Quote: (03-10-2015 10:51 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

These boys didn't just think of this song spur of the moment. This song didn't just pop up as a joke.
They learned this from somewhere..They already harbored these feelings.
Its probably not the first time they have said things like this. This isn't an isolated case.
ITs like you are trying to say that racism doesn't exist.

Since you quoted 2x me I feel obliged to clarify myself. I'm black so I'd be one of those "niggers" that SAE was singing about.

Racism is an idea that all races have fixed characteristics. Discrimination is the act of making decisions based solely on ones ethnicity. We have laws that prevent/preclude discrimination in the US, not racism. You can't legislate people's feelings but you can stop them from acting on them in ways that would hurt/harm others.

What was said on the bus was morally reprehensible( and I clearly disagree with it) but wasn't illegal. Granted they were saying their thoughts but where did you see evidence of discrimination?

I agree with you. Racism is still around. But I think your letting your personal opinion color your perception of the event.

Look at it from the schools perspective, they have to recruit football players and are competing with the best colleges in the nation. I can assure you that there are blue chip athletes that are watching and now think FSU, Texas, or Baylor might be a better fit than OSU. I am going to leave it at that, I have some work to do. I will see where this thread is when I come home, I do not have high hopes for where this thread is headed.

Quote: (03-10-2015 10:51 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

These boys didn't just think of this song spur of the moment. This song didn't just pop up as a joke.
They learned this from somewhere..They already harbored these feelings.
Its probably not the first time they have said things like this. This isn't an isolated case.
ITs like you are trying to say that racism doesn't exist.

Since you quoted 2x me I feel obliged to clarify myself. I'm black so I'd be one of those "niggers" that SAE was singing about.

Racism is an idea that all races have fixed characteristics. Discrimination is the act of making decisions based solely on ones ethnicity. We have laws that prevent/preclude discrimination in the US, not racism. You can't legislate people's feelings but you can stop them from acting on them in ways that would hurt/harm others.

What was said on the bus was morally reprehensible( and I clearly disagree with it) but wasn't illegal. Granted they were saying their thoughts but where did you see evidence of discrimination?

I agree with you. Racism is still around. But I think your letting your personal opinion color your perception of the event.

I try to stay out of these threads, but I do find it fascinating how quick people are to condone punishment when it is speech they don't like or agree with.

We are seeing the same type of behavior on social media with people going after jobs, posting real identities and just trying to fuck up lives because they didn't like what was said.

Now we have people being called racist because they don't agree that people should be punished for being an asshole. That is just another way of trying to shut up people.

I may not like what others say, but I damn well will fight for their right to say it because I know one day someone will not like what I say.

Personally, I prefer people being more openly opinionated on how they feel. It helps filter out the dipshits much more quickly.

Enigma Beat me to the punch.
Oklahoma wasn't even a state during slavery. It was still a territory.

But that doesn't exclude its blatant history

Hmmm a racism/race thread and I've been here less than a month... what to do? Ah I know!

Quote: (03-10-2015 10:55 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 10:35 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Oklahoma isn't in the South, but point taken.

Geographically, no. Culturally, yes.

Just look at the Tulsa Race Riot.

Didn't know about that. I bet the kids didn't either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

Quote:Quote:

Newspaper coverage

The Tulsa Tribune, one of two white-owned papers published in Tulsa, broke the story in that afternoon's edition with the headline: "Nab Negro for Attacking Girl In an Elevator", describing the alleged incident. According to some witnesses, the same edition of the Tribune included an editorial warning of a potential lynching of Rowland, and entitled "To Lynch Negro Tonight". The paper was known at the time to have a "sensationalist" style of news writing. All original copies of that issue of the paper have apparently been destroyed, and the relevant page is missing from the microfilm copy, so the exact content of the column (and whether it existed at all) remains in dispute.[13][14][15]

Media manipulation.

And..

Quote:Quote:

The 2000 official commission report notes that it was unusual for both Rowland and Page to be working downtown on Memorial Day, when most stores and businesses were closed. It suggests that Rowland had a simple accident, such as tripping and steadying himself against the girl, or perhaps they were lovers and had a quarrel.

a woman overreacting and likely lying set off a race riot that negatively impacted the lives of thousands.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I agree with Wastelander that the punishment should have an educational component. Maybe have these chumps clean up for and help veterans at the VA Hospital; many blacks among them.

Technically, you could organize a frat off-campus, buy property, and do whatever legal things you want. It's legal to say "nigger" or anything else in that vein in an open context. If the frat is on campus, they are subject to university regulation but in a state university the First Amendment supersedes the regulations. I'm not up on the current caselaw, but it's not really that clear whether the university action was legally proper.

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:08 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 10:55 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 10:35 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Oklahoma isn't in the South, but point taken.

Geographically, no. Culturally, yes.

Just look at the Tulsa Race Riot.

Didn't know about that. I bet the kids didn't either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot

Quote:Quote:

Newspaper coverage

The Tulsa Tribune, one of two white-owned papers published in Tulsa, broke the story in that afternoon's edition with the headline: "Nab Negro for Attacking Girl In an Elevator", describing the alleged incident. According to some witnesses, the same edition of the Tribune included an editorial warning of a potential lynching of Rowland, and entitled "To Lynch Negro Tonight". The paper was known at the time to have a "sensationalist" style of news writing. All original copies of that issue of the paper have apparently been destroyed, and the relevant page is missing from the microfilm copy, so the exact content of the column (and whether it existed at all) remains in dispute.[13][14][15]

Media manipulation.

"It resulted in the Greenwood District, also known as 'the Black Wall Street'[1] and the wealthiest black community in the United States, being burned to the ground.

During the 16 hours of the assault, more than 800 people were admitted to local white hospitals with injuries (the two black hospitals were burned down), and police arrested and detained more than 6,000 black Greenwood residents at three local facilities.[2]:108–109 An estimated 10,000 blacks were left homeless, and 35 city blocks composed of 1,256 residences were destroyed by fire. The official count of the dead by the Oklahoma Department of Vital Statistics was 39, but other estimates of black fatalities vary from 55 to about 300.[2]:108, 228 [3]

The events of the riot were long omitted from local and state histories. "The Tulsa race riot of 1921 was rarely mentioned in history books, classrooms or even in private. Blacks and whites alike grew into middle age unaware of what had taken place."[4] With the number of survivors declining, in 1996, the state legislature commissioned a report to establish the historical record of the events, and acknowledge the victims and damages to the black community. Released in 2001, the report included the commission's recommendations for some compensatory actions, most of which were not implemented by the state and city governments. The state passed legislation to establish some scholarships for descendants of survivors, economic development of Greenwood, and a memorial park to the victims in Tulsa. The latter was dedicated in 2010."

Yeah, I'm sure everyone just forgot about an entire section of the city being burned down less than a hundred years ago, especially with the memorial park and ongoing legal battle.

Ironic that you'd quote media manipulation when that is exactly why you're unaware of the riots.

And my point was that the culture of Oklahoma is much like Texas and the rest of the "South". Again, that is why I asked who is an actual Southerner, meaning they've experienced these dynamics first hand.

"Racism", "sexism" along with other less specific terms like "offensive" cannot be measured against static definitions, meaning they have fluid definitions that evolve over the course of time. Who decides if something is racist, and at what point in time? Who draws the line between humor, speech critical of cultural norms, and speech that discriminates and restricts the rights of others? When this is determined by millions of shifting individual perspectives rather than a static definition, you'll always see people at each others throats.

I'm never going to convince a black guy to accept my definition of what constitutes racism, and he'll never convince me to accept his. But hopefully people here are able to see the difference between saying something negative or disrespectful towards a group of people, and limiting the rights of others through discrimination.

Ha.. Yes.. Because attempting to reeducate them will really work?
Any community service or reeducation these kids take will be them trying to cover their asses.
It's not gonna change them

When I first saw this story, I thought that it took place on a public bus and they were harassing innocent passengers. But then when I took a closer look, I find out that this was a private party on a private chartered bus. They actually didn't intend to do anything public. They never forced their views on anyone. They didn't harass anyone. So we are talking about pure thought and not action. If someone is at fault, it is the person who recorded it and put it on YouTube. They are the ones who made it public.

Nobody seems to even recognize the basic issue, that this was private, which means that we are really talking about a thought crime. What about this situation. You are in your shower and decide to sing an offensive song about homosexuals. Your girlfriend, who you just had a fight with, records the song on her phone and gives it to your employer. You are then fired. Is this any different?

With the advent of cell phone cameras, we are now in a de facto liberal dictatorship where you have to speak euphemisms in a low voice to only people you completely trust because if you say anything that offends the ruling powers, you are dead.

You should be concerned about this no matter what your race because someday you may be fired from your job for cursing a feminist while sitting on the toilet in the privacy of your own home.

If you have more questions the differences in free speech and hate speech.

Brandenburg v Ohio,Civil Rights Act of 1964 ect ect.

It's not hard to find out where lines cross

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:33 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

When I first saw this story, I thought that it took place on a public bus and they were harassing innocent passengers. But then when I took a closer look, I find out that this was a private party on a private chartered bus. They actually didn't intend to do anything public. They never forced their views on anyone. They didn't harass anyone. So we are talking about pure thought and not action. If someone is at fault, it is the person who recorded it and put it on YouTube. They are the ones who made it public.

Nobody seems to even recognize the basic issue, that this was private, which means that we are really talking about a thought crime. What about this situation. You are in your shower and decide to sing an offensive song about homosexuals. Your girlfriend, who you just had a fight with, records the song on her phone and gives it to your employer. You are then fired. Is this any different?

With the advent of cell phone cameras, we are now in a de facto liberal dictatorship where you have to speak euphemisms in a low voice to only people you completely trust because if you say anything that offends the ruling powers, you are dead.

You should be concerned about this no matter what your race because someday you may be fired from your job for cursing a feminist while sitting on the toilet in the privacy of your own home.

Can we stop with all the ridiculous analogies already?

If anyone is hyping this up, it's the people comparing getting kicked out of an extracurricular activity to death and imprisonment.

How will these young men ever continue now that they have to party at a different frat house this weekend?

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:41 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

If you have more questions the differences in free speech and hate speech.

Brandenburg v Ohio,Civil Rights Act of 1964 ect ect.

It's not hard to find out where lines cross

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

How about you break down how they were trying to incite imminent lawless action here. Do you believe they were going to hang some people or something?

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:32 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

Ha.. Yes.. Because attempting to reeducate them will really work?
Any community service or reeducation these kids take will be them trying to cover their asses.
It's not gonna change them

How do you know they wouldn't come away with a different point of view? When I was a kid I grew up around people spouting casual racist shit and I might've taken it to heart if I had never met or been forced to interact with people from other races in school.

I learned it was a bunch of insecure bullshit and that people are ultimately people, whatever their skin color might be.

I think you are projecting.

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:43 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:33 AM)Sherman Wrote:  

When I first saw this story, I thought that it took place on a public bus and they were harassing innocent passengers. But then when I took a closer look, I find out that this was a private party on a private chartered bus. They actually didn't intend to do anything public. They never forced their views on anyone. They didn't harass anyone. So we are talking about pure thought and not action. If someone is at fault, it is the person who recorded it and put it on YouTube. They are the ones who made it public.

Nobody seems to even recognize the basic issue, that this was private, which means that we are really talking about a thought crime. What about this situation. You are in your shower and decide to sing an offensive song about homosexuals. Your girlfriend, who you just had a fight with, records the song on her phone and gives it to your employer. You are then fired. Is this any different?

With the advent of cell phone cameras, we are now in a de facto liberal dictatorship where you have to speak euphemisms in a low voice to only people you completely trust because if you say anything that offends the ruling powers, you are dead.

You should be concerned about this no matter what your race because someday you may be fired from your job for cursing a feminist while sitting on the toilet in the privacy of your own home.

Can we stop with all the ridiculous analogies already?

If anyone is hyping this up, it's the people comparing getting kicked out of an extracurricular activity to death and imprisonment.

How will these young men ever continue now that they have to party at a different frat house this weekend?

It's more than an analogy. It is a direct consequence and extension of the same rational. It's not ridiculous because powerful forces are aggressively pushing these agendas and their intention is to expand the envelope and make more and more behavior inclusive. There is no death and imprisonment at least for now.

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:44 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

How about you break down how they were trying to incite imminent lawless action here. Do you believe they were going to hang some people or something?

Notice the word "government".

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:58 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:44 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

"The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

How about you break down how they were trying to incite imminent lawless action here. Do you believe they were going to hang some people or something?

Notice the word "government".

Yes, you're right, educational institutions may have their own rules. Still, what constitutes as hate speech is typically defined by cases such as Sourcecode posted.

These were kids on a private bus. They were not out in public trying to garner support for illegal activities.

The European man is waking up all over the world. The sons of Achilles and Aeneas will march again in unison in righteous retribution.

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:41 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

If you have more questions the differences in free speech and hate speech.

Brandenburg v Ohio,Civil Rights Act of 1964 ect ect.

It's not hard to find out where lines cross

Yes, the line is drawn at direct threats and incitement to violence with the intention to carry out the threats and commit violence. That is the clear line. The frat boys did not cross that line.

Brandenburg dealt with a "criminal sydicalism" statute. The KKK members were on film organizing an armed rebellion and inciting each other to violence, which was the distinction. They were going to march on Congress and get "revengence," with guns in hand.

This fraternity thing was not a direct incitement to violence, just fools goofing on a bus.

The threshold to proscribe speech for incitement to violence or threats is set very high. See Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969). Racist speech and gestures, even cross burning, is presumptively considered protected speech. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). You can burn the American flag, too: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Since state universities have some leeway to police conduct, they can probably do something, but dissolving an organization and mass punishment might be too much. There's a Due Process issue, too, if the OU president just ordered this without a hearing.

Quote: (03-10-2015 12:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:41 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

If you have more questions the differences in free speech and hate speech.

Brandenburg v Ohio,Civil Rights Act of 1964 ect ect.

It's not hard to find out where lines cross

Yes, Brandenburg dealt with a "criminal sydicalism" statute. The KKK members were on film organizing an armed rebellion and inciting each other to violence, which was the distinction. They were going to march on Congress and get "revengence," with guns in hand.

This fraternity thing was not a direct incitement to violence, just fools goofing on a bus.

The threshold to proscribe speech for incitement to violence or threats is set very high. See Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969). Racist speech and gestures, even cross burning, is presumptively considered protected speech. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).

Since state universities have some leeway to police conduct, they can probably do something, but dissolving an organization and mass punishment might be too much.

It doesn't matter, the President does not want his university to be labeled as a racist university. Regardless if people think the punishment was harsh, its his house his rules, they can go somewhere else.

Quote: (03-10-2015 12:11 PM)Jons Coffee Shop Wrote:  

The European man is waking up all over the world. The sons of Achilles and Aeneas will march again in unison in righteous retribution.

You're either in the wrong thread or on the wrong site altogether. By the way, I think the Greeks are too busy lazing about to care about dumb American news stories.

Quote: (03-10-2015 12:17 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

It doesn't matter, the President does not want his university to be labeled as a racist university. Regardless if people think the punishment was harsh, its his house his rules, they can go somewhere else.

I imagine that is the same reason men will get booted once a woman yells rape. Who wants to be known as a rapist university? It will be interesting to see if any legal suits are brought against the university.

Blacks & gays (of any race) have a special protection in the US.

Had they chanted out "no chinks/spics/kikes/camel jockeys" - the MSM wouldn't care. Only gays could conjure up the same level of attention. Even if they specifically said white gays.

SJW facebook pages wouldn't be getting replies by the minute from the hivemind for any other ethnicity. You also wouldn't see Hispanics sharing this with all their Hispanic friends nearly to the extent that blacks are (had Hispanics been the ones insulted).

While I understand there are differences in American history regarding blacks vs other minorities, these sorts of things are actually wanted by both the blacks and the whites.

The SJW whites can feign outrage (which they wouldn't do for any other ethnic minority), the blacks can say whites are still racist (which many are but this allows them to say it without being accused of race-baiting), and essentially everyone is satisfied including the media, as they are always in search of some new cannon fodder. This is even pleasing to the hardcore racists in whichever factions of the KKK may be left in some states, considering it's music to their ears hearing it everytime they turn on TV. It's a win-win for everyone.

No one should be too surprised by some collegiate white boys in a state like Oklahoma getting drunk and reciting chants that are basically par for the course in notoriously red states (of course pointing this out may end up being more controversial than the chant itself). These guys probably aren't even true racists, and if they are, does anyone really care what they think? Some college guys get drunk, chant out things similar to stuff they heard growing up, and it makes CNN breaking news.

They aren't going to be able to shake this off, it will be there forever and their names will appear on google forever as the SJW's want them publically lynched. They're already kicked out of the school, but of course this isn't enough for the SJW's.

There used to be massive protests until a few years ago regarding illegal immigration, which was almost entirely directed towards Hispanics. Large groups of white men would chant racial slurs in public towards Hispanics, and the SJW's made about as much noise as a feather falling on marble.

Kappa Alpha also probably enjoys this because they've always been historically known as the racist frat, now it's SAE.

Quote: (03-10-2015 10:19 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

How many actual Southerners do we have in here?

Lynching was widespread until less than 50 years ago. When you or your parent's generation was being terrorized and murdered for the color of your skin, it is not something you take as a "joke".

And neither do these boys singing the song. They understand exactly how hateful and derogatory it is.

If you're a major university in the South, this is simply something you can not be seen condoning. These issues are still very fresh in people's minds and surrounded with a large amount of tension.

If you want to see a real double standard, read people's posts about Muslims attacking people because of their religion and then watch them take the exact opposite stance about white people attacking others for their race.

"But they aren't actually racist" ignoring the fact that these boys' parents didn't even attend the same schools as blacks. Yeah, there's absolutely no chance that they actually harbor any animosity towards blacks, it's all an aberration created by the media

Quote: (03-10-2015 10:55 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 10:35 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

Oklahoma isn't in the South, but point taken.

Geographically, no. Culturally, yes.

Just look at the Tulsa Race Riot.

Whelp, I was trying not to post in this thread.

But here it is. The middle school that I went to in the South used to be the high school when my dad went to the same school. It was rebuilt after the KKK blew it up. They did this because we were, technically I believe (I don't want to give too much info here). either the first or the second school to be desegregated before even Little Rock. They had to call in the National guard to force the desegregation.

I have seen my dads picture in the small town, with many of the same building still there and a few diners and RX places still in business, with jeeps with guards manning .50 Cal machine guns and soldiers with bayonets fixed to their M14s.

There is still some racism. You will occasionally see stars and bars but unless the guy rocking them is wearing an Outlaw jacket or some other 1%er patch the likelihood of him saying anything to a non-white person in any manner is incredibly unlikely. Even more unlikely for him to actually do something, but I have seen it before and in those couple of cases the white dude was more likely to walk away fucked up.

I have also seen some people, mostly frat guys, get drunk at college and think it was cool to say racist shit or repeat Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock jokes ad nauseam. These were usually incredibly sheltered idiots who are about the least likely to ever start a fight or say something racial to some ones face.

Personally, that is what I see here. But, I am also not on the receiving end of it and it is quite possible that I am just not that attuned to it. While I have had a lot of non-white friends here in the states and over seas growing up, I have also been the subject of racism, or at least hate, as a white guy. Got my ass kicked, and almost kicked even more times, by members of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt in middle and high school.

Also, at least around here, I haven't been to OK before, there are a lot of problems that effect white people that are generally caused by blacks. Also probably vice versa, but there are not many blacks in some of these areas but a large portion of them do engage in stereotypical behavior. Most of the time this is just blasting music loudly or something that doesn't matter. But other times, and I have worked with a few of these types and been friends with them, it does. An example would be of several old friends of mine. They like to hang out on "the hill" (basically the poorer black suburbs or ghetto, around here projects and other descriptors all pretty much describe poor whites) and sell crack.

They didn't smoke it. Instead they bragged about intentionally selling it to white girls to get them addicted so they could pimp them out or gangbang them for drugs as payment. I doubt the older church going ladies know about this, but plenty of younger guys and working class guys (a surprising number of construction workers don't just use meth but also supplement with crack) know about it and if you are a small town of about 15k people with about 4% black (seriously, I think we have more Asian and latinos) then that is going to influence some of the more white trash elements. Some of those elements may also be middle class white guys.

Not saying any of it is right. I am rambling a bit here, so I do apologize. I actually started this post to give a bit of my own observations about the south. So, here is a bit of history.

I didn't actually know much about the desegregation of my middle school, again which was my dads high school, until I took a racial history class in college. It was an interesting class, also kinda boring being mixed up with all the SJW crap.

I had a final project to write and I went and researched the desegregation. I went to the local newspaper, that existed then and still does, and they were more than happy to let me go through their microfilm and these huge books that had a copy of every paper they every published going way back.

It was really interesting to read through all the documents written at the time. One thing that really impressed me was how thorough and detailed and basically on point the newspapers were back then compared to today.

Another thing that blew my mind was that all the black people who were local were pretty much against integration. They wanted more money and better resources for their school. I remember one black preacher who said he feared integration because he thought it would lower the moral fabric of the black community. He suggested better and newer books and offered a compromise where the civil rights oriented teachers could come and teach at the black school a few days out of the week. He especially wanted the science teachers to teach. I thought that was interesting, because it kept with the spirit of integration while keeping the children safe from bullying and harm.

Now, here is where I found it really interesting. There were several individuals who were leading the KKK and they were all from out of state. The leader was from New Jersey. It was found out during his trial that a large part of the KKK soldiers were also from out of state. This really pissed off a lot of the whites who were on the fence. They didn't like northerners coming down to stir up racial animus.

Do you guys want to know what this leader was tried for, among many things, more than twice? He was brought up on charges of SEDITION. I found that really amusing. Each time the jury was going to convict his KKK soldiers would bomb or burn something and scare a few of the white jury members into voting no. That is how he got off both times. If I remember correctly, after the second trial they passed some laws that mentioned him by name and made it illegal for him to come back to the state. They basically figured out some way to deport his ass.

Well, I have posted enough in this thread so I will bow out before ending up on the wrong side of Tuth's hammer. I just wanted to share that last part mainly. For the record, I am not condoning these guys actions.

I know I am a bit racist and I could see myself, especially in my younger days, laughing about this and being coaxed into chanting along. I also don't have much love for frats. From the little bit of the video I watched these sounds like the types of assholes who go bar hopping and end up annoying the fuck out of everyone when they show up for their two natty lites on their way to the next bar. I guess I will just say the following. Some of the best guys I have met have been black. Some of the worst ones too. Just cause a few dumbasses from the south do something stupid, doesn't mean that we all think the same way or do the same thing.

Quote: (03-10-2015 12:17 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 12:12 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (03-10-2015 11:41 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

If you have more questions the differences in free speech and hate speech.

Brandenburg v Ohio,Civil Rights Act of 1964 ect ect.

It's not hard to find out where lines cross

Yes, the line is drawn at direct threats and incitement to violence with the intention to carry out the threats and commit violence. That is the clear line. The frat boys did not cross that line.

Brandenburg dealt with a "criminal sydicalism" statute. The KKK members were on film organizing an armed rebellion and inciting each other to violence, which was the distinction. They were going to march on Congress and get "revengence," with guns in hand.

This fraternity thing was not a direct incitement to violence, just fools goofing on a bus.

The threshold to proscribe speech for incitement to violence or threats is set very high. See Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969). Racist speech and gestures, even cross burning, is presumptively considered protected speech. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). You can burn the American flag, too: Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Since state universities have some leeway to police conduct, they can probably do something, but dissolving an organization and mass punishment might be too much. There's a Due Process issue, too, if the OU president just ordered this without a hearing.

It doesn't matter, the President does not want his university to be labeled as a racist university. Regardless if people think the punishment was harsh, its his house his rules, they can go somewhere else.

Ah, but it's not the President's house. It's the people of Oklahoma's house, subject to state and federal law and the Constitution.

Look at it this way: professors teach all kinds of controversial ideas in class. They have academic and Constitutional freedom to provoke debate. Students come from all kinds of backgrounds, from Evangelical Christian to Black Muslims to Atheists. Queer activists and Mormons. Some of what many such groups fo is deeply objectionable and "intimidating" or "inappropriate" to others. They have to have leeway to be different.

I am all in favor of putting these guys names out there and giving them a social sanction, but why does everything have to have a legal punishment?