The more important question is, do you think a person should be expelled from a school by the government because of the shirt?
I'm asking your opinion, so don't hide.
Posted on 07/20/2026 6:41:22 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
Dr Rainer Zitelmann doesn't even remember posting the meme on social media that nearly landed him in prison.
"When I opened the letter from police, I thought it was a misunderstanding," Dr Zitelmann, a German historian and author of about 30 books, told The Telegraph.
Berlin police told Dr Zitelmann he had been accused of violating a post-Second World War law that bans the display of Nazi symbols, slogans and imagery – and could now face three years in prison if found guilty.
The 69-year-old found out the offending social media post was a meme about Adolf Hitler. But it was one in which he criticised the Nazi dictator and compared his invasion of Czechoslovakia to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
(snip)
When JD Vance, the US vice-president, addressed the Munich Security Conference in 2025, most of the delegates were expecting a typical speech on the dual threats of Russia and Iran.
Instead, Mr Vance used the speech to fulminate against curbs on free speech across Europe, with emphasis on Britain and Germany.
(snip)
But the strangest thing of all is that he still has no idea who denounced him, because the person who lodged the criminal complaint did so under a fake name and address.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I didn’t quite follow that post either. I was pointing out there is a faction (actually two, with some overlap) that immediately are on the censorship band wagon when it comes their sacred cows.
Congress has the power of the purse, Trump’s efforts at Executive usurpation notwithstanding.
But that significant separation of powers concern pales before the Bill of Rights.
Unconstitutional conditions doctrine basics: The government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected... freedom of speech." This stems from cases like Speiser v. Randall (1958), which struck down a loyalty oath requirement for a tax exemption as penalizing protected speech, and Perry v. Sindermann (1972), protecting a professor from retaliation for criticism even without formal tenure.
Limits on funding conditions for speech: The Court distinguishes between permissible conditions that define the scope of a government-funded program (e.g., Rust v. Sullivan, 1991, allowing restrictions on abortion counseling in federally funded family planning projects) and impermissible ones that leverage funds to control or suppress speech outside the program or impose viewpoint discrimination.
Universities (especially in their academic mission) function like limited public forums or marketplaces of ideas with strong academic freedom protections, making viewpoint-based speech restrictions particularly suspect. Conditions must be viewpoint-neutral and not overly coercive.
Academic freedom and university context: v. Board of Regents (1967) struck down loyalty oaths and vague "subversive" speech restrictions for university faculty, emphasizing that academic settings require robust free speech and that vagueness in speech rules chills protected expression. Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) and related cases affirm academic freedom as a "special concern of the First Amendment," protecting inquiry, teaching, and expression from undue government interference.
Healy v. James (1972) and Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) extend strong First Amendment protections to campus speech and association, rejecting efforts to suppress disfavored views.
Fact Sheet: Harassment based on Race, Color, or National Origin on School Campuses
July 2, 2024
OCR’s enforcement activities have demonstrated that discriminatory harassment of students based on their race, color, or national origin continues to be a concern on school campuses. Depending on the facts and circumstances, students who are subjected to slurs or taunts, or threatened or attacked based on their race, color, or national origin – including stereotypes about their race, color, or national origin – may be limited or denied access to educational programs or activities in violation of Title VI. OCR is committed to addressing harassment based on race, color, or national origin in our nation’s schools and to supporting the efforts of schools to maintain campuses that are free from discrimination.
What is Harassing Conduct?
Harassing conduct is unwelcome conduct that may include verbal abuse, graphic or written statements, physical assault, or other conduct that may be threatening, harmful, or humiliating.
Where Can Harassing Conduct Occur?
Harassing conduct may occur in many different contexts and locations, including classrooms (including virtual classes), residence halls, hallways, cafeterias, school buses, playgrounds, athletic fields, locker rooms, bathrooms, on the internet, and on social networking sites and apps.
When Does Harassing Conduct Create a Hostile Environment that Violates Title VI?
Generally, unwelcome conduct based on race, color, or national origin creates a hostile environment under Title VI when, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is:
• subjectively and objectively offensive; and
• so severe or pervasive that it
• limits or denies a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from the recipient’s education program or activity.
Harassing conduct need not always be targeted at a particular person to create a hostile environment. The conduct may be directed at anyone, and the harassment may also be based on association with others of a different race, color, or national origin (e.g., the harassment might reference the race of a sibling or parent/guardian because it is different from the race of the person being harassed whose access to the school’s program is limited or denied). Additionally, a single victim may experience a hostile environment when the conduct of multiple offenders, taken together, meets the definition above.
Whether harassing conduct creates a hostile environment on the basis of race, color, or national origin must be determined based on the totality of the circumstances.
Relevant factors for consideration may include, but are not limited to, the context, nature, scope, frequency, duration, and location of the harassment, as well as the identity, number, age, and relationships of the persons involved.
Generally, the less pervasive the harassing conduct, the more severe it must be to establish a hostile environment under Title VI. For example, in most cases, a single isolated incident would not be sufficient to establish a Title VI violation. However, in some cases, a hostile environment based on race, color, or national origin may result from a single severe incident if the conduct is subjectively and objectively offensive and so severe that it limits or denies a student’s access to the education program or activity.
OCR generally assesses a school’s response to race, color, or national origin harassment using a hostile
environment legal analysis. To establish a violation of Title VI using this analysis, OCR must find that:
1) a hostile environment based on race, color, or national origin existed;
2) the school had actual or constructive notice (i.e., the school knew or should have known) of the hostile environment; and
3) the school failed to take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to:
i. end the harassment,
ii. eliminate any hostile environment and its effects, and
iii. prevent the harassment from recurring.
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Harassment-Fact-Sheet-2024.pdf
Which of those examples do you think buttresses your case that the federal government can deny someone opportunities as punishment for their speech?
Look at the summaries.
They’re almost all about ensuring someone has taxpayer financed access to materials in their own language, or ensuring someone doesn’t get denied this or that. I didn’t see a single one supporting the idea that the government can deny a person opportunities because of what that person has said.
Post something relevant.
NAACP?
So if someone wears a shirt with a confederate flag should that person be allowed to attend a university that accepts federal funds?
Germany is stupid.
The German Government is stupid.
Closet Nazis...all of them.
Come and get me copper!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t47CxthikBghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t47CxthikBg
Professor Patty Pinko gets to preach Communism on federal education funds.
Professor Harry Hitler doesn’t get to harass the Black and Jewish students on federal educational funds, nor do his students.
So if someone wears a shirt with a confederate flag should that person be allowed to attend a university that accepts federal funds?”
I don’t know the answer to that. I suspect in practice the student gets told by the university to take the shirt off or gets expelled.
Such a case has probably been litigated.
“For examples, view the cases list.”
Obviously, I didn’t have time to read the cases.
The government-backed principles I quoted have been around for most of my life. They are so certainly to be backed by the courts that cases are settled before legal papers are filed with a court.
They will be upheld by the Nine, probably by all Nine.
You and Hillary’s Pakistani can wave your copies of the Constitution as vigorously as you can.
I suspect racial, religious and national origin harassment must be dealt with with similar vigor and methods.
Sometime in the summer of 1943 in Nazi Germany, a young woman from Berlin named Marianne Elise Kürchner was guillotined for telling a joke.
Kürchner, who worked at an armaments factory, told the following joke to a coworker who denounced her:
Hitler and Göring are standing atop the Berlin radio tower. Hitler says he wants to do something to put a smile on Berliners’ faces. So Göring says: “Why don’t you jump?”
Going by their posting history, there is a faction on this forum who be a-ok with what is happening in Germany and England, much less other parts of Europe.
**********************
The pro Ukraine and Israel zealots on Free Republic don’t give a crap about dissenting opinions or free speech protections in the Constitution. They care about crushing the opposition to their foreign policy stupidity.
Their attitude is “the ends justify the means.”
It’s a disgusting development, but unsurprising if you’ve read these gullible puppets over the last 25 years.(I joined in 2009 but lurked for 9 to 10 years.)
We have to defend Germany from evil Putin and Russia.
The West and Americans that live in European nations need our military help because they’re scared little bitches.
Western Civilization is at stake./s
Frederick Merz is a spineless Hampelmann (Hugo von Hofmannsthal) lacking the moral courage and proper democratic Gesinnung necessary to steer his once-great but now flailing party into the right direction - as evinced by his meekly kowtowing* to his party's banner issue, namely: the self-righteous imposition of the shameful Brandmauer around the AfD, thus revealing the CDU/CSU's increasingly fascistoid tendencies.
I wish I could say more bad things about Merz, but he is otherwise so totally lacking in distinguishing characteristics that it's a challenge; "You cannot carve a man out of a banana!" (W.C. Fields)
But he isn't "fat."
Just as a rhetorical flourish, I would support the AfD "flipping the script" and demanding the erection of a Brandmauer around such anti-democratic parties as the CDU/CSU.
Regards,
*Actually, it looks more like he actively supports this hateful political position! I despair for the political party which I once (under Franz-Josef Strauß) kind of admired.
Bkmk
Indeed.
zeepers would be fine with it if they got their way.
‘Nuff said.
The more important question is, do you think a person should be expelled from a school by the government because of the shirt?
I'm asking your opinion, so don't hide.
Why do you keep conflating speech and harassment?
Do you think harassment is nothing more than speech someone doesn't want to hear?
You've quoted at length on harassment. How do you distinguish between harassment and speech?
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.