K-State student athletes are taking a stand against racism

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
2,345
Points
113
Like Dr. Don used to famously say here, There are so many experts with so little expertise.

Back to the K State thread, will there be another landmark legal case in the making about the limits of free speech on social media and the boundaries of university code of conduct enforcement?

This does not pertain directly to the McNiel kid, but in general. Does K State have the right to expel a student who have published offensive racist diatribe on social media? That is, if such behavior inside or outside the boundaries of the university is clearly spelled out in the Student Code of Conduct as grounds for expulsion. I don't know if the cases that are on the Wikipedia article will cover this.
Great question, not my area of law. There are universities that have very strict code of conduct. Not sure where these comments fall other than being tasteless.
 

Gopher_Dog

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
30
Reaction score
11
Points
8
Check your eyes because that's not what I said. Trump and the right, Biden and the left. Just said the two because they are both the "leaders" of each party right now.
Also I would say that the media might be the biggest catalyst for the growing divide.
LOL Foot in mouth much? Why include Biden and Trump’s names if you were simply referring to political spectrums?
 

GopherGuy8

Active member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
210
Reaction score
161
Points
43
LOL Foot in mouth much? Why include Biden and Trump’s names if you were simply referring to political spectrums?
Because the original post I responded to included Trump so I included him in my post. Then since I used Trump for the right I thought I should include Biden for the left so it's even on both sides
 
Last edited:

Urbandale

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
519
Points
113
If he were to be expelled from a public university because of his tweet, that's 100% a governmental consequence from his actions. If he attended a private school and was expelled, it's 100% not a governmental action. KSU is a public school.
Kansas State University is not the same as the government. The school can restrict the speech of students if they choose. Public funding does not equal government.

Again, I was making no declaration as to the ultimate fate of the student.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
2,567
Points
113
Kansas State University is not the same as the government. The school can restrict the speech of students if they choose. Public funding does not equal government.

Again, I was making no declaration as to the ultimate fate of the student.
That line is so vague it is meaningless...
 

MinneStoa

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
3,072
Reaction score
174
Points
63
Kansas State University is not the same as the government.
KSU is a public land-grant school, which receives funding from the government and is overseen by a Board of Regents that is appointed by the Governor of Kansas. I'm not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make, but it's certainly an institution that is considered under the umbrella of "government" as it pertains to free speech.
 

mjfelton15

Banned
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,059
Reaction score
797
Points
113
Kansas State University is not the same as the government. The school can restrict the speech of students if they choose. Public funding does not equal government.

Again, I was making no declaration as to the ultimate fate of the student.
Does Kansas State receive government funding?
 

mjfelton15

Banned
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,059
Reaction score
797
Points
113
I must have missed where the racism was in that dude’s tweet. Was Floyd a drug addict or no? Was he on drugs the day he died or no? I’m confused. I get that the dude tweeted something insensitive. But is it so inappropriate that he should be expelled? Does anyone else think that such a punishment doesn’t fit the crime?
 

WriterGoph

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
1,950
Points
113
I must have missed where the racism was in that dude’s tweet. Was Floyd a drug addict or no? Was he on drugs the day he died or no? I’m confused. I get that the dude tweeted something insensitive. But is it so inappropriate that he should be expelled? Does anyone else think that such a punishment doesn’t fit the crime?
OMG, you are so predictable. You're seriously defending this? How about if somebody did this about one of your family members after he/she passed? I bet if it was a black person, you'd say they were a "thug".
 

hello-world

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
278
Points
83
OMG, you are so predictable. You're seriously defending this? How about if somebody did this about one of your family members after he/she passed? I bet if it was a black person, you'd say they were a "thug".
Let me put it this way. If I died in police custody while high on fentanyl / meth, then I don't think my own family would defend me publicly, regardless of how it looked on video.

Was it a stupid thing to Tweet? Yes. Was it insensitive? Yes. Could I support a school expelling a student for tweeting something like this? Yes, because it indicates a lack of judgement. But if that is the standard, then every player that threatened him needs to be expelled as well.
 
Last edited:

WriterGoph

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
1,950
Points
113
Let me put it this way. If I died in police custody while high on fentanyl / meth, then I don't think my own family would defend me publicly, regardless of how it looked on video.

Was it a stupid thing to Tweet? Yes. Was it insensitive? Yes. Could I support a school expelling a student for tweeting something like this? Yes, because it indicates a lack of judgement. But if that is the standard, then every player that threatened him needs to be expelled as well.
You think being on drugs means a family wouldn't defend their son?!? That is insane. Being on drugs never means someone deserves to be shunned by their own blood (or really the general public) - let alone killed. Get some perspective, man.
 

hello-world

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
278
Points
83
You think being on drugs means a family wouldn't defend their son?!? That is insane. Being on drugs never means someone deserves to be shunned by their own blood (or really the general public) - let alone killed. Get some perspective, man.
There are many cultures that believe that using hard drugs warrants a death penalty.
 

WriterGoph

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
1,950
Points
113
There are many cultures that believe that using hard drugs warrants a death penalty.
Not sure I'd say "many". That's a very antiquated opinion. There are just as many cultures that are moving towards decriminalizing drugs as apply the death penalty.

Still your statement that your own family would allow your name to be tarnished publicly after your death either means you have one of the worst families in America or your full of total shit.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,705
Reaction score
825
Points
113
You clearly don't get it either. One thing you did say is true though. "In this county, everyone.... what you say." Our country is be divided more so every day due to the conduct of Trump, the police (clearly not peace officers), and others.
This is your opinion. It is backed up by your emotions, not by objective data.
Provide measurable data that can be analyzed. Otherwise your argument is just emotion. No one is correct and everyone is correct at the same time because people are just spouting their feelings.
 

hello-world

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
278
Points
83
Not sure I'd say "many". That's a very antiquated opinion. There are just as many cultures that are moving towards decriminalizing drugs as apply the death penalty.

Still your statement that your own family would allow your name to be tarnished publicly after your death either means you have one of the worst families in America or your full of total shit.
I'm not sure that antiquated is the right word to describe the policies of the world's largest country.
 

Cedar Rapids Gopher

Active member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
288
Reaction score
151
Points
43
I do not believe the original tweet was hate speech. It was definitely insensitive. But I believe we live in a society that you should be able to post what you want on social media as long as it's not real racism. Which I do not believe this was.
 

GopherGuy8

Active member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
210
Reaction score
161
Points
43
I do not believe the original tweet was hate speech. It was definitely insensitive. But I believe we live in a society that you should be able to post what you want on social media as long as it's not real racism. Which I do not believe this was.
That's basically how I see it. It was a horribly insensitive attempt at a joke. But if we tried to take legal action against every person who told a joke that some people found offensive, then every single comedian would be fined and/or in jail. Looking at you Writergoph?
 

mjfelton15

Banned
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,059
Reaction score
797
Points
113
OMG, you are so predictable. You're seriously defending this? How about if somebody did this about one of your family members after he/she passed? I bet if it was a black person, you'd say they were a "thug".
None of my family members are drug addict criminals that have threatened a pregnant woman with a gun to her stomach. I can’t really relate. But I wouldn’t defend a relative if they’re a pile of shit. Floyd probably should have been put down the day he did that to that woman. He’s lucky to have made it as far as he did in life. I wish the woman would have been able to fight back back then. I don’t compromise my morals for family. I know a lot of people that do, but a lot of them have shitty kids. If your kid died, and was a meth head that had the criminal record that Floyd did, you’d defend them from Twitter jokes? Nice to know
 
Last edited:

#2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
6,384
Reaction score
1,024
Points
113
This is your opinion. It is backed up by your emotions, not by objective data.
Provide measurable data that can be analyzed. Otherwise your argument is just emotion. No one is correct and everyone is correct at the same time because people are just spouting their feelings.
You're clearly out of touch.
 

WriterGoph

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
1,950
Points
113
None of my family members are drug addict criminals that have threatened a pregnant woman with a gun to her stomach. I can’t really relate. But I wouldn’t defend a relative if they’re a pile of shit. Floyd probably should have been put down the day he did that to that woman. He’s lucky to have made it as far as he did in life. I wish the woman would have been able to fight back back then. I don’t compromise my morals for family. I know a lot of people that do, but a lot of them have shitty kids. If your kid died, and was a meth head that had the criminal record that Floyd did, you’d defend them from Twitter jokes? Nice to know
"Put down"??? Wow. He was a HUMAN BEING, not an animal. Your racism just seeps out of every pore. You can't help it.

Yes, if I had a child that made mistakes, I wouldn't cast them off like a leper. Please don't procreate. We don't need more humans filled with your twisted bigoted perspective. The day will come when you royally fuck up. That day, you'll look back at the way you talked so badly about people and know that karma paid you a visit. Trust me, nobody gets through this journey without their own big mistakes.
 

Spaulding!No!

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Tulane had a situation like this years ago, and the Chancellor responded with a statement along the lines of, "I totally disagree with what [the person] said, but completely defend her right to say it." And went on to explain why universities need to be a place where differing viewpoints are presented and debated, not censored and banished. That's what they implemented (at least back then) at their private university. Let's see how K-State responds. There are a lot of other universities watching to see what precedence gets set.
But now it’s ok to burn things down.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
19,920
Reaction score
4,254
Points
113
No matter if he is expelled or not, this student's First Amendment rights are not being abridged. He has not been arrested. He is not been clapped in chains and hauled away. He is not facing governmental consequences from his actions.

He has been awarded, and is exercising, all of his First Amendment rights.

This has nothing to do with his continued enrollment at KSU. There is no fundamental right to attend a school. You may land on one side or the other as far as whether he should be dismissed or not, and certainly there are arguments to be made for both. But his rights remain intact.
Perfect, exactly objectively correct response. Could not have said it better myself.
 

So_Money

Active member
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
112
Reaction score
45
Points
28
People can make jokes, dark humor is awesome. Screw people who don't appreciate it and overreact. He shouldn't be expelled for this he did nothing wrong.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
19,920
Reaction score
4,254
Points
113
Let me preface by saying, I'm not trying to be contradictory. I'm just trying to better understand the first amendment. When I read it, it seems to basically say congress can't pass laws that restrict free speech. Now if he were being charged with a crime, it is an obvious first amendment issue, but I don't get why it applies to expulsion. Can someone elaborate for me? Thanks ahead of time.
It doesn't.

That's just a false argument made by people who want to protect the ability of someone to say hateful things and be protected from any actual consequences.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
19,920
Reaction score
4,254
Points
113
Like many things with the Constitution, present-day interpretation comes from 200+ years of legal precedent. As it relates to speech within the public education space, much of the precedent has been set in the past 60 years.

The student's public statement does not fall into any of these three case precedents. It wasn't a protest, it wasn't sexually vulgar, and it wasn't being censored (in a school newspaper).

It was exactly the same thing as if the student used the N word in a Tweet. Just an expression of racist hatred.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
19,920
Reaction score
4,254
Points
113
That line is so vague it is meaningless...
Landlords have the legal right to forbid someone from putting a sign in their rental's window support Trump or supporting BLM, for example. That is not a violation of the first amendment.

It really doesn't need to be much different than that.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
19,920
Reaction score
4,254
Points
113
KSU is a public land-grant school, which receives funding from the government and is overseen by a Board of Regents that is appointed by the Governor of Kansas. I'm not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make, but it's certainly an institution that is considered under the umbrella of "government" as it pertains to free speech.
Land-grant has nothing to do with anything.

Nearly all colleges and universities in the country receive funding from the government: FAFSA. That's why, for example, private universities are still subject to Title IX.

KSU is not the same thing as the government. Objectively
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
19,920
Reaction score
4,254
Points
113
OMG, you are so predictable. You're seriously defending this? How about if somebody did this about one of your family members after he/she passed? I bet if it was a black person, you'd say they were a "thug".
You'll do you, I know.

But if I were you, I would just Marie Kondo dipshits like felton. He lives to agitate and frustrate you on here. Nothing more. He's never had an honest discussion on GH since he joined, and does nothing but ruin threads and leave them worse off.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
19,920
Reaction score
4,254
Points
113
I do not believe the original tweet was hate speech. It was definitely insensitive. But I believe we live in a society that you should be able to post what you want on social media as long as it's not real racism. Which I do not believe this was.
It served no purpose but to express hatred. It is hate speech.

You are wrong. The question is, are you being purposefully wrong, or are you just mistaken?
 
Top Bottom