The OU Frat Boys

[Texsox]

I don't agree that expulsion from a public university was appropriate. It seems like a pretty clear violation of their first amendment rights.

 

I have no idea why you're talking about video games, but if they made a game that was explicitly racist as the song they sang and was essentially a pro-KKK game set in 1920's Mississippi or something, it would be even worse than the song just based on the effort of that versus singing a song.

 

It seems like you're still thinking the biggest problems with the song are that they used "n*****" or that it was somehow speaking approvingly of generic, non-racist lynching or something. At least that's the only way I can get to you video game comparison. The problem with the song isn't some sort of generalized approval of violence, it's specifically the racially targeted, white supremacist violence.

 

The problem with the song isn't some sort of generalized approval of violence, it's specifically the racially targeted, white supremacist violence.

 

Is that the only violence that we should be concerned about and stop? We're ok with general random violence? Why is it ok to murder some innocent people and not others?

[Texsox]

Uh, no, i don't think a lynching game would do be a good thing. No that that's out of the way...

 

Now if a lynching game isn't a good thing, are other games with murder and violence a good thing?

[bmags]

Now if a lynching game isn't a good thing, are other games with murder and violence a good thing?

 

Who cares, you are deflecting blame. A chant is not entertainment. People don't start up chants for fun, they listen to music, video games, etc. One has nothing to do with the other. You are just performing a deflection of blame. There is a culture at issue here, and it isn't violent video games.

[StrangeSox]

Is that the only violence that we should be concerned about and stop? We're ok with general random violence? Why is it ok to murder some innocent people and not others?

Literally no one is saying this, but I am more concerned with songs/movies/whatever talking favorably about white supremacy than with the awful, deplorable violence that noted degenerate Johnny cash sang about.

[greg775]

I don't agree that expulsion from a public university was appropriate. It seems like a pretty clear violation of their first amendment rights.

 

I have no idea why you're talking about video games, but if they made a game that was explicitly racist as the song they sang and was essentially a pro-KKK game set in 1920's Mississippi or something, it would be even worse than the song just based on the effort of that versus singing a song.

 

It seems like you're still thinking the biggest problems with the song are that they used "n*****" or that it was somehow speaking approvingly of generic, non-racist lynching or something. At least that's the only way I can get to you video game comparison. The problem with the song isn't some sort of generalized approval of violence, it's specifically the racially targeted, white supremacist violence.

 

Your first paragraph ... expulsion was the best decision, a great decision.

Top administrators have the right to kick people out of their institutions. The frat members didn't deny that it was them on tape. Unlike a court of law where it's in the courts forever even if it's on tape that a crime was committed, university leaders, high school leaders can boot kids off campus if they do something incredibly asinine.

Now maybe a high school would merely suspend the kid a month, but I believe it was full within the president's right to kick the frat boys out of school. Freedom of speech rights? Not in this case. It's a school. They did something terribly infammatory and the president of course had the right to boot their asses back to Texas.

[StrangeSox]

Colleges aren't high schools and these are publicly funded institutions subject to constitutional restrictions. Public university administrators are not free to toss students out simply over speech, and that's a value that's absolutely worth fighting for.

[Texsox]

Who cares, you are deflecting blame. A chant is not entertainment. People don't start up chants for fun, they listen to music, video games, etc. One has nothing to do with the other. You are just performing a deflection of blame. There is a culture at issue here, and it isn't violent video games.

 

I guess I am not explaining my point correctly. I place the blame directly on the kids.

 

Let me try this again.

 

They got caught by chanting. I believe they also should be in trouble for playing any entertainment with that theme. THEY are clearly wrong no matter the entertainment venue. Do we agree that a racists theme game (if it existed) would be wrong also?

 

Now, if we agree that a racists themed video game would be wrong, we have now agreed that there are potentially themes that would be wrong on a video game.

 

Next I propose that random acts of killing, no matter the motivation, in video games are potentially bad. The culture supports random acts of violence against innocent people. We can all agree that the racist killing of black people is wrong. Buy why is it OK to randomly kill blacks, whites, women, children, in video games?

 

Or maybe this way. They are obviously wrong for celebrating the potential lynching of a black person. Why isn't it also wrong to celebrate the random killing of another person?

 

 

 

 

 

[Texsox]

Literally no one is saying this, but I am more concerned with songs/movies/whatever talking favorably about white supremacy than with the awful, deplorable violence that noted degenerate Johnny cash sang about.

 

I am not saying that anyone besides myself is saying this, It is a question I am proposing.

 

Why is it OK to celebrate random acts of violence and murder against men, women, and children for entertainment? If we agree that the chanting exposed their character as racist, what does it say about the character of people who simulate killing for fun? How do we immediately know these kids are guilty and the frat boys playing a video game are OK? Both are being entertained by simulating murder and terror.

 

Why do we find murder so much fun?

[RockRaines]

I am not saying that anyone besides myself is saying this, It is a question I am proposing.

 

Why is it OK to celebrate random acts of violence and murder against men, women, and children for entertainment? If we agree that the chanting exposed their character as racist, what does it say about the character of people who simulate killing for fun? How do we immediately know these kids are guilty and the frat boys playing a video game are OK? Both are being entertained by simulating murder and terror.

 

Why do we find murder so much fun?

I blame Shakespeare

[Texsox]

Which is a great point I was hoping someone would mention. Is the media we use important to the actual theme? Is passive entertainment on an issue less of a visceral experience than being immersed and active?

 

We are entertained by death. Public executions draw large crowds.

[bmags]

It is also wrong to celebrate the random killing of another person.

 

That was not the logical conclusion of your argument, the logical conclusion is why is not not also wrong to be entertained by the random killing of an innocent fictional character.

 

I'm also not convinced that the chant of these kids was wrong because it was celebrating lynching, it was wrong because in 2015 they thought it was entertaining to start a chant alluding to a time where they maintain their exclusive white organization through intimidation and actual murder. That was a punchline. And more than anything else, it shows the absolute bubble these kids have grown up in, and it's depressing.

[bmags]

We are entertained by death. Public executions draw large crowds.

 

Is this true? We have to rely on your geographical expertise.

[RockRaines]

Is this true? We have to rely on your geographical expertise.

Im basing my perspective on movies of revolutionary France

[EvilMonkey]

Is this true? We have to rely on your geographical expertise.

ISIS draws crowds whenever they throw gay people off of rooftops. There are videos online if you care to seek them out.

[bmags]

I assumed we were talking about the United States.

[Jenksismyhero]

I assumed we were talking about the United States.

 

War movies do pretty well at the box office...

 

[bmags]

War movies do pretty well at the box office...

movies != public executions.

[StrangeSox]

Which is a great point I was hoping someone would mention. Is the media we use important to the actual theme? Is passive entertainment on an issue less of a visceral experience than being immersed and active?

 

We are entertained by death. Public executions draw large crowds.

I thought my quoting of Johnny cash lyrics made the same point.

[StrangeSox]

movies != public executions.

Well, sticking to the topic of racist lynching, they drew big crowds less than a century ago.

[Jake]

A public university also has a responsibility to foster a safe and effective learning environment for their students. A horde of men shouting about lynching n-words could reasonably interfere with that enough to forfeit whatever free speech rights they might otherwise enjoy.

 

Thinking of what I know about 1st amendment rights in schools, which is superficial, Oklahoma may have solid legs to stand on. Precedent suggests that restrictions on speech are acceptable under certain conditions:

 

1. Disruption - fairly straightforward. Will the speech act cause significant disruption/distraction that is detrimental to the overall atmosphere? There's certainly a case to be made that this case is highly disruptive, though it is interesting in that it probably would not have been without the distribution of the video. I could see some legal twists and turns over that aspect.

 

2. Offensiveness - how contrary to generally accepted standards is the speech act? It is currently part of the precedent that schools have some authority and responsibility to teach students moral values in the broad sense. In this sense, speech that is entirely contrary to even the most broadly conceived moral consensus can be restricted. I think this case fits this standard best.

 

3. Interference with school's goals - does the speech make it more difficult for the school to achieve its mission? A legal precedent involved a school's ability to prevent the display of a banner encouraging drug use, which was deemed too contrary to part of the school's aims (preventing unhealthy and illegal lifestyles). The Oklahoma case is fairly weak on this aspect.

 

The restriction wouldn't have to satisfy all three of those and the SCOTUS could dismantle the existing paradigm as well, potentially. Another circumstantial aspect is the extent to which the speech may be conceived as endorsed by the school. So, for instance, a student having a private phone conversation leaked and getting expelled for what he or she said is different from the student getting expelled for the content of his or her valedictory speech. The Oklahoma incident happened as part of a fraternity event, so you have students acting in their capacities as members of a school-sanctioned organization at a school-sanctioned event. There are definitely some ingredients there for that aspect as well.

 

Alright, time for me to disengage my armchair lawyering.

[LDF]

A public university also has a responsibility to foster a safe and effective learning environment for their students. A horde of men shouting about lynching n-words could reasonably interfere with that enough to forfeit whatever free speech rights they might otherwise enjoy.

 

Thinking of what I know about 1st amendment rights in schools, which is superficial, Oklahoma may have solid legs to stand on. Precedent suggests that restrictions on speech are acceptable under certain conditions:

 

1. Disruption - fairly straightforward. Will the speech act cause significant disruption/distraction that is detrimental to the overall atmosphere? There's certainly a case to be made that this case is highly disruptive, though it is interesting in that it probably would not have been without the distribution of the video. I could see some legal twists and turns over that aspect.

 

2. Offensiveness - how contrary to generally accepted standards is the speech act? It is currently part of the precedent that schools have some authority and responsibility to teach students moral values in the broad sense. In this sense, speech that is entirely contrary to even the most broadly conceived moral consensus can be restricted. I think this case fits this standard best.

 

3. Interference with school's goals - does the speech make it more difficult for the school to achieve its mission? A legal precedent involved a school's ability to prevent the display of a banner encouraging drug use, which was deemed too contrary to part of the school's aims (preventing unhealthy and illegal lifestyles). The Oklahoma case is fairly weak on this aspect.

 

The restriction wouldn't have to satisfy all three of those and the SCOTUS could dismantle the existing paradigm as well, potentially. Another circumstantial aspect is the extent to which the speech may be conceived as endorsed by the school. So, for instance, a student having a private phone conversation leaked and getting expelled for what he or she said is different from the student getting expelled for the content of his or her valedictory speech. The Oklahoma incident happened as part of a fraternity event, so you have students acting in their capacities as members of a school-sanctioned organization at a school-sanctioned event. There are definitely some ingredients there for that aspect as well.

 

Alright, time for me to disengage my armchair lawyering.

 

2 things about what you wrote, there are more, but i will settle for these 2.

 

1 freedom of speech.

 

2. due process, due diligence, the school violated their rights to these when they disbanded the fraternity. they should have had an investigation proceedings, before they acted.

Edited March 20, 2015 by LDF

[bmags]

Well, sticking to the topic of racist lynching, they drew big crowds less than a century ago.

Yes. But they do not now. Which is kind of my point. Whatever level of immorality the placement of violent fictional entertainment means to today's society, it's certainly superior to days of mob justice killing hundreds and intimidating a whole section of the populace. A chant referencing those times positively is despicable and clearly outside the norms of this country as seen by the reaction. So I have a hard time believing violent entertainment has debased the countries morality when they would view references to actual violence as outrageous.

[Jenksismyhero]

I assumed we were talking about the United States.

 

I thought the point was that we are entertained by death? I think watching a 2 hour movie about murderers, destruction, etc. with a ton of death, shows a sign that we are entertained by it, real or not. The fact that they are usually top grossing movies just furthers that point. I don't think we as humans actually get off on the death aspect so much as the craziness that surrounds it. But it's still entertaining and fascinating for people.

[Jenksismyhero]

A public university also has a responsibility to foster a safe and effective learning environment for their students. A horde of men shouting about lynching n-words could reasonably interfere with that enough to forfeit whatever free speech rights they might otherwise enjoy.

 

Thinking of what I know about 1st amendment rights in schools, which is superficial, Oklahoma may have solid legs to stand on. Precedent suggests that restrictions on speech are acceptable under certain conditions:

 

1. Disruption - fairly straightforward. Will the speech act cause significant disruption/distraction that is detrimental to the overall atmosphere? There's certainly a case to be made that this case is highly disruptive, though it is interesting in that it probably would not have been without the distribution of the video. I could see some legal twists and turns over that aspect.

 

2. Offensiveness - how contrary to generally accepted standards is the speech act? It is currently part of the precedent that schools have some authority and responsibility to teach students moral values in the broad sense. In this sense, speech that is entirely contrary to even the most broadly conceived moral consensus can be restricted. I think this case fits this standard best.

 

3. Interference with school's goals - does the speech make it more difficult for the school to achieve its mission? A legal precedent involved a school's ability to prevent the display of a banner encouraging drug use, which was deemed too contrary to part of the school's aims (preventing unhealthy and illegal lifestyles). The Oklahoma case is fairly weak on this aspect.

 

The restriction wouldn't have to satisfy all three of those and the SCOTUS could dismantle the existing paradigm as well, potentially. Another circumstantial aspect is the extent to which the speech may be conceived as endorsed by the school. So, for instance, a student having a private phone conversation leaked and getting expelled for what he or she said is different from the student getting expelled for the content of his or her valedictory speech. The Oklahoma incident happened as part of a fraternity event, so you have students acting in their capacities as members of a school-sanctioned organization at a school-sanctioned event. There are definitely some ingredients there for that aspect as well.

 

Alright, time for me to disengage my armchair lawyering.

 

Yeah if any of these arguments fly, you're opening the door to restricting speech at the whim of school administrators. For basically anything. Stand-in's and protests for things you probably support ARE disruptive and interfere with school goals.

 

It's much easier to keep the rule as is - does it incite immediate violence? Is it a targeted threat that can be appreciated as real? If so, fine, we can restrict the speech. If not, even if it's terrible and awful, you have the right to say it and not be punished for it (by the school/government).

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes. But they do not now. Which is kind of my point. Whatever level of immorality the placement of violent fictional entertainment means to today's society, it's certainly superior to days of mob justice killing hundreds and intimidating a whole section of the populace. A chant referencing those times positively is despicable and clearly outside the norms of this country as seen by the reaction. So I have a hard time believing violent entertainment has debased the countries morality when they would view references to actual violence as outrageous.

 

I can agree with this.