It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Emory University students who were offended by pro-Trump messages written in chalk around campus can’t force the university to censor that speech because it offends them, a university committee has found. The university’s Committee for Open Expression – a group of faculty, staff and students – issued a lengthy report on the matter that affirmed the chalkings are protected free speech under university policy. In March, Emory students attracted national attention, and a healthy dose of mockery, for a protest that occurred after the pro-Trump messages were discovered.
Sophomore Jonathan Peraza reportedly led a chant and called out, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”
The student’s pain over the message does not trump Donald Trump supporters’ rights of free speech, the committee found.
“Certainly, if the content of the chalkings threatened violence, force, or injury to persons or property, they would violate the Open Expression Policy as well as other policies, including state criminal law,” the report says. “Such acts would also reasonably evoke feelings of fear—though the acts are prohibited without reference to whether anyone subjectively feels fear; and likewise, a subjective feeling of fear is insufficient, by itself, to bring an act within a prohibition in the Policy. The knowledge that someone supports Donald Trump and is willing to express his feelings in chalk is not a threat, and is not a reasonable cause for fear in this context.”
originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: Gryphon66
Offended by someone's opinion?! Oh dear god, the horror, the horror! Who knew it was legal for someone to disagree with someone else?! Honestly, this is extremely disappointing. The reaction of the students I mean. The college did the right thing, but it should have been obvious from the very beginning!
originally posted by: GodEmperor
Give it a few days, soon hordes of liberals shall descend upon Emory University. They will burn that school to the ground for their gross support of 'racist white hate speech'.
It's a very sad day, to think it requires a committee of experts to come to this conclusion.
originally posted by: GodEmperor
Give it a few days, soon hordes of liberals shall descend upon Emory University. They will burn that school to the ground for their gross support of 'racist white hate speech'.
It's a very sad day, to think it requires a committee of experts to come to this conclusion.
originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I don't believe this topic is about Trump supporters, or the outmoded evolutionary adaptation of 'racism' that every single human possesses.
I will accept a payment plan.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66
This is good news. Hopefully it sets an example to other universities. Freedom of speech is a key component of academic freedom, and without it, there is no university.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: GodEmperor
Give it a few days, soon hordes of liberals shall descend upon Emory University. They will burn that school to the ground for their gross support of 'racist white hate speech'.
It's a very sad day, to think it requires a committee of experts to come to this conclusion.
I will bet you all the money in the world that nothing of that sort will ever happen because of this event.
This new found narrative that liberals are violent is getting tedious... All the Trump supporters shouted down accusations of Trump supporters being racist, yet these very same Trump supporters are literally doing the same thing to the liberals. I guess it's because Trump's focus is shifting from internal party strife to partisan strife... Thus the focus of the ad hominems shift from other conservatives to liberals. Too bad for you guys that Trump is more liberal than he is conservative.
PS: It always requires a committee of experts to come to decisions like this, even if the verdict looks obvious. That's what Constitutional lawyers are for.
originally posted by: chuck258
Thirdly: If you seriously think someone legally chalking "Trump 2016" on the grounds of a Public University requires "experts" to determine the phrase is free speech, or at the very least NOT HATE SPEECH - you are why there is so much government waste, and are part of the problem. Seriously. If you don't think "Bernie 2016" or "Clinton 2016" are hate speech (something tells me you probably wouldn't), then by simple extension of logic, "Trump 2016" should also not be hate speech. There we go, we just solved the problem, no committee, no experts.