- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 104,071
- Reaction score
- 84,041
- Location
- Biden's 'Murica
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No, that's you trying out your 2nd strawman argument. What I have stated is that the university ignored it even though they without a doubt knew about it. This didn't start in a vacuum. There had to have been rumors, water cooler conversations, late night coffee and cigarette discussions where the school officials touched on the topic in some manner. However, they ignored it as long as it wasn't out in the open and they had no concrete evidence. That is entirely separate from the obvious fact that this was acceptable behavior amongst the fraternity's members. Have you even watched the video?
The thought police at it again.....
People can think and usually even say what they want....but the First Amendment only protects them from consequences from the govt.
Don't cry "strawman". That's weak, and you know it. You said this was "acceptable" behavior to the university.
That's what makes this murky. The University of Oklahoma is a state university.
What is Oklahoma's eavesdropping laws? The phone owner who recorded this -- if applicable -- should be charged.
Is this not a private organization? Are they not allowed the freedom of expression and don't its members (of a fraternal organization known for its secrecy) have a certain expectation to privacy?
Or have people lost their marbles again and decided to sacrifice rights and laws on the alter of political correctness?
No, I did not. That's your strawman again. I said that this was acceptable behavior AMONGST THE MEMBERS. What members? Gee, I don't know. The Jackson 5 members? The members of Earth Wind & Fire perhaps? It's obvious I was talking about the fraternity's members. You're just trying to grasp at straws because every other argument you've made falls flat on its face.
Given how nonchalantly the students were singing their racist song? Of course they f'n knew. Again, this was ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR for the members. To pretend that at no point the school administration knew of it is like saying Penn State didn't know about Sandusky.
Huh? It was racist. Racists discriminate based on skin color. Bigots discriminate based on their beliefs.
Better look up the definition of both words. I heard nothing to indicate:
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
You didn't say any such thing. The poster was only talking about the University. Let me remind you of your post again:
Again, this was ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR for the members.
It's a growing process. [generally] The culture we have today doesn't help the situation. White kids listening to vulgar Rap music, then trying to emulate them.
You're grasping. The behavior in question was acceptable for the members of the fraternity. You trying to twist it to mean something about your invented members of the university term shows how desperate you are to win at something.
I guarantee Univ officials knew about this stuff for years and did nothing about it, second as a taxpayer funded entity if they allow frats to be affiliated they need to allow all points of view without bias amongst them
Of course they knew. There's no ****ing way they didn't know this was going down. What's bull**** is that people want us to believe that this exists in a vacuum. It clearly doesn't as far as this organization is concerned.
LOL! WUT?
Eavesdropping laws are for recording telephone calls
The point was you didn't engage with anyone. You invented the position of unnamed "liberals" and then stridently attacked "liberals" for positions you invented and attributed to them, but that no one that I can find on this thread actually expressed. If a person did express it, it's still nonsense to attribute what are the opinions of ONE person to this apparently homogeneous group of "liberals" who apparently in your view ALL have the same opinion of when and where the 1st Amendment applies or not.
Maybe it makes you feel better to trash "liberals", but it's intellectually lazy BS. Sorry you got called out for it.
He was not talking about the fraternity.
Now you're upset because you were talking about the fraternity, not the university. Okay. You responded to a post claiming that the university knew, agreeing that the university knew, but you were actually talking about some other entity knowing. Next time you should pay attention so you're agreeing with a post that you actually read.
Oh look, a picker of nits...how quaint...:roll:
Actually that would be wire tapping according to Black's Law dictionary eavesdropping is merely defined as "secretly listening to the private conversation of others without their consent"
Doesn't say over the phone or by mega phone, but good way to stay irrelevant! :thumb:
No, wire tapping does not mean "recording a telephone call" and regardless of what the word eavesdropping means, the term "eavesdropping laws" refer to laws which prohibit the taping of phone calls without permission.
Recording events in a public space is allowed by law if it's not done for a commercial purpose.
No kidding! I already said that I added that. I said this about 10-15 posts back. Are you seriously this desperate to make some kind of point?
I already stated that I discussed both in my post. I discussed the university knowing AND the behavior being acceptable for the members of the fraternity. You even quoted/responded to the post where I first explained this (200). Was the post not clear enough? There is really no concise way to explain that I discussed both issues. However, we're at that stage where you're just trying to not admit that your points really failed to convince anyone.
People can think and usually even say what they want....but the First Amendment only protects them from consequences from the govt.
You've been reduced to making up fictional scenarios to rationalize your bigotries
However the conversation has to be private for the eavesdropping law to applyA bus chartered by a private organization is not a public space.
But again, keep trying to defend the indefensible so your white guilt is soothed...
However the conversation has to be private for the eavesdropping law to apply
I would argue, that a conversation on a crowded bus regardless of who's chartered it, qualifies as a public conversation
I would argue the university is an arm of the government.....
We're at the point where if you criticize anyone, you can be called a racist
I would disagree as it is a space confined for private purpose.
According to Oklahoma law, it is a felony to willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or disclose the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. Okla. Stat. tit. 13 § 176.3. It is not a crime for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when the person is a party to the conversation or when one party to the conversation has given prior consent, so long as the person does not intercept the communication for criminal purposes. Okla. Stat. tit. § 176.4.
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. Okla. Stat. tit. § 176.2.
- See more at: Oklahoma - State laws - Wire Tapping
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?