Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Perdogg

I don’t agree with racism but I also believe in freedom of speech as far as the government is concerned (private parties can sue and that’s OK too).

The constitution is usually only implicated if the federal government is involved. If UO is a state university, then it is a question of the state constitution or state laws whether booting them out is illegal. The U.S. Constitutions forbids federal action not usually state action.


10 posted on 03/10/2015 3:42:23 PM PDT by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: PapaNew
The constitution is usually only implicated if the federal government is involved. If UO is a state university, then it is a question of the state constitution or state laws whether booting them out is illegal. The U.S. Constitutions forbids federal action not usually state action.

Not since the 14th Amendment was passed. The 14th Amendment applied all of the Bill of Rights to state governments as well as the federal government. So state governments can have state constitutions that require state and local governments to be MORE protective of the rights enumerated in the US Constitution, but they cannot be less protective of those rights.

14 posted on 03/10/2015 3:48:50 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: PapaNew

>>The constitution is usually only implicated if the federal government is involved. If UO is a state university, then it is a question of the state constitution or state laws whether booting them out is illegal. The U.S. Constitutions forbids federal action not usually state action.<<

A State can’t ignore the USC. But an institution — any institution — can have you sign your rights away.

I was a California State Employee a ways back and we were prohibited from displaying anything political or campaigning when at work.

But that was at work. On my time I could say what I wanted but I could not imply my relationship with the State was part of my speech.

If the kids signed an agreement which included self-restriction the legal question would be is it so broad as to be open to interpretation.

If everything is silent (unlikely) then there may not be a legal avenue here for the School against the kids. The ones expelled may have a cause of action. For big bucks.


15 posted on 03/10/2015 3:49:23 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (islam: The hands of the Chinese, the mouths of the arabs, the minds of the French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson