Federal Judge Halts Use of University Speech Code

[Japher]

Students should be seen and not hearded or heard.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not the same thing.

Both are racial slurs. I don't care where they started from, where they are now is exactly the same.

You've obviously never been threatened with a harassment charge.

Being threatened with and actually win on are two different things.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's a private organization as well.

BSA is not a fully private organization, as they do accept large government subsidies and funding.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
BSA is not a fully private organization, as they do accept large government subsidies and funding.

They are private enough to satisfy the lawyers.

[mrmitchell]

Free speech is about protecting everything, not just the "good" side of a point. to the court.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by gunkulator
So Lincoln, your only litmus test for private vs. public is gov't funding? What about school vouchers for private schools or the Boy Scouts excluding gays?

You are talking about an entanglement that only lawyers can figure out. I really don't know the answers when an organization is part public and part private. I know that if I wanted to restrict speech and activities in an organization that I set up I wouldn't accept any government money to be on the safe side. My advice to the BSA is the same if they want to continue is to make a clear seperation. The same goes for churches and other religious organizations. Either seperate or face the entanglements.

[Agathon]

For sheerly practical reasons there has to be some regulation. You can't allow hate groups to go around campus with signs saying "kill all queers" after all - things would inevitably descend into violence.

On the other hand student government should be totally banned from anything to do with the interpretation or enforcement of such legislation given the pathetic and fanatical character of most student politicians. This would stop groups like Ben's from being suppressed for expressing unpopular views.

[Ben Kenobi]

"kill all queers"

I would consider that to be a direct threat of violence. These I believe already carry a punishment under the criminal code. There would not need to be a seperate restriction.

[mrmitchell]

My poorly researched idea is that once an organisation recieves ANY money from the government (not tax cuts, mind you), it is at least partially public and must go under the same rules and regulations everyone else does.

It's a double-sided sword: Hey, free money! But you have to be extra-careful about pissing any minority off, too.

I guess.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Don't go down this way...

Trust me. I've been on the recieving end of a ban from the student society regarding graphic abortion pictures. Yet our club still has to remain a paying member.

Be thankful you folks have a 1st Amendment. We don't have one here in Canada to protect freedom of speech.
Charter provisions for section 15 seem to override concerns for freedom of speech.

Despite ouir first amendment I think you'll find that student groups at public universities in the US have similar restrictions against displaying that sort of material. I believe there was an incident at some university in the US recently where a pro-life group displayed such material and was expelled from the campus.

Under some conditions speech can satisfy the legal definition of assault, i.e., if it imparts upon the victim, as a "reasonable person", the expectation of harm. If someone the size of a professional football lineman stood in your face shouting " I'm gonna kill you!" over and over with an obviously agitated manner that could be assault. The police could arrest him and he might be convicted of simple assault. If the perpetrator was the size of a midget he might get away with simple disturbing the peace. There are certain words and phrases that have so often been historically associated with harm, like the "N" word, that their use ought to be considered a sort of assault.

Frankly I have always believed that the judges who make decisions for us every day ought to be required to live with those decision just as we do. Someone should go by this judge every day and refer to him as "N*****" so that we may determine whether this is a decision that the judge can live with.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


BSA is not a fully private organization, as they do accept large government subsidies and funding.

They accept United Way funding, which is not a government agency, but is a public not-for-profit organization. I don't think that the BSA receives government funding.

Organizations that are open to the public are not private. They are held to certain legal standards, i.e., they may not discriminate on the basis of race.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think you'll find that student groups at public universities in the US have similar restrictions against displaying that sort of material. I believe there was an incident at some university in the US recently where a pro-life group displayed such material and was expelled from the campus.

Source? I've heard of problems, but each case that I know in the US has been overturned under appeal to the First Amendment rights protecting speech.

I fail to see how our pictures in any way conform with your examples. We are not insisting that any one person ought to be harmed, nor do we hold any group responsible for abortion.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
They accept United Way funding, which is not a government agency, but is a public not-for-profit organization. I don't think that the BSA receives government funding.

Organizations that are open to the public are not private. They are held to certain legal standards, i.e., they may not discriminate on the basis of race.

The government subsidizes the BSA substantially. For instance, it will grant the BSA use of a tax-payer owned national park for a fee of $1, whereas other organizations would have to pay thousands. That is, in effect, the government giving the BSA thousands of dollars.

[Tuberski]

Re: Re: Federal Judge Halts Use of University Speech Code

Originally posted by Tingkai
The judge is wrong. His ruling is based on a misinterpretation of a basic English word. He apparently believes that "should" means "must".

The code states: "The expression of ones' beliefs should be communicated in a manner that does not provoke, harass, intimidate, or harm another."

In other words, here's a nice suggestion about how you should behave.

The judge thinks this section of the code prohibits such expression. It does not.

The problem with this university's code is not that it limits free speech, but rather it is pretty pointless. The code basically says:
1) Acts of intolerance will not be condoned (Does anyone think these acts would be condoned?)
2) People should try to talk nicely to each other (ho hum, boring)
3) Racism with malicious intent is not prohibited. (What a shocker. Guess that means the end of the annual lynch mob)
4) Subordination, intimidation and/or harassment with malicious intent is prohibited. (No kidding. I guess this might be why there are laws against intimidation and harassment with malicious intent).

The only problem with this code is what the hell do they mean by subordination.

Racism is not prohibited?

I'm assuming you made a typo.

ACK!