Welp, no more dicks out for Harembe at Clemson
- Thread starter Orange-Addict
- Start date
Practically every other context? How is a university an extension of the state? What world do you live in? I have to disagree with your last point...now there are definitely TWO people in this thread that don't understand the First Amendment.
good god folks, the first amendment doesn't give you unlimited ability to put pictures on other peoples property... but if they want to be the on the right side of the first amendment they should ban all hanging of editorial materials in the common areas. That said... stupid stupid stupid by Clemson.
Does anybody understand what Harambe has to do with rape culture? I have no idea what is going on. Now I want to bring a Harambe sign to Gameday.
Does anybody understand what Harambe has to do with rape culture? I have no idea what is going on. Now I want to bring a Harambe sign to Gameday.
Apparently the culprit was a white board with "Dicks out for Harambe" which is a popular reddit phrase these days.
Still trying to draw the line in my head as to how this all connects. Maybe there was a large rapey gorilla manhood on marker drawn whiteboard Harambe.
what does dicks out for harambe mean?
edit: so i did some research, apparently it means exactly what it sounds like it means, don't get it, seems dumb, man I hate millennials, (and I'm a borderline millennial)
Last edited:
The First Amendment is beside the point. Not sure who's more annoying: the people who say stuff like this violates the constitution, or the people who insist those people don't understand the constitution.
Really? You are questioning how a public university is a state actor?
Of course, the first amendment applies to the Federal Government, so I will concede that I could have been more precise and stated that the first amendment via the 14th amendment applies to public universities.
However, the fact that the first amendment (via the 14th) applies on campus is so well established I cannot, during my workday, drop the thousands of case cites on you. For a primer on the ton of shit you don't know but think you do...start here. The case law is so overwhelming that universities being sued on 1st/14th amendment grounds are settling rather than getting their butts handed to them in court. Summary here.
Or how about the people that bitch about free speech, get put in their place for not knowing what free speech involves, then saying that the First Amendment doesnt apply? Yeah, they're pretty effing annoying.
Oh shite! I didnt realize you were a female. Sorry I wasnt nicer to you earlier. Hey @amynhop there's another one on here besides you, JTyler and Mrs. Shove.
Wasnt meant to be witty...are you not a chick? You must be. Men dont say "bless your heart."
Chicks just hiding all over the place in this man cave, aren't we?
@nextoffensivecoord
Its pretty straight forward. If you cant figure it out from the text, you might want to go back to 12th grade.
Oh ok. Well since you are TOO STUPID to read it, Congress shall make not pass a law abridging free speech. Clemson University has the right to say what its students can and cannot do. Same way that someone stupid, like you, cannot just yell "fire" in a crowded space. The government can't make a law telling me not to say my boss is a total idiot, but my boss can certainly fire me for doing so.
See how that works? There's First Amendment 101 for ya. Now YOU can get the fvck out.
Marbury v Madison established the principle of judicial review. Judicial review means, among other things, that the Supreme Court interprets what the Constitution means.
For schools and the 1A, the Supreme Court first issued the Tinker Test (Tinker v Des Moines ICSD, 393 US 503 (1969)). The Tinker case (a) unequivocally applies the first amendment to public secondary schools and (b) creates a 4 part test for schools regulating speech. The regulation must serve an important government interest, be content neutral, narrowly tailored, and leave ample alternate means of expression.
In 1972, the Supreme Court weighed in again in Healy v James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972). In Healy, the Supremes recognized the University's prerogative to enforce reasonable standards of student conduct, but stated "state colleges and universities are not enclaves immune from the rules of reasonable conduct." In Healy; however, the school's regulation met the Tinker test and survived.
The next term saw Papish v Board of Curators at the University of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667 (1973). Papish applied Healy and Tinker and found that University of Missouri's regulation of indecent speech failed the Tinker test.
This is what the Supreme Court has decided regarding the application of the 1A to public colleges and universities. Whether the ban on Harambe (which seems to not have actually happened) can pass the Tinker test is arguable. The applicability of the first amendment to this situation is beyond dispute. It applies.
Thank you for an intelligent response, much more than the other dude is willing to give. While the majority in Tinker observed that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," subsequent court opinions, such as Bethel School District v. Fraser, have determined that certain speech can be restricted. In the case of "dicks out for Harambe," Fraser could absolutely be applied, and thus, could be restricted.
It has been pointed out that the school did NOT, in fact, censor the memes - which I believe is the correct move. But Clemson University absolutely has the right to censor the them, if it sees fit.
Similar threads
