|
"Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre / mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." "Thought must be the harder, heart be the keener, mind must be the greater, as our might lessens." |
   |
Posted on 03/14/2015 6:24:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Members of a fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were recently filmed chanting that they’d rather see a black student lynched than as a member of their clan. The now viral video of dapper, privileged white men shouting, “There will never be a nigger at SAE, you can hang him from a tree” reminds us of our greatest national shame.
The chant has been roundly condemned as abhorrent. But after university president David Boren announced the expulsion of two students leading the chants, prominent legal scholars from the right and left have come to their defense. The university is a public institution, they say, and punishing the students for what they said—no matter how vile—violates the First Amendment’s commitment to “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” discourse.
Oklahoma could make a decent argument that the students’ chant created a hostile educational environment and was thus unprotected speech, but these scholars are likely correct as predictive matter. If this situation were litigated before the current Supreme Court, the students would almost certainly win. The frat boys’ howls are reminiscent of the Westboro Baptist Church’s “God hates fags” protests near military funerals, which the Supreme Court protected a few years ago. And while public university hate-speech codes have never been litigated at the Supreme Court, they have been trounced in lower courts.
We are told the First Amendment protects the odious because we cannot trust government to make choices about content on our behalf. That protections of speech will inevitably be overinclusive. But that this is a cost we must bear. If we start punishing speech, advocates argue, then we will slide down the slippery slope to tyranny.
If that is what the First Amendment means, then we have a problem greater than bigoted frat boys. The problem would be the First Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
/johnny
The Atlantic doesn’t deserve free speech. Greenfield’s Gestapo is creating a hostile environment for me. They must be shut down immediately, because I’m subjectively offended.
Thing is, the idiot is too indoctrinated to even be able to understand my paragraph above.
Thankfully we have Kent Greenfield and others like him to determine who is worthy of the protections enumerated in the Bill Of Rights and who is not.
What a world it would be if those protections applied to everyone - especially citizens Mr Greenfield disagrees with or doesn’t like.
/S
Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s hate speech was nuanced...
Now we have a right that applies if we deserve it? Who decides ?
You mean, electing Democrats and other Totalitarians to high office?
Yes. For shame.
Let me point out the specious natture of this paragraph:
“We are told the First Amendment protects the odious” [Told? Told by whom?] [The First ammendment protects all, the odious and otherwise] “because we cannot trust government to make choices about content on our behalf” [That is the only true statement.]
“That protections of free speech will ultimately be overinclusive” [Overinclusive?} [That is a lefty interpretation for sure. The protections are not overinclusive they are ALL inclusive which is as it should be.
|
"Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre / mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað." "Thought must be the harder, heart be the keener, mind must be the greater, as our might lessens." |
|
|
What about the black protestors chanting “what do you want? dead cops, when do you want them? now”
Oh yeah, I forgot limits on speech only apply to whites.
+1
I’m guessing he wouldn’t approve of the conversation I’m having with an islamderthal on twitter.
>>@MuslimTwo So do you paste a picture of mohammad on a goats ass to get turned on or is the goat’s ass enough. #AskHamas<<
Those mobs yelling “What do we want, dead cops!” should be denied 1st Amendment if anyone.
The aren't big on law....
/johnny
Libs want to eliminate The Bill of Rights for everyone but them
White dhimitude....one of the hallmarks of Obamastan.
Ah, that mystical process where legal text is transformed magically by our benevolent black-robed god-kings!
Who wouldn't love this legal system? [/sarc]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.