

[dawgoneyall]

Not really. Schools expel people all the time for saying/doing reprehensible things.

And you are OK with that?

[dawgoneyall]

No, you just don't understand how free speech actually works.

The first amendment protects you from government retaliation.

The first amendment does not force everyone else to cowtow to what you say and how you say it.

The first amendment does not protect you from others expressing their criticism.

The first amendment allows Kansas State to say they do not want to be represented or associated with something.

It would be a violation of first amendment rights if they FORCED Kansas State to keep this person.

You can't view free speech as this free reign for one person to be an utter ****. Everyone has free speech. You can't impede on others free speech (in this case someone disassociating with someone over difference of opinion) just because someone else has free speech. That would be denying someone else's free speech rights. Your rights end where someone else's begins.

That is psychotic....really sick.

[dawgoneyall]

Is it really?

I'm pretty sure you can't say whatever you want and be free from repercussions. He is not going to jail for his statements, but my guess is that KSU has a policy that gives them a great deal of leeway to expel students based on their conduct. They could argue that he was attempting to incite a riot or protest. I'm not sure I would agree, but that is what I would argue if I was KSU and they were kicking him out of school.

They don't have to expel him, but the football team doesn't have to play or practice either - I mean, freedom of expression and all. So if KSU wants to keep the kid in school, that seems perfectly fine. Its also perfectly fine for the football players to decide to not play.

Everyone can make their own decision. I genuinely don't see the problem.

I would think that if the KSU players refuse to practice/play and then their scholarships are revoked then they probably would be a little more tolerant of the tweeting of others.

[dantheman4248]

That is psychotic....really sick.

Is it? As someone else stated... it's exactly what happened to Kaepernick. Was it sick then?

[dantheman4248]

I would think that if the KSU players refuse to practice/play and then their scholarships are revoked then they probably would be a little more tolerant of the tweeting of others.

hahahahahhaahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahha

The cashcow that is college football, having a whole team in the P5 refusing, and you think that they are going to go that route. Revoke their scholarships???

hhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha hahahhahahahahah

What fairytale land do you live in?

Do you not understand how poorly that would come across?

Amazing you're battling for tolerance of disgusting tweets. Great priority to have.

[dawgoneyall]

Do they have any players we want?

Are you for free speech or not???

Or do you have liberal qualifications/exceptions?

[Cowbell]

Is it? As someone else stated... it's exactly what happened to Kaepernick. Was it sick then?

This is not at all what happened to Kaepernick.

[Quaoarsking]

Are you for free speech or not???

Or do you have liberal qualifications/exceptions?

For free speech. I don't know why you would expect me to answer otherwise.

If any good Kansas State players want to exercise their free speech and no longer associate with their university for any reason, perhaps we can find a home for them in Starkville.

[Todd4State]

Is it? As someone else stated... it's exactly what happened to Kaepernick. Was it sick then?

It's a lot easier to get back in the NFL if you don't demand 20 million dollars after not playing since 2016. Just saying.

[starkvegasdawg]

This is not at all what happened to Kaepernick.

Exactly. If he could still play to nfl caliber standards he'd be on a team. He just messed up and started this after he couldn't hit water from a boat. No talent and being a PR pain in the ass is never a good combination.

[dantheman4248]

Yea... that's why the NFL settled out of court with him.



It's like y'all are being willfully ignorant.

[Really Clark?]

Yea... that's why the NFL settled out of court with him.



It's like y'all are being willfully ignorant.

Come on, suits are settled out of court every day even when the defendant has a great case and honestly believe they were well within their legal rights. And their settlement was much less than what they were suing for. It covered Kap and Reed’s lawyer fees and they got a some money of equal amount but no where close to the $10 MIL they wanted. If they had just a good case against the NFL, why settle for that? Think your overplaying what that lawsuit settlement meant.

[chef dixon]

Few years back, but this one jogged the memory...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/texas-a-m-wont-fire-professor-who-called-for-killing-white-people

He certainly should have lost his job over that if his employer chose to fire him. Won't argue that and it should be equally done, although equality is probably always going to be unrealistic.

[smootness]

Amazing you're battling for tolerance of disgusting tweets. Great priority to have.

The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect the right to say offensive, disgusting things.

[dantheman4248]

The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect the right to say offensive, disgusting things.

There's protecting the right to be free from persecution from government and then there's forcing the rest of society to suppress their right to free speech in criticizing.

The whole name of the game is that people conflate freedom from government with freedom from everyone else. That just isn't the case. You live in a society and are "A" member of that society not "THE" member of that society.

[smootness]

There's protecting the right to be free from persecution from government and then there's forcing the rest of society to suppress their right to free speech in criticizing.

The whole name of the game is that people conflate freedom from government with freedom from everyone else. That just isn't the case. You live in a society and are "A" member of that society not "THE" member of that society.

Sure, but who is forcing anyone here to suppress their criticism?

Kansas State is a public university.

[Johnson85]

Yea... that's why the NFL settled out of court with him.



It's like y'all are being willfully ignorant.


They settled out of court b/c there was a 150% chance that one of their old white owners put something awful in an email that was going to turn up in discovery. Not even necessarily something relevant to Kapernick or even race, but something that would still be responsive to a discovery request and that would cost the NFL more in PR headache than Kapernick settled for.

[Johnson85]

hahahahahhaahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahah ahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahha

The cashcow that is college football, having a whole team in the P5 refusing, and you think that they are going to go that route. Revoke their scholarships???

hhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha hahahhahahahahah

What fairytale land do you live in?

Do you not understand how poorly that would come across?

Amazing you're battling for tolerance of disgusting tweets. Great priority to have.

THis is idiotic. If you only want free speech for speech you agree with, then you are not for free speech. That's fine I guess. Lots of countries don't really have free speech but range from tolerant to pleasant (although I think it's risky over time). But just come out and say you don't think free speech is important. Don't come out and say stupid shit like "I'm for free speech, but not tolerant of people saying disgusting things." If not just out of a desire to be honest do it so you don't sound or look like a dubmass.

[dantheman4248]

THis is idiotic. If you only want free speech for speech you agree with, then you are not for free speech. That's fine I guess. Lots of countries don't really have free speech but range from tolerant to pleasant (although I think it's risky over time). But just come out and say you don't think free speech is important. Don't come out and say stupid shit like "I'm for free speech, but not tolerant of people saying disgusting things." If not just out of a desire to be honest do it so you don't sound or look like a dubmass.

I'm for you being able to say whatever you want without the government stopping you.

I'm not for you being able to say whatever you want and others not being allowed to ostracize and "cancel" you. It is their free speech to do so.

If you aren't for cancel culture then you aren't for free speech. Because that's how things work in a truly democratic free speech society.

[confucius say]

I'm for you being able to say whatever you want without the government stopping you.

I'm not for you being able to say whatever you want and others not being allowed to ostracize and "cancel" you. It is their free speech to do so.

If you aren't for cancel culture then you aren't for free speech. Because that's how things work in a truly democratic free speech society.

Ok. But here the entity cancelling (via expulsion) would be the university, which is the government.

I do agree with you that the best way to combat speech with which you disagree is by private entities/citizens using their free speech rights to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. For example, if football players want to not play in response to speech with which they disagree, have at it. Nobody can force them to play.

ETA: Generally, and to johnson85 point below, I do think we are all better off with competing dialogue instead of, when we disagree with someone's views, advocating to have that person's views suppressed and removed from the dialogue.

[Johnson85]

I'm for you being able to say whatever you want without the government stopping you.

I'm not for you being able to say whatever you want and others not being allowed to ostracize and "cancel" you. It is their free speech to do so.

If you aren't for cancel culture then you aren't for free speech. Because that's how things work in a truly democratic free speech society.

Having other people force/coerce/convince government entities to punish somebody that says something you disagree with is not free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection.

And cancel culture is not prohibited by the first amendment, but it's also not consistent with free speech. Free speech is a cultural value as well as a legal principle. If you believe in free speech as a cultural value, the response to repugnant speech or views is not to try to drive them from polite society, but to meet them in the marketplace of ideas with better views/ideas.

[Commercecomet24]

Having other people force/coerce/convince government entities to punish somebody that says something you disagree with is not free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection.

And cancel culture is not prohibited by the first amendment, but it's also not consistent with free speech. Free speech is a cultural value as well as a legal principle. If you believe in free speech as a cultural value, the response to repugnant speech or views is not to try to drive them from polite society, but to meet them in the marketplace of ideas with better views/ideas.

Bravo, sir! Well said!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Johnson85 again

[Liverpooldawg]

THis is idiotic. If you only want free speech for speech you agree with, then you are not for free speech. That's fine I guess. Lots of countries don't really have free speech but range from tolerant to pleasant (although I think it's risky over time). But just come out and say you don't think free speech is important. Don't come out and say stupid shit like "I'm for free speech, but not tolerant of people saying disgusting things." If not just out of a desire to be honest do it so you don't sound or look like a dubmass.

It works both ways. You are free to be a jerk if you want to be. Others are also free to point it out and treat you like you jerk.

[Jarius]

The entire point of freedom of speech is to protect the right to say offensive, disgusting things.

The right to free speech protects you from government persecution. It has nothing to do with other people not persecuting you for a ridiculous viewpoint.

[dantheman4248]

Ok. But here the entity cancelling (via expulsion) would be the university, which is the government.

I do agree with you that the best way to combat speech with which you disagree is by private entities/citizens using their free speech rights to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. For example, if football players want to not play in response to speech with which they disagree, have at it. Nobody can force them to play.

Yep. Which is why I think he'll win in court. Or more likely settle. The main overall point is to those misunderstanding what free speech truly is.

Johnson, we are talking about the right to free speech. Whatever cultural diatribe you are on can be contorted any which way. Still not law.

Belief in libertarianism is cute and all, but it only works based on a premise that is not true. That all men are created equal. This just isn't the case. Do libertarianism free speech culture does not work.

[smootness]

I'm for you being able to say whatever you want without the government stopping you.

I'm not for you being able to say whatever you want and others not being allowed to ostracize and "cancel" you. It is their free speech to do so.

If you aren't for cancel culture then you aren't for free speech. Because that's how things work in a truly democratic free speech society.

You're making the same disingenuous argument made by those on the other side.

No one is saying the people trying to 'cancel' others don't or shouldn't have a legal right to do it. They're just saying that it is bad for society. In the same way, you can defend someone's right to say terrible things while thinking that saying terrible things is bad for society. I have not seen anyone make an argument that the government should draft laws to disable cancel culture.

[dantheman4248]

You're making the same disingenuous argument made by those on the other side.

No one is saying the people trying to 'cancel' others don't or shouldn't have a legal right to do it. They're just saying that it is bad for society. In the same way, you can defend someone's right to say terrible things while thinking that saying terrible things is bad for society. I have not seen anyone make an argument that the government should draft laws to disable cancel culture.

There are a lot of things bad with our society. Democratic (ab)use of free speech is low on the totem pole.

[smootness]

The right to free speech protects you from government persecution. It has nothing to do with other people not persecuting you for a ridiculous viewpoint.

Obviously.

And once again, Kansas State is a public university.

No one here saying this kid shouldn't be expelled is advocating that his views are positive or good.

[Thick]

If this is successful (and it probably will be) I can't wait for a tweet from a player that is racist to make it public and demands for his expulsion to crank up.

This whole damn country is turning on itself. It's really getting sad and scary. Someone gets offended and instead of putting on your big boy pants and saying 17 it and moving on with life you have to drop down in the floor and have an adult version of a temper tantrum and start demanding all this bullshit and rioting and looting. 17 me, people, does nobody have a backbone anymore?

In the 1700's, severely out manned and out gunned we kicked the shit out of the British and won our freedom. In the early to mid 1900's we kicked the shit out of fascism and nazism twice. In the 1990's we kicked the shit out of the world's third largest army that was attempting to take over a region. In the early 2000's, in just a few weeks, we kicked the shit out of an army that fought the Soviet war machine to a years long quagmire. This country used to have balls and fortitude. Now we can't go about our day to day lives because of the logo on a 17ing bottle of pancake syrup.

This!

[smootness]

There are a lot of things bad with our society. Democratic (ab)use of free speech is low on the totem pole.

Did I make any sort of claim that it was one of the greatest ills in our society? Don't change the argument here.

All I'm saying is that yes, you have the right in the US to say basically anything you want so long as it isn't inciting violence. And others have the right to say what they want in response to that. So people on all sides can agree and disagree with anyone and anything they want. I think this kid at Kansas State is a moron and almost certainly a bad guy, and I will defend his right to say what he wants. I will also defend the right of any athlete or anyone else to say and do what they want in response (do meaning sit out, obviously not to attack him or anything). I will also defend their right to tell the university they want him expelled. I also don't think Kansas State has that legal right in this situation.

I think those constantly shouting at others and attempting to 'cancel' them are doing something counterproductive and in some cases hateful, but I will defend their right to do it. Having bad viewpoints said publicly is not a good thing for society in and of itself...but the alternative, which would be forcibly shutting down certain viewpoints, is far worse.

[Johnson85]

Yep. Which is why I think he'll win in court. Or more likely settle. The main overall point is to those misunderstanding what free speech truly is. You have been arguing that it is consistent with free speech for the football team to be able to use their leverage to get a government entity to punish somebody for their speech. It is not other people that are misunderstanding what free speech is.


Johnson, we are talking about the right to free speech. Whatever cultural diatribe you are on can be contorted any which way. Still not law.

Belief in libertarianism is cute and all, but it only works based on a premise that is not true. That all men are created equal. This just isn't the case. Do libertarianism free speech culture does not work. Belief in free speech is not limited to libertarians. The most vocal proponents of free speech used to be big government democrats (arguably it was just a tool since they agreed with a lot of speech that was unpopular, but if you take them at face value, they supported free speech). And you are as confused about libertarianism as you are about free speech. It is not dependent on all men being created; all men being equal in the eyes of the law/government regardless of birth is a belief and goal of more or less all variants of libertarianism. Men being equal in other ways is not some condition precedent or even related to libertarianism.

[Commercecomet24]

If this is successful (and it probably will be) I can't wait for a tweet from a player that is racist to make it public and demands for his expulsion to crank up.

This whole damn country is turning on itself. It's really getting sad and scary. Someone gets offended and instead of putting on your big boy pants and saying 17 it and moving on with life you have to drop down in the floor and have an adult version of a temper tantrum and start demanding all this bullshit and rioting and looting. 17 me, people, does nobody have a backbone anymore?

In the 1700's, severely out manned and out gunned we kicked the shit out of the British and won our freedom. In the early to mid 1900's we kicked the shit out of fascism and nazism twice. In the 1990's we kicked the shit out of the world's third largest army that was attempting to take over a region. In the early 2000's, in just a few weeks, we kicked the shit out of an army that fought the Soviet war machine to a years long quagmire. This country used to have balls and fortitude. Now we can't go about our day to day lives because of the logo on a 17ing bottle of pancake syrup.

This! Best thing I've read in a long time. This is the spoiled,entitled group that preaches diversity but only if you think like they do. They get offended at the drop of a hat and throw temper tantrums.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Free speech is 17ed.

You are free to say whatever you want, as long as you are ready to face the consequences. Free doesn't mean without consequences.
A statement like that is despicable. Not really sure what their code of conduct covers, but it could mean expulsion.

[Lord McBuckethead]

This! Best thing I've read in a long time. This is the spoiled,entitled group that preaches diversity but only if you think like they do. They get offended at the drop of a hat and throw temper tantrums.

Everyone needs to be on notice, blatant racist crap will not be tolerated anymore. Welcome to "what should have been" the 1970s. Why throw digital gasoline on the situation.

[Commercecomet24]

Everyone needs to be on notice, blatant racist crap will not be tolerated anymore. Welcome to "what should have been" the 1970s. Why throw digital gasoline on the situation.

Yes,and that should go for every race,creed,orientation,political views, etc...it can't be one sided.

[Jarius]

Obviously.

And once again, Kansas State is a public university.

No one here saying this kid shouldn't be expelled is advocating that his views are positive or good.

I don’t think he should be expelled, but Kansas State is well within their rights to do so if they do not want those viewpoints associated with their university. Free speech doesn’t protect him from being expelled.

[Really Clark?]

I don?t think he should be expelled, but Kansas State is well within their rights to do so if they do not want those viewpoints associated with their university. Free speech doesn?t protect him from being expelled.

Actually according to the Supreme Court, in numerous occasions over the decades, it most certainly does mean his free speech is protected from expulsion. It does happen but the courts consistently rule against public universities, they are an extension of the government. Just like they protect professors who make inflammatory statements that bring outrage to the offended parties and the university may even issue a statement of how they condemn the professors remarks, they also clearly claim that it?s their right to free speech and they cannot remove that professor due to their rights. You can?t wrap yourself in free speech blanket in that case to say your hands are tied and then try to censor free speech in another case, especially in cases where they are both racist type remarks. It absolutely has to be covered under the same umbrella or else you do not have free speech for all citizens, you are then weighing speech you don?t like to have heavier consequences. No matter which side of the argument you fall on it has to be protected at public universities or the constitution has to change.

[chef dixon]

Yes,and that should go for every race,creed,orientation,political views, etc...it can't be one sided.

That would be ideal but I don't know if that will ever be reality. I mean the first amendment was created when black people literally had zero rights in this country and were enslaved. The whole concept seems dated at this point, although I realize its often a feel good story to reference back to what the founding fathers wanted. Its been one sided in the opposite direction for almost the entirety of our country's existence. I won't lose sleep over a dickhead getting expelled for seeking attention and saying something horrible. That's simply what it is, and not a complete destruction of some great, unwavering concept this country was founded on.

Not directly a response to just you CC but more just a general response to the thread.

[Commercecomet24]

That would be ideal but I don't know if that will ever be reality. I mean the first amendment was created when black people literally had zero rights in this country and were enslaved. The whole concept seems dated at this point, although I realize its often a feel good story to reference back to what the founding fathers wanted. Its been one sided in the opposite direction for almost the entirety of our country's existence. I won't lose sleep over a dickhead getting expelled for seeking attention and saying something horrible. That's simply what it is, and not a complete destruction of some great, unwavering concept this country was founded on.

Not directly a response to just you CC but more just a general response to the thread.

I completely understand what you're saying. I've just been negotiating deals for so long that there has to be some kind of middle ground where both parties have to make concessions or you're screwed. Once folks start drawing lines in the sand nothing gets done or bad stuff happens. I fear we are headed down a bad path with 2 sides and no middle.

[hp22]

I completely understand what you're saying. I've just been negotiating deals for so long that there has to be some kind of middle ground where both parties have to make concessions or you're screwed. Once folks start drawing lines in the sand nothing gets done or bad stuff happens. I fear we are headed down a bad path with 2 sides and no middle.

Yep.

And as the ideology moves more extreme in either direction, the consequences are greater when the pendulum swings back the other way. That can be a destructive path...it is certainly divisive.

[confucius say]

You are free to say whatever you want, as long as you are ready to face the consequences. Free doesn't mean without consequences.
A statement like that is despicable. Not really sure what their code of conduct covers, but it could mean expulsion.

Free speech, legally, literally means without consequences from any govt entity as long as the speech is protected, which this students speech was (hate speech is protected). Any code of conduct that allows expulsion as a response to free speech is unlawful. A code of conduct doesn't trump the first amendment.

[confucius say]

I don’t think he should be expelled, but Kansas State is well within their rights to do so if they do not want those viewpoints associated with their university. Free speech doesn’t protect him from being expelled.

It absolutely does. This has been litigated over and over. KSU cannot lawfully expel a student for this.

[BrunswickDawg]

I completely understand what you're saying. I've just been negotiating deals for so long that there has to be some kind of middle ground where both parties have to make concessions or you're screwed. Once folks start drawing lines in the sand nothing gets done or bad stuff happens. I fear we are headed down a bad path with 2 sides and no middle.

I think it's one of those things that will self-regulate over time. Right now, people are swept up in the ability for people to have a collective voice and push for some things that make a difference. Within that are some things that we will look back at as mistakes.
We have had other periods like this in the past; the 1950s hunt for Commies is one; our rush to condemn and ruin careers of people who spoke out against war in Iraq is another. If you think about it, this power to amplify a collective voice the way it can be via social media is still relatively new. And unfortunately, we have a global scale learning curve happening as how best to deal with it, regulate it if needed, and weed out the societal flaws.

[Commercecomet24]

I think it's one of those things that will self-regulate over time. Right now, people are swept up in the ability for people to have a collective voice and push for some things that make a difference. Within that are some things that we will look back at as mistakes.
We have had other periods like this in the past; the 1950s hunt for Commies is one; our rush to condemn and ruin careers of people who spoke out against war in Iraq is another. If you think about it, this power to amplify a collective voice the way it can be via social media is still relatively new. And unfortunately, we have a global scale learning curve happening as how best to deal with it, regulate it if needed, and weed out the societal flaws.

I hope you're right but with the 24/7 news cycle and the spin of both sides fanning the flames the divide in our country is greater than its been in my lifetime and continuing to grow. Nobody seems to believe in compromise anymore and there is no dialogue, only monologue.

[BrunswickDawg]

I hope you're right but with the 24/7 news cycle and the spin of both sides fanning the flames the divide in our country is greater than its been in my lifetime and continuing to grow. Nobody seems to believe in compromise anymore and there is no dialogue, only monologue.

I think the lack of compromise comes straight from our leadership. I think the last D/R real compromise was when Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997. Placing our politics on war footing has killed the system. For our general society to get back to compromise, we are going to have to do it from the top first.

[Commercecomet24]

I think the lack of compromise comes straight from our leadership. I think the last D/R real compromise was when Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997. Placing our politics on war footing has killed the system. For our general society to get back to compromise, we are going to have to do it from the top first.

That would help for sure.

[BB30]

There are a lot of things bad with our society. Democratic (ab)use of free speech is low on the totem pole.

When you cancel someone they will find groups of like minded individuals somewhere at some point and that is when things can turn dangerous. When you are surrounded by people that think just like you without input from outside sources things can turn violent pretty quickly. Once group think takes over there isn't a lot of turning back.

So keep cancelling but you are creating a much worse problem than some despicable and dirty tweets that ultimately don't harm anyone physically. Call them out for what they said, fine but telling them they now no longer have a voice and they will go find somewhere where they can have a voice.

Reasoning with someone instead of cancelling is always the better option IMO. Unfortunately, the left doesn't see it that way and I am afraid we have started going to far down this trail to turn back. I think you could potentially start seeing some violence with far right and left groups in the future and that will suck for everyone involved. Because groups don't care what side your on once the sh** starts. If you end up caught in the middle they won't care.

[State82]

Social media has a good chance of being the fall of civilization

Shotgun I have been saying this verbatim for years. It is uncanny the number of shitstorms I have watched develop as a result of social media. From loss of jobs to loss of significant others and everything else imaginable that would be considered very unpleasant and distracting. There is a very good reason such things will never happen to me. No social media of any kind. Ever. I just watch and smirk and sigh.

[smootness]

That would be ideal but I don't know if that will ever be reality. I mean the first amendment was created when black people literally had zero rights in this country and were enslaved. The whole concept seems dated at this point, although I realize its often a feel good story to reference back to what the founding fathers wanted. Its been one sided in the opposite direction for almost the entirety of our country's existence. I won't lose sleep over a dickhead getting expelled for seeking attention and saying something horrible. That's simply what it is, and not a complete destruction of some great, unwavering concept this country was founded on.

Not directly a response to just you CC but more just a general response to the thread.

Are you arguing that the concept of free speech is dated and it's no big deal if it's done away with?

[chef dixon]

Are you arguing that the concept of free speech is dated and it's no big deal if it's done away with?

I mean you can interpret it any way you want I suppose. My point was just that free speech has never been applied equally in this country since its origin. The only difference now is that a lot of people who were bullet proof for so long behind that amendment are having to get uncomfortable.

[turkish]

I mean you can interpret it any way you want I suppose. My point was just that free speech has never been applied equally in this country since its origin. The only difference now is that a lot of people who were bullet proof for so long behind that amendment are having to get uncomfortable.
So you get satisfaction from American having their rights infringed? I’m not denigrating you for that viewpoint, but I think we need to all be honest with what our motivations are.

[chef dixon]

So you get satisfaction from American having their rights infringed? I’m not denigrating you for that viewpoint, but I think we need to all be honest with what our motivations are.

Not sure I ever looked at it that way, but I wouldn't say satisfaction. Kind of a blanket statement about general rights infringement, no? I guess you could say Jaden McNeil gets satisfaction from George Floyd's rights being infringed upon. I don't really have any motivations either, just observations and opinion for discussion. Whatever happens in this situation is out of my control. I realize most people here won't agree with me and will defend the constitution to death, but I think there's a lot of gray area beyond a document that was signed in the 1700s.

[RocketDawg]

Social media has a good chance of being the fall of civilization

Along with 24-hour news networks, of both the right and left type. Report the news, but stay away from "opinions".

[Lord McBuckethead]

Well, the kid probably shouldn't be expelled, but if he got his ass kicked I would chuckle.

[smootness]

I mean you can interpret it any way you want I suppose. My point was just that free speech has never been applied equally in this country since its origin. The only difference now is that a lot of people who were bullet proof for so long behind that amendment are having to get uncomfortable.

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to argue. It's definitely true that these things did not always apply to all equally as they should have, and that's very bad.

The way to correct that is certainly not to do the same but just change the group that isn't treated equally.

I'm not saying this in relation to this moron at KSU or defending him. But if you want society to go in the crapper, limiting the freedom of speech is a great first step. You seem to not care about it, but you would in a heartbeat once it was gone and you suddenly had a viewpoint that wasn't allowed.

[Jarius]

Actually according to the Supreme Court, in numerous occasions over the decades, it most certainly does mean his free speech is protected from expulsion. It does happen but the courts consistently rule against public universities, they are an extension of the government. Just like they protect professors who make inflammatory statements that bring outrage to the offended parties and the university may even issue a statement of how they condemn the professors remarks, they also clearly claim that it?s their right to free speech and they cannot remove that professor due to their rights. You can?t wrap yourself in free speech blanket in that case to say your hands are tied and then try to censor free speech in another case, especially in cases where they are both racist type remarks. It absolutely has to be covered under the same umbrella or else you do not have free speech for all citizens, you are then weighing speech you don?t like to have heavier consequences. No matter which side of the argument you fall on it has to be protected at public universities or the constitution has to change.


Then why do schools have dress codes?

[Really Clark?]

Then why do schools have dress codes?

At public universities? They don’t really, certain classes may require appropriate attire like closed toe shoes for a chemical lab or you can’t violate decency laws, like nudity or only in underwear. But I’ve seen students show up in sleep wear.

As far as dress codes go as a free speech issue with schools below college level, the Supreme Court hasn’t really addressed that issue as completely unconstitutional as it concerns uniforms, dress codes or grooming requirements. Courts have ruled that schools utilizing a school uniform doesn’t violate civil rights of student when it is consistent and fair for all of the student body. You have a higher civil right to receive an education and a school dress code doesn’t infringe on that right. But that has nothing to really do with universities

[FISHDAWG]

Well, the kid probably shouldn't be expelled, but if he got his ass kicked I would chuckle.

same can be said for so many professors

[Jarius]

At public universities? They don’t really, certain classes may require appropriate attire like closed toe shoes for a chemical lab or you can’t violate decency laws, like nudity or only in underwear. But I’ve seen students show up in sleep wear.

As far as dress codes go as a free speech issue with schools below college level, the Supreme Court hasn’t really addressed that issue as completely unconstitutional as it concerns uniforms, dress codes or grooming requirements. Courts have ruled that schools utilizing a school uniform doesn’t violate civil rights of student when it is consistent and fair for all of the student body. You have a higher civil right to receive an education and a school dress code doesn’t infringe on that right. But that has nothing to really do with universities

I think the biggest thing you said there was “consistent and fair across the board”. We are getting into “1984” territory with the thought police. I don’t believe the kid should be expelled for this and I would hope the school doesn’t cave to the woke mob. I still believe that they have the right to expel him but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Johnson85]

I think the biggest thing you said there was “consistent and fair across the board”. We are getting into “1984” territory with the thought police. I don’t believe the kid should be expelled for this and I would hope the school doesn’t cave to the woke mob. I still believe that they have the right to expel him but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Are you saying that as a normative statement? Or a positive one? Because legally, they don't have the ability to punish him for protected speech. Primary and secondary schools do get a lot of leeway in the balancing act of maintaining order versus first amendment rights, but universities don't get that much. Certainly not to the point of allowing viewpoint discrimination.

And if you look at the type of people that tend to have an outsized influence on universities (if not dominate them), it doesn't take long to see the wisdom of that approach. You wouldn't just have people punished for outrageous speech. You'd have people punished for saying things like "all lives matter." And while people on the left have such a stranglehold on most of our government and educational institutions that many of them no longer think about the possibility that they will need protection from the mob in the future, before the last decade or so, it was generally people on the left needing free speech protection.

[Jarius]

First Amendment does not protect behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. I believe this student’s “joke” will be put into that category by the school if they do decide to expel him. I also think it’s eye roll worthy but I believe it will be used to justify it.

[Johnson85]

First Amendment does not protect behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. I believe this student’s “joke” will be put into that category by the school if they do decide to expel him. I also think it’s eye roll worthy but I believe it will be used to justify it.

First, it doesn't come close to falling in any of those exceptions.

Second, I'd be interested to see the caselaw providing an exception for pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. I suspect whatever is out there is nowhere near the universe of the situation at hand.

[confucius say]

First Amendment does not protect behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. I believe this student’s “joke” will be put into that category by the school if they do decide to expel him. I also think it’s eye roll worthy but I believe it will be used to justify it.

The case law is clear that targeted threats have to be just that, individualized targeted threats. No way that comment is targeted at any individual.

As for the hostile learning environment, that is covered under title 6 of the civil rights. The following link is a good analysis of how that functions in the confines of the first amendment. Brief version is the first amendment controls.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/firstamend.html

[confucius say]

First, it doesn't come close to falling in any of those exceptions.

Second, I'd be interested to see the caselaw providing an exception for pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. I suspect whatever is out there is nowhere near the universe of the situation at hand.

It's not. SCOTUS has never addressed it I don't think. But courts that have, and the ocr which enforces title 6, has said that the harassment "must include something beyond the expression of words, views, symbols, or thoughts that some person finds offensive." The harassment must "deny or limit a students ability to participate in an educational program." Even then, if the conduct at issue is solely speech that is protected under the first amendment, it is not punishable. The ocr says "all actions taken by ocr must comport with first amendment principles."

[Jarius]

I hope you guys are correct and I am wrong (won’t be the last time). I definitely don’t want this to become the norm and I am ready for some of the wokeness to get some real pushback.

[Jack Lambert]

I hope you guys are correct and I am wrong (won’t be the last time). I definitely don’t want this to become the norm and I am ready for some of the wokeness to get some real pushback.

There has to be an end. I suspect the silent majority is starting to figure out a lot this is taking advantage of a situation.