• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Univ. of Oklahoma severs ties with frat after racist chant

I am sure this guy will be charged right next to the bartender that recorded Romney's 47% comment.

Is that who recorded Romney? A god damn greedy, whiny, lazy bartender? Why didn't I know this, huh...

He should have been fired. If nothing else.

It's sad that your sarcasm rings so true.

It's sad that when a person doesn't have a reasonable expectation to privacy that this now means everyone on the god damn planet can be privy to the conversation.

It's sad that I can't even put out a call for a rewrite in these privacy laws because I know doing so will only screw things up even more and give the government better control over not only what every one else sees and hears but what it itself is allowed to see and hear. Not that the law is followed much in that regard anymore anyways...
 
Is that who recorded Romney? A god damn greedy, whiny, lazy bartender? Why didn't I know this, huh...

He should have been fired. If nothing else.

It's sad that your sarcasm rings so true.

It's sad that when a person doesn't have a reasonable expectation to privacy that this now means everyone on the god damn planet can be privy to the conversation.

It's sad that I can't even put out a call for a rewrite in these privacy laws because I know doing so will only screw things up even more and give the government better control over not only what every one else sees and hears but what it itself is allowed to see and hear. Not that the law is followed much in that regard anymore anyways...

Dude there's such a thing as "Expectation of privacy".

As an example, a few years ago you'd find a thread where I was in a security situation in the hotel with guests filming me, this made me very uncomfortable but there's nothing I can do because I couldn't prove I had an expectation of privacy in the performance if my duty in public.

Romney was speaking at a private event with a fair number of people, he was filmed.

A bus full of lads who probably 95% of which have smartphones with a Camera as does most of the population at this point...

There's no expectation of privacy in either of those cases.
 
They were expelled from college. Is that not being held accountable? Why do you have to know their names, or me, or anyone else? You know as well as I do that the expulsion will be on their permanent records.

I don't even know what your position is. I guess you're arguing that these kids should be held privately accountable, but only by the school and shouldn't face any public consequences and should therefore remain anonymous except in the records of OU. I don't have any idea how you'd defend that as some kind of principle, just as a facts and circumstances thing, and in your view, with these facts, being expelled is more than enough punishment for the 'crime' of being a stupid, drunk college kid leading a racist chant.

OK, that's fine. We can agree to disagree, and it's a moot point anyway because as soon as the video hit Youtube, their names were coming out sooner or later and I'm fine with that.
 
Sorry, I can't spend time in Alabama in 1856, so knowing what it was like 150 years ago when the fraternity was founded isn't going to happen.

And once again, what do people who live in Alabama today have anything to do with the SAE fraternity?



Take a few minutes and read this article: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

You might learn something. :roll:

Not every White person in Alabama is a racist, but quite a few of them are. It's their legacy from their ancestors.

Denying the existence of racism and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure the faux liberals who applaud this kind of trampling on the freedom of speech also applaud the campus kangaroo courts which continue to ruin the lives of young men who may very well be innocent of the sexual misconduct they are charged with. Their contempt for due process is consistent with their contempt for the Constitution in general--at least as far as they understand it. Their dim Mother Jones-style "knowledge" of the Constitution of course does not begin to approach that of their idol Mr. Obama. But then his only interest in the Constitution is how best to evade it.

The only kind of intolerance fake liberals approve of is their own. Being members of a self-anointed moral elite, they reserve the right to do what the hoi polloi may not. (That's why it's fine for President Pinocchio, and the Delaware Dunce, and the Belle of Benghazi, and Pocahontas Warren, and Lois "I Take the Fifth" Lerner and their ilk to lie whenever the hell they want, and yet wrong for non-leftists.)
 
Last edited:
Is that who recorded Romney? A god damn greedy, whiny, lazy bartender? Why didn't I know this, huh...

He should have been fired. If nothing else.

It's sad that your sarcasm rings so true.

It's sad that when a person doesn't have a reasonable expectation to privacy that this now means everyone on the god damn planet can be privy to the conversation.

It's sad that I can't even put out a call for a rewrite in these privacy laws because I know doing so will only screw things up even more and give the government better control over not only what every one else sees and hears but what it itself is allowed to see and hear. Not that the law is followed much in that regard anymore anyways...

Romney was a big boy running for the most powerful and public job on planet earth, and if he expected his words in front of a large group to remain private, he was an idiot. Same with Obama speaking to the group in SF as I recall when he made the "cling to guns or religion" comment.
 
I'm sure the faux liberals who applaud this kind of trampling on the freedom of speech also applaud the campus kangaroo courts which continue to ruin the lives of young men who may very well be innocent of the sexual misconduct they are charged with. The only kind of intolerance fake liberals approve of is their own. Being members of a self-anointed moral elite, they reserve the right to do what the hoi polloi may not. (That's why it's OK for President Pinocchio, and the Delaware Dunce, and the Belle of Benghazi, and Pocahontas Warren, and Lois "I Take the Fifth" Lerner to lie whenever the hell they want, but not for non-leftists.)

Who exactly is applauding trampling on freedom of speech? Or is this just another of your drive by hand grenades where you slur "liberals" with imagined viewpoints that no one in this discussion is actually expressing?
 
It isn't a private university. It's a public university. As with any other public (government) entity, they're subject to the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment and aren't supposed punish students because they hold offensive views. This has been argued many times in courts.

Public businesses can't operate how they choose. That's why you can't open a pubic bakery and deny service to a gay couple. Public accommodation laws.

Actually a pubic bakery and a gay couple sound like they'd go together well :2razz:
 
I'm sure the faux liberals who applaud this kind of trampling on the freedom of speech also applaud the campus kangaroo courts which continue to ruin the lives of young men who may very well be innocent of the sexual misconduct they are charged with. Their contempt for due process is consistent with their contempt for the Constitution in general--at least as far as they understand it. Their dim Mother Jones-style "knowledge" of the Constitution of course does not begin to approach that of their idol Mr. Obama. But then his only interest in the Constitution is how best to evade it.

The only kind of intolerance fake liberals approve of is their own. Being members of a self-anointed moral elite, they reserve the right to do what the hoi polloi may not. (That's why it's fine for President Pinocchio, and the Delaware Dunce, and the Belle of Benghazi, and Pocahontas Warren, and Lois "I Take the Fifth" Lerner and their ilk to lie whenever the hell they want, and yet wrong for non-leftists.)

Points off for not mentioning Gruber.
 
Take a few minutes and read this article: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

You might learn something. :roll:

Not every White person in Alabama is a racist, but quite a few of them are. It's their legacy from their ancestors.

Denying the existence of racism and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

So everyone in Alabama today is a racist because their ancestors were, 150 years ago.

And that has what to do with SAE exactly? Nothing. Zero. SAE was founded in Alabama 150 plus years ago. So what?
 
Dude there's such a thing as "Expectation of privacy".

As an example, a few years ago you'd find a thread where I was in a security situation in the hotel with guests filming me, this made me very uncomfortable but there's nothing I can do because I couldn't prove I had an expectation of privacy in the performance if my duty in public.

Romney was speaking at a private event with a fair number of people, he was filmed.

A bus full of lads who probably 95% of which have smartphones with a Camera as does most of the population at this point...

There's no expectation of privacy in either of those cases.

Of course there is a reasonable expectation to privacy. Because I am having a conversation with 50 people in no way does that mean I necessarily want 500 others not in the room at the time of the conversation to be in on said conversation.

To think otherwise seriously, is crazy. I'm not saying that dismissively or as an insult, I'm saying that the logic behind it is non logic. You are having a conversation with a certain group, a select group, that is who your intended audience is, not every animal on the planet with an IP address.

What your inferring here, you haven't said it but you are inferring it is that people just need to accept that if they walk out of their home that they shouldn't have the expectation of privacy. That because they go out for a quart of milk, cup of sugar, and stick of butter that they must accept the possibility that they will be recorded, that you need to expect to have this happen.

That isn't a society which I want to participate in, I don't know about you...
 
I don't even know what your position is. I guess you're arguing that these kids should be held privately accountable, but only by the school and shouldn't face any public consequences and should therefore remain anonymous except in the records of OU. I don't have any idea how you'd defend that as some kind of principle, just as a facts and circumstances thing, and in your view, with these facts, being expelled is more than enough punishment for the 'crime' of being a stupid, drunk college kid leading a racist chant.

OK, that's fine. We can agree to disagree, and it's a moot point anyway because as soon as the video hit Youtube, their names were coming out sooner or later and I'm fine with that.

Yes, what I'm saying is I don't think these dumbs kids should necessarily be public targets (checking to make sure the l is in there.....). Yes, I think being expelled was punishment enough. It will stay with them forever. What other punishment do you think they deserve, and for how long?
 
Dude there's such a thing as "Expectation of privacy".

As an example, a few years ago you'd find a thread where I was in a security situation in the hotel with guests filming me, this made me very uncomfortable but there's nothing I can do because I couldn't prove I had an expectation of privacy in the performance if my duty in public.

Romney was speaking at a private event with a fair number of people, he was filmed.

A bus full of lads who probably 95% of which have smartphones with a Camera as does most of the population at this point...

There's no expectation of privacy in either of those cases.

There isn't an expectation of privacy in those examples, that's correct. But it's pretty sad that there is no more expectation of privacy. Anything you say or do can haunt you for the rest of your life because it can be captured by technology. I'm not so sure that's a good thing. That's why everyone has to be extremely careful what they say or do.
 
That isn't a society which I want to participate in, I don't know about you...

It is what it is now.

Every tom dick and harry carries a cell phone with them and the unfortunate side effect is as soon as you're out of the house, you cannot have any reasonable expectation to privacy... have a bad day at Mcdonalds and yell at the poor chick getting payed nothing... well you're gonna be the asshole to all the world once the guy behind you presses the upload button.

Romney was running for the highest office in the world and he spoke at a private venue, to a large group of people publicly and openly.

I'm sorry but there is 0 expectations of privacy under the circumstances.

As for the boys on the bus, once again, zero expectations of privacy, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that nobody

1) had a right to film what happened.

2) had a right to show anybody else.

You may not like it, but it doesn't make it any less true.
 
Romney was a big boy running for the most powerful and public job on planet earth, and if he expected his words in front of a large group to remain private, he was an idiot. Same with Obama speaking to the group in SF as I recall when he made the "cling to guns or religion" comment.

My position is that when you step outside the bounds of your intended audience, the issue of privacy needs to be more thoroughly examined. This oh, you said it so the world hears it, is not acceptable.

(My disdain for bartenders has nothing to do with Romney and his recording, I loathe them creatures on an ontological level.)
 
There isn't an expectation of privacy in those examples, that's correct. But it's pretty sad that there is no more expectation of privacy. Anything you say or do can haunt you for the rest of your life because it can be captured by technology. I'm not so sure that's a good thing. That's why everyone has to be extremely careful what they say or do.

Can't say I disagree, I did a thread on this yesterday.

It's an interesting phenomenon.
 
Of course there is a reasonable expectation to privacy. Because I am having a conversation with 50 people in no way does that mean I necessarily want 500 others not in the room at the time of the conversation to be in on said conversation.

To think otherwise seriously, is crazy. I'm not saying that dismissively or as an insult, I'm saying that the logic behind it is non logic. You are having a conversation with a certain group, a select group, that is who your intended audience is, not every animal on the planet with an IP address.

What your inferring here, you haven't said it but you are inferring it is that people just need to accept that if they walk out of their home that they shouldn't have the expectation of privacy. That because they go out for a quart of milk, cup of sugar, and stick of butter that they must accept the possibility that they will be recorded, that you need to expect to have this happen.

That isn't a society which I want to participate in, I don't know about you.
..



Then you might want to move to another planet, because that's going on all over this planet.

If you don't want it recorded, then don't say or do it. :roll:
 
Can't say I disagree, I did a thread on this yesterday.

It's an interesting phenomenon.

Sorry, I missed your thread on it. Link? I'd love to see it.

I have this discussion with my kids almost every day. Things are so different now than they were decades ago. Forget DNA. Like you said, it's cell phones, which everyone has. One false move, one drunken mistake, and you are going to pay dearly and for a long time for being an asshole at McDonald's, peeing in the bushes, removing your blouse on the dance floor, and so on.
 
It is what it is now.

Every tom dick and harry carries a cell phone with them and the unfortunate side effect is as soon as you're out of the house, you cannot have any reasonable expectation to privacy... have a bad day at Mcdonalds and yell at the poor chick getting payed nothing... well you're gonna be the asshole to all the world once the guy behind you presses the upload button.

Romney was running for the highest office in the world and he spoke at a private venue, to a large group of people publicly and openly.

I'm sorry but there is 0 expectations of privacy under the circumstances.

As for the boys on the bus, once again, zero expectations of privacy, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that nobody

1) had a right to film what happened.

2) had a right to show anybody else.

You may not like it, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Right, it is what it is NOW. I'm arguing that it isn't right. That it needs to be addressed. That it needs to be changed.

I live in Chicago in case you haven't seen my locale, I've been being recorded for 10 + years, you're not enlightening me to the facts of the day.

As for the boys on the bus yes, they did have a right to privacy because they weren't in public they were for all intents and purposes in their car, one big old car. You need a warrant to wiretap a person's car, so yes, there is a reasonable expectation to privacy in your car.
 
Yes, what I'm saying is I don't think these dumbs kids should necessarily be public targets (checking to make sure the l is in there.....). Yes, I think being expelled was punishment enough. It will stay with them forever. What other punishment do you think they deserve, and for how long?

1) I don't agree with them being expelled.
2) Public accountability for offensive speech is a good thing, IMO.

Given the choice of 1) or 2), 2) is more consistent with the concept of freedom of speech and the rights and responsibilities that come with that. I'm not even arguing that whatever their ultimate punishment will be matches the severity of their 'crime' - that's impossible to judge, and it will vary from person to person. I'm sure my opinions as a white, Christian, straight, male in the South who has never in his life been disadvantaged by the color of his skin or his religion or his sex or sexual orientation might be entirely different than some black kid who went through rush at OU and was blackballed for the color of his skin.

But as a principle, the general rule, I'm for public accountability for this kind of speech. They're free to say what they want, and the public is free to condemn them for it. I don't know how else this delicate balancing act of rights and responsibilities can work.
 
Right, it is what it is NOW. I'm arguing that it isn't right. That it needs to be addressed. That it needs to be changed.

I live in Chicago in case you haven't seen my locale, I've been being recorded for 10 + years, you're not enlightening me to the facts of the day.

As for the boys on the bus yes, they did have a right to privacy because they weren't in public they were for all intents and purposes in their car, one big old car. You need a warrant to wiretap a person's car, so yes, there is a reasonable expectation to privacy in your car.

If you'd like to fight on behalf of the boys in court, go right ahead, but you're gonna have a damn hard time proving the boys had any expectation of privacy.

You are right, this will have to be addressed, as do MANY other subjects, such as commercial drone use, advances in 3D printing, commercial medical applications etc.

The advances in technology at this time are far outstripping legislative ability to keep up and that gap is only likely to get larger.
 
1) I don't agree with them being expelled.
2) Public accountability for offensive speech is a good thing, IMO.

Given the choice of 1) or 2), 2) is more consistent with the concept of freedom of speech and the rights and responsibilities that come with that. I'm not even arguing that whatever their ultimate punishment will be matches the severity of their 'crime' - that's impossible to judge, and it will vary from person to person. I'm sure my opinions as a white, Christian, straight, male in the South who has never in his life been disadvantaged by the color of his skin or his religion or his sex or sexual orientation might be entirely different than some black kid who went through rush at OU and was blackballed for the color of his skin.

But as a principle, the general rule, I'm for public accountability for this kind of speech. They're free to say what they want, and the public is free to condemn them for it. I don't know how else this delicate balancing act of rights and responsibilities can work.

I don't agree with them getting expelled either. But that's been done. Suspension would have been good enough. Not letting them participate in sports or clubs. There are a lot of punishments they could have gotten.

I just think the public is a dangerous animal, especially when it gets emotional.

I think what I'm saying is I don't know what's to be gained by knowing who they are. This shouldn't follow them forever (which it now will). Having expulsions on their college transcripts are going to hurt them enough. They wouldn't be the first young adults to make mistakes. And what they did wasn't a crime, either.
 
If you'd like to fight on behalf of the boys in court, go right ahead, but you're gonna have a damn hard time proving the boys had any expectation of privacy.

You are right, this will have to be addressed, as do MANY other subjects, such as commercial drone use, advances in 3D printing, commercial medical applications etc.

The advances in technology at this time are far outstripping legislative ability to keep up and that gap is only likely to get larger.

Proving that they had an expectation to privacy wouldn't be the hard part, I think I just proved that, imo. The hard part is getting around the emotional prejudice for the facts to be reviewed and an appropriate judgment being made.

Right, as with government drone use too, let's not give Big Brother a free ride, eh?

This is what I'm talking about, and I'm arguing this specifically with this case as an example because there is emotional prejudice involved.

Relativism in this society has run it amuck.
 
It isn't a private university. It's a public university. As with any other public (government) entity, they're subject to the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment and aren't supposed punish students because they hold offensive views. This has been argued many times in courts.

Public businesses can't operate how they choose. That's why you can't open a pubic bakery and deny service to a gay couple. Public accommodation laws.

You're right that this was state action, so that the First Amendment applies through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth.

State public accommodation laws are for another debate, but it should be noted that when extended far enough--for example to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals--they raise First Amendment issues too. There are at least three Supreme Court decisions on this subject. The First Amendment protects a right to what the Court calls "expressive association," which figured in these decisions.

It also protects a right not to speak--i.e. to be free from government-compelled speech--which I think these public accommodation laws might violate in some applications. I suspect that was what the lawyers representing that private wedding chapel in Coeur d'Alene pointed out that caused the town to back down so quickly from trying to force them to perform same-sex weddings. When you try to force a person by law to let his property be used to promote views he disagrees with, there are Supreme Court decisions that suggest you are walking onto pretty shaky ground.
 
Back
Top Bottom