K-State student athletes are taking a stand against racism

[MennoSota]

The first amendment just says that laws can’t be created to outlaw the expression of ideas in public places.

A university, no matter if it receives funding from a state government (a “public” school), or the federal government (almost all do, via tuition assistance FAFSA), is not a public place. It is private property.

And, being expelled from a university isn’t a criminal punishment.


No argument can ever change these facts. Go ahead, let’s see how fast you can waive your hands.

You seem to be arguing that Universities, regardless if they are private funded or State funded, should openly discriminate against ideas in which their administration and faculty disagree.

 

[So_Money]

You seem to be arguing that Universities, regardless if they are private funded or State funded, should openly discriminate against ideas in which their administration and faculty disagree.

People really don't understand case law or the constitution or the many things going into this. And I can deal with the topic, but this is not the "complicated" thing to waste my time on other than barbing others for being absent of humor.

 

[GopherGuy8]

Our entire criminal justice system is based on "the eye of the beholder", the jury. As it should be. There is almost never hard evidence of any thing which is claimed to have occurred.

But humans are exceptional at intuition and inferring what was probably the intent of someone, based on circumstantial evidence and credible testimony.

The tweet was not a joke. It was intended to cause pain and suffering. It was hate speech.

He should be expelled, and I will cheer if that happens. Probably won't happen though.

Oh brother, are we even reading the same joke? It's obviously a dark joke and I can see why people are getting mad but it's still a joke.

 

[So_Money]

Oh brother, are we even reading the same joke? It's obviously a dark joke and I can see why people are getting mad but it's still a joke.

I don't get the extreme anger...this is effectively a late night talk show joke...you might not like the target, but it is humor, like it or not.

 

[WriterGoph]

Just saying it was a joke, isn't proof that it was a joke.

Looking at that kid

I don't get the extreme anger...this is effectively a late night talk show joke...you might not like the target, but it is humor, like it or not.

Wow. That's way off. Any person on TV who said that joke would be fired within milliseconds. Yeah it's a bad joke but if you read that kids Twitter feed it definitely has racial targeting. There is zero chance he says that joke about a white person who died under the circumstances. Please don't even try to argue that

 

[Spaulding!No!]

Looking at that kid


Wow. That's way off. Any person on TV who said that joke would be fired within milliseconds. Yeah it's a bad joke but if you read that kids Twitter feed it definitely has racial targeting. There is zero chance he says that joke about a white person who died under the circumstances. Please don't even try to argue that

I could see it being a Keith Richards joke.

 

[mjfelton15]

No it was exactly correct.

Saying something offensive, delivers the damage. You can't take back the damage by pretending it was just a joke.

If your mind is too weak and fragile to handle words air passing someone’s vocal cords, you’re not fit for this world and would have been eaten alive 40+ years ago

 

[Pompous Elitist]

While I appreciate your points, I am looking at the impact. I am asking this question, because I don't know the answer. Is the administration able to ask the student to cease and desist? I am trying to sort out where the line is between freedom of speech and offending others. I would think at some point their could be counter charges of the administration failing to provide a safe and stable learning environment.

How in the world can you justify that allegation?

 

[So_Money]

Looking at that kid


Wow. That's way off. Any person on TV who said that joke would be fired within milliseconds. Yeah it's a bad joke but if you read that kids Twitter feed it definitely has racial targeting. There is zero chance he says that joke about a white person who died under the circumstances. Please don't even try to argue that

Well they weren't fired when they made jokes about another scumbag who was likely killed by law enforcement ...much sooner after his death...way sooner I don't care what ideology is of the person telling the joke is, just if it is humor, better if I find it funny, but I don't need to.

 

[mjfelton15]

Looking at that kid


Wow. That's way off. Any person on TV who said that joke would be fired within milliseconds. Yeah it's a bad joke but if you read that kids Twitter feed it definitely has racial targeting. There is zero chance he says that joke about a white person who died under the circumstances. Please don't even try to argue that

The fact that a comedian would be fired for saying something like that is the reason comedy is flatlining and in need of an AED. You clearly haven’t watched any comedy skits from the early 2000’s and prior.

 

[MennoSota]

People really don't understand case law or the constitution or the many things going into this. And I can deal with the topic, but this is not the "complicated" thing to waste my time on other than barbing others for being absent of humor.

I understand case law, the constitution and the things going into this. So, provide case law that gives Universities, regardless if they are private funded or State funded, to openly discriminate against ideas in which their administration and faculty disagree. I'll wait for you to provide the data and the Supreme Court decisions on the issue.

 

[WriterGoph]

Well they weren't fired when they made jokes about another scumbag who was likely killed by law enforcement ...much sooner after his death...way sooner I don't care what ideology is of the person telling the joke is, just if it is humor, better if I find it funny, but I don't need to.

Who or what are you referring to? Your rambling run-on sentence is very hard to follow.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

If Eric Kaler can get up in front of a microphone and insinuate Gopher football players gang raped a woman without evidence or benefit of a conviction and keep his job, face no repercussions, I don’t see how it’s justifiable to pillory someone or expel over a tasteless joke. The U’s official actions vs those men were truly toxic and terror-inducing. STPs suggestion this stupid misstep by a dumb kid creates a hostile atmosphere and students should fear for their lives or livelihoods is ridiculous in comparison.

 

[So_Money]

I understand case law, the constitution and the things going into this. So, provide case law that gives Universities, regardless if they are private funded or State funded, to openly discriminate against ideas in which their administration and faculty disagree. I'll wait for you to provide the data and the Supreme Court decisions on the issue.

Ummmm. Maybe reserve that for someone else.

 

[MennoSota]

Ummmm. Maybe reserve that for someone else.

That's what I thought.

 

[GopherGuy8]

Looking at that kid

I thought that we should be fighting against making assumptions based off of how someone physically looks?

 

[WriterGoph]

I thought that we should be fighting against making assumptions based off of how someone physically looks?

It was an accidental quote. Was going to say "looking at that KSU kid's Twitter" and moved onto another thought. Sue me

 

[Carlson83]

Kansas State University President Richard Myers says the University cannot expel a student who posted a controversial tweet about George Floyd.

Myers released the statement on Wednesday after several students raised concerns about the tweet from Jaden McNeil. McNeil posted on twitter saying, “Congratulations to George Floyd on being drug free an entire month!”

“There have been many calls for us to expel a student who posted racist messages on social media, and while these messages are disrespectful and abhorrent, we cannot violate the law,” said Myers.

"mcal24" correctly determined that KSU would not be able expel McNeil due to his constitutional rights. Thank you for providing links to court cases backing up your assertion. "MplsGopher" was wrong. Hopefully he learned something about constitutional law (although I doubt it).

 

[MplsGopher]

Can you highlight and tell exactly which part of the tweet was inciting violence or is expulsion worthy? Whether wrong or right (he's wrong, and an idiot), you can't go around punishing people for non-violent statements that speak their opinion.

This was the part, where he said "Congratulations to George Floyd on being drug free an entire month!"

It was a single line of text, with no emoji's or any other comments to indicate sarcasm or humor. What possible further breakdown can be done or are you expecting?

It was designed for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and expressing hatred.


You absolutely can legally punish someone for non-violent statements that express their opinion. For example: a landlord puts in his lease that no political signs may be affixed to windows in the rental. A tenant violates this clause by putting a BLM sign on the window. The landlord requests the tenant to remove the sign, and they refuse. The landlord then evicts the tenant. 100% legal, and has been done many times already.


Exactly the same could have occurred, in this case. It would be exactly, precisely the same situation.

 

[MplsGopher]

You seem to be arguing that Universities, regardless if they are private funded or State funded, should openly discriminate against ideas in which their administration and faculty disagree.

This wasn't an expression of an idea.

It was just a piece of hate speech. Any university, regardless of receiving state funding or not, absolutely has a right to expel a student for such statements, as a violation of the student code of conduct. His statement was designed to inflict pain in fellow students.

 

[MplsGopher]

Oh brother, are we even reading the same joke? It's obviously a dark joke and I can see why people are getting mad but it's still a joke.

What specific criteria did you use to determine that it was a joke? I am curious.

It would be obvious to almost anyone, I would think, that a statement like "I'm going to come steal your TV tonight." isn't a joke. But what if the guy said "why are you getting upset?? It was a dark humor joke!!"

What specific criteria allows you to determine the difference?


I'm going to bet that you won't be able to codify a set of criteria that enables someone to legally determine the intent of a single line of text, with no other indicators included.

 

[MplsGopher]

Kansas State University President Richard Myers says the University cannot expel a student who posted a controversial tweet about George Floyd.

Myers released the statement on Wednesday after several students raised concerns about the tweet from Jaden McNeil. McNeil posted on twitter saying, “Congratulations to George Floyd on being drug free an entire month!”

“There have been many calls for us to expel a student who posted racist messages on social media, and while these messages are disrespectful and abhorrent, we cannot violate the law,” said Myers.

"mcal24" correctly determined that KSU would not be able expel McNeil due to his constitutional rights. Thank you for providing links to court cases backing up your assertion. "MplsGopher" was wrong. Hopefully he learned something about constitutional law (although I doubt it).

This proves the statement was racist, and that the statement was not a joke. All who implied otherwise, have been proven wrong.

As to the four court cases that are cited in school speech -- which has already been discussed earlier in the thread -- as I correctly said then, and am still correct now, they don't apply here. But for posterity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment)

Tinker v. Des Moines -- does not apply because this was not a protest
Bethel School District v. Fraser -- does not apply because this was not sexually vulgar
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier -- does not apply because this was not a case of the school trying to censor content (in a school sponsored publication)
Morse v. Frederick -- does not apply because this was not promoting illegal activity at a school sponsored event


None of these come close to applying. The school would've had a great case for upholding expulsion.



Simply, all this proves is that the K-State president didn't have the nutsack to do what was right. He wanted to avoid a lawsuit. Pathetic

 

[zman]

This proves the statement was racist, and that the statement was not a joke. All who implied otherwise, have been proven wrong.

The word of a university president, in a culture that is typically liberal, proves the statement was racist?

Not a real high bar, but OK.

I have no idea the kids intent.

 

[MplsGopher]

The word of a university president, in a culture that is typically liberal, proves the statement was racist?

Not a real high bar, but OK.

I have no idea the kids intent.

Ok, what would prove it?

Anyone can say anything, and it can never be “proven” to be racist? No

 

[Carlson83]

As to the four court cases that are cited in school speech -- which has already been discussed earlier in the thread -- as I correctly said then, and am still correct now, they don't apply here. But for posterity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_(First_Amendment)

Tinker v. Des Moines -- does not apply because this was not a protest
Bethel School District v. Fraser -- does not apply because this was not sexually vulgar
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier -- does not apply because this was not a case of the school trying to censor content (in a school sponsored publication)
Morse v. Frederick -- does not apply because this was not promoting illegal activity at a school sponsored event

None of these come close to applying. The school would've had a great case for upholding expulsion.

Simply, all this proves is that the K-State president didn't have the nutsack to do what was right. He wanted to avoid a lawsuit. Pathetic

The state university would probably be unable to expel the student without violating the First Amendment. According to Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet, “A student at a public university making an extremely offensive statement on social media is almost quintessentially the kind of thing that should be protected against sanctioning by public authorities. And sanctioning would include expulsion from a public university.”

 

[Some guy]

A public university can not create policies that limit speech unless the limitations set are in line with limitations set forth by congress. Even then, if no previous precedent has been set they’d be very challengable.

If a university could set a policy that makes it against policy to say something insensitive about controversial current event topics and then expel students for violating that policy, could another university set a policy that make it a violation to say insensitive things about same sex relations? Could another make a policy making insensitive things about religion violations? Could another university make a policy saying insensitive political speech is banned?

The slippery slope argument isn’t necessarily a great logical argument but it is exactly why the court’s case law precedents would not allow Kansas State to expel that student.
The ACLU agrees with me https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

 

[zman]

Ok, what would prove it?

Anyone can say anything, and it can never be “proven” to be racist? No

Not sure, but to say that his statement proves it was a stretch.

 

[GopherGuy8]

What specific criteria did you use to determine that it was a joke? I am curious.

It would be obvious to almost anyone, I would think, that a statement like "I'm going to come steal your TV tonight." isn't a joke. But what if the guy said "why are you getting upset?? It was a dark humor joke!!"

What specific criteria allows you to determine the difference?


I'm going to bet that you won't be able to codify a set of criteria that enables someone to legally determine the intent of a single line of text, with no other indicators included.

I'm sorry that you can't see how the tweet was intended to be humorous. I think that a large majority of people (whether they think it was a horrible joke or not) can see that it was an attempt at a joke. I fully expect you to ramble about how it wasn't an attempt at humor but I don't know if you realize that you are easily in the minority.

 

[MennoSota]

This wasn't an expression of an idea.

It was just a piece of hate speech. Any university, regardless of receiving state funding or not, absolutely has a right to expel a student for such statements, as a violation of the student code of conduct. His statement was designed to inflict pain in fellow students.

Where is the hate in the tweet?

"Congratulations to George Floyd on being drug free for an entire month!"

Be honest, grammatically there is no hate there.

You are applying your opinion and your ideological glasses to the tweet. Others, apparently, are also piling on with their prejudice ideology and thus claiming that this tweet is hate speech. Do we give the man an opportunity to explain his 160 or less characters comment, or do we go get a noose, throw it around a tree and hang the bastard? (Yes, I purposely use this harsh imagery, because this is what you and your colleagues are symbolically doing to this young man. It's shameful that such a harsh reaction and mob mentality would rule in a reaction to a less than 160 character comment.)

As others have said, the comment is insensitive to the emotions surrounding George Floyds death. It is not a wise and thoughtful tweet. But, it hardly hate speech.

 

[builtbadgers]

Where is the hate in the tweet?

"Congratulations to George Floyd on being drug free for an entire month!"

Be honest, grammatically there is no hate there.

You are applying your opinion and your ideological glasses to the tweet. Others, apparently, are also piling on with their prejudice ideology and thus claiming that this tweet is hate speech. Do we give the man an opportunity to explain his 160 or less characters comment, or do we go get a noose, throw it around a tree and hang the bastard? (Yes, I purposely use this harsh imagery, because this is what you and your colleagues are symbolically doing to this young man. It's shameful that such a harsh reaction and mob mentality would rule in a reaction to a less than 160 character comment.)

As others have said, the comment is insensitive to the emotions surrounding George Floyds death. It is not a wise and thoughtful tweet. But, it hardly hate speech.

As a minority i did not take it as a racist statement or a hateful statement. I took it as a joke of ignorance as he could not know his sobriety date and may in fact not understand Floyd's disease. Even if he lacks compassion and understanding he is entitled free speech. Not being funny and in fact being ignorant are not crimes.