SAE Video Discussion Thread

sperry said:
No, there certainly are other arguments. The problem is, the Constitution wins that fight every single time. You've been pointed towards the relevant Supreme Court precedent (which is the final word on how the Constitution will be interpreted).
Click to expand...

If your referencing Skokie it's apples and oranges to this situation. Skokie, like Westboro, involves protests and the right to assemble. It's completely irrelevant to sitting in a closed classroom and disrupting the educational environment.

This is going down the same path as always which will lead to no improvement. Trotting out the free speech defense when the solution is for these two kids to get in their car, drive to Norman, meet with UnHeard, offer a sincere apology, ask for forgiveness and work with them to override the ignorance that caused their behavior. The kid is 19, he's a product of his environment, he either repudiates his environment or nothing changes.
 
West Boro did not involve protests. That was not an issue. The permits were granted. The issue was an award of damages in a civil suit for emotional distress. It was an extension of law in my opinion. I would have ruled there was no state action in that case and allowed the jury award to stand. The Supreme Court in a 9-0 opinion said no. The Supreme Court said we will not silence even the most offensive speech with the threat of civil litigation.

This thread is supposed to be about healing and bringing the community back together. Good job at turning it into an argument based on your complete lack of understanding of Constitutional Law.

I will not comment further on the Constitutional Law aspects of the case. If anyone other than Boca is interested in it, please don't hesitate to send me a PM. I will direct you to reading material that I find interesting and will fully and unequivocally support what I and the others are saying.
 
bocabull said:
If your referencing Skokie it's apples and oranges to this situation. Skokie, like Westboro, involves protests and the right to assemble. It's completely irrelevant to sitting in a closed classroom and disrupting the educational environment.

This is going down the same path as always which will lead to no improvement. Trotting out the free speech defense when the solution is for these two kids to get in their car, drive to Norman, meet with UnHeard, offer a sincere apology, ask for forgiveness and work with them to override the ignorance that caused their behavior. The kid is 19, he's a product of his environment, he either repudiates his environment or nothing changes.
Click to expand...



The two are not unrelated. You can't make an end run around First Amendment protected speech.

As for what htose kids do, they should ask for forgiveness and try to alleviate some of the problems they've caused. You, on the other hand, should stay away from trying to interpret supreme court case law.
 
garyeb2;481955 Legal theory is one thing. In reality said:
it is amazing to me that so many of you continue to argue a point that is incorrect ..
Click to expand...
 
It's tiring, at best, and physically distressing, at worst, to keep reading the same argument over and over from an individual who has nothing more on his side than an arrogant need to prove that he's right.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, boca. Heck, I even find myself agreeing with you on (very) rare occasions. But to simply refuse to concede a point about which you obviously don't know your a$$ from a hole in the ground just smacks of arrogance – and ignorance.
 
sperry said:
You, on the other hand, should stay away from trying to interpret supreme court case law.
Click to expand...

I was told the same thing during the Donald Sterling matter. This is no different. He disrupted business and they are disrupting the educational mission.

As for their free speech they are certainly welcome to march up and down campus carrying their SAE and confederate flags calling any black person they see whatever racial epithet they chose. Skokie and Westboro ensure them that right.
 
bocabull said:
Which legal argument? This is the problem with most attorneys, you are taking a simplistic narrow view that the first amendment is the only applicable argument. What about the material disruption to the educational mission? What about the safety of these two students and the student population at large?
Click to expand...

Read this case:

http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/gmu1az.htm

It's the most analogous fact pattern I could find. The University argued:

that the message conveyed by the Fraternity's conduct--that racial and sexual themes should be treated lightly--was completely antithetical to the University's mission of promoting diversity and providing an educational environment free from racism and sexism. Dean Bumgarner, in his affidavit, stated that the University does not and cannot condone this type of on-campus behavior which perpetuated derogatory racial and sexual stereotypes, tends to isolate minority students, and creates a hostile and distracting learning environment. Such behavior is incompatible with, and destructive to, the University's mission of promoting diversity within its student body [and] sends a message to the student body and the community that we ... are not serious about hurtful and offensive behavior on campus.

Nevertheless, the 4th circuit held " The First Amendment forbids the government from "restrict[ing] expression because of its message [or] its ideas." Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2289, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The University should have accomplished its goals in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of its viewpoint."

Again, you can demean lawyers all you want, this is the law and if it went to court, OU would almost certainly lose.
 
Zim, apologies for the snide attorney remarks. That's a personal opinion I obviously applied too broadly.

Two things that distinguish these cases IMO. As to intent, the satirical ugly woman contest was a poor attempt at humor performed in public. The SAE video was a private display of hate and exclusion. As to creating a hostile environment, the fallout from the ugly woman contest really didn't, the SAE video absolutely did.

As the supreme court proves with every 5-4 decision the law is rarely subject to consistent interpretation on controversial subjects. It's biased in the eyes of the beholder.
 
bocabull said:
Zim, apologies for the snide attorney remarks. That's a personal opinion I obviously applied too broadly.

Two things that distinguish these cases IMO. As to intent, the satirical ugly woman contest was a poor attempt at humor performed in public. The SAE video was a private display of hate and exclusion. As to creating a hostile environment, the fallout from the ugly woman contest really didn't, the SAE video absolutely did.

As the supreme court proves with every 5-4 decision the law is rarely subject to consistent interpretation on controversial subjects. It's biased in the eyes of the beholder.
Click to expand...

free speech is not a controversial subject
 
bocabull said:
Zim, apologies for the snide attorney remarks. That's a personal opinion I obviously applied too broadly.

Two things that distinguish these cases IMO. As to intent, the satirical ugly woman contest was a poor attempt at humor performed in public. The SAE video was a private display of hate and exclusion. As to creating a hostile environment, the fallout from the ugly woman contest really didn't, the SAE video absolutely did.

As the supreme court proves with every 5-4 decision the law is rarely subject to consistent interpretation on controversial subjects. It's biased in the eyes of the beholder.
Click to expand...

You're really splitting hairs here. You can try to massage and distinguish the facts all you like, the legal principle is that the expressive conduct, no matter how vile, disruptive or provocative, cannot be suppressed by a State actor on the basis of it's content. What you are getting close to here is the "clear and present danger/incitement" argument (e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). I won't get into the reasons why, but this doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that legal standard.

And if the Supremes ever granted cert on this, it wouldn't be a 5-4 or plurality opinion. The legal principles on this are clear and well-established (which is why they wouldn't grant cert). I suspect it would be a near unanimous decision.
 
bocabull said:
I was told the same thing during the Donald Sterling matter. This is no different. He disrupted business and they are disrupting the educational mission.

As for their free speech they are certainly welcome to march up and down campus carrying their SAE and confederate flags calling any black person they see whatever racial epithet they chose. Skokie and Westboro ensure them that right.
Click to expand...



First amendment had nothing to do with the Sterling case (all parties involved were private actors), and it's the only relevant thing here (OU is a government actor).
 
Zimwillett said:
You're really splitting hairs here. You can try to massage and distinguish the facts all you like, the legal principle is that the expressive conduct, no matter how vile, disruptive or provocative, cannot be suppressed by a State actor on the basis of it's content. What you are getting close to here is the "clear and present danger/incitement" argument (e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). I won't get into the reasons why, but this doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that legal standard.
Click to expand...

The GMU punishment prohibited them from doing further skits or contests, among other social things. That violated their free speech to perform those events. The university used the possibility of a hostile environment (which did not exist) to justify prohibiting future free speech.

OU is expelling them because a hostile environment actually DOES exist, they are the cause, and their further presence would cause an actual material disruption of the educational mission. Has nothing to do with free speech. They can protest and gather on campus to protest this and even sing their racist hillbilly chant if they like.
 
bocabull said:
The GMU punishment prohibited them from doing further skits or contests, among other social things. That violated their free speech to perform those events. The university used the possibility of a hostile environment (which did not exist).

OU is expelling them because a hostile environment actually DOES exist, they are the cause, and their further presence would elevate it. This has to do with actual material disruption of the educational mission. Has nothing to do with free speech. They can protest and gather on campus to protest this and even sing their racist hillbilly chant if they like.
Click to expand...



It has everything to do with it, adn I'm having a hard time understanding why you're too dense to understand this.
 
bocabull said:
The GMU punishment prohibited them from doing further skits or contests, among other social things. That violated their free speech to perform those events. The university used the possibility of a hostile environment (which did not exist) to justify prohibiting future free speech.

OU is expelling them because a hostile environment actually DOES exist, they are the cause, and their further presence would cause an actual material disruption of the educational mission. Has nothing to do with free speech. They can protest and gather on campus to protest this and even sing their racist hillbilly chant if they like.
Click to expand...

OK. I now see this could go on in perpetuity. Have fun with your "understanding" of First Amendment law. Let's just say that you and I agree that OU and Boren took the right action, but disagree whether it would withstand constitutional scrutiny. Of course, in the end, none of this matters as I'm certain OU is taking the calculated risk that these students will not wish draw additional publicity to this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top