Student Sues College After Being Punished for Her Anti-Gay Language

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The article says she described lesbianism as perverse, not a character.

The article linked in the OP says:

The professor also blasted Pompeo's view that a lesbian character in the film had a "perverse attraction to the same sex" and a "barren womb."

Whether she's critiquing a character or lesbianism in general, it doesn't matter, I just don't see any hate speech there.

Based on what little we have to go by in the article, I think maybe the student certainly has a right to object to what her professor did with her paper but I really don't think this has any merit in court. Since a court did agree to take this case, my guess is we're only getting a very small amount of what was actually written by both parties.

a reply to: CoherentlyConfused

That's the other thing. What exactly does "perverse attraction" mean?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So many people don't understand what free speech in the Constitution is. Free speech as outlined in the Constitution applies to the GOVERNMENT only. Free speech doesn't apply to private institutions or private conversations.

The last time I checked, the University of New Mexico was a public university, meaning that it is a part of the state government. It isn't a private institution, not that that matters any.

a reply to: adjensen

You're right it doesn't matter since this girls speech wasn't infringed anyways. The professor just suggested she drop the class. She was more than free to continue with voicing her opinion.

a reply to: Petros312

Free speech only protects people from being censored by the government. It does not apply anywhere else.

Also, what did she expect taking a feminist class?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Freedom of Speech shouldn't cover hate speech...

That is precisely the kind of speech that needs protection most.
There's a world of difference between hateful speech and hateful action.
200 years ago criticizing the King would have been called hate speech by today's standards.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

The FF would have laughed at the term, had it existed back then. "Hate speech" is just another attempt to censor speech one does not like. It is entirely subjective and way overused.

Likely, the call for such freedom was for the FF a counter to control by the British.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're right it doesn't matter since this girls speech wasn't infringed anyways.

On the contrary, according to the suit, she was kicked out of class for expressing an unpopular opinion. Students who did not profess that opinion were not kicked out of class, so this is a clear violation of freedom of speech. The point of which the judge agreed:

Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo's Sept. 29 order found Pompeo's claims were enough to make a plausible case that the university violated her First Amendment rights.

Armijo's ruling questioned whether a "university can have a legitimate pedagogical interest in inviting students to engage in `incendiary' and provocative speech on a topic and then punishing a student because he or she did just that."

"Simply because Plaintiff expressed views about homosexuality that some people may deem offensive does not derive her views of First Amendment protection," the judge wrote.

a reply to: adjensen

The suit can say anything the plaintiff wants it to say. That doesn't mean that it is what happened.

From the article:

Pompeo alleges the professor also made it clear that it would be in Pompeo's best interests not to return to the class.

That's a suggestion not a demand.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Which basically means "You're wasting your time coming to my class because no matter what you do from here on out, I'm going to flunk you for being what I consider a bigot."

a reply to: Bone75

You can read into it what you want. I'm just saying it isn't a free speech issue.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The suit can say anything the plaintiff wants it to say. That doesn't mean that it is what happened.

The fact that the judge has ruled that she has the grounds to proceed with a case on the basis of the violation of First Amendment rights would indicate that the case has merits, whether you agree with it or not.

I guarantee you that if the case was an atheist who was kicked out of class for disparaging Christianity, the ACLU, federal government and most of the "pshaw, this is a bunch of BS" posters in this thread would be calling for the professor to be run out of town on a rail.

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The suit can say anything the plaintiff wants it to say. That doesn't mean that it is what happened.

The fact that the judge has ruled that she has the grounds to proceed with a case on the basis of the violation of First Amendment rights would indicate that the case has merits, whether you agree with it or not.

True.

I guarantee you that if the case was an atheist who was kicked out of class for disparaging Christianity, the ACLU, federal government and most of the "pshaw, this is a bunch of BS" posters in this thread would be calling for the professor to be run out of town on a rail.

I guess you'll have to wait for such an event to happen to see if that is true or not. Though, I'm certainly not a liberal so you wouldn't see me caring about this issue if it applied to ACLU or federal government slander. I'm also agnostic not atheist.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm also agnostic not atheist.

I wasn't referring to you -- just pointing out that, for many, the "oh, this is nonsense" conclusion is based on whether they personally agree with what is being said under the guise of "free speech."

From last February: Free speech outcry as images of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are banned from London South Bank University for offending religious people and from last year: An important victory for free speech on campus

And, for the record, I would be supporting all of these free speech issues, because free speech is about allowing people free reign to form their own opinions and express themselves, not about conforming to what authority deems is offensive or subversive.

a reply to: adjensen

Fantastic. I'm going to exit the thread now. My piece has been said.

It sounds like she wasn't making any sort of real argument about anything. She just finds same sex attraction and sex perverse. I don't see how that fits in an academic setting. It's supposed to be informed debate not yelling of personal opinions. If you are discussing the rise of the Soviet Union and you just scream out "communists are disgusting monsters" that's not really constructive.

blogs.mprnews.org...

A 1992 case before the Supreme Court defined the difference between hateful acts of hateful speech when it overturned the conviction of a teenager for burning a cross on the lawn of an African American St. Paul family.

seems if cross burning is covered by freedom of speech and that the words "barren" and "perverse" should be golden

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... link to the case with the cross burning

www.firstamendmentcenter.org... another case from agust where schools are trying to stop antisemitism at colleges and is raising first amendment concerns as well posted to give another scenairo for people to ponder before forming an opinion

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 SACRAMENTO, Calif. — An Assembly resolution urging California colleges and universities to squelch nascent anti-Semitism also encouraged educators to crack down on demonstrations against Israel, angering advocates for Muslim students. With no debate, lawmakers yesterday approved a resolution that encourages university leaders to combat a wide array of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel actions. “California schools need to recognize that anti-Semitism is still a very real issue on college campuses around the state — it did not disappear with the end of World War II,” said Assemblywoman Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, the resolution’s author. Most of the incidents of anti-Semitism the resolution cited are related to the Israel-Palestine debate. These include instances of protesters comparing Israeli police to Nazis and urging support for Hamas.

so to the people who would want to see this ladies speech as hateful or something that should be punished how would they feel if criticizing Israeli were treated the same way?

www.firstamendmentcenter.org... hell even the milita members that pretty much were threatening to overthrow the government were covered by freedom of speech and had charges of conspiracy dropped and it seems most of them barring the leader are to be released

“The court is aware that protected speech and mere words can be sufficient to show a conspiracy. In this case, however, they do not rise to that level,” the judge said on the second anniversary of raids and arrests that broke up the group. Roberts granted requests for acquittal on the most serious charges: conspiring to commit sedition, or rebellion, against the U.S. and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. Other weapons crimes tied to the alleged conspiracies also were dismissed. “The judge had a lot of guts,” defense attorney William Swor said. “It would have been very easy to say, ‘The heck with it,’ and hand it off to the jury. But the fact is she looked at the evidence, and she looked at it very carefully.”

so if talk of sedition (at least in this one case) is covered by freedom of speech and does not constitute treason/conspiring against the government why not the words barren and perverse?

www.firstamendmentcenter.org... one more from the first amendment center that went diffrently then most rulings on this kind of thing,in this case a man was arrested and convicted of hate speech for words he used that evidently lead to a fight later on(he was not the one assulting just saying hate full words) and this could be an interesting case to follow to those interested in the first amendment case law that keeps getting made

Zachrey Harris, 23, was convicted April 6 of ethnic intimidation, a class 1 misdemeanor, for using racial slurs and comments — like “get out of my country” — during an argument that left University of Colorado student Oluyibi Ogundipe with broken bones in his face in September. Harris was not accused of assaulting the Nigerian native, but police said he was the main person using the hateful language that fueled the fight. Harris’ conviction on the misdemeanor charge was the first of its kind in Boulder County, and legal experts said it was a rare prosecution in the state in that Harris was accused of using words alone and not resorting to physical violence.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

by not grading her paper.

the claim in the suit, which the judge read.

The lawsuit alleges the teacher violated her own syllabus, which called for "open minds" to examine "representations of a plethora of genders and sexualities." Instead, Pompeo says, she was accused of resorting to "hate speech," and the professor refused to grade her paper.

are you a lawyer? did you spend years in law school? did you spend years as a practicing lawyer? did you spend years as a practicing lawyer before being appointed as a U.S. District Judge? did you spend years as a U.S. District Judge before being appointed the Chief Judge of a U.S. District ?

this woman, Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo has, and i think her opinion holds much more weight than forum members.

when a judge who has access to much more information about the suit than we do says there is. to use her words again.

Chief U.S. District Judge M. Christina Armijo's Sept. 29 order found Pompeo's claims were enough to make a plausible case that the university violated her First Amendment rights.
questioned whether a "university can have a legitimate pedagogical interest in inviting students to engage in `incendiary' and provocative speech on a topic and then punishing a student because he or she did just that." "Simply because Plaintiff expressed views about homosexuality that some people may deem offensive does not derive her views of First Amendment protection,"

knowing how the U.S. has cracked down on hate speech and puts that under a fine microscope, and goes after people that do. i'll take the Judges word over forum members any time. i think she has a better take on what the U.S. considers hate speech, and what is not. and when someones rights have been violated.

the student did exactly what the assignment said, she wasn't given a set of predetermined words or ways of expressing them.and basing her decision not to grade said paper due the words and manner she expressed her self.by not grading her paper the teacher did violate her right to free speech. the student did exactly what the assignment said to do. you shouldn't hold your feeling about a subject against some who did what you told them to do, just because you don't like the words or mannerism /expression they use.