Student expelled after using racial epithet in post attacking Eagles players raised-fist protest
Source: philly.com
A Christian college in Tennessee reportedly has expelled a student who used a racial epithet in a social media post attacking Eagles players who raised their fists during the national anthem at Monday night's game in Chicago.
The Tennessean newspaper said the Belmont University freshman said in the post that the players needed “a bullet to their head.”
“If you don't like this country get the hell out," said the post, which appeared Tuesday and included a photo of the protest.
Belmont, which is in Nashville, said in a statement: "We reject comments rooted in racism or bigotry. This is not free speech — this is hate speech."
It said that after an investigation, the student, who was not identified, had been expelled.
Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, defensive end Steven Means, cornerback Ron Brooks, and linebacker Marcus Smith raised their fists during the national anthem before Monday night's game against the Bears. The Eagles won, 29-14.
Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Student-expelled-after-using-N-word-in-post-attacking-Eagles-players-raised-fist-protest.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
He got what he deserved. 
Hasta la vista on YOUR way outta here bud! 
Last edited Thu Sep 22, 2016, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)
I do not agree with the school's assessment that "this is not free speech — this is hate speech."
"Free speech" isn't just the stuff you like. It is (especially) the stuff you don't like.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can't exclude "hate speech" from protected speech. I also wonder who makes the call of what is and what is not "hate speech." In this case, it's a school administrator.
Let's stipulate that a private school can set its own standards with which a student has to comply to stay in good standing. If we accept that Belmont can set a standard for student conduct, then of course we have to accept that Brigham Young can set a standard for student conduct.
Right?
What is this student had been in a public school? Could he have been expelled for the using the "racial epithet"?
I believe that only if his speech represented a clear and present danger could it be restricted.
....
Brandenburg
For two decades after the Dennis decision, free speech issues related to advocacy of violence were decided using balancing tests such as the one initially articulated in Dennis. In 1969, the court established stronger protections for speech in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". Brandenburg is now the standard applied by the Court to free speech issues related to advocacy of violence.
"Imminent lawless action" is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech. Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal. Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. While the precise meaning of "imminent" may be ambiguous in some cases, the court provided later clarification in Hess v. Indiana (1973). In this case, the court found that Hess's words did not fall outside the limits of protected speech, in part, because his speech "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time," and therefore did not meet the imminence requirement.
I do not believe that a tweet or a post on a forum amounts to anything more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time."
Yes, I am on the Phelps family payroll.*
ETA: this again, because I walked right underneath these words on the way to work this morning:
I am not a fan of seeing people expelled from school or losing their jobs because of their beliefs or speech. It sets a dangerous precedent. I am not gloating. [font color=red]I elaborated on this in post #12 as a result of a reply.[/font]
* /s
The First Amendment is not about "nice" speech. It's about free speech. As long as the speech does not run afoul of some exceptions, the government cannot stop it.
Private organizations can do anything they want. If I start posting a bunch of negative stuff about Democratic candidates at DU, I'll be banned right away, and there's nothing I can do about it.
{Note to forum hosts: I am describing a theoretical situation. This is not about to happen.}
The government can't step in and make DU restore my account. The government can't require DU to take any action regarding my account.
Belmont is private, so if the student has run afoul of its conduct code, Belmont can expel him. A public school would have a harder time of doing this. Again, IANAL, but I think a public school's attorneys would have to show that the student's speech was of such nature that it landed in one of those First Amendment exceptions.
Let's link to them right now.
First a disclaimer: If you're about to go into court and represent yourself pro se, please rely on something more authoritative than Wikipedia.
....
Fighting words and offensive speech
Main article: Fighting words
A Westboro Baptist Church protest was the subject of an "offensive speech" Supreme Court case in Snyder v. Phelps (2010)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[27] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[28] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".
Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress. However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected. Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire. A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas. Fighting words also mean when you start to insult another being on resulting into a physical fight.
Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected. However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes. Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected. However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.
There is such a thing as a standard of good conduct, but reasonable people disagree on what constitutes good conduct all day long.
If I arrived at work one morning dressed like Tom Dolan? {I said "dressed like," not "looking like."}
{I'm at work, and this is as much as I can show.}
I'd be taken aside and asked to go home and change into something more appropriate. With great justification.
Riding on the Metro on "Ride the subway pantsless day"? There's no law against it. People do it. Not me.
The First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with being nice. I can go to a city park and say {naughty things} all day long. A city ordinance might require me to tone it down so that workers and residents are not disturbed, but I can't be silenced because of the content of what I say.
I shy away from using the term "hate speech," because it is not something that can be precisely defined. One person's hate speech is another person's deeply held belief. The Nazis get to march in Skokie.
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
That's America for you.
Thanks for writing.
Best wishes.
