Defending the Worst of Free Speech

The First Amendment does not make exceptions for hate speech. So when University of Oklahoma President David Boren decided to expel two students and ban the campus chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, he did nothing less than violate the Bill of Rights. To see the move cheered by the majority of Americans shows just how quick we are to abandon our core principles for the sake of good intentions.

Was there anyone who didn’t cringe when they saw the video? A bunch of idiotic frat boys singing a racist song about how they would never allow a n****r into their exclusive club? Are you serious? Liberals are willing to stretch the definition of racism beyond the breaking point when they want to, but they didn’t have to stretch too far this time. It was disgusting, ignorant, and worthy of universal condemnation.

But that’s about all.

No one was hurt. No one had their civil rights violated. No laws were broken. Had the university left the matter alone, the frat would have probably closed within a year. Who would join it? But, eager to prove themselves a racist-free zone, the school instead decided to snap the Constitution in half.

Even the ACLU, a collection of lawyers always eager to favor liberalism over true constitutional protection, has been forced to weigh in on the side of SAE:

As a state-run institution of higher education, the University of Oklahoma must also respect First Amendment principles that are central to the mission of every university. Any sanction imposed on students for their speech must therefore be consistent with the First Amendment and not merely a punishment for vile and reprehensible speech; courts have consistently and rightly ruled as such.

What do we gain by allowing this kind of speech to stand? Does it improve society? Does it benefit anyone? I suppose you could make the argument that it’s better to shine a light on this kind of racism than to hide it under the cover of darkness. But even that excuse is a bit flimsy.

Here’s the problem, though. Where do we draw the line, if not at the First Amendment? Who decides what constitutes “hate speech”? How many Americans must be offended before we declare a word off limits? Would these students have been expelled if a gentler word had been used? Would they have been okay if they kept the word but changed the message? Who decides these things?

No one wants to defend people like this. No one wants to throw in with an immature bunch of hooligans. But that’s what freedom is. It’s defending people like this so that the kind of speech you prefer isn’t the next to go. Public opinion has already come down hard on these young men, and that should be enough.

 

About Admin

98 comments

  1. If this is hate speech…what about other forms of hate speech. Are they going to regulate what is and what is not Hate Speech?

  2. If it is not PC or Liberal claptrap it is in opinion of the ignorant elite HATE SPEECH.

  3. yes it is hate speech- yes it is ignorant frat boys – but yes the school should kick the frat off canpus as these ignorant frat boys learned this from their ignorant frat brothers and it has been perpetuated and passed down fron 1 brother to the next. none of them would have the nerve to sing it outside their frat and the protection of the campus so the school is responsible and that gives them the right to ban these organizations

    • They may have the right to ban organizations but don’t have the right to ban how those organizations express themselves.

      • you are corrrect – they can go home and sing their hate song to their parents

      • No, they don’t have a right to ban the organization either. If we allowed that, then the NAACP could be banned because Al Sharpton gave a speech there

        The right of the people cannot end simply because they are acting in a corporate setting.

        Nor can the University act without any due process protections at all.

        Can we look at the awful precedent being set here? People are evicted from their homes for something someone else said? Remember that only one of five buses were involved in the chant.

        Nobody was given any hearing at all

        So, the police chief in Ferguson could just kick the protesters out of public housing on forty eight hours notice? Is that the country you want to live in?

        • Actually private universities do have the right to keep out those they don’t want.
          Public or government funded universities do not.
          I personally don’t want to live anywhere that someone thinks they can tell me what I can say, do, see, read, believe, think, own, etc.
          Nor would I want to be in a position to try and push that on anyone else.
          So you’re singing to the choir my friend.

  4. The liberal puke’s have always wanted to stop free speech, that has been the basis of the “hush Rush fairness doctrine,” groups against Citizens United, and many others. Nothing is new there, only the names have changed to protect the guilty. It hasn’t ever personally effected me, but I would lock and load in a heartbeat if it did.

    • I once read about colleges and universities proclaiming themselves as “agencies for social change.” That is definitely promoting a philosophical agenda, and it may well be against free speech and individual expression. Many of these liberal elites have been slamming traditional values including faith-based “Christian values” as “hatemongering” and “out-of-touch” with current reality. The disparagement never ends; that is why we need gun ownership to keep tyrannical officials and judges in check. Yes! Top government officials are elected, but federal judges are not, and they become more liberal every passing year.

  5. Just one more example of the desire of the leftists who are in charge of this nations so called higher learning centers to disregard the 1st amendment whenever they see fit but do not dare call them out on it or they will say you are the one who is off base.

  6. The Koran is a hate book. Why don’t we ban the Koran?

    • Michael Dennewitz

      I wouldn’t exactly defend their actions, but then, look at what we have in the white house. The HNIC is most likely the cause for many actions like this, don’t you think??

    • whatashameforall

      What do you think we are fighting over to keep it from happening here. We do not accept the book there for we are in a since have a BAN on it by not letting it happen

    • Why don’t we do like Hitler and ban all books.
      Then we can ban universities. No text books? No problem.

      • Because not all books are evil like the Koran. They don’t command their followers to behead the infidels. They don’t make women second or third class citizens.

        • Umm, i was being facetious.
          NO books should be banned what so ever regardless of content.
          Muslims want the bible banned. No!
          Christians want the Koran banned. No!
          The self righteous moral fanatics want p0rn banned. No!
          The liberals want to erase the bill of Rights. No!
          Once it starts it will not stop.

          • Jawhol Herr gdecol

          • Sorry I don’t speak ummmm German? 🙂

          • It’s hard to argue that except for the topic under which we are discussing, which is hate speech. If it’s wrong to call someone a racist name, then it should be wrong to advocate killing one or two groups or anyone who is not part of your group. And that’s what the Koran does. Muslims also advocate the replacing of the Constitution with Sharia Law which is the destruction of the federal government which is a federal crime.

          • It is wrong for anyone to kill someone.
            But if your attacks only keep to a verbal basis, in this country, you’ve a right to say want you want.
            One exception being threatening the POTUS. Then you’re breaking the law.

          • I tried looking that up on the Internet. I’m surprise you have a right to threaten someone’s life. There seems to be some restriction on free peace. It’s been said that you can’t go into a crowded hall and yell “Fire,” when there is no fire. As for banning books, I occasionally see an ad on the Internet that says, “Order this book (or video or whatever) right now before the government bans it.” So, apparently, there is some possibility that the government has the power or authority to ban a book for some reason or another.

          • Before Hitler started burning books he banned them.
            You’re right about the “fire” that would be comparable to yelling “let’s burn this b-tch to the ground”. And inciting a riot. You can’t create a panic without being prosecuted.
            It’s a shame that laws have to be passed because some dufus can’t practice self control.

          • Btw there have been some court cases where the receiver of the threat took the threat seriously and was in actual fear for his life and acted offensively first for self defense.
            So if your going to threaten someone’s life being in fear for your own you better be sure to follow up with action and have good legal defense.

          • My sister-in-law use to say that to my nephews and niece when they were naughty children, “I’ll kill you!” There was a Marine comedy about one guy who would always say, “I’ll kill ’em.” I am Christian, so I have to watch every word that I say. Threatening murder is not of the Christian spirit. We are to bless and not curse. Murder is satanic and no murderer has life in himself.

          • They don’t have authority to ban books but that doesn’t stop them from doing so.
            Ex. Irwin Schiff “the federal mafia”
            Not only was his book banned but he was prosecuted and jailed for educating people about how to not pay (evade) income tax.
            So much for freedom of the press.

    • Why not burn them?

    • The bible is full of hate & violence. Why don’t we ban the bible ?

      • We have, in a sense. Teachers are not allowed to teach the Bible in public schools.
        Besides, a book full of hate and violence is not the same as a book that advocates hate and violence.

        • Since when has the bible been banned anywhere in this country ? Every Christian that I’m aware of has a bible in their home & every church across this country has one for every member of their congregation. Teachers should not be allowed to teach the bible in any public school. The bible is not a History book & has no place in the public square. It promotes Christianity & that totally contradicts The First Amendment. If you follow the bible as your moral compass, then it is a book of hate & violence & it does advocate both of those things. They are one & the same.

          • George Washington in his Farewell Address mentioned the need for religion five times. He was talking about Christianity. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 says, “Religion, morality and knowledge being essential to good government and the happiness of man kind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
            Where do you see the Bible advocating hate and violence?

  7. After hearing ” Snoop Dog ” do a tirade on white trash and mother f ing white in bred white trash and for at least 30 seconds of the filthiest language on how filthy white people are and he is still on the air. He was in prison for selling drugs and other felonies. . Whats the old saying? ” I may not agree with what your saying but i will defend it with my life your right to say it” —Unless your white

  8. We don’t really have true freedom of speech in the U.S. What little freedom we do have is being whittled away. All anyone has to do is label the speaker as “Racist” or “Offensive” or someone will say “I feel threatened,” and that speaker is tarred, feathered and run out of town.

  9. the Koran that is obama bible on how to enslave the people, disrespect the the United States flag, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights by complaint of muslims,

  10. Upon seeing this headline, my first thought was whether or not we were going to sanction profanity as protected speech. Those parties who want profanity protected usually do not like “religious” (faith-based) speech, and those oppose profanity want to keep religious speech protected under the First Amendment. I am sensing that we choose to draw lines on whether or not a type of speech will start a fight or become in any way destructive. However, Christian speech is not destructive, although such concepts express ideas not accepted by humanists and atheists who will also be the first to say “religious” speech should be restricted or confined to private areas and venues and not allowed in the public arena. The bottom line, not everyone will be pleased with what is accepted and not accepted.

    • You have a right to freedom of speech but you don’t have a right too not be offended.
      That’s as it should be and thankfully so.

      • I agree, no one gets the right to keep their tender egos protected from offensive speech. Our culture lately has been making too much about the so-called “right not to be offended.” People speak offensive speech all the time, but can you imagine how full the court dockets would be if prosecutors went after every offender of “offensive speech?” Not only that, such would open the door to double standards, which we already see coming from the LGBTQ community.

        • Absolutely.
          I would not want to live in a world that made it illegal to be offensive.
          It would be akin to making talking illegal.

      • I’m offended with you just looking at me, and you don’t even have to speak!

    • We can’t allow the sanctioning of any type of speech.
      Once the gloves are off for punishment on one type of speech then all speech will be under attack.
      That is what the FEC had wanted to do on political speech to protect the progressive liberals during elections.
      If they start sanctioning any form of expression it will only end with the death of the 1st Ammendment.

  11. This kind of reverse discrimination pisses me off.
    Black comedians can get up on stage with an act about white people.
    But god forbid a white comedian does an act about black people.
    The sky is falling!

  12. But, is “hate speech” ever truly free speech? Just because someone is speaking makes it automatically free speech? If the effect of speech is to cause violence and division, should the speaker still get off scot-free?

    Trending today is the purposeful taking-out-of-context. Losing an argument fair and square? Then counterattack with something deliberately out-of-context! Does each Amendment stand alone separate from all the others. Can we pick apart a single Amendment into sentences and phrases and pick out what we like, discarding or redefining the rest?

    What about taking the wording of all our Founding Documents as a prime EXAMPLE of free speech? That is what they are and exemplify! Then take the wording of the speeches of the great men and women who really accomplished something positive with their words, taking those also as examples of free speech. What is wrong with researching an author and how he used words and what HE meant by them when he wrote them? We NEED to get back to that kind of thorough education!

    I am thankful that we DO have laws holding folks accountable for the effects of their expressed words. But HOW MUCH effect must become universally manifest before a person originally free to speak should be denied further speech for the sake of the rights of all the rest of us?

    • The lieberal agenda has had the New American History Books rewrite the Bill of Rights.
      The 1st Ammendment now states that “you can say anything you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone”.
      Do most parents even know what socialism is teaching their kids now?
      They should have known better than saying the word “n—-r”
      Parents! Raise your kids right!
      But stay out of my mouth and mind!

      • That’s why we need a massive return to The Book of Books in our daily lives and in the public forum, including in our schools. It’s easy to actually teach The Book without teaching ANY religion or ideology in the process. I’ve done so.

        The Bible needs to be returned legally to its proper place in everyday life, no longer under house arrest as a falsely-accused “religious text”, but elevated at least to general-textbook status along with all the other great texts!

    • Yes if all they are doing is speaking, it is speech. If they tried to lynch someone that would be different

      • Exactly.

        My goal is not to change laws, although many need to be changed. My goal is not to prescribe punishment, whether deserved or not.

        If I can provoke discussions that will lead to us better educating ourselves and our children, if even one person is enticed into become a little better-informed, then I will be thankful for that.

        Let’s face it, we are affected by words. A great part of becoming mature adults is mastering the ability to decide not to allow others’ words to control us. But not all are yet mature. Sadly, many today have no desire to grow up! So, speakers of words need to take warning and choose to speak wisely.

        I’m not particularly fond of debate, but will participate in an intelligent one. I’d rather have a good discussion without winners and losers, because a good outcome from a discussion is always a win/win situation.

        We-the-People means we the individual truly free citizens. Each with individual strength of body, mind and character. Each individually aware, individually learning, individually becoming wise by doing the things one has learned. Thus empowered, such individuals can actually come to deep agreements, fully understanding what has been agreed upon, without needing any blind show-of-agreement for political expediency!

        Citizens who agree and cooperate “from the heart” not only can stand alone when necessary, but can also become much more fully united than ever possible through politics alone!

  13. Once you regulate hate speech you regulate all speech! The Declaration of Independence is a hate speech. It was a statement against the crown of England and it’s tyrant and tyrant elite!

    • I seriously beg to differ concerning your claim that “The Declaration of Independence is a hate speech”!

      The Declaration of Independence, along with our other Founding Documents are the best examples available of really free speech! Read the Declaration again. I nowhere presents itself as hate at all. It is exactly what it states it is, an actual declarative statement of dissolution of “political bands which have connected [us] with another.” Where does it state anything of the nature that we hear too much today, such as “Death to Britain” or “Death to King George”? It says none of these things or anything of the kind!

      The Declaration of Independence was written in love: love of life, love of liberty, love of all opportunities to actually pursue happiness. Where is hate to be found at all in such as these?

      • It was a declaration of war saying; were done with you period! No love in it what so ever, just because they used TACK doesn’t mean it fell on the ears of King George any lighter!

        • You obviously believe the big myth that our Founders had a mentality just like ours today!

          Instead of misrepresenting our Founders, wouldn’t it be beneficial, even to you, to actually learn from them?

          • I think they would backhand our leaders of today and challenge each one to a dual, after calling them fools!
            With the exception of Jefferson

          • They would ride through the streets yelling “the idiots are here, the idiots are here!”

          • Yes, you are free to speak such ill-informed nonsense, but realize what else is freely happening:

            Every bit of empty or slanderous speech further twists the mind of the speaker just as surely as eating bad food affects the stomach. This is a call to you to actually learn what matters.

            I see why you singled out Jefferson: He was a living example of how to RESPONSIBLY live according to the First Amendment before and after it was written.

            Why are there Ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights? Because there are also Ten Responsibilities that go with them that our Founders were fully aware of.

            I just heard yesterday about a student who was given the assignment of writing a list of Ten Responsibilities to run parallel to the Bill of Rights. The day the assignment was due, she was asked why she hadn’t written anything. In response, she said, “Because they have already been written. They’re called the Ten Commandments!”

          • Fair enough Joseph, my point, once you put restriction on hate speech it endangers all speech because who’s gets to say what is, and isn’t hate speech? It varies from person to person even the Ten Commandments can be seen as hate against the sinner.
            . As misinformed as it is, the goal remains the same, control of all speech! Oh, you can’t say Islamic extremist or illegal alien it’s hateful! It won’t stop there trust me, or not!

            Such is the same with gun control (to control all guns!) the problem with putting gas on a fire it’ll get out of control quickly. I’m just trying to look at the cons of this so called hate speech limitations, as with spicy food, I find keeping a jar of tums nearby helps.

          • OK. NOW we have a discussion!

            I am not condoning putting legal restrictions on anything here. I AM condoning the deregulating of education!

            Free speech has been very much restricted in our schools for decades now! And censorship has become the rule, by restricting the Source Material from which we get the Ten Commandments! Stop restricting love* speech, and that will begin to replace hate speech!

            I asterisked the word “love” because I very much desire to qualify that word with its most useful constructive healthful meaning!

            Love is NOT an emotion, although emotions are usually involved somewhere along the line. Real Love is action, often done in spite of emotions or lack thereof. Love is commitment to the power of doing good. Love is outward concern for ones fellows as much as for ones self. Love is NOT appeasement! Love is NOT encouraging another in his wrongs to stay on his good side! Love is enduring the loss of a feel-good yet pretend friendship!

            In the Book more responsible for the positive qualities of our civilization than any other book, there are detailed instructions concerning positive human relationships, positive handling of money, positive principles for win/win foreign policy, detailed descriptions of the news-behind-the-news of all our major geopolitical goings-on today, yes, today in our present world! The Bible was NOT written primarily for the time during which it was written! The Bible is the best NOW-BOOK available anywhere today. Have I mentioned religion yet? Actually I wouldn’t need to at all concerning the Bible except for the fact that the artificial categorization of “religious text”, along with twisting the meaning of the First Amendment, has been used as a false-indictment against the Bible in order to keep it under house arrest!

            Everything from restoring our families so we can raise good powerful leaders again, to making school shootings and such a dim memory, is deemed do-able in the Bible. Everything human, regardless of race, culture, nationality, and gender is dealt with specifically or in principle in the Bible. Want examples of how men and women rightly practiced free speech? You’ll find many in the Bible!

            Because of long-term censorship and speech restriction, far fewer citizens know all of our real options today than earlier generations did. And shame on us in the midst of the Information Age!

            I AM NOT for restricting hate speech. I AM FOR taking all the restrictions OFF of its Best Alternative!

          • Love to me is simple; companionship, sacrifice and loss. Treat your neighbor as you like him to treat you is a good start. I believe our lives are a little more than just the human experience.
            As you see we’re not so different but possess information a little different as far as deregulating schools I’m for anything that will down size this monster Frankenstein (big Government) Clinton and Obama created!

          • “Love to me”!

            If it’s selfish (“to me”) it can’t be love! God forbid that I should define ANYTHING as good or evil by myself. That habit of mankind goes way back to the beginning when that forbidden tree was trespassed. It wasn’t called “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” for nothing! It imparted a usurped God-prerogative to Adam & Eve that should have remained God’s alone!

            It’s the religious folks and their theologians who are at fault for allowing the Bible to become so restricted. In their zeal to claim each his own religion as founded by the Bible, the Bible haters were able to use that confusion to classify the Bible strictly as a “religious text”! The Bible hardly mentions religion, hardly uses the word! It prescribes celebrations jam-packed with deep meanings, not empty arbitrary rituals that mean nothing but sentiment and pagan practices, some of which often cause huge credit-card debt!

            This which I am stating now is the kind of speech that IS being widely restricted. Would I be able to schedule an appointment at any public school at any grade level and freely speak to the pupils or students, along with their teachers and staff, concerning these very things?

    • You are a disgusting piece of shit based upon your pathetic statement. Fuck you.

      • WoW, didn’t see that one coming, hope you washed your before dinner last night. Fact most free speech is grievances against the ruling class basically because most of the time they’re above the law they regulate, and enacted. Even with government or business men they all have workers/servants.
        Eliminate hate speech, you eliminate free speech how many times did we hear the late night hate on Sarah Palin, or Mc Cain, or the president hate on Fox?
        If you threaten to kill someone is totally different from hate speech, it’s the act before actually carrying it out, like for example to declare war!

    • have rope, will travel

  14. Mark N Starla Traina

    Defending the Worst of Free Speech!

    The First Amendment does not make
    exceptions for hate speech. So when University of Oklahoma President David
    Boren decided to expel two students and ban the campus chapter of Sigma Alpha
    Epsilon, he did nothing less than violate the Bill of Rights. To see the move
    cheered by the majority of Americans shows just how quick we are to abandon our
    core principles for the sake of good intentions. Was there anyone who didn’t
    cringe when they saw the video? A bunch of idiotic frat boys singing a racist
    song about how they would never allow a n****r into their exclusive club? Are
    you serious? Liberals are willing to stretch the definition of racism beyond
    the breaking point when they want to, but they didn’t have to stretch too far
    this time. It was disgusting, ignorant, and worthy of universal condemnation.
    But that’s about all. No one was hurt. No one had their civil rights violated.
    No laws were broken. Had the university left the matter alone, the frat would
    have probably closed within a year. Who would join it? But, eager to prove
    themselves a racist-free zone, the school instead decided to snap the
    Constitution in half. Even the ACLU, a collection of lawyers always eager to
    favor liberalism over true constitutional protection, has been forced to weigh
    in on the side of SAE!

    See more at: https://patriotnewsdaily.com/defending-the-worst-of-free-speech/#sthash.0kxMeEQk.dpuf

    Follow U.S. on FACEBOOK: NAAWP FACEBOOK

    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of
    WHITE PEOPLE – 2015

  15. whatashameforall

    Free speech is fine there is a limit on what that is. They crossed the line and should be ashamed of what they did. The University has a standard of what is acceptable for freedom of speech and if you cross it YOU’RE GONE..
    The kids were assholes that were singing on the bus,if they didn’t want anyone to notice what they were doing then they should not have filmed it and put it out for everyone to see and hear !!
    The University was right in what they did !!

    • I agree with you totally. Too bad others don’t. They crossed a line. The First Amendment has limits, such as not permissable to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, or to incite a riot.

  16. What’s offensive?

  17. Are they going to start burning books because there are words or situations that are offensive to some people? It looks like we’re headed that way.

  18. Everybody afraid of Negroes.

    And upon them that are left [alive] of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth. (Lev 26:36)

  19. Why do we have to control people’s speech in the first place? Isn’t it enough that there are so many who’s sensibilities are offended that they make a point of it? Common sense and compassion should be sufficient. The others…well, FK em.

  20. INFLUENCE THE ST. PATRICK’S DAY PARADE TO MAKE THE THEME PRO LIFE. HEAVY EMPHASIS. BANNERS ON BABY CARRIAGES. THEY CAN’T SAY IT IS TOO POLITICAL AFTER NBC NOW RUNS POLITICS AND THE PARADE. YOU TUBE SAVE THE KIDS ABUTOM. WE NEED 75 PRO LIFE WOMEN CANDIDATES TO REPLACE 75 RINOS WORKING FOR THE PARTY OF DEATH.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/spiritofamericapartybook/2015/03/08/the-first-democrat-abortion-clinic-was-opened-by-king-herod

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/spiritofamericapartybook/2015/03/14/happy-saint-patricks-day-god-save-the-usa

  21. Only blacks and fascists/liberals and homos and lezbos have free speech in this country!

  22. Logic and common sense never enters the picture. Liberal = emotional outbursts devoid of rational thought.

  23. For once, I agree with the majority here. One of the core principles of law that I continuously argue is; “what you want done to “them” will also be done to you, because you asked for it in the first place”. I find little more useless than bigotry of any kind, primarily because it flies in the face of logic and reason, but I’ll never demand that a state actor intervene to stop it. Doing so sets an extremely dangerous precedent that not only can, but will be exploited in the future. Look at both the welfare and commerce clauses if you’re not tracking.

  24. The War is Between Christ and Lucifer not Man Kind Unfortunately SIN is a Disease,and the gate way to Over come it through Jesus or A One way to hell through Lucifer. God gave Satan and then Mankind .,For Disobedience a word most Arrogant Atheist of all Types hate ! Even Pious False Christians whom think they can on there own merit with out Christ full filling the law in there lives can make it on there own .Today Now with the last false Pope saying So !

    God is The Creator of Man Kind ( One Race ) just Different Nationality ” Ethnicity .” if you hate what you look like or where given,then ask him to be thrown back Onto the broken Clay pot of humanities and see if he will give you a new Look .Unless you are saved ,Not a chance. Take
    your fate in life, up with Him !!

  25. Free speech is the freedom to say anything the crime is when you act upon it and we have laws for that already

Leave a Reply to Michael Skok Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*