SAE fraternity looks at suing U of OK, has hired Timothy McVeigh's defense attorney

I know there is a message here and frankly, it will be interesting to find out if we LEGALLY UN-schooled can figure it out. This defense attorney has a very 'varied' background of who he has defended in the past. I guess if he is a first amendment advocate, first and foremost, and he can reduce these preppy boys RACIST CHANTS down to free speech, he'll make their case. Of course, I'd like to see members of the 'out group' having to listen to the RACIST 'language' and realizing an entire SEGMENT of their 'community' hates their guts and doesn't want them there, find their own attorney to say 'we aren't gonna take it' that S and have every right not to be ASSAULTED with hate filled speech.

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

(Was MC VEIGH exhibiting his free speech rights against the US government using 'props'??)


Sigma Alpha Epilson fraternity may sue University of Oklahoma
Alumni hire lawyer who represented Timothy McVeigh to review legal options

Chapter in Washington under investigation for calling black protesters ‘apes’

Friday 13 March 2015 13.05 EDT Last modified on Friday 13 March 2015 14.09 EDT

Amanda Holpuch in New York - UK Guardian

An attorney who says he has been hired by the University of Oklahoma’s embattled Sigma Alpha Epsilon says the fraternity is considering legal action against the school.

In response to the release of a video showing SAE fraternity members leading a racist chant, the school president, David Boren, this week closed the fraternity and expelled two students connected to the incident.


Free speech advocates question Oklahoma response to racist chant
Read more
Oklahoma lawyer Stephen Jones told the Oklahoman and local news station KFOR that the fraternity chapter’s board hired him on Thursday. He said fraternity alumni asked him to review their legal options and that the two expelled students have not hired him.

Jones has represented high-profile figures including terrorist Timothy McVeigh and activist Abbie Hoffman.

Some legal experts have said Boren’s actions overstep free speech rights and are subject to legal action. The ACLU of Oklahoma said the school should engage in a more broad conversation about racism on campus.

“This is a teaching moment that requires a consistent commitment to honest and open dialogue that does not stop at simply punishing those who spew hate and prejudice on video, but rather, combats the core of that hate and prejudice,” ACLU of Oklahoma legal director, Brady Henderson, said in a statement. “The University of Oklahoma has an opportunity to engage in just such a dialogue, and we need to ensure that we don’t miss that opportunity in the rush to punish racist speech.”


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ton-investigating-racial-slurs-sae-fraternity

 

So this lawyer wants to help drive out women, blacks, and immigrants? Your rants never match with the actual article.

 

They will sue and they will win.

Call em racists all you want but being racist isn't against the law.... Also this frat's First Amendment rights were violated.

Of course they don't care about that - what they're going to do is file a civil lawsuit against the progressive establishment known as universities.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but apparently there is a MASSIVE double standard at play in LW howling about a couple of dumbasses on a private bus saying the N word, versus the following, that goes on regularly on campuses across the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universities_and_antisemitism

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/the-alarming-rise-of-campus-anti-semitism/

To the topic, yes, if the UO action results in litigation by SAE National and the expelled students, they will likely win. More facts are required, including who owns the land where the fraternity house is and what legitimate conduct restrictions or ancillary agreements relate to that.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891573721FSupp852_11441

Every instance of offensive speech in this country is not some opportunity for "punishment." Let the marketplace of ideas sort out and penalize "bad speakers," not government authority. People are well-capable of evaluating and rejecting offensive, but protected speech without involving Big Nanny Brother. Resorting to such is how peasants end up with pitchforks, people end up against a wall with a blindfold on, or pushed into ovens.

 

While I think these frat bozos are racist idiots, I find Oklahoma's response to be excessive and dubious. Being a racist may be morally reprehensible, but still this punishment doesn't fit the crime. It smears a fraternity and all its members for the actions of a few, and it punishes at least two people for speaking freely if unwisely. Oklahoma is a public school, run by the state, and is going to have a hard time justifying these actions in court.

I don't know what punishment, if any, is appropriate in this case. But what Oklahoma did ain't it.

 

Calling a white man a "white boy" is racist.

You racist.

 

The First Amendment protects you from government, not repercussions. When one of these kids gets arrested, then it becomes a First Amendment. Getting expelled isn't covered. You are free to be a racist and say horrible racist things without fear of government involvement or arrest. You are not free to say whatever you want and then scream "But First Amendment" when you get fired, expelled, or other repercussions occur as a result.

 

Publicity hound doing what they do. The University does not actually have to give any reason for shutting down the Frat, they can simply say you are out of here and that is that, even a first year law student would know better than to claim Free Speech as a defense.

 

At what point did these frat boys imply their race was superior to another?

 

Gee, you might want to go look at the lyrics to that little chant of theirs. The implication is very clear.

 

Code of Conduct vs 1st Amendment?

interesting battle.

 

I think its safe to assume that the reason they wont let "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s sign with them" is because they think that blacks are not worthy to be around them. What other conclusion could you possibly (*)(*)(*)(*)ing draw. What a stupid question.

 

It doesn't really matter considering they can prove they were singled out by finding precedence in examples of anti-Semitic rallies/parties and anti-white rallies/parties that resulted in no disciplinary action.

Really they don't even have to show race - they could show numerous examples of any code of conduct being violated without repercussion.

The had their First Amendment rights violated and on top of that they were singed out for political reasons.

The university is going to lose badly.

 

Not quite.

The first amendment protects the citizens right to free speech without infringement.
Key point, the UofO is funded by the government, therefore the government is infringing on the students constitutional right to free speech.

Repercussions cannot be in the form of punishment, expulsion and the dissolving of the frat is punishment.

 

Their reasons are irrelevant - they're a private club - they don't have to let blacks in if they don't want to.

You do realize their are minority frats that require individuals to be of a particular race?

 

Their 1st amendment rights were not violated. They are not charged criminally. They can chant all the racial slurs they want, just not at the school and the fraternity.
They were suspended, IMO, well within the right of an institution to do with anyone who doesn't conform to the standards of the institution.

 

It should come out of that idiot Boren's pocket. The man is a fool. And yes, he's a democrat! Stupid old man.

I'm glad to see action taken against his actions.

 

So what you're saying is that it's ok to have black only frats but whites can't have white only frats?

Frats are private clubs, and the school taking sides is just another nail in their pricy coffin....

 

You are dead wrong. Boren, as president of OU, is acting as a representative of the government; i.e., a public, tax-payer funded school.

 

Your rights do not come without consequences.
I can't for the life of me understand why so many on the right don't see this yet they are apparently for personal responsibility.

 

Just what I thought, no facts, just assumptions.

 

Even the ACLU is backing the frat boys..........Martha pop me a beer this could get good......

 

A school that has a code of conduct. You think a student can march into Mr. Boren's office and say, "You know what, you're a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who sucks dick for money" and not suffer repercussions? Think again.

 

Spoken like a true tyrant progressive.

What's the progressive's consequence for being tyrants and authoritarian?

Oh yeah I forgot the progressive university establishment will get their asses sued off their pale white guilt asses...

The problem is that rules don't apply to everyone - they're based in progressiveland on race, sex, sexual orientation and religion.

The real racists and the biased are progressives.

In litigation - if universities tolerate racist black frats or anti-semites while targeting white frats for chanting something subjective then the progressive establishment will lose, because thankfully the law is still straightforward.

 

Wow- he was being sarcastic. In other words, it's very clear what was being said.