hasty ambush: A crucifix in a glass of urine may be art to some people but a form of hate speech to others. (either way it should not be supported with tax dollars)

Not to threadjack, but it was a photograph of a crucifix in a jar of urine.

Carry on.

HeartBurnKid: GoldSpider: francisright: Nice headline, neconmitter. How would this possibly be considered unconstitutional? The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to hate.

not_sure_if_serious.jpg

He can't be serious. He can't be that stupid.

Yes , yes he can. They are that stupid in Europe.

hasty ambush: Yes , yes he can. They are that stupid in Europe.

We have the US constitution in Europe?

hasty ambush: HeartBurnKid: GoldSpider: francisright: Nice headline, neconmitter. How would this possibly be considered unconstitutional? The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to hate.

not_sure_if_serious.jpg

He can't be serious. He can't be that stupid.

Yes , yes he can. They are that stupid in Europe.

I thought GAT_00 was the only one who held that position

Halli: hasty ambush: Yes , yes he can. They are that stupid in Europe.

We have the US constitution in Europe?

I'm guessing hasty ambush is the submitter, and not getting the statist libruls to rush to defend this asinine bill, is now trying to fan some other flames in the hope of reinforcing his preconceived notions.

Don't like it, don't go there.

Vote with your feet and your dollars.

Hillsdale, ORU, and Bob Jones are looking for good students who don't have to adhere to such mincing school regulations on speech.

I don't really know much about this law or its effects but I'm generally against restrictions on free speech. I remember a case where a high school kid got in trouble for wearing a shirt with an anti-gay Bible passage on it for the National Day of Silence at school. I think the kid is a hateful moron, but if the rest of his school is protesting for gay rights I feel he should be allowed to protest against them. He's allowed to voice his opinion even if we all think he's wrong and a douchebag.

I think left-leaning Millenials have much different views about political correctness than the liberals from the 80's and 90's. Growing up with the Internet has for the most part desensitized us from offensive words. We've grown up enjoying the ability to say what we want even if its ignorant, and instead of passing laws against what people can say, we just ridicule them publicly or use technology to ignore them.

Talking to liberals in their 20's it seems like we don't care much about gun control or political correctness much at all.

Snort: Don't like it, don't go there.

Vote with your feet and your dollars.

Hillsdale, ORU, and Bob Jones are looking for good students who don't have to adhere to such mincing school regulations on speech.

Which is fine and dandy if it's a school's code of conduct, which it's not, it's a government's code of conduct for all schools.

The right for me to decide what can and cannot be said in my own home is as fundamental as the right to freedom of speech. I have the right to eject the fabled Illinois Nazi from my lawn. But I also have the right to play host. And that is my prerogative, not my neighbour's, and not the government's.

So I have a few things to note:

1. These are ADULTS. When you turn 18 you are legally an adult. Yet we continue to treat people 18-24 as if they are children in elementary school. Why? Because some helicopter parent can't let go of the fact that their baby has grown up. All this coddling creates mentally & emotionally weak & unstable adults, unable to relate or cope w/ real world harshness & truths.

2. Being against this "Anti-Bullying" bill is not the same as being "FOR" having someone record your sexual exploits. If someone videotapes you having sex w/out your consent that may be illegal or at least morally wrong & corrupt. It wouldn't matter if they were gay/straight/black/white/republican/democrat, it's wrong on so many levels.

3. If these "Anti-Bullying" laws/bills/social contracts take affect, it could be used to silence all types of speech. For instance, say you are a liberal Democrat & make a statement that is derogatory towards a lil' group called Republicans, or someone who is Gay who makes Anti-Christian remars in a school paper, then those groups could very well say that your actions & speech make them feel uncomfortable etc....Then all of a sudden the shoe is on the other foot.

Definitions of bullying and harassment

(2) "Harassment, intimidation, or bullying" means any intentional written, verbal, or physical act, including, but not limited to those that are reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic in RCW 9A.36.080(3), or other distinguishing characteristics, when the intentional written, verbal, or physical act:



(a) Physically harms a student, school employee, or volunteer or damages his or her property; or



(b) Has the effect of substantially interfering with a student's education; or the providing of that education; or

(c) Is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or threatening educational or work environment; or

(d) Has the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the school.

Peoples feelings get hurt, that is a way of life. You should not be allowed to legislate peoples feelings or thought process. That is a slippery slope into something that could be across the board more encroaching.

If someone actually physically harms someone, then it should be dealt w/ regardless of gender/race/sexual orientation/religion/or politics. With children it is different, there should be a slightly tighter policy to protect children. But adults can make much more well informed or thought out decisions and choices.

College isn't for everyone. Life isn't for everyone. As people who say "evolution" needs to be taught over "creationism", think about that idea. Evolution teaches "survival of the fittest" and yet we create these mentally and physically unfit children in grade schools, who become the most unfit adult members of society.
Long live the Alpha Male (LOL! Sarcasm etc...etc...)!

Can't we just pass a law saying it's legal to punch bigots in the face with no repercussion?

Dr. Mojo PhD: Snort: Don't like it, don't go there.

Vote with your feet and your dollars.

Hillsdale, ORU, and Bob Jones are looking for good students who don't have to adhere to such mincing school regulations on speech.

Which is fine and dandy if it's a school's code of conduct, which it's not, it's a government's code of conduct for all schools.

The right for me to decide what can and cannot be said in my own home is as fundamental as the right to freedom of speech. I have the right to eject the fabled Illinois Nazi from my lawn. But I also have the right to play host. And that is my prerogative, not my neighbour's, and not the government's.

We're not talking about what people are doing in their own home. We're talking about what people are doing in a University provided facility.

You have the right to wander your house naked. You don't have the right to wander the halls of your dorm naked.

You have the right to give long impassioned political speeches in your living room. You do not have that right in the middle of a college lecture or in the middle of the library.

Philip Francis Queeg: You have the right to give long impassioned political speeches in your living room.

I get it, our constitutional rights only exist in our homes.

GoldSpider: Philip Francis Queeg: You have the right to give long impassioned political speeches in your living room.

I get it, our constitutional rights only exist in our homes.

No, But they also don't give you the completely unfettered right to act out on the freedoms in every environment. A University, like any place of business, can place restrictions on those rights in order to maintain an environment that allows their primary function to continue without certain levels of disruption. Just as YOU have the right to limit what goes on in your living room, they have a right to limit what goes on in their buildings and facilities.

One important correction: this bill does not make any speech or acts illegal. No student could be prosecuted in a federal court as a result of infringements of the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act. What the act does is require colleges that receive federal funding to have an anti-harrassment policy.

I think there are reasonable arguments to be had about whether or not that's a good idea, but it's not even remotely similar to what most of you appear to be imagining.

midnightmoon: All this coddling creates mentally & emotionally weak & unstable adults, unable to relate or cope w/ real world harshness & truths.

I think it also leads to "teach the controversy" and "both sides are bad" mindsets. We're so afraid of offending people we pretend every thing they say or any idea they bring to the table is valid and good and deserves our attention. We've lost the abilitiy to just tell them "shut up you're wrong, that's not true."

Philip Francis Queeg: No, But they also don't give you the completely unfettered right to act out on the freedoms in every environment. A University, like any place of business, can place restrictions on those rights in order to maintain an environment that allows their primary function to continue without certain levels of disruption. Just as YOU have the right to limit what goes on in your living room, they have a right to limit what goes on in their buildings and facilities.

You're right, but this is Congress attempting to set limits, not the universities.

Philip Francis Queeg: University, like any place of business, can place restrictions on those rights in order to maintain an environment that allows their primary function to continue without certain levels of disruption.

Yeah, we wouldn't want university students to be inconvenienced by free expressions of controversial ideas.

Dr. Mojo PhD: francisright: Nice headline, neconmitter. How would this possibly be considered unconstitutional? The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to hate.

Um, yes it does.

[powdered_wig_dude-haters_gonna_hate.jpg]

Dr Dreidel: So what would a bullying statute add? Protecting gay people from us evil straights? Making it a criminal offense to call someone the same name more than 4 times in a week? Explain to me how this law both squares with Free Speech/Expression (again, above and beyond existing harassment or stalking statutes) and actually adds something to the Federal code beyond existing law.

Go look up harassment laws. You have no right to purposely inflect emotional or physical harm on an individual.

Antimatter: You have no right to purposely inflect emotional or physical harm on an individual.

Strange thing, I thought it was already illegal to inflict physical harm on someone.

GoldSpider: Philip Francis Queeg: University, like any place of business, can place restrictions on those rights in order to maintain an environment that allows their primary function to continue without certain levels of disruption.

Yeah, we wouldn't want university students to be inconvenienced by free expressions of controversial ideas.

So you believe that universities should allow students to disrupt lectures by giving long political speeches which prevent the professor from teaching the subject?

You believe that students should be allowed to hold political rallies in the library reading room?

Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe that universities should allow students to disrupt lectures by giving long political speeches which prevent the professor from teaching the subject?

You believe that students should be allowed to hold political rallies in the library reading room?

If I were a student, I'd probably see it as an amusing distraction at worst. Granted, that was a while ago, and sandy vaginas are all the rage on campus these days.

Philip Francis Queeg: Just as YOU have the right to limit what goes on in your living room, they have a right to limit what goes on in their buildings and facilities.

So which rights are you permitted to strip people of when they're on your property, and which are you not?

Aarontology: You're right, but this is Congress attempting to set limits, not the universities.

No, it's congress saying it won't give federal funds to universities that don't set limits. Any university that chooses not to accept federal funds can allow any kind of speech it likes. That's an important distinction--and one the Supreme Court has already ruled on in the case of army recruitment (universities are not allowed to ban recruiters from their campuses in the name of "free speech" unless they also renounce federal funding).

GoldSpider: Antimatter: You have no right to purposely inflect emotional or physical harm on an individual.

Strange thing, I thought it was already illegal to inflict physical harm on someone.

Or emotional. again, look up Harassment laws.

PC LOAD LETTER: "Statism": what Republicans call rules they don't agree with. When THEY implement rules, it's a Super Patriotic Tribute to Jesus.

As, for example, the rules requiring all colleges that accept federal funds to allow armed forces recruiters on campus. That's an "infringement" of the first amendment that Republicans adore.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Philip Francis Queeg: Just as YOU have the right to limit what goes on in your living room, they have a right to limit what goes on in their buildings and facilities.

So which rights are you permitted to strip people of when they're on your property, and which are you not?

There is a whole ton of law addressing those very issues. It is not something that can be easily explained in a Fark post, and even if it was, I will freely admit that I'm probably not the best person to do it.

Philip Francis Queeg: We're not talking about what people are doing in their own home. We're talking about what people are doing in a University provided facility.

You have the right to wander your house naked. You don't have the right to wander the halls of your dorm naked.

You have the right to give long impassioned political speeches in your living room. You do not have that right in the middle of a college lecture or in the middle of the library.

That would be because in the case of your own home, you're the host. In the case of the University, you're the guest.

You don't have the right to wander the halls of the University naked for the same reason a house guest doesn't have the right to wander my halls naked. And if the University says it's a clothing-optional school, well, then you can.

Aarontology: Philip Francis Queeg: No, But they also don't give you the completely unfettered right to act out on the freedoms in every environment. A University, like any place of business, can place restrictions on those rights in order to maintain an environment that allows their primary function to continue without certain levels of disruption. Just as YOU have the right to limit what goes on in your living room, they have a right to limit what goes on in their buildings and facilities.

You're right, but this is Congress attempting to set limits, not the universities.

If I'm reading this correctly, it's *kind of* the same thing as the feds telling states to up their drinking laws to 21 or not get any federal highway funds.

If you want the federal money, you agree to their standards.

As for the "but they're adults!" argument - I can't bully people at work, according to these. Those are Federal Laws that affect how I interact with people at the privately owned workplace where I am employed. Congress sets limits all the time on what grown adults can/cannot do to each other in the workplace. Preparing them for this in the academic world can't hurt.

Snot Monster from Outer Space: That's an important distinction--and one the Supreme Court has already ruled on in the case of army recruitment (universities are not allowed to ban recruiters from their campuses in the name of "free speech" unless they also renounce federal funding).

But is this quite the same as the army recruitment issue? I'd think there would be a difference between saying "If you want Federal funds, you must allow Federal employees on campus" and saying "If you want Federal funds, you must abridge your students right of free speech in these ways"

GoldSpider: Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe that universities should allow students to disrupt lectures by giving long political speeches which prevent the professor from teaching the subject?

You believe that students should be allowed to hold political rallies in the library reading room?

If I were a student, I'd probably see it as an amusing distraction at worst. Granted, that was a while ago, and sandy vaginas are all the rage on campus these days.

What happens if it becomes a regular occurance? Let's say a creationist signs up for your biology class and keeps reading the collective works of Bevets aloud to the class every single lecture?

I don't think we need new anti-bullying laws when everything is covered in existing laws. This is one of those things that politicians do to make it look like they're doing something to appease idiots, when it actually accomplishes nothing.

It's essentially the liberal version of building a wall on the border with Mexico.

Philip Francis Queeg: What happens if it becomes a regular occurance? Let's say a creationist signs up for your biology class and keeps reading the collective works of Bevets aloud to the class every single lecture?

I would assume he'd be ejected for being disruptive.

Screaming over a lecture 30-300 other students paid tuition money to receive is no different than shiatting in everybody's Big Mac at McDonald's. You're depriving them of a service they paid for.

On the other hand, standing on the campus grounds being a noisy pest just means people walk around you. Nothing of value is lost.

Who knew submitter was really Area Man?

/grasp of the constitution
//you lack it, smitty

Dr. Mojo PhD: Philip Francis Queeg: We're not talking about what people are doing in their own home. We're talking about what people are doing in a University provided facility.

You have the right to wander your house naked. You don't have the right to wander the halls of your dorm naked.

You have the right to give long impassioned political speeches in your living room. You do not have that right in the middle of a college lecture or in the middle of the library.

That would be because in the case of your own home, you're the host. In the case of the University, you're the guest.

You don't have the right to wander the halls of the University naked for the same reason a house guest doesn't have the right to wander my halls naked. And if the University says it's a clothing-optional school, well, then you can.

Absolutely. The University, like you, can limit what goes on in their facilities, including limitations on speech.

Aarontology: Snot Monster from Outer Space: That's an important distinction--and one the Supreme Court has already ruled on in the case of army recruitment (universities are not allowed to ban recruiters from their campuses in the name of "free speech" unless they also renounce federal funding).

But is this quite the same as the army recruitment issue? I'd think there would be a difference between saying "If you want Federal funds, you must allow Federal employees on campus" and saying "If you want Federal funds, you must abridge your students right of free speech in these ways"

Except that every university quite clearly and obviously has the right to impose behavior codes on its students--without that in any way raising first amendment issues. Just as you can tell the guests in your house "we're not going to argue politics at the dinner table tonight, sorry" without that being a suppression of their rights of free speech.

So the universities, in complying with this law, are not "abridging their students' right of free speech." They are simply imposing certain rules of acceptable student behavior and outlining the consequences for breaking them. If your college expels you for loudly and publicly calling every black fellow-student a "n*gger," you have absolutely no first amendment case to bring to the courts.

Antimatter: Dr Dreidel:

Go look up harassment laws. You have no right to purposely inflect emotional or physical harm on an individual.

Good, so we're already covered. Why do we need another law, then?

LOL! Hilarious. Yes. It is covered. But that's not good enough for some people. Some folks want to be seen as a bit more special. "The world is different for US, so therefore there needs to be laws that protect US specifically, rather than ALL in a general sense."

In other words, "We are NOT all created equal".
And "We are NOT all treated equally under the law".
Fair for some, fairer for others.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Philip Francis Queeg: What happens if it becomes a regular occurance? Let's say a creationist signs up for your biology class and keeps reading the collective works of Bevets aloud to the class every single lecture?

I would assume he'd be ejected for being disruptive.

Screaming over a lecture 30-300 other students paid tuition money to receive is no different than shiatting in everybody's Big Mac at McDonald's. You're depriving them of a service they paid for.

On the other hand, standing on the campus grounds being a noisy pest just means people walk around you. Nothing of value is lost.

Yes. There is no clear line. Now the question is where does verbally bullying a classmate fall? Can it deprive the victim of being able to take full value from their education? Can it deprive them of being able to live in the dorm room they paid for with a reasonable sense of safety and security?

Philip Francis Queeg: Absolutely. The University, like you, can limit what goes on in their facilities, including limitations on speech.

Of course it can. Like I said, the right to decide on the limitations of what is said on your own grounds is as fundamental as the right to freedom of speech.

When the government steps in and starts telling you, at a federal level, the minimum code of conduct your guests have to adhere to, there's a serious problem.

Codes of conduct ought to be the prerogative of the University, not the government. And this bill seems to take that prerogative away. There's a gulf of difference between a University's Code of Conduct that would, say, not let students be on Facebook, and a government bill that mandates that no University student can have a Facebook page.

Dr. Mojo PhD: francisright: Nice headline, neconmitter. How would this possibly be considered unconstitutional? The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to hate.

Um, yes it does.

You got trolled, dude.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Philip Francis Queeg: Absolutely. The University, like you, can limit what goes on in their facilities, including limitations on speech.

Of course it can. Like I said, the right to decide on the limitations of what is said on your own grounds is as fundamental as the right to freedom of speech.

When the government steps in and starts telling you, at a federal level, the minimum code of conduct your guests have to adhere to, there's a serious problem.

Codes of conduct ought to be the prerogative of the University, not the government. And this bill seems to take that prerogative away. There's a gulf of difference between a University's Code of Conduct that would, say, not let students be on Facebook, and a government bill that mandates that no University student can have a Facebook page.

And, yet again, allow me to point out that there is no law under discussion in which the government establishes rules for student behavior at universities. What is under discussion is a rule under which the government would refuse to provide federal funding to universities that did not, themselves, impose certain rules on their students. That is a crucial difference.

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes. There is no clear line. Now the question is where does verbally bullying a classmate fall? Can it deprive the victim of being able to take full value from their education? Can it deprive them of being able to live in the dorm room they paid for with a reasonable sense of safety and security?

If it does, there's already remedies. You don't need to add another layer of pointless law to it.

If a guy's stalking you on campus, it's already stalking. If they're videotaping you having sex without your consent, there's laws against that too.

Snot Monster from Outer Space: So the universities, in complying with this law, are not "abridging their students' right of free speech." They are simply imposing certain rules of acceptable student behavior and outlining the consequences for breaking them. If your college expels you for loudly and publicly calling every black fellow-student a "n*gger," you have absolutely no first amendment case to bring to the courts.

Right, except I'm not a fan of laws that require a suppression of speech. This may be legal, but it's not the kind of law our government should be trying to pass.

Aarontology: Snot Monster from Outer Space: So the universities, in complying with this law, are not "abridging their students' right of free speech." They are simply imposing certain rules of acceptable student behavior and outlining the consequences for breaking them. If your college expels you for loudly and publicly calling every black fellow-student a "n*gger," you have absolutely no first amendment case to bring to the courts.

Right, except I'm not a fan of laws that require a suppression of speech. This may be legal, but it's not the kind of law our government should be trying to pass.

As I say, I think there are reasonable arguments for and against this law (the vast majority of campuses in the US would already meet the requirements of the law, so it's effect would in practice be minimal. The reason that the right wing press is getting animated about this law is that the few colleges that don't have anti-harassment codes that specifically forbid gay-bashing and race-baiting etc. are right-wing religious colleges; I can't say I'd shed too many tears at seeing such places forced to choose between federal dollars and continued tacit approval of such practices). But the argument that this is the US govt. legislating the behavior of college kids is simply a false one.

It's a content of speech issue - meaningful speech is protected; anything that has truth values is always protected. Expressions of preference are protected.

There is absolutely no re-deeming quality to bullying speech - it serves only to harm or injure. A university has an obligation to ensure its students are given the fullest potential to utilize their education.

We don't allow you to smack someone in the face, nor should we allow you do the same harm with words. Enforcing the measure is tricky as it is intent based and the slippery-slope may make such a position unrealistic.

But truly, argue the benefits of meaningless speech only intended to harm or injure? Can you do so without appeal to "the greater good" or slippery-slope of what you claim is going to be suppressed next?