(at least unless she gets case-by-case permission to enter that property). But a federal district judge has correctly held that this likely violated the First Amendment.
The professor, chair of the Central Michigan University journalism department, was teaching a media law class, and quoted a case that discussed the use of the word "nigger" at public universities.
A thought experiment that came to my mind; I'd love to hear what others think about it.
Plus a new draft law review article on the subject, by Prof. Randall Kennedy (Harvard Law School), a leading scholar of race and the law, and me.
Three interesting opinions: a sound majority, a plausible concurrence, and another concurrence focused on "hate speech" that I think is unsound.
So holds a federal court, quite correctly; of course, the same is true about any religious group, racial group, or other such large group.
threatens to kick students out of class for "othering." Fortunately, the university has stepped in and rejected this position.
The case was filed against the Maricopa County Community College District, over Prof. Nicholas Damask's World Politics class.
The professor, the chair of the Central Michigan University journalism department, was teaching a media law class, and quoted a case that discussed the use of the word "nigger" at public universities.
This one focuses on student groups that get funding from public colleges, but it's an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction.
"Hate speech" would be defined as an intentional "insulting statement about a group of persons because of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity or physical, mental or intellectual disability."
... they apparently shed it well before the schoolhouse gate.
before UK independent press standards tribunal.
I, however, do not apologize.
Don't the authorities have better things to do with their time right now?
A word that appears >10,000 times in court cases, in a wide range of fields -- yet some insist that law professors not be allowed to quote it.
The plaintiffs are claiming, among other things, "group libel."
"At a time when hate and bias incidents are on the rise, it is crucial that the state not remove these types of prohibitions that deter or punish this unacceptable behavior."
"Say what you will about ISIS but at least they're not Islamophobic." Journalist Andrew Doyle has created the ultimate parody account.
This is the case in which two students were walking near UConn student housing, loudly shouting "nigger" (apparently after having decided that loudly shouting "penis" wasn't good enough).
This latest social media freakout has prompted a formal military investigation.
After a series of alleged hate crimes, activists say they don't feel safe on campus.
The comedian thinks misleading information on social media is ruining society. That's a bit rich, coming from him.
Freedom of expression is under attack from politicians, activists, and, saddest of all, journalists who benefit most from it.
Most respondents, especially millennials, favored viewpoint-based censorship, suppression of "hurtful or offensive" speech in certain contexts, and legal penalties for wayward news organizations.
I have an op-ed about this today in the N.Y. Daily News.
The case vividly illustrates how hate crime laws punish people for the views they express.
That's what flyers posted in Winchester (Massachusetts) say.
The move would violate the First Amendment.
Plus: 8chan called before Congress, data privacy bill hits a snag, and more...
Companies should forced neither to help spread offensive speech nor to suppress it.
