Leaders of Young Republicans' ' I love Hitler'; Future of GOP?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Problem is, and I pointed this out with Endus, since the university gets public dollars, they are treated more like a government entity than a private entity.

I am not saying I agree with that statement, just that any entity that gets public dollars from the government as funding such as grants(not including loans) is going to be more restricted on what kinds of speech they can ban and not ban.

Except that's not what the First Amendment says at all.

First Amendment

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.

Nothing about that says Universities, regardless of whether or not they get public funding, suddenly become an arm of Congress. Congress isn't passing any laws requiring the University to expel these students. IMHO, as an interpretation of the First amendment...this one is overly broad. It's actually restricting the University from exercising it's own freedoms...particularily that of freedom of association.

[gondrin]

Except that's not what the First Amendment says at all.



Nothing about that says Universities, regardless of whether or not they get public funding, suddenly become an arm of Congress. Congress isn't passing any laws requiring the University to expel these students. IMHO, as an interpretation of the First amendment...this one is overly broad. It's actually restricting the University from exercising it's own freedoms...particularily that of freedom of association.

And here is SCOTUS saying different.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/

Basically, unless said speech causes a major disruption, schools cannot prohibit speech.

A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

[Poopymonster]

And here is SCOTUS saying different.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/

Basically, unless said speech causes a major disruption, schools cannot prohibit speech.

Public schools can't.
Private ones can.
Guess who is trying to privatize everything?
Religious ones can.
Guess who is trying to nail the bedraggled corpse of the stepson of a carpenter to every piece of wood in schools?

[Endus]

Except that's not what the First Amendment says at all.

Nothing about that says Universities, regardless of whether or not they get public funding, suddenly become an arm of Congress. Congress isn't passing any laws requiring the University to expel these students. IMHO, as an interpretation of the First amendment...this one is overly broad. It's actually restricting the University from exercising it's own freedoms...particularily that of freedom of association.

Those universities, as public institutions, are a branch of government. And federal law overrules State law, even if a State were to want to pass a law allowing them to restrict speech that's deemed federally protected. There are private universities, obviously, where this standard does not exist.

I fully agree with gondrin's take as to what the status quo is. I'm disagreeing that the status quo is sensible or reasonable. It's a choice to actively protect and support bigotry. "Yes, that's how things stand, but I think the way things stand is wrong", essentially.

It's not like you can't designate certain types of speech as falling outside First Amendment protection. Death threats, verbal forms of fraud, child pornography, libel and slander, and so on. The USA just chooses . . . not to do so when it comes to hate speech, because they support and protect hate speech. Specifically, and with intent. It's been challenged in multiple court cases, and they've always come down on the side of "no, we actually want to protect that, actually".

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

And here is SCOTUS saying different.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/

Basically, unless said speech causes a major disruption, schools cannot prohibit speech.

Those universities, as public institutions, are a branch of government. And federal law overrules State law, even if a State were to want to pass a law allowing them to restrict speech that's deemed federally protected. There are private universities, obviously, where this standard does not exist.

I fully agree with gondrin's take as to what the status quo is. I'm disagreeing that the status quo is sensible or reasonable. It's a choice to actively protect and support bigotry. "Yes, that's how things stand, but I think the way things stand is wrong", essentially.

Oh, I'm not sayin git isn't being interpreted that way...just that it shouldn't be. There is nothing specifically in the text of the First Amendment that covers this situation explicitly. Congress ain't doing shit here.

Yes, the Supreme Court is currently intepreting it that way....but that can change.

It wasn't too long ago that the Supreme Court interpreted abortion as being protected under the 14th amendment...and now the interpretation is that the previous interpretation was incorrect.