Said Greg H. Greubel, a staff attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, quoted in
"Students Punished for ‘Vulgar’ Social Media Posts Are Fighting Back/A lawsuit against the University of Tennessee questions when schools can discipline students because of their online speech" (NYT).
According to court papers, the [University of Tennessee pharmacy school's] professional conduct committee, composed of nine faculty members and three students, cited several examples it considered objectionable in [Kimberly] Diei’s [Twitter and Instagram] posts.
Those tweets, her court papers say, include one in which she was “contributing to a trending discussion on Twitter about the song ‘WAP’ by Cardi B featuring Megan Thee Stallion by suggesting lyrics for a possible remix.”
Her suggestion — “He ain’t my pops but I call him DAD” because he is good in bed (her wording was less polite) — was “well within the normal bounds of discussion on social media,” her complaint says....
Ms. Diei says she crafted her posts for an audience of Black women like herself, and hoped she might become popular enough to make money promoting products.
“I use words and phrases common amongst our community,” she said.... If her posts have a sexual aspect, she said, that is “because I’m a sexual being.”
पोस्ट्स
६३ टिप्पण्या:
1. Universities have NO business policing students' online speech.
2. There was a time when most people had class and dignity, and behaved in public (social media is that) with manners and civilized behavior.
THEOLDMAN
Get fucking real. WAP was a huge hit and all the teenagers were bopping along to a song called WET ASS PUSSY, and the lyrics comprise a very sex positive education from a, uh, strong woman's perspective. The dumbasses who fired this woman for posting alternative lyrics to the tune are not caught up in the era of social media, they still haven't figured out popular culture. Hint: it's vulgarians, all the way down. The good ones are also funny or at least use catchy beats.
You either have free speech or you don't. No one on this planet is qualified to censor you, but you.
We're protected from what she actually said.
There was a time when most people had class and dignity, and behaved in public (social media is that) with manners and civilized behavior. Nowadays everybody is a cunt.
Taboo words serve socially to mark familiarity. What's rude about them is claiming familiarity where it hasn't been granted, not what they denote.
Social media assume familiarity, and there you are.
It's an alternative to boilerplate letters to the editor.
Learning consequences follow your actions, is parent stuff. Growing up stuff. Life lessons.
That all requires a functioning family, specifically. Functioning society on abstract.
A generation of participation trophies, and rearing children with the constant goal to prevent hurt feelings has produced young adults that don't understand how their actions are perceived by a larger world.
Govt(schools) have taken up the roll of parent, instilling values in children. Only teachers have enough education to believe such folly. Government always fails spectacularly when it takes on such a task.
1. Universities have NO business policing students' online speech.
+1
God damn it no it's not. I don't care if the assistant secretary of health uses social media to advocate sucking off little boys in bathrooms at McDonalds during its free time. Obscene and horrific though it may be, short of the 'fire' and 'kill you' tests it should be left alone to suffer its own devices within the very public forum it was distributed in the first place.
And it usually does without having to get daddy involved, which is what's so infuriating.
This is probably racist, a rare example of actual, systemic racism.
Unless things have changed, a university is not mandated by law, and the universities demand at-will students behave in a manner appropriate to policies. It's like a business, or an organization. Say what you want, but all words can have an unwanted consequence.
Actually it is not that hard.
Sticks n stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.
You do NOT have a right to not be offended. Everyone used to know that. Our education in this country is failing us and our children and it is NOT by accident.
What is needed is not more laws. The professor in question should be fired, shunned, and banned from all society racist non-inclusive attitude.
"It’s so hard to fit old First Amendment principles into the social media era. This is one of those areas of law that needs to evolve."
Said Greg H. Greubel,
Sounds like Greg needs to start a campaign for a new constitutional amendment
Good luck with that!
We don’t have a Constitutional rights anymore. We only have terms and conditions.
The law doesn't need to evolve. The lawyers do. Social media is not the Constitution.
Back in 1972 a folk singer named Jonathan Edwards became a one-hit wonder with an anti-Vietnam War song called “Sunshine.” Back then it was directed at Dick Nixon and the Vietnam War, but today I’d direct the same lyrics at Biden and Harris and Pelosi and Schumer and their enablers like these folks at U. Tennessee. The lyrics go like this:
Sunshine go away today
I don't feel much like dancin'
Some man's gone, he's tried to run my life
He don't know what he's askin'
When he tells me I better get in line
I can't hear what he's sayin'
When I grow up, I'm gonna make it mine
These ain't dues I been payin'
Well how much does it cost?
I'll buy it
The time is all we've lost
I'll try it
And he can't even run his own life
I'll be damned if he'll run mine, sunshine
That last stanza especially.
And while we’re at we should do some “Eve of Destruction.”
I'm not in favor of censorship. Can someone tell me what are the constitutionally enabled ways in which I can express disapproval of something besides racism?
Marcus said...Universities have NO business policing students' online speech.
The whole concept of in loco parentis is bullshit. Doubly so in universities, who are dealing with adults.
Blogger iowan2 said..."A generation of participation trophies, and rearing children with the constant goal to prevent hurt feelings has produced young adults that don't understand how their actions are perceived by a larger world."
It was never going to turn out well and now it hasn't.
While I agree the University should not be handing out consequences for her online speech, don't think for a second Ms. Diei and her ilk are champions of free speech. Try saying something they don't like and watch their reaction. You'll be cancelled into next Tuesday.
rhhardin is right. This is all stuff that used to be said in private among friends and its saying never caused too many problems.
Blogger Big Mike said...
" 1. Universities have NO business policing students' online speech.
+1"
Maybe we, as the investors, should start policing universities classroom speech. I think we have more standing as they say.
How do we sic the reddit retard army on the universities?
It really isn't.
People can say things they want to say. Even dirty, filthy things. Even things you disagree with. Even things that aren't correct. And we, as a society, with a marketplace of ideas, should respect their right to say these things. It's really, really simple to not try and control other people's speech through threats, the heckler's veto, or deplatforming.
The CardiB song is an anthem for black Americans a hymn to how far they have come. The lyrics cannot be improved upon.
Nowadays everybody is a cunt.
Oh, sod off, ya wankah...
So I disagree with the statement of Greg H. Greubel. The rights protected by the First Amendment need not evolve at all. We need to quit devolving into the practice of gaining political advantage by censoring the speech of opponents. Most of the advances of the modern era are due to the freedom of other voices to be heard. It is sad these rights are being curtailed, and even worse that an organization like FIRE would advocate for their evolution.
I'm so old I remember when people had the right to say anything but simply chose not to.
Ms. Diei says she crafted her posts for an audience of Black women like herself
"Play the race card!"
Because black women are different than other women.
daskol said...
This is probably racist, a rare example of actual, systemic racism.
Rare? Joe Biden's whole career is based on systemic racism and white privilege. The way Democrats run the big cities also are examples of systemic racism.
Big Mike said...Back in 1972 a folk singer named Jonathan Edwards became a one-hit wonder with an anti-Vietnam War song called “Sunshine.”
I was a college war protester and Student Senator in those days. Great nostalgia.
I learned from my radical days that the leaders were either cynical wannabe politicians or dedicated Marxists. The Marxists were thought to be harmless ideologues. However, the Marxists have been shaping minds for several generations. Many of our constitutional freedoms will be lost over the next decade to two thanks to their efforts. The cynical politicians will go along for the ride, the power and the money.
Blogger Fernandinande said...Because black women are different than other women.
My (Black) ex-wife clearly believed that Black women were different in the sense of having extreme neuroses about their hair.
It's not that hard.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No fucking law fucking abridging the fucking freedom of fucking speech.
What do these intolerant assholes not understand about this?
NO FUCKING LAW ABRIDGING FREE FUCKING SPEECH.
Is what you're trying to do a law, rule, or regulation?
Does it abridge free speech?
If yes and yes, you can't do it.
If you error on the side of more speech, you can't go wrong.
"Hey, here's a tough one..." Allow the speech.
"What about this grey area..." Allow the speech.
"But we don't like..." Too bad, allow the speech.
"But it hurt my feelings..." Too bad, allow the speech.
"But it's mean..." Too fucking bad.
Free speech all the time. More is better.
"It’s so hard to fit old First Amendment principles into the social media era. This is one of those areas of law that needs to evolve."
No, it isn't. And no, it doesn't.
You either believe in Freedom of Speech or you don't. If you do, then you accept the bad with the good, knowing that any attempts to restrict what you think is "bad" is not only a very slippery slope, but also may be in direct opposition to what someone else thinks is "good" and "bad".
Our understanding of the First Amendment does not need to evolve based upon the times or technologies. And if you think it does, then you don't understand the First Amendment at all. I don't care what letters you have after your name or what your profession is. Not getting this shows a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment.
"There will be no rapping by the pharmacists!"
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher, leave them kids alone
Interesting.
Nothing has changed. A novel problem with diverse precedents. On the other hand, re-education camps staged for captive audiences, with voluntary support, even advocacy, surely that is progressive and liberalizing at an accelerated pace.
Principles matter? Empathize. Sympathize. Everything is selective, opportunistic, relativistic ("ethical"). Throw another baby on the barbie, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants. Forward!
Until universities ban rap music, they are hypocrites.
Dry Desiccated Pussy FTW.
Rick T is singing my aria
“ We don’t have a Constitutional rights anymore. We only have terms and conditions.”
University of Tennessee, isn't this the same place that rescinded the admission of that girl who used a slur on social media when she was 15? I did wonder if they were going to find themselves in a position of having to pick and choose which students are permitted free expresson on social media and which aren't.
If the plaintiff had been white and had, let's say, written a twitter post saying the election was stolen by Biden, the university could have expelled her for it and no one at the NYTimes would have written the story with this particular narrative, if they would have written it at all.
I am not so sure about Cardi B having a “small garage.” Anyway, here is a counterpoint to WAP by Left Eye back in the ‘90s. Another song about a black girl who's gotta have it Ain’t 2 Proud 2 Beg
On a side note, I admit I wish white girls wore more wigs.
Universities provide a service for a fee. They should not be in the business of telling their customers what to say or think. As long as the customers do not do the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' bit online, the universites should just shut their pie holes.
Censorship is evil - no matter who does it. If you do not like the expressed opinion of person A, then express your own opinion that disputes said opinion. Use facts and valid arguments, not 'feels'.
Maybe the universites should do some introspection and ask the serious question as to why they take so much CCP money and what the CCP wants for the money. Maybe the universities and the CCP are the baddies.
Universities should not even be reading their student's social media posts, much less punishing them for expressing any view or using any language.
It's remarkable to me that the same people who support the right to burn the flag (and I do) will also support the suppression of other types of speech.
The wife of a well off friend, when she had cancer bought a wig for over $200 dollars and I remember thinking “meh.” A Jamaican friend was wearing a wig that looked ten times better, I asked her what it cost, she said “$12.99"
I should write a song, except it’s been done “I like my women just a little on the trashy side."
It's not hard to maintain First Amendment principles. It's hard to pretend you have First Amendment principles when you don't.
Maybe the universities and the CCP are the baddies.
Maybe?!?!??
"It’s so hard to fit old First Amendment principles into the social media era. This is one of those areas of law that needs to evolve."
I agree with this.
Key point: One of the changes that needs to occur is to understand the true meaning of the phrase "free press". When the Constitution and the First Amendment were written, the word "press" had a different meaning. It did not refer to a self identified group of people, supposedly giving them special rights and protections, it referred to the machinery required to publish newspapers, books and broadsheets, the printing press. The First Amendment actually protects everyone's right to have access to the necessary machinery to express your ideas. That doesn't mean the government has to buy you a printing press, just allow you to use one you buy or make.
Today the machinery required to publish is a computer hooked up to the internet. The government doesn't have to buy you a computer, but it should have to provide you with access to the internet. Today that largely means Facebook, Youtube and Twitter. I think a serious argument could be made that the First Amendment requires us to make Facebook, Youtube and Twitter public utilities like electric companies, water companies, gas companies and trash companies.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
...
Today the machinery required to publish is a computer hooked up to the internet. The government doesn't have to buy you a computer, but it should have to provide you with access to the internet. Today that largely means Facebook, Youtube and Twitter. I think a serious argument could be made that the First Amendment requires us to make Facebook, Youtube and Twitter public utilities like electric companies, water companies, gas companies and trash companies.
2/5/21, 11:55 AMI would argue the government should not provide such tools - in this case, internet access, facebook, etc - it is obliged to protect our rights. As such, ensure that the access to said tools is not arbitrarily restricted by any measure. Agree that they should be regarded as 'utilities' to that extent.
Unfortunately, dot gov is turning a blind eye to that, and allowing companies to only allow a customer base on their own ideas, unrelated to the service provided.
Rare? Joe Biden's whole career is based on systemic racism and white privilege. The way Democrats run the big cities also are examples of systemic racism.
Fair point, Bobb. Sometimes being glib doesn't work.
Remember when Tom Cruise accused people of being glib? It was so weird to hear that as a criticism, but I think that's a pretty significant scientology insult. And he wasn't wrong.
"If yes and yes, you can't do it."
While I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, the amendment itself specifies "CONGRESS shall make no law ..." It doesn't mention any other entities like Universities. They are free to make all sorts of terrible rules.
However, where the real fun begins is if the University is receiving federal funds, which I am 100% sure they probably are. Then, things get a bit trickier around the concept of free speech.
"it's so hard to fit old First Amendment principals into the social media era."
Yeah. you really have to work at censorship.
Interesting choice of words. "Old" First Amendment principles? Do timeless truths age?
FIRE is supposedly a defender of free speech, so the quote seems a bit odd.
The First Amendment and principles of freedom of expression do not need to "evolve," they need to be understood and respected.
Do timeless truths age?
Yes. Case in point: character (e.g. individual dignity, conscience), not color (i.e. diversity). Also, human life is human rights, which has evolved as rites under the Progressive Church/Synagogue et al, which have ironically deprecated traditional notions of evolutionary fitness, too. The fifth choice, Pro-Choice matter. @Principles... fitness function matter Then there is social (e.g. relativistic) justice anywhere is injustice everywhere, including wars without borders, transnational terrorism, [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform, etc.
1. What does Lawyer B’Ivory Lamarr say?
2. I rather thought that people had a right in general to express themselves fully in public with the understanding that others might disagree with what they said and consider them uncouth. What’s wrong with an uncouth pharmacist? I know plenty of uncouth people.
3. This board of prigs is giving good manners a bad name.
It was once said that students should not have to surrender their Constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.
Clearly this is obsolete, as students are now expected to not merely surrender their Constitutional rights within the school, but everywhere and at all times.
The school gets to police this because, umm, umm, someone connected to the school might read/hear/view what you said, find this disagreeable, and therefore decide you should be punished for saying such things?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा