Georgia Tech ends gay hate-speech ban

[Behind the Aegis]

Following a lawsuit brought by social conservatives, Georgia Tech University agreed this week to remove parts of a speech code prohibiting students in on-campus housing from verbally injuring gay and lesbian classmates, among others.
A U.S. District Court judge ordered the school to abide by the decision, which it made after being sued, with the help of a Christian law firm, by two students who claimed their right to free speech was being undermined by the code, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

"Tech students now won't have to enter a zone of censorship when they walk on campus," David French, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which has aided similar lawsuits around the country, told the paper. "They now have the same rights as every Georgian."

The court order means the speech code is now under judicial supervision. If Georgia Tech wants to amend it in the next five years, it has to go back to court.

more...

[Donnachaidh]

1. now the drunken knucklewalkers at GA Tech will have targets

I certainly hope GA Tech has a slush fund for the lawsuits to follow.

[eallen]

7. On what grounds? Hate speech isn't illegal in the US.

Indeed, it's constitutionally protected. That's why all the hate crime laws are predicated on an underlying criminal act, e.g., if you assault someone, then in some states, the degree and punishment are increased if you did so motivated by hate of certain types. But hate speech, per se, is not a crime.

Torts are a different issue, of course. But how do you sue someone for exercising a constitutionally protected right? It could be the basis for a suit in certain contexts, or if it leads to certain effects. But not generally.

I suspect the reason Georgia Tech caved is that it is a public university. A private institution has broader leeway in making rules for its students. Places like Bob Jones University practically mandate prejudice.

:hippie:

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Wouldn't hate speech become a prima facie case of a hate crime

if one did occur?

[eallen]

22. The prosecution has to prove the underlying crime.

Yes, if the prosecution proves that Larry and Moe killed Jose, then the fact that just before the murder, Moe said to Larry, "let's get that Arab," would be evidence that murder was motivated by racial hate. That very well could be enough to convince the jury that it was a hate crime, in states that have provisions for that.

But first the prosecution has to prove the underlying crime. Speech indicating hate is not, by itself, a crime. Not in the US. European nations have some stricter laws, in this regard. (Other aspects of speech can be a crime, for example, a threat.)

[The Backlash Cometh]

24. So a Christian that goes around spouting hate talk towards gays, is

basically making themselves a potential suspect if a crime did occur?

Doesn't sound very prudent. I can also see this thing ratcheting up. If they continue to spout hate talk and the level of violence against gays increases, wouldn't that be enough to include homosexuals under Title 8?

[cgrindley]

108. Define hate

What, exactly, is hate?

[iverglas]

49. a good and necessary clarification

"Hate speech" and "hate crime" are two very very different things, and are too often misunderstood.

On your point about the fact that hate speech is not illegal in the US, however ...

The fact that something is not illegal does not mean that any public or private organization is required to permit it to be done on its premises. For instance, it may be legal to carry a concealed firearm in a US state, but an institution or employer may prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on its premises.

Certainly an employer that did not prohibit hate speech on its premises would be open to whatever action may be taken to complain about discrimination: permitting the creation of an environment that is hostile to certain groups amounts to discrimination in employment.

The principle wouldn't seem to be much different in the case of an educational institution.

[MGKrebs]

58. Doesn't sound like Tech "caved". They were forced. n/t

[Kiouni]

2. wow that's just

unreal

[skipos]

3. Conservatives: taking America back to the dark ages one step at a time

nt

[pnwmom]

166. One of Georgia Tech's over-turned regulations actually prohibited

"injurious" communications regarding someone's "beliefs."

Do you think that that is an appropriate restriction on freedom of speech in an academic community?

[iverglas]

170. you got that cut & paste function?

"injurious" communications regarding someone's "beliefs."

It's just so interesting to see how you keep quoting those two words without their context, and in the process completely misrepresenting what was actually said.

Do see post 168, in case you have lost the link to the original and that's why you're making shit up.

[pnwmom]

172. The point was that the regulation was over-broad. Where it

went too far, in my opinion, was in banning -- among other things -- speech that was "injurious" to someone's "beliefs."

It is one thing to ban threats, or to ban harassment based on someone's characteristics.

It is quite another to ban speech that may injure someone's beliefs. But, as it was written, that's what the original regulation did.

[iverglas]

178. brawck

in banning -- among other things -- speech that was "injurious" to someone's "beliefs."

Cracker got a polly?

And what I'm sure you've noticed is that the change DELETED, among other things, THREATENING, INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING written/verbal communications directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.

And it was not about communication REGARDING or INJURIOUS TO SOMEONE'S BELIEFS. And if you sincerely believe that it was, you seem to need to go back and take reading comprehension 1 again.

It was about communication that was THREATENING, INTIMIDATING, HARASSING OR OTHERWISE INJURIOUS and that was DIRECTED TOWARD AN INDIVIDUAL.

How you imagine that anything could be "injurious to someone's beliefs", I have no clue.

[pnwmom]

182. You need to read the regulation again. And think about it.

I'll help.

"Threatening, intimidating, harassing, or otherwise injurious written/verbal communications (including the use of telephones, emails and computers) directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs."

Do you see those two little "or's"? They're critical to understanding this regulation, and why it is vague and over-broad.

"OR otherwise injurious. . . communication" means an "injurious" communication that is NOT necessarily "threatening, intimidating, or harassing." How is it "injurious" then? Good question. Too vague.

"because of their characteristics OR beliefs."

Based on this part of the regulation, someone could be punished for "injurious" (but not necessarily threatening, intimidating, or harassing) comments directed toward another individual because of their beliefs.

For example, if I were a student there, under the old regulation, I could say that someone like you has injured me by insulting me because of my belief in freedom of speech.

Give me a break.

[iverglas]

183. say now, here's a question for you

How come the little Republican shits whose fight you have bravely taken up didn't ask for that provision of the rule to be rewritten to remove the offensive wording, and so read like this:

Threatening, intimidating or harassing written/verbal communications (including the use of telephones, emails and computers) directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.

??

If something is overbroad and is being rewritten, there isn't usually a need to delete it holus bolus.

Oh, right -- and "beliefs". Ditto, eh? Or clarification perhaps: "religious beliefs", or "religious beliefs or beliefs about religion or any religion; that oughta cover the main problem, and with "characteristics" would cover the sorts of things that anti-discrimination legislation generally covers.

Hell, they coulda just spelled it all out the way it was in another now-deleted section of the rule:

race, religious belief, color, sexual/affectional orientation, national origin, disability, age, or gender.

For example, if I were a student there, under the old regulation, I could say that someone like you has injured me by insulting me because of my belief in freedom of speech. Give me a break.

Yeah. I'll say.

Some people just gotta be the victim.

[pnwmom]

186. I don't know why, as I said before, but it might be because

threats, intimidation, etc. is already illegal under criminal law and (according to her) already prohibited under other university regulations.

[lastliberalintexas]

205. That isn't a remedy in a US lawsuit

No matter what the right wingers say, judges do not legislate from the bench in this country (they probably have broader powers in other countries). In the US, if a plaintiff brings suit over an unconstitutional ordinance, regulation or law, the court can only uphold or strike down same. The court does not have the power to rewrite the ordinance, regulation or law so as to be constitutional. It's a very inefficient mechanism, since the college or legislature or city council could rewrite the law and still not come up with something that passes constitutional muster, but a second lawsuit would have to be filed for that determination. But that's what our founders had in mind, an inefficient government which would supposedly then be more responsive.


And in response to your above questions, the private employer is not specifically constrained by the constitution, and could then infringe on its employees "rights" of free speech as it wishes. Only governmental entities and actors are bound by the constitution, and that includes public universities and their employees.

[iverglas]

208. failing to take your points

In the US, if a plaintiff brings suit over an unconstitutional ordinance, regulation or law, the court can only uphold or strike down same. The court does not have the power to rewrite the ordinance, regulation or law so as to be constitutional.

Here, we have no ordinance, regulation or law.

Here we have a university code of conduct.

Here we have a court approving a settlement reached by the parties.

Given that other portions of the code WERE rewritten BY THE PARTIES, and the new version WAS then approved by the Court (which also gave directions regarding any future changes to the code) your point seems to have no relevance.

When I said:

How come the little Republican shits whose fight you have bravely taken up didn't ask for that provision of the rule to be rewritten to remove the offensive wording ...

-- I was of course saying ask the university.

Yes, interesting that the techniques of "reading in" and "reading down" are not applied in the US. In other common law jurisdictions, those techniques are used precisely in order to be respectful of the legislature, and find a way of reading legislation so that it can be applied in a manner consistent with the constitution or other super-legislation. Qualms about the effect of making UK legislation subordinate to the European Human Rights Convention were addressed this way:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980119/text/80119-13.htm

... it shows, from the highest authority among the makers of the Bill in this House, that there will be a new approach to statutory interpretation. A declaration of incompatibility will be a systemic failure. I believe that that will very rarely happen, and that our courts will act in a similar way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when construing ordinary legislation in the context of Commonwealth constitutional guarantees of human rights; that is, by reading in and reading down: reading in safeguards to save the statute in accordance with human rights; and reading down -- reading narrowly restrictions upon human rights; adopting a generous approach, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to give human rights their full scope and avoiding what the noble and learned Lord described as the austerity of tabulated legalism.

Interesting aside, but not relevant still.

Only governmental entities and actors are bound by the constitution, and that includes public universities and their employees.

I'm sorry, but it's still bafflegab.

Perhaps you can explain all those bans on people with permits to carry concealed firearms carrying concealed firearms on university campuses. Surely the university cannot override that second amendment thingy.

Or just tell me what law we're talking about here.

Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech ... .

No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press.

[GrumpyGreg]

4. Thank God for freedom of speech. !

[ulysses]

12. "Ruth Malhotra corrupts children."

Free speech or slander?

[pnwmom]

190. It can be both, actually. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech

but does not protect the speaker from the legal consequences of any slanderous or libelous speech.

Therefore, the Constitution protects the right of a speaker to say "Ruth Malhotra corrupts children."

But it also gives Ruth Malhotra the right to bring suit against the speaker, and for a court to find on her behalf, IF the statement meets the legal standard for slander or libel.

[lastliberalintexas]

207. Even slander is constitutionally protected from governmental bans,

at least to an extent. The remedy for slander (and libel) is a civil suit brought by the injured party against the defamer, and the only role the government plays is in providing the forum for the fight. The remedy is not for the government to stick its nose in and prevent the words from ever being uttered.

[ulysses]

5. stupid.

Sometimes, it almost seems as if some of these motherfuckers want to make it impossible to be cool with both people of faith and the GLBT community.

Hey, wait a minute...

[msongs]

6. that means verbal christian bashing is also legal, correct?

any christians can threaten, abuse, and coerce gays because of the beliefs of christianity and jesus, then anyone can also do the same to christians.

so do the christians want to bring back slavery too?

let the gloves come off, so to speak.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/2007politicalcalendars.htm

[eallen]

9. Almost as if there were open debate, huh?

[leesa]

21. threats and abuse are debate in your world?

[eallen]

23. Threats and abuse are already illegal.

[TechBear_Seattle]

31. PROVIDED you are a Christian and not gay

In today's America, only Christians are protected against hate speech. It is open season on everyone else, especially on gay people and atheists.

[pnwmom]

145. Threats should be reported to the police.

Verbal "abuse" -- if by that you mean "taunting" -- should be countered with words and protests in every venue.

[Bacchus39]

32. people mock Christians all the time

the real crime in all this is attempting to restrict speech because someone else may find it offensive.

[iverglas]

51. if only disingenuousness were a crime

the real crime in all this is attempting to restrict speech because someone else may find it offensive.

Yeah, that's why members of vulnerable and disadvantaged minority groups don't want people inciting hatred of them on the campuses where they go to school, in the workplaces where they earn a living ...

It's because they're offended.

Not because they're being required to tolerate conditions that interfere with their actual RIGHT to get an education, or earn a living, on equal footing with everyone else in their society.

Not because they have a quite well-founded fear that if hatred is incited against them in their schools and workplaces, and if that hatred is tolerated by their school authorities and employers, it may be unsafe for them to try to get an education or earn a living -- or hell, it may just make it too stressful for them to achieve their potential at school or on the job, or even just really, really unpleasant for them to be there -- paying the same tuition or doing the same work for their pay as every one of their white and/or male and/or straight and/or anglo and/or Christian colleagues.

Damn thin-skinned racial / religious / sexual / ethnic / gender minorities. Always getting offended and whining about something.

[The Backlash Cometh]

17. Christians would be protected because religion is included in Title 8?

[BreweryYardRat]

46. Will you please stop lumping all Christians in with false fundamentalists?

Fundamentalists are the tiny fucking minority you get in almost any faith-the absolute militant loonies who are spouting hate speech.

They do not speak for most Christians, although the bloated evil fuckers are so loud it's hard to tell otherwise.

[theanarch]

8. yes, this is every bit as bad as it sounds...

...this is not an issue of 'free speech' per se: the regulations were designed to deal with the assholes who can't express their 'freedom of speech' without injuring or violating the 'right to privacy' of those the homophobic/misogynistic zealots scream at and stalk, patterns of dangerous and anti-social behavior that just became legal at Ga. Tech. Republicans: protecting obnoxious bigotry from criticism since 9/11.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Just HOW conservative is Georgia Tech?

Is the indoctrination to the right THAT overt?

[Stuckinthebush]

35. Engineers....

From my experience in higher ed, engineers I have worked with are usually more socially conservative than socially liberal. But of course, this is a broad brush. I've know many progressive minded engineers as well.

[feminazi]

44. yup, engineers

i have a friend you graduated from ga tech years ago. she's socially liberal. she's also a lesbian. i'm sure she'll be happy to hear this....not.

[Stuckinthebush]

48. Like I said...broad brush

Ask her about the Civil Engineers and Mechanical Engineers. We found a lot of misogynistic behaviors in the classroom and in student workgroups. This was part of a phenomenological study grounded in feminist theory looking at women's experience in engineering education. We interviewed a number of graduating female engineering students and female students who had dropped out of engineering but had very good grades. The misogynistic attitudes contributed to much of the dissatisfaction with engineering education. As with all qualitative research (or the case can be made, any social science research), it is not wise to generalize to the entire population (hence my comment about broad brush).

The results, however, did match results found at Arizona State by the WISE program (Women in Science and Engineering) that point out one of the main barriers to getting more women and minorities in Engineering is the entrenchment of white, male, conservative attitudes. Thankfully, this is changing with the infusion of 10 years of NSF funds in the area. I do believe those funds have been slashed over the last six years (imagine why), but there has been some improvement. One of the many ways to change the culture was in education of engineering faculty. I was part of this effort in a large Southern University, and while it was difficult, there was some realization by the 95% male faculty that their actions were perceived negatively by non-white male students.

So, yes there are socially liberal, feminist, lesbian engineers. Thank god! But the assertation based on research and experience is that the field is still very much a while, male, conservative minded field.

[Akim]

127. Did you say "phenomenological study" or "phrenological study"? n/t

[Akim]

128. The School Song: "He's a rambling wreck from Georgia Tech, but a ...

hell of an engineer."

[pnwmom]

141. M.I.T. undergrad enrollment last year was 43% female, 45% US minority.

http://web.mit.edu/facts/enrollment.shtml

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. *Raises hand*

But I don't count. I'm Brazilian. By US standards, everybody here is a flaming hippie maoist deviant.

[Stuckinthebush]

60. LOL!

:D

[mrmartinbong]

64. Fairly conservative

I am an alumus. When I started it was very conservative, by the time I graduated,early 90's, it was less so. A lot of engineers are conservative and a lot are not. Tech has a lot of other programs that are much more liberal, pyschology, mathematics, biology, chemistry, architecture, industrial design and the new school of history technology and such. The ironic thing is that Ruth's department or school is probably the most liberal. I wish she was kicked out of Tech, it offends me that her intolerance is tolerated, she probably would be better off at Bob Roberts or Liberty U.
Mr. Martin Bong

[rodeodance]

10. It is legal now but not ethical..

......The changes affect the on-campus housing speech code specifically and not the overall code of conduct governing students' behavior in general, Georgia Tech officials say, according to the Journal-Constitution.

Students Ruth Malhotra, a conservative Christian, and Orit Sklar, president of the Jewish student organization Hillel, filed suit this year claiming the speech code compromised their ability to espouse their anti-gay and anti-feminist views, among other unpopular opinions. They complained that Georgia Tech, a public university, did not fund political or religious activities by students while allowing a gay group to operate on campus.

A similar lawsuit recently forced Penn State University to alter its own speech code. (The Advocate)

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Are they saying that Christian organizations don't have their own

buildings on campus? If so, isn't the school supporting them by virtue of their existence?

[northzax]

38. it's a tough question

I don't personally agree with speech codes provided by the government in any way shape or form. that said.

I think the key issue here is that the suit said, basically, that if someone is doing something that violates your religion, then it is de facto religious activity. the suing students think that something that offends them, and their religion, is a religious activity, which is complete bullshit. Certainly, a religious activity could be offensive to another religion, but it doesn't neccesarily work backwards. having a gay rights group on campus is no more a religious activity (because it is offensive to some religions) than serving bacon in the dining halls is a religious activity (because it is offensive to some religions)

[HuffleClaw]

11. no real surprise given the locale

"...Students Ruth Malhotra, a conservative Christian, and Orit Sklar, president of the Jewish student organization Hillel, filed suit this year claiming the speech code compromised their ability to espouse their anti-gay and anti-feminist views... ...complained that Georgia Tech, a public university, did not fund political or religious activities by students while allowing a gay group to operate on campus."

i'm suprised a jewish group would advocate any form of intolerance. and the last bit about 'allowing a gay group...' is not remotely related to FUNDING for 'political and religious activities' though i'm sure they've managed to twist their heads around the idea.

[theanarch]

25. Surprised that a Jewish group would advocate...

intolerance? You shouldn't be...there are as many varieties of Judaism as there are Christianity and Islaam, spanning the same political/ideological spectrum. As for the funding aspect, when a college sanctions (recognizes) a specific campus organization, they (the group) are allowed to raise and spend whatever money they can collect (fundraisers) in accordance with their group's charter; on some campuses, nominal amounts for may be requested from the school (usually through the SGA or some bureaucratic office that deals with student relations/affairs)--typically for advertising (leaflets, posters, etc) organization activities. This is HOW "funding for political and religious activities" gets twisted around their (propagandistic) idea.

[FormerDem06]

30. Crazy...

I hadn't heard about this so I did a quick search and here is some of her official response (forgive the source, but what can you expect?).....

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2006/May2006/BuzzRuthMalhotraInterview051206.htm



snip...

======================================
The suit was filed 1) to hold GT accountable for the fact that mainstream conservative speech is often considered “hate speech” and “intolerant,” while politically-charged, far-out-of-the-mainstream Leftist speech is considered part of the “intellectual diversity” purportedly valued by the Institute; 2) to challenge GT’s discrimination against religious and political groups by refusing to fund them with the Student Activity Fee; and 3) to confront why GT evaluates and endorses certain religious views through the school-sponsored “Safe Space” program. In other words, I want free speech for all students, equal rights for all organizations, and I want the Institute to respect the Constitution by getting out of the business of promoting certain religions over others.
======================================

snip

=======================================
Many have suggested that we should have dealt with these problems internally and that filing suit was an “unnecessary step.” The truth is that we have been trying to change the climate at Georgia Tech for years. In spite of countless meetings with various deans and administrators, we’ve had our speech censored, we’ve had our protests shut down by campus police, and we’ve repeatedly had Institute officials warn us away from speaking out on important public issues.
=======================================

snip
=======================================
Also, people should not be deceived by the rhetoric. The campus left tends to use terms such as “verbal assault” to describe speech not in line with their orthodoxy. Yet, campus leftists have engaged in explicit racial name-calling against me. For example, some have posted flyers calling me a “twinkie bitch,” this to suggest that I am “yellow on the outside and white on the inside;” they have directed many other derogatory insults towards me and my groups; some members of the campus left have even physically threatened me. I ask you, who is engaging in verbal assault? Who is really being intolerant?
=======================================

[HuffleClaw]

56. "politically-charged, far-out-of-the-mainstream Leftist speech"

ahhahhahhaahaaaaaaaaa. man that is some funny.

[sakabatou]

13. So... when will the "Hate Week" start?

[zreosumgame]

41. the question should be

when will it stop?

[Dr Fate]

63. The real question for us is "When will the 'Tolerance Week' start?"

I dont see where such a celebration would be banned under this rule.

Let the biggots have their hate week- no one is stopping us from having a counter rally.

[Akim]

73. Why not at least a "Tolerance Month"? n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. What happens if they taunt a heterosexual who isn't gay?

[Bacchus39]

33. that's called: growing up or perhaps life

happens all the time.

[iverglas]

55. well now that was just dumb

The question was:

What happens if they taunt a heterosexual who isn't gay?

and you answered:

that's called: growing up or perhaps life
happens all the time.

What the fuck?? I mean, I admit I'm not sure what the question was getting at, but it seems to be referring to someone being taunted for being gay who isn't gay. Maybe not. I dunno. What would a heterosexual be taunted for (that it would be worth mentioning his/her sexual orientation in relation to)? By a homosexual person, for not being homosexual? Maybe that was it. Like I say, I dunno.

Whatever it was, your response was still dumb.

Gay/lesbian people get taunted "all the time" for being gay/lesbian; it does NOT happen all the time that straight people get taunted for being straight.

Members of ethnic minorities get taunted "all the time" for being members of ethnic minorities; it does NOT happen all the time that members of the white/anglo majority get taunted for being white/anglo.

Etc., etc., etc. White and/or male and/or straight and/or anglo and/or Christian people DO NOT get taunted all the time because of their race / sex / sexual orientation / ethnicity / religion. DO NOT.

Being taunted because of one's inherent personal characteristics, because of one's membership in a particular group where that membership is an integral part of one's personal identity, IS NOT called "growing up or perhaps life". It is called being targeted by expressions of hatred that people who do not share one's characteristics are not targeted by. And it can in fact have extreme negative effects on both growing up and life.

Damn I do love the complacent among us.

[Dr Fate]

67. Solution: That person comes back at them with more speech.

In your scenario, I would say something like:

"I'm not gay you hateful idiot- but even if I was, it is none of your business- Why are you so obsessed with other men's dicks & butts? I think you need to stop thinking about gay people and take care your of your lady- assuming you can even get one."

[iverglas]

74. "my scenario"?

I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't really addressing scenarios where straight people are taunted for being gay. I can't even imagine why someone would imagine such a scenario, really.

"... and take care your of your lady- assuming you can even get one."

Yes, well, that resembles what I've said for decades to men who harass me in public places. (It goes more like: "If you have as much between your legs as you have between your ears, at least we know you won't be breeding." "Yeah, well I got six kids." "You think.")

However, if I am harassed as a woman by men where I go to school or where I work, the situation is really rather different. It really is. And that was my actual point.

An educational institution or employer that permits some students/employees to engage in speech that vilifies other students/employees based on the inherent characteristics of the group they belong to (or their religion, which civilized people also regard as an unacceptable ground of discrimination) is allowing a climate of at least hostility to be created on its premises. "Hostile environment discrimination" is real, and it has negative effects on its victims that are real.

[Zynx]

77. What if they're ganged up on?

I'm sorry, teasing and taunting are not forms of protected speech. Only political speech is protected completely.

[pnwmom]

191. "Only political speech is protected completely." You might want to

tell that to the ACLU. That would be news to them.

Bush is making a huge effort to limit POLITICAL speech. Anything we do to limit freedom of speech, in the long run, will just help him.

[Akim]

75. Don't heterosexual guys taunt each other with gay cracks all the time?n/t

[dionysus]

15. marching backwards in time... how disgusting

n/t

[Placebo]

18. WHAT?!?!

Who the fuck goes BACKWARDS? Idiots.

[KAZ]

26. Oh, that's protected now, eh?

You try saying the following in GA about Repukes/Christians (or Shrub for that matter), and you'll be in deep shit. Try saying this in front of our so called judiciary, which claims to uphold our constitution, while gleefully participating in its destruction.

WITH EDITING, from godhatesfags.com

"In summary, (Christians) are wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13), are violent and doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile, depraved, unnatural sex practices "with children" (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs because they are filthy, impudent and libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6; Phil. 3:2), produce by their very presence in society a kind of mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom and the fields of Gomorrah which poisons society's mores with the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), declare their sin and shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless and unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), are workers of iniquity and hated by God (Psa. 5:5), are liars and murderers (Jn. 8:44), are filthy and lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), are natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are dogs eating their own vomit and sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind ...

Lot of dog stuff mentioned, that may be just to get Santorum involved.

[Bacchus39]

34. so you think that should be illegal??

n/t

[iverglas]

50. so you like putting words in people's mouths that they didn't say?

If you think, you can probably come up with the difference between "illegal" and "not permitted on the premises of an educational institution under the rules of that institution".

One biggie would be that noncompliance in the first case would mean punishment, i.e. deprivation of property or liberty, while non-compliance in the second case would mean institutional sanction, i.e. deprivation of some aspect of the use of the institution's services or facilities.

See the difference yet?

[pnwmom]

146. A university is the last place that should be seeking to limit

legal freedom of speech. Even extremely distasteful speech. The solution is to counter WORDS with MORE WORDS.

[iverglas]

152. I'm ever so flattered by all your attention

It would just be a lot more fun if your words were actually saying something worth reading.

Have you read that first amendment of yours yet?

Got a clue about that whole equal treatment thing yet?

Let me know.

[MessiahRp]

27. So the result of this court's decision is

that civil rights have officially taken a step backward? How wonderful.

I love George Bush's AmeriKKKa.

Rp

[Psephos]

45. Free speech is a fundamental civil right

The only speech that needs protection is that which some or many find offensive.

Suppression of ideas we don't like will not lead to their eradication. Suppression has the opposite effect, bringing a sense of righteous struggle and thrill to those who hold hateful opinions...which is why we need to hold our noses and let offensive ideas be killed by the sunlight and oxygen that open discussion bring to bear on them.

Bush's Amerikkka is made more likely, not less, by suppression of free speech.

Peace.

[Pithlet]

53. I think schools can and should prohibit harassment.

It isn't infringing on their rights to tell these self righteous bigoted snots that they can't bully and create a hostile environment for other students because of their sex, religion, sexual orientation or race.

[Dr Fate]

69. Creating a hostile environment for Repubs should be off limits too.

Everyone of all beliefs & philosophies should all just sit down & shut up, and pretend we all have no political disagreements with each other.

Perhaps war protests should be made illegal too- we would hate to create a hostile enviornment for veterans, ROTC students and Bush supporters-right?

[iverglas]

78. why would that be?

Are people born Republican?

Conversely: does an individual's private sexual conduct have some impact on other individuals or their society?

Do GLBT people, as a characteristic of their group, advocate public policies? In case you're not clear on this, the answer is no; it is not a characteristic of people of any sexual orientation that they take positions on public policies.

Do people of colour? Women? Muslims? Again, the answer is no.

Advocating a public policy is something entirely separate and totally different from having a particular characteristic.

One would really think that this would be pretty obvious to anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear, and the grey matter to process the stimuli with.

[Zynx]

84. I suppose the fact that hundreds if not thousands of students over the

years have been driven to suicide because of teasing doesn't bother you?

[Pithlet]

119. Would you feel the same

If these were students who were fighting for the right to burn crosses in the common areas? Or, would you support a movement attempting to remove rules against sexual harassment? In both cases, the offenders could scream that their free speech rights are being violated, just as the gay bashing students are. If not, then how is the school telling students they can't bash GLBT students any different?

Free speech and allowing for free discourse doesn't mean that schools have to let students intimidate and bully others because of their race, sex, or sexual orientation. These rules weren't set up to stifle debate. They were meant to afford the same protections to GLBT students that others get. These student's free speech rights weren't violated any more than the ones who aren't allowed to hold klan rallies on campus in order to intimidate the black students. It isn't discourse to scream and yell bigoted slurs at other students, and set up organized efforts to make them unwelcome. This is about and the school making efforts to provide a harassment free learning experience to all its students, until the victimizers got legal representation and the school was bullied into removing the rules. So, now it's open season on the GLBT students once more.

[Pithlet]

120. And, I'd like to add

That a person isn't their political belief. It's very possible to debate a person's political stance without making it ugly, or personal, or uncomfortable. It's damn near impossible to claim the very person in their form of being is wrong and shouldn't be accepted because of who they are without some measure of hostility. Telling a Repub their political views is wrong is not the same thing as telling a gay person they themselves are wrong simply for who they are. The first is a disagreement of an idea. The second is the rejection of the person. The school isn't stifling ideas. They're stifling attacks, both verbal and physical, aimed at a specific group designed to make that group's existence at that school hostile. Big, big difference. And the claim that the group doing the attacking was only expressing free speech was bogus. Those claims should have been laughed off the campus.

[pnwmom]

194. "Bush's Amerikkka is made more likely... by suppression of free speech."

Exactly.

[iverglas]

197. Yes, and Hitler's Germany demonstrates that point so well.

Allowing the spewing of all those lies and hatred just did such a good job of ensuring that truth and goodness triumphed.

[pnwmom]

200. Oh yeah. Hitler was such a big proponent of freedom of speech.

:sarcasm:

What history books have you been reading?

Hitler did not protect the freedom of EVERYONE's speech; only of those who supported him.

[iverglas]

202. good lord

Hitler did not protect the freedom of EVERYONE's speech.

Who was talking about what Hitler did???

Can you TRY to follow the breadcrumbs?

You quoted with approval:

Bush's Amerikkka is made more likely... by suppression of free speech.

In my analogy, Hitler's Germany = Bush's Amerikkka.

HITLER's speech was not suppressed.

And truth and goodness prevailed.

Right?

[pnwmom]

203. Hitler suppressed the speech of his opponents,

by killing them, and by threatening to kill them.

His ORDERS are what led to the deaths of millions. Not his "free speech."

[iverglas]

206. who the hell cares??

His ORDERS are what led to the deaths of millions. Not his "free speech."

Do you not read even what YOU write?????

YOU asserted (by quoting):

"Bush's Amerikkka is made more likely... by suppression of free speech."

*I* questioned the pertinence of that little blurb by pointing out that Hitler's Germany was NOT DETERRED by NOT SUPPRESSING his speech.

Allowing him to spew DID NOT result in truth and goodness prevailing.

But, but, isn't that what is supposed to happen???

Why is it more likely that allowing snivelling scum like this Ruth Malhotra piece of shit to spew her own filth at fellow students of her university that "Bush's Amerikkka" will NOT be strengthened and perpetuated???

Pieces of shit like her must be allowed to spew their filth in whatever forums that they can find. They do NOT have to be GIVEN that forum by ANYONE, most especially anyone who has a duty NOT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST the people she is spewing it at.

If every newspaper and publisher and assembly hall in Germany had just refused to give Hitler a forum, I wonder what might have happened.

Now, you find some other way of misunderstanding / misrepresenting this. I wait with bated breath.

[Toots]

28. I think assault laws still apply

Hate speech is just another form of assault.

[DerBeppo]

47. so political hate speech

against chimp should get you the same treatment as if you punched him? ridiculous. the willingness of some here to undermine the single most important right we have due to philosophical differences is disgusting.

[Toots]

116. I think you are confusing assault with battery, they often get confused

Assault is the verbal threatening of a person, battery is the actual striking of the person.

[depakid]

29. Nothing about Georgia surprises me N/T

[CollegeDUer]

36. And my school (UGA) just added it a semester ago

I wonder how long it'll be before the lawsuits start coming here.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatholicEdHead]

39. Disgusting

and shapeful. :wtf: :puke: :wtf:

Things continue to creep and creep against all homosexuals in this country.

[Az_lefty]

40. Ah, nice to see Georgia getting back to normal...

:puke:

[KamaAina]

42. That is so GAY!

:sarcasm:

[Kailassa]

43. I wonder if these kids, so determinedly exercising their

"freedom of speech", will get a special award
each time they drive another gay kid to suicide?

[Kickoutthejams23]

52. Yeah pity the poor stand-up comic.

Speech codes violate free expression period whether their intentions are good or otherwise. Should we ban the Vagina Monologues because it offends certain people or ban jokes about re pugs or Enron or George W Bush because it hurts feelings. C'mon. College students are adults and need to grow up if they can't handle free speech. If you march and call oil company executives murderers certainly that should be allowed right? The concept of THE GOVERNMENT picking which people can be abused and which can't is frightening beyond belief. And the implication that gays are so mentally unbalanced and weak that they can't handle negative public discourse and need to be protected is as disgusting stereotype that is probably as offensive as anything that could be said under the new rules.

[Zynx]

106. No one has to watch a stand-up comic.

People should be able to go to school and work without being harassed.

[Jacobin]

54. "They now have the same rights as every Georgian."

Well, Georgians must be so proud now that they can verbally abuse people based on their sexual preference.

GOOOOOOOODAWGS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr Fate]

62. And in turn, progressive Georgians should take comfort in the fact...

...that they can verbally abuse people based on their biggotry concerning sexual preference.


That is what free speech is all about- when you dont like speech, you combat it with MORE speech, not censorship.

Example:

"Homophobes & Republican Christians are hateful, sexually repressed bigots. They should pay more attention to their own sexual relations and get out of my underwear drawer..."

[Jacobin]

87. You do have a point

I retract my earlier comments.

In all seriousness, it is better to live with all kinds of speech, than to have speech curtailed for whatever reason.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

61. I want to know who the biggots are. I cant oppose them...

...unless I know they exist.

I dont agree with the speech of hateful idiots, but I agree that idiots have the right to act & talk like idiots.

Let the biggots act like idiots, front & center, for all to see- P.C. & censorship only gives them language to hide behind, it does not stop the hateful feelings behind the speech.

[skip fox]

65. One of the Southern arguments for slavery in the new territories

was that a Northern gentleman could bring all his possessions into the new lands, but that a Southern gentleman was not allowed to bring his if the new states were dertemined to be "free." That is, the South argued that they would not be equally "free" if their property (slaves) were not allowed entry as property.

[Dr Fate]

66. Interesting- but what does it have to do with political speech/expression?

??

[Akim]

72. A little stumped myself. A clearer analogy would be...

the Gag Rule that Congress imposed in the 1850s on the legality of slavery.

[Akim]

68. Is "verbally injuring" the same thing as "physically slandering"? n/t

[Dr Fate]

70. I verbally injure Republicans & biggots every chance I get. n/t

n/t

[Zynx]

103. I suppose the fact that many people have been driven to suicide because

of hurtful things said to them doesn't bother you? I was personally nearly driven to it in 7th grade because I am physically frail and jocks picked on me non-stop. That's not free speech. The 1st ammendment was not written so that you could be an asshole. It was written to protect political dissent.

You people who call verbal assault "free speech" are disgusting bastards and you should really look closely at your lives.

[cobalt1999]

71. This is a board for progressive and liberal thinkers?

Yet, all these folks are actually supporting the limitation of free speech!?!

What happened to the saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

WTF!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. It's a college campus.

All of which have codes of conduct that have to be upheld on campus. No drinking, for instance. I myself would rather have the drinking than the homophobia.

[Akim]

80. Drinking often leads to homophobic remarks. So it would be best...

to abolish drinking on campus. This would also significantly reduce sexual harrassment and sex in general.

[cobalt1999]

92. It's a college campus?

Maybe I'm too old but when I was in college, college campuses were the only real bastions of free speech. Back then, if someone tried to put limits on what could be expressed (left or right), they'd have met with a wall of resistance.

Now, I guess colleges are restricted and different now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. College campuses are also a place to freely assemble.

I, however, cannot assemble myself in a woman's dormitory at 2 a.m. if I want to. Something about protecting the rights of other people.

[pnwmom]

142. The same thinking that would disallow this sort of speech on a campus

would also disallow an anti-Bush rally.

Is that really the direction you think we should be going on college campuses?

What we should be doing is encouraging people with our views to SPEAK UP.

[iverglas]

211. "thinking"

The same thinking that would disallow this sort of speech on a campus would also disallow an anti-Bush rally.

One can only hope that some people try it some day. Thinking. Dog knows some other people have tried to help them.

In the meantime, whether they are still truly unable to grasp what has been said or just pretending not to, it might really be wise for them to refrain from likening other people who do not adopt their simplistic and (wilfully?) ignorant misunderstanding of a complex idea to fascistic authoritarians.

That was what you were doing, right?

See how easy it is to grasp what somebody else is saying if you just put a bit of effort into it?

I'm sure you also grasp that I am straining to be polite about this vile bit of invective you have spewed at people in this forum who don't agree with you.

[Zynx]

79. Free speech only applies to political speech.

"Free speech" does not mean that you can say any old offensive piece of shit thing anytime, anywhere, to anyone.

[Akim]

83. If someone founded an "Anti-Gay" political party, would their rhetoric...

qualify as "political speech?"

But, I forget: there is already such a party. It's called the Republican Party.

So should all Republicans be denied "political speech?"

[Zynx]

86. There's a difference between being opposed to gay marriage and openly

taunting and picking on homosexuals as they try to live their lives.

[Akim]

89. Is there really such a difference?

[Zynx]

91. Actually, yeah.

I would say that a mob of people following gays around and saying, "Hey, fag! I hope you die and burn in hell you sinner!" is different than an opposition to a law.

[Akim]

95. Would this also apply for opposition to civil rights laws? n/t

[Zynx]

98. Yes, it does.

Offensive political views are tolerable under free speech, but people being harassed is not.

[cobalt1999]

85. Free speech only applies to political speech?

Damn, I guess I better shut up about everything else then. Sorry, free speech is free speech. Once you go down the path of limiting it, then you end up limiting it more and more. Maybe it's just me but I'd rather fight for true free speech than fight for "free, but don't offend anyone, speech".

Insane.

[Rex]

88. So, you should be allowed to walk into a police station and yell

I'VE GOT A BOMB!? And not be punished for it?

[Akim]

93. Does the guy really have a bomb? It doesn't matter. Today he would...

be sent to prison for life just for uttering those words.

[Zynx]

94. As well he should.

Same thing with sexual harassment.

[Akim]

99. It's a good thing those "Anti-Terrorist" laws weren't in the books...

in the 1960s. The FBI and state authorities would have crushed the civil rights movement.

[Zynx]

100. I'm not seeing the connection at all.

[Akim]

104. The point is that terrorism is subjective. When George Wallace...

defined "terrorism" in Alabama, it meant having the police smash the heads of civil rights protestors.

[Zynx]

105. I'm still not seeing the connection with the free speech debate.

Technically, I could call taking a piss terrorism since it strains our sewer systems. What's your point?

[Akim]

109. It depends, of course, where you do it...

The sewer system is designed for that purpose. If you tried urinating in the local reservoir, then, yes, you would be guilty of terrorism.

[Zynx]

110. In any case, can you make your connection to free speech?

[Rex]

96. A threat of a bomb is not free speech, it is terrorism

We can't just run about and say what we want, not without repercussions. Free speech, yes. Stupid speech, no.

[Akim]

101. And "stupid speech" should lead to life in prison?

We couldn't build prisons fast enough.

[Rex]

111. Yes, just like stupid driving should lead to prison.

Like driving drunk or running into a movie theater and yelling 'fire'. :eyes:

[Zynx]

90. Did you know I can't say, "Hey, I think Bank of New York is going to go

belly up!"? That is but one example of limited speech. There must be limits on some things and one thing is the incitement of hate because that leads to violence. I don't support the notion for one second that people should be allowed to hurl insults at eachother just because of how they were born. Everyone has a right to live with some sense of pride and dignity and to be left alone by others.

Edit: Oh by the way, perhaps I should be allowed to go around my place of work to every female employee and say "Hey, nice ass. I'd like to tap that!"? Hey, free speech!

[MUSTANG_2004]

115. Of course you can say that about the bank

What you can't do is give false evidence on why you think the bank will go belly up.

[pnwmom]

143. And how many classes on constitutional law have you taken?

The standard for limiting free speech has been "shouting fire in a crowded theater." It has nothing to do whether speech is "political" or not.
But under the Bush administration, there have been efforts to limit it drastically. The more we accept limitations on free speech, the more cover we give to Bush in his push for one-party rule.

[pnwmom]

192. Free speech DOES mean you CAN say

"any old offensive piece of shit." It does NOT mean that there will be no consequences. If the speech violates another law (for example, by making a threat), then the speaker can be punished -- after the fact.

[iverglas]

82. "all these folks are actually supporting the limitation of free speech!?!"

They are???

First, people really need to think a little straighter.

It is a principle that speech should be "free".

What is sometimes limited (fairly frequently, actually) is SPEECH, not "free speech". Duh. If it's limited, it isn't "free".

If I refuse to allow the local right-wing political candidate to hold rallies in my living room, have I limited his/her speech?

I don't care how you answer the question; the absurdity of your position should be evident merely by my asking it.

People may not be PUNISHED for their speech, with the many exceptions that are commonly regarded as justified ("Fire!", perjury, advertising snake oil to cure cancer, conspiring to commit murder ...).

The state punishes people. Universities do not have the authority to punish people. Universities that adopt and enforce anti-hate speech codes are not violating the right of free speech. They are denying people a forum for saying certain things.

A little clear thinking can get rid of so many cobwebs.

[cobalt1999]

97. despite the strawman you set up...

The right wing candidate does have the right to hold rallies. He even has the right to bash whatever group he wants to. If not, then other counter views don't have the right either.

I'll forget the "think a little straighter comment", but limiting "anti-hate speech" is a slippery slope to don't offend any group (and I won't make a comment about your intelligence if you don't see that).

I guess all that protesting and fighting for rights back then was just an example of my lack of "clear thinking".

[iverglas]

130. isn't that cute?

The right wing candidate does have the right to hold rallies.

Yeah, so?

I asked you whether a right-wing candidate had the right to hold rallies in your living room. Does your bit of useless information have some connection to what I asked?

He even has the right to bash whatever group he wants to.

In your living room? At your place of work? In your church?

I'll forget the "think a little straighter comment", but limiting "anti-hate speech" is a slippery slope to don't offend any group

You can forget anything you like; none of my concern.

Your ludicrous slippery-slope argument is still just that. Well, actually, it isn't even that, since you're starting from a place that has nothing to do with the issue here.

Try googling hostile environment discrimination and you (and a lot of other people) might get a clue as to what the actual issue is here.

[Towelie]

134. Well let's see what we can pick apart here...

"What is sometimes limited (fairly frequently, actually) is SPEECH, not "free speech". Duh. If it's limited, it isn't "free"."

So rather than arguing the moral and constitutional validity of speech restriction as your first point, you choose to educate us in the English language. I mean, where in that sentence do you put forth an argument for what should be free or limited? All I see is a play on words based solely on your own opinion, with nothing to back it up.

"If I refuse to allow the local right-wing political candidate to hold rallies in my living room, have I limited his/her speech?"

Well, lets compare...
Your house - private dwelling, not receiving government funds to provide a public service
University - public education system receiving funds from governmental sources for the purposes of education, research, and debate.

Your analogy fails.

"The state punishes people. Universities do not have the authority to punish people. "

Universities can expel whomever is not abiding by their rules and regulations. Sounds like a punishment to me. It may not be as bad as jail time, but it's still enough to deter a student from breaking the rules, constitutional or not.

"They are denying people a forum for saying certain things."

When the institution is either wholly or partially funded by tax dollars, especially an institution where critical thinking, philosophy, and open-mindedness are encouraged, there should be no restrictions when the speech in question comes from someone who's opinion is genuine, and so long as the speech doesn't have the propensity to indirectly cause physical harm, such as yelling "fire"


A little clear thinking can get rid of so many cobwebs.

[iverglas]

138. oooooo -- the dreaded picking apart

By someone who plainly knows me so well ...

So rather than arguing the moral and constitutional validity of speech restriction as your first point ...

Oops! Your first point just fell flat.

There is NO SPEECH RESTRICTION when someone is prohibited from saying particular things in particular places BY THE OWNER OF THOSE PARTICULAR PLACES.

No one is charged, tried or punished by the owner of the premises for any speech s/he engages in.

Read your first amendment lately?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Laws -- those things that governments make, and PUNISH PEOPLE FOR BREAKING. You know, all that due process and fair trial and no cruel & unusual punishment jazz. Governments are prohibited from making laws under which people may be tried for their speech. Getting it at all?

Universities can expel whomever is not abiding by their rules and regulations. Sounds like a punishment to me.

It might sound like the Moonlight Sonata to you, and it wouldn't matter any less. When you are refused service at a restaurant because you are wearing no shoes, are you being "punished"? (Hint: the answer is "no".)

Well, lets compare...
Your house - private dwelling, not receiving government funds to provide a public service
University - public education system receiving funds from governmental sources for the purposes of education, research, and debate.

My goodness! You seem to have got it.

A university receives public funding for the purpose of providing a service to the public -- WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION on a prohibited ground.

A university that permits the vilification of members of groups that are protected by anti-discrimination legislation is DISCRIMINATING AGAINST those people.

Yeah, I know. GLBT people are probably not formally protected against discrimination in the provision of services to the public in the US ... the way they are in Canada, Europe, etc.

And this should be the basis of an argument presented by members of DU? Well, I would hope not. And of course me, I would certainly argue that the university is not restricted to legally prohibited grounds of discrimination in deciding what sort of speech interferes in its ability to provide its services to everyone EQUALLY and is thus justifiably prohibited in its bailiwick.

... there should be no restrictions when the speech in question comes from someone who's opinion is genuine, and so long as the speech doesn't have the propensity to indirectly cause physical harm, such as yelling "fire".

So ... your answer to the question of whether the university must permit a chapter of the KKK to operate on campus would be ... ?

Lots o' genuine racists out there, methinks.

[Leftof U]

114. Well,

We can and must criticize the republicans, Conservative radio, the war, etc. But any attack on the good things in life that progressives aspire to is unsupportable.

[Rex]

81. Hate speech is legal?

I'm sorry, but bad taste should be illegal! These guys must be really homophobic.

[cgrindley]

107. Putting limits on freedom of speech on a campus is stupid

And anyone who can't see how such codes will one day be used against academics is short-sighted, naive and not paying any attention to situations like the one that erupted over Ward Churchill. Good riddance speech codes. Good riddance.

[Zynx]

112. To all of those who call verbal abuse "free speech":

The blood of every gay kid, physically disabled kid, sociall awkward kid, etc who has killed themselves just to escape the verbal abuse they have to deal with every day is on your hands. This is a sick and perverted interpretation of what "free speech" is.

[MUSTANG_2004]

113. Harassment is still banned

This lays out the changes: http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/16/speech

What is banned after the lawsuit: "Any attempt to harass or physically injure or harm a person."

[pnwmom]

147. thanks for the link.

[cookiebird]

117. Your government cannot protect you

and it takes a superior argument to defeat a weak argument. Hate speech requires a determination of intent, not action or a crime. The latter two can be demonstrated...the first is a matter of "interpretation" and it takes a reading of history to see where "interpretation" leads.

[OregonDem]

118. I agree that its a free speech issue,

It doesn't matter if speech is vulgar, hateful, radical, racist, or false its free to say in this country. That being said conservatives aren't being defenders of free speech here, they are just trying to pick and choose what is free speech and what isn't. The religious right wants the right to say hateful things but they also think professors should be fired if they say something that doesn't coincide with the Bible, or have a differing view on 9/11, or say something political and its not right-wing.

[krispos42]

121. Dare I stick my privates into this beehive?

Yeah, I guess so, even though Iverglas is watching this thread and that person is someone to keep an eye on.

It seems to me that an institution should be able to limit speech (among other things) that interfere with the primary purpose of the institution. A university punishing random hate-filled speech from a person for the purpose of causing pain and suffereing is not something I'm inclined to argue with. For example, calling somebody a "dirty faggot" or holding a rally so somebody can condemn blacks is not something that in any way educates or advanced human knowledge. It is an attack on a characteristic that is beyond control of the person targeted.

Intelligent people that do boneheaded things are called stupid because it is based on what they did. Like bank robbers writing money demands on their own deposit slips. That person is factually stupid and calling it as such is not hate speech. But if that same bank robber was mentally disabled in some way, that person can't legitimally be called 'stupid' because that person is diminished. Calling such a person 'stupid' is then insulting and demeaning.

That may not be a great analogy, but it's late and I'm trying :-)

However, intelligent debate should not be limited. For example, a forum on the politics of gay marriage should not be banned because the anti-gay-marriage advocates debate a certain side. But it has to be an actual debate.

I think the reason that the gay-marriage topic is so hot right now is that those that are against it are by default discriminating against a group of people based on an inheirent characteristic. The antis claim that homosexuality is a choice, not a characteristic. The 'pros' in that topic are not advocating banning straight marriage while allowing gay marriage.

But that's what I think. I don't claim it's the definative truth, and so there is room for debate.

And now I had better go put on an armored condem!

[Pithlet]

124. I agree 100%

I wanted to reply because I'd stepped into this debate late last night and I was tired, but I read your post and thought this was a good time to clarify my position. And, after reading more specifics on this case, I think that the school's decision to remove the rules, as bitter a pill as it is to swallow, was the right one. Students shouldn't be kept from espousing their views, even if the views are considered bigoted by others. Reading parts of the rules, I think the school did cross the line, and infringed on that right. It was worded so badly, and included a list of religions that forbade homosexuality. However, I still feel that a school has the right to implement anti-harassment policies, and don't have to leave off sexual orientation from those policies. If an individual or group is using their ideas as a weapon to attack another, I think the school has the right to stop them, and that's the position I was arguing last night. But, they can't stop them from merely expressing their views on any given topic.

[krispos42]

132. So I didn't need my Kevlar Kondem ® lmao

I really don't see what there is to debate on the gay issue, but people insist on dragging religion into government and then surprise surprise there's a controversy.

[pnwmom]

201. And I agree with you, Pithlet. The old regulations were worded

badly, and the University was interpreting them over-broadly. Making a student cover up a display table was ridiculous, in my opinion, even though I'm sure I would disagree with her views. She does have the right to express them. Where can you express unpopular opinions if not on a university campus? I'm sure she was getting PLENTY of appropriately negative feedback from passers-by.

[iverglas]

133. hee hee ... I'm back and I can't resist

... even though Iverglas is watching this thread and that person is someone to keep an eye on.

I b'in away ... on a private meet-up with eek! a tombstoner.

And I think I'll take that as a compliment. ;)

I think the reason that the gay-marriage topic is so hot right now is that those that are against it are by default discriminating against a group of people based on an inheirent characteristic. The antis claim that homosexuality is a choice, not a characteristic.

And the only smart answer to that one is: So, I guess you were born _________ (Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, etc.).

Which one does not belong in this list?
- is female
- is brown-skinned
- is a child of immigrants
- has an intellectual disability
- has a visual impairment
- has a mental illness
- is a Baptist
?

Meanwhile, I'm just fascinated by how many dozen people have managed so well to disregard the real issue here.

The issue is not "free speech". The issue is whether a university, which has a legal duty not to discriminate against students by subjecting students who are members of an identifiable group (i.e. a group that shares an inherent characteristic ... or religion) to less advantageous treatment -- or to permit conduct on its premises that has the effect of subjecting such students to disadvantageous conditions that other students are not subject to -- should have to tolerate conduct that does that.

Frankly, the issue is really whether a university MAY tolerate such conduct. If you want my humble opinion.

No employer would be permitted to tolerate employees wandering about voicing negative opinions about women or people of colour or GLBT people or what have you -- if an employee complained, the employer would be required to remedy the situation.

Ditto, say, a restaurant owner; a restaurant owner that permitted its employees to hurl racial or religious insults at African-American or Muslim customers would be in hot water. That is discrimination in the provision of services which members of the public are entitled to avail themselves of without discrimination.

It's beyond me how a university could defend itself against a complaint based on its permitting such conduct within its community. Such conduct plainly and unquestionably amounts to discrimination against members of the groups in question.

Anyone who wants to engage in such conduct may shelter behind "free speech" if s/he writes a letter to the editor or calls a radio show or plasters slogans on his/her car; no one has any right to protection from nastiness in newspapers or on radio shows or on other people's cars.

"Free speech" has precisely nothing to do with conduct that creates a hostile environment for someone who HAS A RIGHT TO EQUAL TREATMENT in certain situations, one of which is attendance at a university.

[pnwmom]

169. One of the disputed G.T. regulations prohibited "injurious"

communications regarding someone's "beliefs." The Court agreed that this regulation was over-broad.

And at least one of the students involved was saying that she was being penalized for arguing her beliefs in class.

So this really is about freedom of speech.

[iverglas]

174. thar she blows again

One of the disputed G.T. regulations prohibited "injurious"
communications regarding someone's "beliefs."

How come you won't quote what it REALLY said?

See post 168, eh?

[pnwmom]

189. I addressed the full regulation in post 182, as you know.

But the part I quote here is the part that is clearly vague and overly broad.

[DRoseDARs]

122. Next up: Lawsuit to allow "nigger" and "kike" to be used freely at GTU. nt

[Akim]

123. Yes, You Better Lock-Up the Whole Generation for Its Pervasive Use...

of the "N" word.

For our generation (and I suppose you are older than the kids), it is even uncomfortable to write that word, much less say.

For kids today, however, it is part of their lingua franca. They do not use it as a racial epithet but as term of endearment. Black kids use it when addressing white kids, and white kids use it when addressing black. It simply signifies that they share the same interests and understand one another.

We should be grateful to this generation for having neutralized this odious word. But, more importantly, we should be grateful that they have overcome the racism that the word implies for us.

Today white and blacks kids not only relate to each other but mix socially as well, something that was very rare in our day but which now is the norm.

All the so-called "crazy" hippie-types of the 1960s have raised a generation that embodies and exemplifies their egalitarian values and society is the better for it.

[Misunderestimator]

125. What? You think the word "nigger" has been NEUTRALIZED?

Why on earth do you think that "some" kids using it in "friendly" ways has neutralized it? When my racist brother uses it, and when other racists I've met have used it, it is CLEARLY still as potent a term of hate as it ever was.

I suppose you think the use of "it's so gay" is also quite innocent since "kids these days" use it so innocently.

[Akim]

126. Young people today do not use it as a racist epithet. That is a fact. n/t

[Zynx]

129. People in the 19th century said "nigger" sometimes without malice.

That's just what they were told to call African Americans. I thought we had moved beyond that point though.

[Akim]

131. But black kids didn't call their white friends that as they do today...

This country has evolved in race relations. And the young are leading the way the way. Honest.

[Misunderestimator]

140. There are still VERY many young people who are brought up to be racist.

And they DO use the term "nigger" as a racist insult. It is FAR more common to be used as a hateful term than a friendly one, no matter what minority of kids you've encountered. I have seen MANY young people who are just as racist as their parents.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

210. What does that have to do with the fact that the term is hateful?

[TimeChaser]

135. So, the bullies who teased me in grade school

shouldn't have gotten in trouble, 'cause calling people names and verbal abuse is now protected? :shrug:

[pnwmom]

148. I think grade school students and adults in college should be

treated differently.

Adults do have far more of an ability to defend themselves with their own words -- and their allies -- if they need to.

[iverglas]

155. who cares?

How does what you think affect what other people's rights are?

You still haven't actually said how you think an employee who utters racist of misogynist or homophobic insults against a co-worker oughta be treated.

Ignore him/her and hope s/he goes away? Call him/her a sexist closeted cracker? Place tracts about tolerance in his/her locker?

Surely not tell the boss you are entitled not to be subjected to bigoted comment in your workplace and that if your employer tolerates such conduct it is DISCRIMINATING AGAINST YOU.

Nah. Disciplining an employee for subjecting co-workers to bigoted comment in the workplace would be just wrong.

But sigh, it's actually pretty much "wrong" under the laws that govern such things for the employer *not* to discipline such employees. As those with clues know.

[pnwmom]

158. To the contrary, I'm saying that an employer has the right to

terminate an employee who makes racist or misogynist or homophobic insults -- because most people can be terminated at will.

But a university is a place based on the free exchange of ideas, and students are not employees subject to termination at the discretion of the university.

[iverglas]

163. and if I were asking you

about "most people", who "can be terminated at will", then all your blah might be worth you typing and someone else reading.

Since I have specifically asked you about an employee who MAY NOT be terminated at will, I really have to wonder why you keep telling me that most employees may be terminated at will.

... students are not employees subject to termination at the discretion of the university.

Zippety doo dah.

Students are members of the public who are entitled to receive services from their educational institution WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION.

C'mon, I'll bet you can do it.

Student X and Student Y and Student Z attend university ABC. Student X announces that he is organizing a KKK chapter on campus. Student Y distributes leaflets calling GLBT people evil doers who should be shunned by all decent folk. Student Z is an African-American lesbian who passes by Student X and Student Y at their information booths every time she walks through the concourse.

C'mon now. What may/must the university do?

Will you answer? Has hell frozen over yet?

Or are you just Student 0, who really doesn't give a shit, because you're all right, Jack?

[pnwmom]

161. I was responding here to someone else, not you.

And that person was making a connection between grade school bullying and taunts by college students.

[iverglas]

165. my my my

How do you love me; shall we count the ways?

Perhaps we could just count the posts of mine here, addressed to someone else, to which you have responded.

I was responding here to someone else, not you.
And that person was making a connection between grade school bullying and taunts by college students.

And I found what you said to be pointless. Just like what I'm responding to now.

Got a problem with my expressing my opinion?

Awk! Free speech!

[Akim]

136. The Archaic Ante-Bellum Slave Code Formula Still Defines Race in U.S.

The U.S. still adheres to the archaic ante-bellum slave-code formula that one drop of "black blood" makes you black.

This was actually the law in most Southern states until recent times: If one of your 64 great-great-great grandparents was black, that made you black, too. In the days of slavery, this meant that even if you "looked white" you could still be regarded as black and kept in slavery.

Visitors to the Jefferson estate often complimented the grand old hypocrite on his "beautiful sons" which so much favored him: the fair skin, red hair, and pointed nose. But these boys were not his sons: they were his slaves. They had that drop of "black blood" that prevented them from enjoying the "inalienable rights" that their father spoke of (or their great-uncle, because Jefferson's white nephews also forced themselves on the same black woman).

[robcon]

137. It's the Voltaire thing...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Freedom of speech, except when an immediate incitement to violence (e.g. shouting 'kill them') or danger (e.g. shouting 'fire' in a theater when there's no fire) should be absolute, IMO.

That doesn't mean 'hate speech' shouldn't be criticized - it means it should be allowed.

[iverglas]

139. "That doesn't mean 'hate speech' shouldn't be criticized -

... it means it should be allowed.

Yeah. Now may one suggest that you walk up to your African-American co-worker this morning and call him/her one of the standard things that African-Americans are not infrequently called, and then tell your employer that it is free to criticize your speech, but it may not disallow it?

Good luck with that.

[pnwmom]

149. Your employer is free to terminate you at will, unless you're under

contract.

Your university is not.

[iverglas]

150. I keep forgetting that I'm speaking to the land of the free.

Free to be terminated at will, free to die for want of health care, free to live under a bridge ...

Nonetheless ...

Your employer is free to terminate you at will, unless you're under contract.

I'm not actually seeing a point here. Surely you might have imagined that I was referring to situations in which employees are under a contract, and hence have a right to complain and obtain remedies. And a right not to be terminated without cause. Perhaps we could, just for a moment, imagine employees who have unions and collective agreements. Perhaps we could not all the time imagine that others have said something grossly stupid when what they said can readily, and much more sensibly, be interpreted as actually meaning something.

If I were talking about employees who may be terminated without cause, why the fuck would I be presenting a scenario in which the conduct I was discussing CONSTITUTED CAUSE?

Have ya tried googling "hostile environment discrimination" yet -- as I suggested several posts back?

[pnwmom]

153. The vast majority of employees may be terminated at will.

Whether we like it or not.

You apparently understand that, but many do not.

[iverglas]

156. your point, and I'm sure you have one,

... would be what?

Nothing you have said is remotely related to anything I said in either the first post of mine in this little subthread or the one you have just responded to.

Let me try and make it nice and simple for you.

In a workplace in which employees may NOT be terminated without cause, what may/must an employer do about an employee who subjects other employees to bigoted (racist, misogynist, anti-{insert religion of your choice} ...) comment in the workplace?

[MUSTANG_2004]

160. Mixing apples and oranges

The 1st Amendment protects us from the government. Employees are not protected from their employers by the 1st Amendment. They can't be thrown in jail, but they can be fired for what they say.

As far as colleges, the issue is very simple:
Do students on a government funded campus have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they could legally say if they aren't on campus?
OR
Do state colleges have the right to restrict speech to provide for a less hostile environment?

[pnwmom]

162. Thanks for the clear exposition.

[iverglas]

167. wot a bleedin' dog's breakfast

The 1st Amendment protects us from the government. Employees are not protected from their employers by the 1st Amendment. They can't be thrown in jail, but they can be fired for what they say.

Duh. And you imagined that my point was ... ?

Or perhaps someone was proposing that the university in question here throw people in jail for what they say, and I've missed it.

Do students on a government funded campus have 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they could legally say if they aren't on campus?

They have the first amendment right NOT TO BE PUNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT for what they say on campus that they could legally say if they aren't on campus. So we must answer: yes. Or: duh.

The question then is: do a university's rules against hate speech violate the first amendment prohibition? And the answer is: NO. Because the government is not punishing anyone for saying anything.

Do state colleges have the right to restrict speech to provide for a less hostile environment?

And the answer is: YES.

You've tried to set up some kind of dichotomy that does not exist, of course.

Students have the first amendment right not to be punished by the government for what they say.

Students have the right under whatever anti-discrimination legislation applies not to be subjected to discriminatory treatment in the provision of educational services.

Universities have an obligation to provide educational services without discrimination, and thus to take action to ensure that educational services can be received without discrimination.

No conflict. Perhaps you can explain why you see one, if you do.

[pnwmom]

173. Actually, at least one of the students who filed suit was claiming

that she WAS being punished for statements she made in class discussions. Her name is Ruth Malhotra.

I'm not making a judgment on the validity of her claims, but that is what she said.

[iverglas]

176. the student named Merriam Webster, maybe?

Actually, at least one of the students who filed suit was claiming
that she WAS being punished for statements she made in class discussions.

How 'bout if she claimed she was a pink elephant? Hey, maybe her dictionary just defines "pink elephant" differently from mine.

Unfortunately for her, she doesn't get to make shit up and mash it into the definition of "punishment" and make everybody else agree.

But I dunno, maybe the university really did lock her up ...

[pnwmom]

177. She got the Court to agree, which is more important than getting you

to agree.

[iverglas]

180. do you have any clue?

She got the Court to agree

From the article linked:

Georgia Institute of Technology has agreed to alter a campus policy ...

Maybe you can give us 500 words on the difference between getting a court to agree and getting a defendant to agree.

If not, I could be persuaded to assist.

http://insidehighered.com/index.php/content/download/81014/1102636/file/SvC_Order_SpeechCode.pdf

At the hearing, it became obvious to the court that the parties had indeed reached an agreement as to the contents of a new speech code. ... This order memorializes the agreement reached before the mediator and further extended at the hearing as recited to the court by the parties through their dictation and handwritten notes which are attached to this order.

... Nothing in this agreement constitutes an admission of liability on the part of Defendants.

Judges do not refuse to approve settlements between parties as a general rule, you see.

And isn't it just so much fun who the suing students in question were?

Two officers of the campus's College Republican group sued Georgia Tech ...

Champions of liberty. How come everybody here isn't a Republican??

[pnwmom]

144. When you are taunted with words, the solution is to fight back with words.

Not to limit freedom of speech, which is the Bush way.

[iverglas]

151. when *I* am taunted with words and YOU are not

why the fuck should I have to fight back at all???

Why are YOU not defending my right to be treated equally at the educational institution that I am entitled to attend and to receive an education at??

Some folks' rights is just more important than other folks' rights, I guess.

[pnwmom]

154. EVERYONE's right to free speech should be protected.

Especially at a university, which is meant to be a place where people freely exchange of ideas.

We can't outlaw all obnoxious speech. But, using our own speech, we can counter it.

[iverglas]

157. I can tell

that you have given these matters much thought. You respond so carefully to the arguments being made, you provide such excellent argument in reply, that one cannot help but be impressed.

There. Are we done now?

[pnwmom]

159. And you jumped to a conclusion that was completely incorrect.

As I said above, I would support an employer who chose to terminate an employee for making homophobic, racist, or misogynistic statements.

But students are for TEACHING, not firing.

[pnwmom]

164. "Hate based conduct," is still banned. So is sexual harassment.

But the Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the restrictions on speech were "over broad." As an example, one of Georgia Tech's regulations prohibited "injurious" communications regarding someone's "beliefs." This restriction has now been deleted.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/16/speech

[iverglas]

168. why, just look what was deleted

As an example, one of Georgia Tech's regulations prohibited "injurious" communications regarding someone's "beliefs." This restriction has now been deleted.

What was actually deleted:

Threatening, intimidating, harassing, or otherwise injurious written/verbal communications (including the use of telephones, emails and computers) directed toward an individual because of their characteristics or beliefs.

NOT the prohibition on "injurious" communications -- the prohibition on THREATENING, INTIMIDATING, HARRASSING OR OTHERWISE injurious communications based on characteristics/beliefs.

NOT communications "regarding someone's 'beliefs',", communications DIRECTED TOWARD someone BECAUSE OF his/her beliefs.

Yeah, those are the sorts of things that foster and contribute to an atmosphere of the free expression and discussion of ideas, that ideal so beloved of everyone here.

Direct verbal threats to or intimidation of, or physical assaults upon, an individual because of their racial, ethnic, or sexual/affectional identity.

- replaced by -

Physical assaults upon an individual because of their racial, ethnic or sexual/affectional identity.

Mm hmm!! Students who are members of the usual target minority groups may now freely roam the campus while people screech insults at them based on their characteristics/beliefs, free from actual assault. Yippee! Now there's an atmosphere of freely exchanged ideas.

Not to mention an atmosphere in which said students are getting everything they paid for.

I guess tuition fees purchase a licence to intimidate and threaten, not a right to access the services paid for without being intimidated and threatened.

Nowhere else in the free world, of course ...

[pnwmom]

171. Threatening someone is illegal and should be reported to

the police. Doesn't matter whether this happens on or off a campus, any more than any other crime.

I don't know why they deleted that part, unless they thought it was redundant (that is, already covered by criminal law).

[iverglas]

175. yes ... and ...

(fixed screwed up html)


Threatening someone is illegal and should be reported to
the police.

... then the student doing the threatening should just keep on going to classes with the threatened student, right?

Sure is lucky nobody's threatening YOU, eh?

[pnwmom]

179. What evidence do you have that the students involved in the lawsuit

were doing any threatening of anyone at all?

Their claim was that the university was using its over-broad regulations to unfairly restrict their freedom of speech in the classroom and elsewhere. For example, Ruth Malhotra had a display of anti-feminist reading materials, including a protest of the Vagina Monologues, and the university required her to cover part of it.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2006/May2006/BuzzRuthMalhotraInterview051206.htm

Here's part of what SHE says.

SNIP

RM: The purpose of the lawsuit has been seriously misrepresented in the media and on the campus. True harassment is prohibited by state law and by Tech policies. I abhor harassment and support vigorous enforcement of constitutional anti-discrimination and anti-harassment rules. Moreover, I have never engaged in verbal assault against anyone. Tech has prohibited me and my organizations from engaging in peaceful, non-obscene protests and then justifies that censorship by saying it is merely trying to stop verbal assault. That is disingenuous.

Also, people should not be deceived by the rhetoric. The campus left tends to use terms such as “verbal assault” to describe speech not in line with their orthodoxy. Yet, campus leftists have engaged in explicit racial name-calling against me. For example, some have posted flyers calling me a “twinkie bitch,” this to suggest that I am “yellow on the outside and white on the inside;” they have directed many other derogatory insults towards me and my groups; some members of the campus left have even physically threatened me. I ask you, who is engaging in verbal assault? Who is really being intolerant?

SNIP

"RM: For Women’s Awareness Month at Georgia Tech, I organized a display with College Republicans themed “Feminist Fantasies,” based on Phyllis Schlafly’s ground-breaking book. Our display contained a myriad of materials on prominent female figures – from the Right and the Left, and contrasted radical leftists of the modern-day feminist movement such as Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton with leading female figures of the Conservative Movement such as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. It asked viewers to decide: “Who Represents You?” We included a collection of quotes, photos and statistics referencing issues such as abortion, sex education, and the Vagina Monologues, as part of our campus-wide campaign to challenge Georgia Tech’s Women’s Resource Center. A portion of our display was protesting the Vagina Monologues play which the Institute was helping to sponsor and promote. As you know, the play is extremely controversial and radically leftist, so part of our protest involved quoting some of the more absurd lines from the play. Administration officials demanded that College Republicans take down the display because according to them it was insulting and offensive, and when we refused to do so they eventually made us cover up certain parts of the display. The Dean of Student Involvement then sternly reprimanded me for the protest and ordered me to refrain from engaging in “shock value” in future activities. This is just one example of a situation where Georgia Tech administrators condemned our actions and warned us against advancing our message in the way we chose."

SNIP

As much as I disagree with her point of view, I support her right to express them.

[iverglas]

181. what basis do you have for making false allegations against me?

What evidence do you have that the students involved in the lawsuit were doing any threatening of anyone at all?

Copy and paste my words to that effect on which the false premise with which your "question", apparently meant for no purpose other than to portray me as having made a false allegation I have never made, is loaded.

Put up or shut up.

By the way: if you think I give a shit what this little shit Republican operative said in her self-serving statement of what she was getting up to, you're sadly mistaken.

If the little shit in question felt that her right to receive the services of the university without discrimination was being violated by the university's tolerance of her being called a twinkie bitch, she was of course free to complain. (If she didn't, I fail to grasp how the university could have known about the incident, and thus be characterized as tolerating it or failing to protect her.)

"Who is really being intolerant?" Who cares??? Students who call people names are not THE UNIVERSITY. It was THE UNIVERSITY's policy on trial. Her whining about personal insults directed against her by other students has NOTHING TO DO with THE UNIVERSITY's policy.

[pnwmom]

184. Here's a copy and paste.

You said:

"Students have the first amendment right not to be punished by the government for what they say."

But you also said:

"By the way: if you think I give a shit what this little shit Republican operative said in her self-serving statement of what she was getting up to, you're sadly mistaken."

And you say this even though her claim -- that you don't want to hear -- is that the school punished her for stating her beliefs.

Are you still saying that you don't see a conflict here?


(My apologies for any "false allegations." You are not easy to understand.)

[iverglas]

187. lord bleeding jezus

I'm sorry, but I'm finished talking to a wall with an agenda.

You said:
"Students have the first amendment right not to be punished by the government for what they say."

But you also said:
"By the way: if you think I give a shit what this little shit Republican operative said in her self-serving statement of what she was getting up to, you're sadly mistaken."

Words have meaning. Sometimes, it is important to consider the context in which a word is being used in order to determine which particular meaning is relevant.

If the little Republican shit in question were just whining in general, her saying that she was "punished" by the university wouldn't matter too very much.

But she is saying it in the CONTEXT of an allegation that HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS have been violated by what the university did to her.

In THAT CONTEXT, "punishment" MEANS something. It does NOT mean whatever she happens to want it to mean.

In THAT context, it means GOVERNMENT ACTION consisting of applying the kinds of sanctions that are applied to conduct PROSCRIBED BY LAW -- ultimately, deprivation of liberty. (Imprisonment is a deprivation of liberty; the conditions in a probation order are a deprivation of liberty; imprisonment to enforce payment of a fine is a deprivation of liberty.)

The conduct proscribed by the university was not conduct PROSCRIBED BY LAW. It was not PUNISHABLE by the government. If the GOVERNMENT were punishing someone for something they said, this would be a violation of the first amendment (unless there were justification for the violation, like that "fire" stuff, or the prohibitions on perjury and false advertising and so on and on).

Since she was NOT being PUNISHED by the GOVERNMENT, how could she claim a violation of her right under something that reads like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

??????

So why would I care whether she says that she was "punished" in such a way that her first amendment rights were violated, when I KNOW SHE WASN'T???

Just as I know she is not a pink elephant, no matter how much she might assert that she is.

HER CLAIM (that I don't ACCEPT) is that she was punished.

I don't accept it, not because she's a nasty little Republican, but because IT IS FALSE.

[pnwmom]

188. The state of GA protects freedom of speech and G.T. is a state school.

Being a state school, Georgia Tech IS an arm of government.

Therefore, its students are protected by the constitution of the state as well as by the federal constitution.

http://www.law.emory.edu/GEORGIA/gaconst/art-1.html

"Paragraph V. Freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed.

"No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty."

[iverglas]

193. I'm sorry, but this is beyond belief

The state of GA protects freedom of speech and G.T. is a state school.
Being a state school, Georgia Tech IS an arm of government.

No, it isn't. It may be an agency of government, but it is not an "arm" of government.

The plain glaring gobsmacking fact remains that the student in question WAS NOT PUNISHED under a LAW made by any government ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

State universities DO NOT LEGISLATE on behalf of governments. State universities DO NOT CHARGE, TRY, CONVICT AND PUNISH people under LAWS.

The student in question WAS NOT PUNISHED pursuant to a LAW that ABRIDGED THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Do you have to practise real hard in order to evade points so adeptly?

Your quote:

No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

So?

Are you suggesting that this is different from what the first amendment to the US Constitution says? In some material aspect? Actually, you haven't said anything, so I have no clue what you might be suggesting.

Look closely, though. See where it says No law shall be passed?

So, if the State of Georgia's driver testing centre prohibits people from parking KKK recruiting vans on its parking lot while they sit their tests, and tows vehicles in breach of the rule ... and if it prohibits people from sitting in the waiting room calling other users of the centre racist names, and denies its services to people who break the rule ... is it violating somebody's rights?

[pnwmom]

195. Fine. As an AGENCY of the state, GT is STILL not allowed to prohibit

freedom of speech. What part of "Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty" is not clear to you?

And how, exactly, did either of the students in the lawsuit abuse the liberty given to them? What are you accusing them of? And if you're not accusing them of anything (except for being Republicans), then why should the university have limited their speech (for example, by preventing Ruth M. from displaying her anti-feminist pamphlets.) The fact is, the University did interfere with her freedom of speech and they have acknowledged that through their settlement.

I don't agree with Ruth or Orit but I will defend their rights to express their views. Freedom of speech is the critical foundation to our whole democracy. We limit it at our peril.

[iverglas]

196. unseemly

The person without a clue asking the person who has attempted to give him/her one what part of something irrelevant s/he doesn't get ...

What part of "Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty" is not clear to you?

What part of CONSTITUTION is not clear to you?

Do your constitutions tell YOU what YOU may not/must do?

NO. NO NO NO NO NO.

They tell GOVERNMENTS what they may not/must do.

A UNIVERSITY IS NOT A GOVERNMENT, no matter how much money it gets from a government. A UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE LAWS.

"Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects" DOES NOT MEAN that you or anyone else may do so WHENEVER, WHEREVER AND TO WHOMEVER YOU PLEASE.

If a university makes a rule that students may not interrupt lecturers and must wait until the end of a lecture to raise questions -- and says that students who do so will be subject to administrative sanction by the university -- has the university violated a student's constitutional right to free speech???

Your clue: the answer is NO.

And how, exactly, did either of the students in the lawsuit abuse the liberty given to them?

I give up. To whom did you mean to address that question? Have I asserted that someone "abused" some liberty? The entire concept is a nonsense, and I don't speak in nonsenses.

Perhaps you know what "shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty" means, although I doubt it. All I can think of is that it means that people may be sued if their speech is alleged to have caused some harm. Essentially, I'd say it's just stupid burble.

The fact is, the University did interfere with her freedom of speech and they have acknowledged that through their settlement.

My dear woman ... what part of

Nothing in this agreement constitutes an admission of liability on the part of Defendants.

are YOU unable to understand?

I don't agree with Ruth or Orit but I will defend their rights to express their views.

And a great big bully for you. As far as I know, NO ONE here has advocated that they be PROHIBITED from expressing their views.

Me, I will defend the right of every student at every university to attend the institution and receive the services they are entitled to, WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION and WITHOUT BEING SUBJECTED to conditions that interfere in their exercise of that right on the basis of their personal characteristics (or religious or non-religious beliefs).

And I won't delude myself into thinking that defending the right of RIGHT-WING SCUM to direct vicious speech against people BECAUSE OF their characteristics or those beliefs is somehow fighting the good fight against the bad guys.

[pnwmom]

199. "No one here has advocated that they be prohibited from expressing

their views."

Georgia Tech did prevent Ruth M. from expressing her views when they forced her to cover up her display table.

Do you think what Georgia Tech did was right or wrong?

[iverglas]

204. on and on and on

Georgia Tech did prevent Ruth M. from expressing her views when they forced her to cover up her display table.

No, it did not.

It required that she not "express her views" in that time and in that place. It apparently would have imposed some administrative sanction on her (or more likely just removed her display) if she had refused to comply.

She was at complete liberty to express her views wherever else she could find a forum: on her front lawn, on ads on the side of buses, in newspaper ads, in radio ads, in published books and articles for sale or free distribution -- anywhere that was not ON UNIVERSITY PREMISES and did not involve FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

Do you think what Georgia Tech did was right or wrong?

You may have noticed that that is not the issue in this thread.

The issue in this thread is the re-writing of the rules in question, which is the first part of the legal proceedings brought by the snivelling Republicans. The second part of those proceedings relates to the action taken against this individual, and I have not researched what it was (and am still not accepting the snivelling Republican's characterization of it).

I believe that the university has a duty -- legal, not merely "moral" -- to ensure that none of its students are subjected to conditions that interfere with their access to its services as a result of actions taken by others at the university, and I think it very plain that tolerance of actions by which they are targeted for insult, vilification and lies violates that duty.

Whether what this individual did came within the parameters of such actions, and whether the university properly applied its rules, I wouldn't know.

And it is entirely irrelevant to the question of the university's duty to protect students (and faculty and staff) from such conduct.


For a little test of Ms. Maholtra's truthfulness, let's consider this. She says:

http://www.buzzbrockway.com/?p=525

The suit was filed ... 3) to confront why GT evaluates and endorses certain religious views through the school-sponsored "Safe Space" program.

And now here's the Safe Space program:

http://www.whistle.gatech.edu/archives/03/sept/22/safe.shtml
http://www.safespace.gatech.edu/

I try not to be dense when reading what people say, and do truly strive to find sense in it. But it remains beyond me how

The main objectives of these programs are: (a) to provide a supportive environment for GLBT members of the campus community, (b) to facilitate their "coming out" process, (c) to foster a social climate in which others do not feel the need to express anti-gay attitudes in order to "fit in," (d) to dispel negative stereotypes and present factually accurate information about GLBT people, and (e) to publicize other support resources or structures that are available on or off campus.

"evaluates and endorses" anybody's religious views.

Gosh, if somebody's beliefs are so flimsy that having her university help someone she apparently thinks should not be helped ... well, maybe she should be afraid of free speech after all.

I'll bet she doesn't like this:

The creation of such an environment does not benefit only GLBT students. Studies have shown that, in some cases, anti-gay attitudes arise from a psychological need to manifest values or opinions shared by a person's immediate social environment in order to gain acceptance and friendship. Conversely, empirical research has also shown that prejudice diminishes under conditions of equal status, common goals, shared values, cooperation, and ongoing, moderate intimacy. Thus, safe space programs foster an environment that is beneficial to the campus community as a whole.

-- but hey, if the shoe doesn't fit, nobody's forcing her to wear it. If she doesn't have anti-gay attitudes or prejudice, if her notions about homosexuality and homosexuals are deeply-held religious convictions, she's at complete liberty to say so.

Of course, I still don't see why that would entitle her to spew them at other members of the university community. I mean, heavens, if the university is an "arm of government", wouldn't that be crossing that old state/church divide??

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

198. Yay!!!!

The right to be hateful and bigoted prevails!:eyes: