Posted on 05/31/2016 5:01:55 PM PDT by lowbridge
big chit.....
the message to the white kids is this....if the big shot university doesn’t think this was bad what happened to them, well,maybe its true were just evil whites and we better obey and keep our heads down..
we had so many STUPID people who allowed him to stay in office...yes stupid, plain and simple...
Unfortunately Ben Carson was not that guy, but Alan West is close. Not quite ready for prime time, but close.
>> there were no specific violations of the Standards of Conduct
Said the filthy f***g committee? The Dartmouth President? Really?
Unfortunately, I don't think the government will allow any white backlash.
I don't know if it's going to change if Trump is president, but the Obungler considers all of us to be terrorist's anyway. He is just looking for a chance to wipe out thousands of patriots.
If I’m ever pinned to a wall, my knife will be out.
I’ve always got a knife on me.
To quote Reagan:”If it takes a bloodbath, lets get it over with.”
Interesting question, Buttons. :)
Surely you’ve heard of Westboro Baptist Church and the things they say to grieving families? Despicable.....and yet somehow, they are found to be acting within the Constitution and have the riot to protest and to assembly, etc, and stupidly enough, even have the right to receiving legal protection from the cities they picket in. The same applies to BLM.
All that aside....I’m do endorse limits to free speech and don’t think that BLM and other hate groups should be Constitutionally protected, nor should the others that you mentioned. The unfortunate thing is that under the Constitution, these things ARE protected, which I think is quite misguided. There is a difference between free speech and lawlessness (as in libel or slander, etc). What you’re seeing as a terroristic threat against the young lady might be viewed differently in a court of law: ugly statements, irrational anger, but there was no actual threat of violence towards her. Now, had they said, “filthy white bitch, and I’m gonna kill you because of it!!” that’s a different story. That is legally known as “communicating threats” and if those things had been said, then Dartmouth is wrong. What *I* understood was that while there was name-calling by the BLM, there were no credible actual threats of violence that could be construed as illegal.
Where it becomes difficult is knowing where to draw the line between free speech and crossing the line. Until that line is set further back, even utterly ridiculous things like BLM or Westboro unfortunately ARE protected. In that light, Dartmouth was correct and was following the letter of the law. Had there been any threats of actual physical harm, Dartmouth is wrong all the way around.
Thanks for a thought provoking question. :)
Just one more question, Starfish...
Are laws against disturbing the peace unconstitutional? Because I would say they were disturbing it.
Also, we ought to distinguish between “unconstitutional” laws that simply don’t belong in the Constitution but are acceptable municipally. I would think in most any municipality a gang of hooligans would be acting unlawfully in what they did to the young lady at Dartmouth. (Or is Dartmouth federal territory?)
Still, if I were in a position to charge them, I’d make it harassment, and perhaps illegal detention or kidnapping or assault, since for some brief period of time she was forcibly detained.
For students who fared poorly on exams/papers/labs/performances, I would sue. Class action. Emotional distress, harassment, and assault.
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.