![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Those frikkin' idiots in OK
Mar. 10th, 2015 03:44 pmI know, I know, I need to narrow that down. Specifically, I'm talking about those shit-head frat kids. People are trying to paint them as martyrs to "free speech". Pardon my French, but "bullshit!".
It's NOT just that they were using the "n word". They were advocating the murder of any black person who would DARE to try to enter their odious little rats-nest of a frat.
Such speech IS NOT covered by First Amendment protection.The "fighting words" doctrine states
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality".
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Disciplining them, including expelling them from college, IS NOT "taking away their First Amendment rights".
It's NOT just that they were using the "n word". They were advocating the murder of any black person who would DARE to try to enter their odious little rats-nest of a frat.
Such speech IS NOT covered by First Amendment protection.The "fighting words" doctrine states
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality".
— Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942
Disciplining them, including expelling them from college, IS NOT "taking away their First Amendment rights".