Oklahoma fraternity being persecuted by PC Police

[repoman]

Heritage? not Hate?

 

[untermensche]

2 of them were expelled from the University.

That is called punishment.

That's NOT called a violation of their freedom of speech rights

Again. If you are punished just for saying something you do not have freedom of speech.

It isn't difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

Some think their right to expel is a more important right than the freedom of speech.

More accurately, you simply don't understand the actual definition and concept of "freedom of speech"

It isn't some mystical secret.

To speak freely means you speak without fear of punishment.

If you don't speak because you are afraid of punishment you are not speaking freely.

There may be some reasonable limits on speech, such as speech that directly incites or causes illegitimate violence.

But speech that merely offends should not face any punishment beyond other speech that condemns it. That is freedom of speech.

 

[Toni]

That's NOT called a violation of their freedom of speech rights

Again. If you are punished just for saying something you do not have freedom of speech.

It isn't difficult.

You are confused. In the U.S., we have guaranteed freedom of speech, with some limitations. Aside from threatening to kill the POS or shouting fire in a crowded theater, you can say almost anything without being prosecuted or jailed for it.

However, you are not free from the consequences of your words, as these frat boys are learning. In their case, the price they paid for their freedom of speech is expulsion and dissolution of their fraternity's relationship with the university. And likely more to come. But never mind. I am sure daddy's money will wash all their sins away and they will be made as clean and as whole as any white sheet that can be found.

 

[Toni]

I don't listen to rap and don't know shit about it. I goggled "racist rap lyrics", and the first page was a bunch of quotes, on a long page, on some racist white supremacist site. (Looking at the index page, I get the feeling they are just trying to make money off of white supremacists....)
http://www.tightrope.cc/rap.htm

The first 4 quotes:

We gonna order take out and when we see the driver
We gonna stick the 25 up in his face......
White boy in the wrong place at the right time
Soon as the car door open up he mine
We roll up quick and put the pistol to his nose
By the look on his face he probably shitted in his clothes
You know what this is, it's a stick up
Gimme the do' from your pickups
You ran into the wrong niggaz

Artist: DEAD PREZ
Song: HELL YEAH
Album: RBG: Revolutionary But Gangsta
Genre: Hip-hop
Label: SONY
Released: 2004

Kill the white people; we gonna make them hurt; kill the white people; but buy my record first; ha, ha, ha";
"Kill d'White People"; --Apache, Apache Ain't Shit, 1993, Tommy Boy Music, Time Warner, USA.

"Niggas in the church say: kill whitey all night long. . . . the white man is the devil. . . . the CRIPS and Bloods are soldiers I'm recruiting with no dispute; drive-by shooting on this white genetic mutant. . . . let's go and kill some rednecks. . . . Menace Clan ain't afraid. . . . I got the .380; the homies think I'm crazy because I shot a white baby; I said; I said; I said: kill whitey all night long. . . . a nigga dumping on your white ass; fuck this rap shit, nigga, I'm gonna blast. . . . I beat a white boy to the motherfucking ground";
"Kill Whitey"; --Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of what was called Thorn EMI and now is called The EMI Group, United Kingdom.

"Devils fear this brand new shit. . . . I bleed them next time I see them. . . . I prey on these devils. . . . look what it has come to; who you gonna run to when we get to mobbing. . . . filling his body up with lead, yah; cracker in my way; slitting, slit his throat; watch his body shake; watch his body shake; that's how we do it in the motherfucking [San Francisco] Bay. . . . Sitting on the dock of the dirty with my AK";
"Heat-featuring Jet and Spice1"; --Paris, Unleashed, 1998, Unleashed Records, Whirling Records.

The money seems to be in stirring up racism, notice the corporations behind the "artists" (Assuming this info is not completely fabricated).

slavery, Jim Crow, immigration quotas, miscegenation laws, the KKK, all predate and had far more impact on racism in this country than rap. Things were well stirred up before rap came on the scene and, if we don't get serious about making a change, will be well stirred long after rap is gone.

And of course there is payoff in oppression. Don't stop with racism, pick an ism. And don't limit that payoff to money.

Race card! Racialism! Reverse racism! Stop persecuting white people!!!!!!!

It's not the racists' fault. They're just a product of their environment. But when a black person does something bad, that proves that all black people are bad. Thank goodness we live in a "post racial America"! Praise white people! [/extreme sarcasm]

I know. How dare rappers express anger over racism, slavery, Jim Crow, immigration quotas, miscengenation laws or the KKK! Or anger, period. I mean, look at how there's a (half)black Muslim anti American President of the United States. Don't they know that means that racism is over? They're just trying to stir shit.

 

[bilby]

That's NOT called a violation of their freedom of speech rights

Again. If you are punished just for saying something you do not have freedom of speech.

It isn't difficult.

Apparently it is; You missed out an important part of the definition.

- If you are punished by the government just for saying something you do not have freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech protects you from the government; it does not protect you from any other entities, corporations or persons.

You don't get to prevent your boss from firing you for saying "This company sucks" on the basis of free speech.

 

[untermensche]

Again. If you are punished just for saying something you do not have freedom of speech.

It isn't difficult.

Apparently it is; You missed out an important part of the definition.

- If you are punished by the government just for saying something you do not have freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech protects you from the government; it does not protect you from any other entities, corporations or persons.

Again, some think the right of the University to expel should exceed the freedom of speech.

I don't think the University should have the right to punish speech of this kind.

Some think it should.

They don't defend the right of the University to expel simply because of speech it finds offensive. They merely point out that under current law it has that right as if that is in any way sufficient.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Getting back to the subject at hand.

This is not a free speech issue and never was.

This is a FOA issue.

The FOA (fraternity operating agreement) is the contract between the school and the Greeks that grants frats and sororities everything from recognition from the school as an affiliated organization, to placement in housing on Greek row. Now these agreements vary from school to school but all of them have conduct clauses agreed to by the school, the frat, and the national headquarters of the frat if applicable. And in the conduct clause will always be words to the effect that no member or members of said fraternity while in engaging in fraternal activities will perpetrate acts that would reflect badly on the college.

Such acts will leave the fraternity in violation of the FOA and subject to fines and/or other penalties up to and including expulsion from the college.

Every member knows this. It is usually covered at rush.

 

[RavenSky]

That's NOT called a violation of their freedom of speech rights

Again. If you are punished just for saying something you do not have freedom of speech.

It isn't difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

Some think their right to expel is a more important right than the freedom of speech.

More accurately, you simply don't understand the actual definition and concept of "freedom of speech"

It isn't some mystical secret.

To speak freely means you speak without fear of punishment.

If you don't speak because you are afraid of punishment you are not speaking freely.

There may be some reasonable limits on speech, such as speech that directly incites or causes illegitimate violence.

But speech that merely offends should not face any punishment beyond other speech that condemns it. That is freedom of speech.

I'm assuming that you are from the United States, and in any case we are discussing a U.S. university and U.S. citizens in the OP. As such, I will say again: you clearly do not understand the definition and concept of "Freedom of Speech."

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

When you can show that any of the college students were prohibited by the government from singing their racist little ditty, or even "punished" by the government for same, then and only then you will have a valid point. In the meantime, your insistence that anyone can saw anything they want anywhere for any reason, and not face any social consequences for it shows all the immaturity of a 2-year-old stamping their feet and screaming "I want..."

This issue has nothing to do with "Freedom of Speech". It has everything to do with the social consequences of being racist jerks

 

[untermensche]

I'm assuming that you are from the United States, and in any case we are discussing a U.S. university and U.S. citizens in the OP. As such, I will say again: you clearly do not understand the definition and concept of "Freedom of Speech."

So you say.

I say the University should not have the right to punish speech of this kind.

You don't defend or condemn their right.

You merely say they have it.

Yes, they have it.

They shouldn't. And it wouldn't take a Constitutional Amendment to deny them that right.

 

[J842P]

Again. If you are punished just for saying something you do not have freedom of speech.

It isn't difficult.

You are confused. In the U.S., we have guaranteed freedom of speech, with some limitations. Aside from threatening to kill the POS or shouting fire in a crowded theater, you can say almost anything without being prosecuted or jailed for it.

However, you are not free from the consequences of your words, as these frat boys are learning. In their case, the price they paid for their freedom of speech is expulsion and dissolution of their fraternity's relationship with the university. And likely more to come. But never mind. I am sure daddy's money will wash all their sins away and they will be made as clean and as whole as any white sheet that can be found.

I think untermensche isn't speaking of a legalistic free speech but a more idealized form of free speech. That is to say, he is not speaking of the sort of constitutionally protected freedom of speech one might find in, say, the USA.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm assuming that you are from the United States, and in any case we are discussing a U.S. university and U.S. citizens in the OP. As such, I will say again: you clearly do not understand the definition and concept of "Freedom of Speech."

So you say.

I say the University should not have the right to punish speech of this kind.

You don't defend or condemn their right.

You merely say they have it.

Yes, they have it.

They shouldn't. And it wouldn't take a Constitutional Amendment to deny them that right.

and if the fraternity and members of that fraternity contracted to limit that speech and conduct in exchange for recognition, housing, representation in student government, ECT.? What then?

 

[untermensche]

I think untermensche isn't speaking of a legalistic free speech but a more idealized form of free speech. That is to say, he is not speaking of the sort of constitutionally protected freedom of speech one might find in, say, the USA.

I am also saying it could easily exist.

If the courts protected this kind of speech from the whims of Universities then it would exist. And they could justify it by the first Amendment. The first Amendment recognizes the freedom of speech. The Amendment highlights that by saying the government does not have the right to infringe upon speech. Once a right is recognized the government can protect it from any infringement.

Right now the courts protect the rights of Universities to expel over speech that merely offends.

I don't think they should give Universities that right.

- - - Updated - - -

So you say.

I say the University should not have the right to punish speech of this kind.

You don't defend or condemn their right.

You merely say they have it.

Yes, they have it.

They shouldn't. And it wouldn't take a Constitutional Amendment to deny them that right.

and if the fraternity and members of that fraternity contracted to limit that speech and conduct in exchange for recognition, housing, representation in student government, ECT.? What then?

I say contracts that remove Constitutional rights should not be recognized as valid by the courts.

 

[NobleSavage]

I don't listen to rap and don't know shit about it. I goggled "racist rap lyrics", and the first page was a bunch of quotes, on a long page, on some racist white supremacist site. (Looking at the index page, I get the feeling they are just trying to make money off of white supremacists....)
http://www.tightrope.cc/rap.htm

The first 4 quotes:

We gonna order take out and when we see the driver
We gonna stick the 25 up in his face......
White boy in the wrong place at the right time
Soon as the car door open up he mine
We roll up quick and put the pistol to his nose
By the look on his face he probably shitted in his clothes
You know what this is, it's a stick up
Gimme the do' from your pickups
You ran into the wrong niggaz

Artist: DEAD PREZ
Song: HELL YEAH
Album: RBG: Revolutionary But Gangsta
Genre: Hip-hop
Label: SONY
Released: 2004

Kill the white people; we gonna make them hurt; kill the white people; but buy my record first; ha, ha, ha";
"Kill d'White People"; --Apache, Apache Ain't Shit, 1993, Tommy Boy Music, Time Warner, USA.

"Niggas in the church say: kill whitey all night long. . . . the white man is the devil. . . . the CRIPS and Bloods are soldiers I'm recruiting with no dispute; drive-by shooting on this white genetic mutant. . . . let's go and kill some rednecks. . . . Menace Clan ain't afraid. . . . I got the .380; the homies think I'm crazy because I shot a white baby; I said; I said; I said: kill whitey all night long. . . . a nigga dumping on your white ass; fuck this rap shit, nigga, I'm gonna blast. . . . I beat a white boy to the motherfucking ground";
"Kill Whitey"; --Menace Clan, Da Hood, 1995, Rap-A-Lot Records, Noo Trybe Records, subsidiaries of what was called Thorn EMI and now is called The EMI Group, United Kingdom.

"Devils fear this brand new shit. . . . I bleed them next time I see them. . . . I prey on these devils. . . . look what it has come to; who you gonna run to when we get to mobbing. . . . filling his body up with lead, yah; cracker in my way; slitting, slit his throat; watch his body shake; watch his body shake; that's how we do it in the motherfucking [San Francisco] Bay. . . . Sitting on the dock of the dirty with my AK";
"Heat-featuring Jet and Spice1"; --Paris, Unleashed, 1998, Unleashed Records, Whirling Records.

The money seems to be in stirring up racism, notice the corporations behind the "artists" (Assuming this info is not completely fabricated).

slavery, Jim Crow, immigration quotas, miscegenation laws, the KKK, all predate and had far more impact on racism in this country than rap. Things were well stirred up before rap came on the scene and, if we don't get serious about making a change, will be well stirred long after rap is gone.

And of course there is payoff in oppression. Don't stop with racism, pick an ism. And don't limit that payoff to money.

Race card! Racialism! Reverse racism! Stop persecuting white people!!!!!!!

It's not the racists' fault. They're just a product of their environment. But when a black person does something bad, that proves that all black people are bad. Thank goodness we live in a "post racial America"! Praise white people! [/extreme sarcasm]

I know. How dare rappers express anger over racism, slavery, Jim Crow, immigration quotas, miscengenation laws or the KKK! Or anger, period. I mean, look at how there's a (half)black Muslim anti American President of the United States. Don't they know that means that racism is over? They're just trying to stir shit.

Wow, you guys are a sensitive lot. Whoever posted before me said, something to the effect that rappers don't do that. My comment about money was just that. It seems you can make money off of racism, by playing either side. I'm acquainted (not friends or anything) with someone who is making a shit ton off Ferguson.

 

[Nexus]

I would add to untermensche point that a university receives so much government funding that it should be bound to uphold free speech of its students. However, I would not have a problem with private citizens or companies not on the government teet disassociating themselves with people whose speech it find offensive.

Would you people defending the university expelling the students feel the same if it expelled other people it didn't like for their beliefs or speech? Would you support Christian colleges expelling homosexuals outing themselves and saying their sexual preference isn't an abomination to God?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I am also saying it could easily exist.

If the courts protected this kind of speech from the whims of Universities then it would exist. And they could justify it by the first Amendment. The first Amendment recognizes the freedom of speech. The Amendment highlights that by saying the government does not have the right to infringe upon speech. Once a right is recognized the government can protect it from any infringement.

Right now the courts protect the rights of Universities to expel over speech that merely offends.

I don't think they should give Universities that right.

- - - Updated - - -

So you say.

I say the University should not have the right to punish speech of this kind.

You don't defend or condemn their right.

You merely say they have it.

Yes, they have it.

They shouldn't. And it wouldn't take a Constitutional Amendment to deny them that right.

and if the fraternity and members of that fraternity contracted to limit that speech and conduct in exchange for recognition, housing, representation in student government, ECT.? What then?

I say contracts that remove Constitutional rights should not be recognized as valid by the courts.

SAE and the University of Oklahoma disagree with you.

Freedom of speech, even constitutional freedom of speech, has its limits, always has (this is why you don't find adult book stores in gated communities, and billboards on golf courses). Rights are in a constant balancing act as they are bound to come into conflict from time to time.

The right of a property owner vs. the right of employees not to be slaves (took a civil war to get that one straightened out), but what is happening here isn't about involuntary servitude but the rights of two organizations to freely legally contract with regards to how each will behave toward one another within already established legal guidelines. One side agrees to provide recognition, housing, representation in school governance, etc., and the other side agrees not to act a fool in public.

 

[NobleSavage]

Should black fraternities be allowed to brand their pledges? When I was in school they got a pass on that.

 

[untermensche]

SAE and the University of Oklahoma disagree with you.

These kinds of power structures have been wrong about the limits of their power too many times to care.

Freedom of speech, even constitutional freedom of speech, has its limits, always has (this is why you don't find adult book stores in gated communities, and billboards on golf courses). Rights are in a constant balancing act as they are bound to come into conflict from time to time.

I've not disagreed. I've merely said the University should not have the right to punish speech that merely offends.

 

[NobleSavage]

I am also saying it could easily exist.

If the courts protected this kind of speech from the whims of Universities then it would exist. And they could justify it by the first Amendment. The first Amendment recognizes the freedom of speech. The Amendment highlights that by saying the government does not have the right to infringe upon speech. Once a right is recognized the government can protect it from any infringement.

Right now the courts protect the rights of Universities to expel over speech that merely offends.

I don't think they should give Universities that right.

- - - Updated - - -

So you say.

I say the University should not have the right to punish speech of this kind.

You don't defend or condemn their right.

You merely say they have it.

Yes, they have it.

They shouldn't. And it wouldn't take a Constitutional Amendment to deny them that right.

and if the fraternity and members of that fraternity contracted to limit that speech and conduct in exchange for recognition, housing, representation in student government, ECT.? What then?

I say contracts that remove Constitutional rights should not be recognized as valid by the courts.

SAE and the University of Oklahoma disagree with you.

Freedom of speech, even constitutional freedom of speech, has its limits, always has (this is why you don't find adult book stores in gated communities, and billboards on golf courses). Rights are in a constant balancing act as they are bound to come into conflict from time to time.

The right of a property owner vs. the right of employees not to be slaves (took a civil war to get that one straightened out), but what is happening here isn't about involuntary servitude but the rights of two organizations to freely legally contract with regards to how each will behave toward one another within already established legal guidelines. One side agrees to provide recognition, housing, representation in school governance, etc., and the other side agrees not to act a fool in public.

Generally, the "National Chapter" is BS. The loyalty stops at the local chapter. I'm not familiar with SAE's on Univ of Okholoma... Most of the older and wealthy frats own their own house. Getting "kicked off campus" or losing support of National is inconvenient. The house I was in got kicked off campus after they killed one two many pledges. I hear they are back to normal now.

 

[Toni]

Should black fraternities be allowed to brand their pledges? When I was in school they got a pass on that.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why the race of fraternity members factors into whether it is ok to brand pledges.

 

[NobleSavage]

Should black fraternities be allowed to brand their pledges? When I was in school they got a pass on that.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why the race of fraternity members factors into whether it is ok to brand pledges.

Me either.