iollow: Poor white people hate poor black people.
Poor black people hate poor white people.

And rich white people are busy making sure both groups continue to hate each other so no one notices them screwing you both.

Y'know if the whole country weren't secretly run by Oprah Winfrey you might have a point.



Popular ventriloquist Oprah Winfrey with her dummy

iollow: And rich white people are busy making sure both groups continue to hate each other so no one notices them screwing you both.

To be fair, that's not just a white man's game anymore. Jesse Jackson and his ilk play it just as well as any fat cat whitie.

Lock up the protesters and throw away the key. If the 1st Amendment doesn't mean anything to them, then the 4th Amendment should mean anything either.

UNC_Samurai: GAT_00: Hmmm, North Carolina. I'm guessing lots of attractive and successful disapproval.

Hey, what do you know!

The Free Expression Tunnel is great, but some asshole comes through every couple of years and ruins it for everybody. What pisses me off even more is the blatant stupidity in the comments on the WRAL site.

Dude, the comments have been mind boggingly attrocious the past week. Based on all the rampant idiocy from WRAL's comments sections (and stupidity from all the calls I get from everyone around the state while I'm at work) it amazes me just how stupid some of our fellow NC residents are, and these are the people we wave to every morning, pass on the streets and drive with on our roads (which certainly shows...). They make a lot of Fark's resident trolls look like MENSA elite.

There's only a handful of areas in this state where I'm comfortable with living (Raleigh-Durham area, Chapel Hill, Wilmington). Everywhere else ('cept for a few coastal towns) is a shiathole or backwoods speedtrap town full of racist mouthbreathing bible thumpers of all colors. I still don't see how these people muster the brainpower to form words, read, tie their shoes or manage to even find the door to get out of their houses in the morning, if they even leave them, let alone type on a computer or vote.

Now that my rant's over, I remember seeing the tunnel on a tour of NC State. I thought it was pretty awesome how it was there, how the students had an unconventional avenue for their creative (and not-so creative) thoughts to be heard (or rather seen in this case). Just goes to show dumbassery is rampant on both sides of the issue (and here's some more words in parentheses!!!).

Frosty_Icehole: There's only a handful of areas in this state where I'm comfortable with living (Raleigh-Durham area, Chapel Hill, Wilmington). Everywhere else ('cept for a few coastal towns) is a shiathole or backwoods speedtrap town full of racist mouthbreathing bible thumpers of all colors.

Live at Carolina Beach... you speak the truth!!!!!

Sounds like a bunch of sandy vagina's to me. If you can't take it you do not belong in the world. Someone's always going to have an opinion different than you. One that you may hate. But don't be a pussy and cry about it. Ignore it, or try to convince those with the differing opinions to your side.

Otherwise shut the F*CK UP you whiny biatches!!!

/Just wait until you see a real authoritarian society emerge.
//Until then just be glad you have enough money to go to school.

windbag: If you are consumed with worry over what's written on a wall on your way to class, you a)are a farking crybaby and b)have lived a sheltered, pampered life that has prepared you for nothing, and c)need to grow a pair.

You forgot:

F) You're a gimp!

The biggest issue with "Hate" speech is what defines hate speech?

- I am a Catholic and you write a Pope joke, I am offended and that is hate speech
- I am a Baptist and you write a comment that the Bible can be interpreted thus I am offended and that is hate speech
- I am a liberal black and you write a comment that Reagan is the best president evah thus I am offended because I believe BHO is the bestus and that is hate speech
- I am Japanese and you write in support of the atomic bombings in WWII and thus I am offended and that is hate speech

Obviously direct threats that violate the law are at issue and as that is already covered, no further regulation needed. If someone writes they do not like gays, well maybe they don't so deal with it. If someone thinks all Muslims are terrrorist and that offends you, well deal with it.

The free expression of ideas means, in all likelihood, that someone will be offended or not agree. Is that "Hate" speech? No, it's a different opinion.

If you think they are arseholes for thinking such things, have at it, but remember, that may in fact be hate thinking.

Cythraul: Frosty_Icehole: ... these are the people we wave to every morning...

(waves at you)

(waves right back) ...ya non-driving asshole you...

JohnCarter: The biggest issue with "Hate" speech is what defines hate speech?

- I am a Catholic and you write a Pope joke, I am offended and that is hate speech
- I am a Baptist and you write a comment that the Bible can be interpreted thus I am offended and that is hate speech
- I am a liberal black and you write a comment that Reagan is the best president evah thus I am offended because I believe BHO is the bestus and that is hate speech
- I am Japanese and you write in support of the atomic bombings in WWII and thus I am offended and that is hate speech

Obviously direct threats that violate the law are at issue and as that is already covered, no further regulation needed. If someone writes they do not like gays, well maybe they don't so deal with it. If someone thinks all Muslims are terrrorist and that offends you, well deal with it.

The free expression of ideas means, in all likelihood, that someone will be offended or not agree. Is that "Hate" speech? No, it's a different opinion.

If you think they are arseholes for thinking such things, have at it, but remember, that may in fact be hate thinking.

The problem with hate speech is it is all about intent. Intent can only be inferred. No matter what someone says or does, you will *never* know what is truly in their thoughts. If someone writes "The Pope covers up child rape!", the person who wrote it may very well hold that opinion and is merely trying to inform. Or he is doing it solely for the purpose of invoking an emotional response from you. One is hate, one is not.

Why am I not surprised that the self-described champions of free expression are behind a censorship effort?

"Tolerance"

We have a free speech wall in our town. Ya, swear words and racist things get painted on there. But the funny thing is, when people are deciding where to paint (people usually paint murals or billboards for student activities) they usually decide to paint over the swear words, and leave the good art.

ITS SELF REGULATING YOU IDIOTS.

stonicus: One is hate, one is not.

Neither perspective, in and of themselves, explain why they should be censored.

JohnCarter: The biggest issue with "Hate" speech is what defines hate speech?

- I am a Catholic and you write a Pope joke, I am offended and that is hate speech
- I am a Baptist and you write a comment that the Bible can be interpreted thus I am offended and that is hate speech
- I am a liberal black and you write a comment that Reagan is the best president evah thus I am offended because I believe BHO is the bestus and that is hate speech
- I am Japanese and you write in support of the atomic bombings in WWII and thus I am offended and that is hate speech

Obviously direct threats that violate the law are at issue and as that is already covered, no further regulation needed. If someone writes they do not like gays, well maybe they don't so deal with it. If someone thinks all Muslims are terrrorist and that offends you, well deal with it.

The free expression of ideas means, in all likelihood, that someone will be offended or not agree. Is that "Hate" speech? No, it's a different opinion.

If you think they are arseholes for thinking such things, have at it, but remember, that may in fact be hate thinking.


I think it's a very easy definition that is not one that most people want to hear:

hate speech is speech that can be prohibited under the First Amendment on the grounds that it:

- is likely to cause an imminent breach of the peace
- for reasons dealing with arbitrary traits that typically are indicative of discriminatory practices, such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and left handedness.

In a free society everyone has the right to be hateful and to hate whomever and whatever they want, and they can have the worlds loudest tantrum about it. But the minute that tantrum results in the tantrum-thrower or anyone else subject to the tantrum to act on the hate, then a line has been crossed.

GoldSpider: Why am I not surprised that the self-described champions of free expression are behind a censorship effort?

"Tolerance"

Neither the left nor the right have ever been champions of free expression. Our First Amendment pioneers typically have been pornographers, white supremacists, jehovah's witnesses, and rappers, all of which have been maligned by the left and the right for various reasons. See, for example: Tipper Gore, Parent's Television Council

El Chode: GoldSpider: Why am I not surprised that the self-described champions of free expression are behind a censorship effort?

"Tolerance"

Neither the left nor the right have ever been champions of free expression. Our First Amendment pioneers typically have been pornographers, white supremacists, jehovah's witnesses, and rappers, all of which have been maligned by the left and the right for various reasons. See, for example: Tipper Gore, Parent's Television Council

The ACLU are typically painted as leftists, at least by the right, but they've pretty consistently come out in favor of free speech even for human detritus like the Phelps clan.

El Chode: Neither the left nor the right have ever been champions of free expression.

Very true, but it's usually only one "side" claiming the moral high ground. The right unabashedly advocates censorship.

Just get rid of the damn tunnel. You don't need a special tunnel to have freedom of expression, the First Amendment isn't valid only in select locations. You've got that right all over the damn country.

How ever you don't have the right to paint stuff on property that isn't your private property. Just stop pretending the tunnel is some magic free speech fairly land. Let it be a damn tunnel.

GoldSpider: Very true, but it's usually only one "side" claiming the moral high ground

1) Such is the nature of politics

The right unabashedly advocates censorship.

2) Uh, no. They both unabashedly advocate censorship for the views that challenge their own the most and to which they can not mount a sufficient, objective defense against. Claiming one side does and not the other just shows your partisan nature and propensity to engage in the same games.

Like I said, TIPPER GORE.

Or, like Frank Zappa said, "they're just WORDS. Why are you so afraid of words?"


you have pee hands: El Chode: GoldSpider: Why am I not surprised that the self-described champions of free expression are behind a censorship effort?

"Tolerance"

Neither the left nor the right have ever been champions of free expression. Our First Amendment pioneers typically have been pornographers, white supremacists, jehovah's witnesses, and rappers, all of which have been maligned by the left and the right for various reasons. See, for example: Tipper Gore, Parent's Television Council

The ACLU are typically painted as leftists, at least by the right, but they've pretty consistently come out in favor of free speech even for human detritus like the Phelps clan.

The only reason they get painted that way is for their atheistic, gays-have-rights-too stance.

A more accurate brush would paint them as "non-theocrats"

CrimsonAndCream: Just get rid of the damn tunnel. You don't need a special tunnel to have freedom of expression, the First Amendment isn't valid only in select locations. You've got that right all over the damn country.

How ever you don't have the right to paint stuff on property that isn't your private property. Just stop pretending the tunnel is some magic free speech fairly land. Let it be a damn tunnel.

I think that was sort of the point in having a free expression tunnel in the first place so students can throw down some graffiti without legal reprocussion, and at the same time come into contact with other "world views" on a daily basis, no matter how awesome or dumb.
[thisiswhywecan'thavenicethingscat.jpg]

El Chode: Claiming one side does and not the other just shows your partisan nature and propensity to engage in the same games.

Like I said, TIPPER GORE.

I bet Tipper Gore also claims she advocates for diversity and tolerance. My point still stands.

I have seen offensive stuff written in the tunnel many times. My reaction? I think "Wow, someone around here is a huge douchebag," I then go about living my life.

Yay! Let's sterilize our society so nobody is ever offended!

enjoi: I go to school down at UNCC, and we've had Nazis and those wonderful pit preachers calling down fire and brimstone, socialists and athiests, even some nice anti-abortion signs about the size of a buick, but there's never been a protest about any of that stuff.

Because it's free speech. This is silly.

Never is a long time. I went to UNC-CH back in the 80's, & there definitely were silly people protesting the pit preachers.

/glad to hear the pit preachers are still there
//get off my lawn

kbotc: Tatsuhiko: The students want them to regulate what free speech is allowed in the tunnel? Well, I guess they should have made at least the rule for "No Hate Speech," if anything.

/Not surprised they show a picture of black students.
//Not by a long shot.

It's way better than the midwest campuses where it would be a bunch of whiney white kids who just really want the 60s back so they can smoke and bang their way through college while fighting the "machine".

Ironically, those whiney white kids today are doing just as much smoking and a lot more banging than they ever did in teh 60's.

The only thing we can't tolerate... is intolerance.

// head_explode.gif

"think that was sort of the point in having a free expression tunnel in the first place so students can throw down some graffiti without legal reprocussion, and at the same time come into contact with other "world views" on a daily basis, no matter how awesome or dumb."

Well of course. But get rid of it.
Don't make them think that they need to confine their free speech to certain tunnels. Make 'em understand how free speech works. You have a right to it, but you don't have a right to paint stupid shiat in public places.

"I go to school down at UNCC, and we've had Nazis and those wonderful pit preachers calling down fire and brimstone, socialists and athiests, even some nice anti-abortion signs about the size of a buick, but there's never been a protest about any of that stuff."

Well, UNCC fails then. I mean, we already knew that, but this is just another example. At UNC, NC State and App State I have seen vigorous mocking of the nutzo preachers. I've seen same-sex makeouts, I've seen people hold up signs reading "HIDE YOUR GAYS JESUS IS COMING", I've seen see people yell retorts and insults at the preachers, I've seen kids chant "EAT LSD!", you name it...
What is UNCCs problem?

GoldSpider: El Chode: Claiming one side does and not the other just shows your partisan nature and propensity to engage in the same games.

Like I said, TIPPER GORE.

I bet Tipper Gore also claims she advocates for diversity and tolerance. My point still stands.

Ah, I see. I thought you were playing the game that "well, I'm a Democrat and we surely never do anything like that because it's for ignorant Republicans"

But now I see you're just saying that the left knows how to spin it better

El Chode: - for reasons dealing with arbitrary traits that typically are indicative of discriminatory practices, such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and left handedness.

In a free society everyone has the right to be hateful and to hate whomever and whatever they want, and they can have the worlds loudest tantrum about it.

Don't you mean everyone has the "left" to be hateful, you damn maladroitist.

enjoi: I go to school down at UNCC.

Does the Preacher still come to the Tower to tell everyone that they're going to hell?

/Whackadoodle!

This text is now purple: Don't you mean everyone has the "left" to be hateful, you damn maladroitist.

Sorry, you're right. The sinister revolution is coming. They tried to kill us with their mismatched scissors but we prevailed!

JH3675: I have seen offensive stuff written in the tunnel many times. My reaction? I think "Wow, someone around here is a huge douchebag," I then go about living my life.

My guess is you're not one of the targeted groups. If, for example, the graffiti said "all Mormons should be lynched", and you're not a Mormon, you'd say, "wow, someone sure is a douchebag," and then continue on. But if you're a Mormon, then you're in the proximity of an unknown person who is attempting to incite violence against you for the purposes of terrorizing you and others of your group.
Context does matter, you see.

El Chode: But now I see you're just saying that the left knows how to spin it better

Not exactly. I'm saying the right are anti-free speech, and the left are anti-free speech and hypocrites.

Theaetetus: My guess is you're not one of the targeted groups. If, for example, the graffiti said "all Mormons should be lynched", and you're not a Mormon, you'd say, "wow, someone sure is a douchebag," and then continue on. But if you're a Mormon, then you're in the proximity of an unknown person who is attempting to incite violence against you for the purposes of terrorizing you and others of your group.
Context does matter, you see.

But was that the context here? I take it to mean more in the line of "hate" of saying "Theaetetus was a sophist"

Sure, it's mean and insulting, but it's not advocating anything besides a hateful opinion absent action

Hate speech is a joke and subjective, thats why we have the first amendment right?

There's no way to avoid ignorant opinions, because we're talking about NC State students here.

Theaetetus: JH3675: I have seen offensive stuff written in the tunnel many times. My reaction? I think "Wow, someone around here is a huge douchebag," I then go about living my life.

My guess is you're not one of the targeted groups. If, for example, the graffiti said "all Mormons should be lynched", and you're not a Mormon, you'd say, "wow, someone sure is a douchebag," and then continue on. But if you're a Mormon, then you're in the proximity of an unknown person who is attempting to incite violence against you for the purposes of terrorizing you and others of your group.
Context does matter, you see.

I have seen things disparaging groups that I identify with and they do elicit stronger reactions than other remarks. However, I recognize that other people have different opinions than I. While I may not agree with or even remotely condone them, they have the right to hold them. The words "Kill Whitey" written on the wall are nothing more than the words "Kill Whitey" written on the wall. Most likely someone put them there in a fit of misplaced rage and forgot about them, and no sane person would read them and think "Hey, that does sound like a good idea." As I am 'Whitey" I read them and, rather than overreacting and causing a whole lot of fuss over a minor problem, I have a moment of "Holy crap, can't believe someone actually wrote that" followed by "It's pretty damn sad that someone took the effort to put that there" and then I move on.
Words are just words, you see.

JH3675: Theaetetus: JH3675: I have seen offensive stuff written in the tunnel many times. My reaction? I think "Wow, someone around here is a huge douchebag," I then go about living my life.

My guess is you're not one of the targeted groups. If, for example, the graffiti said "all Mormons should be lynched", and you're not a Mormon, you'd say, "wow, someone sure is a douchebag," and then continue on. But if you're a Mormon, then you're in the proximity of an unknown person who is attempting to incite violence against you for the purposes of terrorizing you and others of your group.
Context does matter, you see.

I have seen things disparaging groups that I identify with and they do elicit stronger reactions than other remarks. However, I recognize that other people have different opinions than I. While I may not agree with or even remotely condone them, they have the right to hold them. The words "Kill Whitey" written on the wall are nothing more than the words "Kill Whitey" written on the wall. Most likely someone put them there in a fit of misplaced rage and forgot about them, and no sane person would read them and think "Hey, that does sound like a good idea." As I am 'Whitey" I read them and, rather than overreacting and causing a whole lot of fuss over a minor problem, I have a moment of "Holy crap, can't believe someone actually wrote that" followed by "It's pretty damn sad that someone took the effort to put that there" and then I move on.
Words are just words, you see.

This along with any other words that are said to incite my background ... Mic, Paddy, Potato Eater ... I honestly don't care and yes, I have been called them before ... it's tough being an Irish boy in Little Italy, lol.

The free expression tunnel smells so bad, I would go out of my way to avoid it.

That, plus the first year college kids are right on the other side. skateboard punks, etc

Joe Blowme: Hate speech is a joke and subjective, thats why we have the first amendment right?

That's really a great way to explain the need for the First Amendment.

Meh...it's like the internet. People write all kinds of crap if they are anonymous. Once you remove all repercussions for being an asshole (which you are free to do) you will see more people doing it either because they are really assholes or just to troll. Either way...meh.

t3knomanser:
This is true, but it also has to be a clear incitement to violence. If I post messages like, "All computer programmers should be SIG-9ed," on Internet forums or on a "free expression" wall, I'm fine. If, on the other hand, I paint that on a computer lab door, there's a clear intent to intimidate or incite violence.

You are still allowed to say whatever stupid shiat you want to say. You just can't say it anywhere or anywhen you want. That isn't a restriction on free speech- you're free to believe and advocate any position you like, no matter how offensive sane people consider it. But when you attempt to use your speech as a weapon of intimidation or assault that you run afoul of the law.

Well, it mentions that people painted direct calls for violence against a specific person (Obama). That seems like it's quite probably illegal to me. More generalized "hate speech" or racism? Probably not in this context, since it's a venue that specifically calls for free speech. Racist speech could probably be construed as illegal and threatening in some contexts, such as when the Klan is burning crosses in someone's front yard in order to intimidate them. But I doubt it crosses a legal line in this case.

Cythraul: Also, since this is relevant.

Penn and Teller's Bullshiat - College, Part 1 (new window)

Penn and Teller's Bullshiat - College, Part 2 (new window)

Penn and Teller's Bullshiat - College, Part 3 (new window)

So I watched this. They need to make a Penn and Teller's Bullshiat - Penn and Teller. This was 90% crap.

So no one is concerned that the police were called, and instead of dealing with the folks illegally blocking the path, backed the protesters and made innocent people go out of their way?

Sounds like the Chancellor needs to grow a pair and support free expression rather than acquiescing to those that threaten violence to anyone attempting to walk on "their" path.

stonicus: Live at Carolina Beach... you speak the truth!!!!!

i met my wife there in 2005. the fat pelican is awesome.