Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
The Limits of Free Speech [View all] mountain grammy Mar 2015 OP
Sorry, but I disagree, racist speech is free speech, however offensive it is. GGJohn Mar 2015 #1
The remedy for offensive speech if more speech. nt COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #4
Absolutely correct. eom. GGJohn Mar 2015 #5
+1. Jefferson was right when he first said it. treestar Mar 2015 #100
It was actually Justice Louis Brandeis hifiguy Mar 2015 #176
Correct rock Mar 2015 #12
Same here. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #15
Yes. n/t distantearlywarning Mar 2015 #19
They are not arrested mountain grammy Mar 2015 #27
The government (acting here as a State University) should not have the COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #29
Universities have plenty of power over their students. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #35
You can't have a rule that violates the First Amendment COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #38
The rules don't violate the first amendment.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #39
Of course they do. The government cannot punish a person for COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #40
The university is a government? Major Hogwash Mar 2015 #53
It's a STATE university. As such, it is what in law is COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #65
the 14th amendment also applies, meaning that the university needs to ensure geek tragedy Mar 2015 #76
Interesting but hypothetical. The students didn't create an atmosphere COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #78
So you think it's unconstitutional to forbid students from engaging in race-based geek tragedy Mar 2015 #80
No. But that's not what occurred here. You can't stretch COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #81
No, there was illegal discrimination however. nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #85
By the students who were expelled? Really? COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #90
" you can hang him from a tree, but he'll never sign with me" geek tragedy Mar 2015 #94
Now you're just making stuff up. These students are not 'stating that they had COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #188
You are being willfully blind to what they said. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #190
I'm a lawyer with more than 25 years in practice. What I COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #192
You are claiming racist frat boys chanting this little ditty: geek tragedy Mar 2015 #194
It's not 'evidence' of anything. And yes, lots of them. COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #195
Like you have black friends I'm sure. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #197
Thank you, Counselor. Please proceed to tell me just COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #201
The two students who stated their intent to discriminate against blacks by singing geek tragedy Mar 2015 #204
Now you have convinced me. COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #206
Toodles. And by the way yes plaintiffs' lawyers geek tragedy Mar 2015 #208
Bullshit. nt COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #210
So what do you think about laws against hate speech? ismnotwasm Mar 2015 #179
In general terms I'm opposed to them. 'Hate speech' is a COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #184
In the United States they would be fundamentally unconstitutional, because among other things, Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #226
Fuck.such.laws. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not authoritarian censorship. X_Digger Mar 2015 #243
In addition, full enjoyment of the benefits of the system COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #79
Incorrect. The fraternity is university-sanctioned student group and is part of the geek tragedy Mar 2015 #82
It's not the fraternity that's being charged with anything. COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #92
there is a RIGHT to not be discriminated against. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #95
You are doing your damndest to be outraged and, as such COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #186
Zzzzxx. The song referred explicitly geek tragedy Mar 2015 #193
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #110
not every illegal act is punishable by a criminal sentence. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #111
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #114
The university punished those engaged geek tragedy Mar 2015 #118
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #124
Sure they can cyberswede Mar 2015 #130
Good lord. Next thing you'll be saying DU can punish posters by banning them for not following its uppityperson Mar 2015 #133
as long as racist white guys continue to feel sorry for themselves because geek tragedy Mar 2015 #134
Yep mountain grammy Mar 2015 #232
WHAT?!?!!11 cyberswede Mar 2015 #136
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #156
Yes, they do. Welcome to DU. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #131
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #159
No, just that it is an appropriate one nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #160
An officially recognized student group singing songs abour racially lynching other students cheapdate Mar 2015 #177
To answer your question, in my legal opinion COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #185
I think "You can hang 'em from a tree" crossed a line. cheapdate Mar 2015 #207
What line, legally speaking? It's your opinion that COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #209
The "line" between protected speech and a threat of violence. cheapdate Mar 2015 #211
For a threat to be actionable it must be clear and inciting COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #213
Free speech limits cases are rarely clear or simple. cheapdate Mar 2015 #215
It's not muddled, it's nuanced. COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #222
What makes you certain they weren't serious? cheapdate Mar 2015 #235
What makes you certain that they were? COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #248
FWIW I agree with you Saboburns Mar 2015 #216
It always depends on whose ox is being gored. COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #223
As an aside, shouldn't there at least have been a hearing before they were expelled?? Saboburns Mar 2015 #230
They had a right to appeal the decision before it went into effect. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #237
er, um Saboburns Mar 2015 #238
They were given a right to a swift hearing, accompanied by counsel if they wished. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #239
Good Saboburns Mar 2015 #240
I agree that they should have had some type of a COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #249
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #107
Of course I read the article, the entire article.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #163
But they were punished by being expelled, GGJohn Mar 2015 #48
Exactly, and I want the racist slime buckets right out in the open Warpy Mar 2015 #46
I generally agree, but I don't want to avoid them, GGJohn Mar 2015 #49
Couldn't agree more. hifiguy Mar 2015 #175
If we wont protect racist speech, why bother protecting speech at all. Nobody is worried NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #227
OMG!!!!! GGJohn Mar 2015 #241
This is an easy one...When I say protect speech, it doesnt mean there arent NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #277
I also defend the use of codes of conduct. n/t Adrahil Mar 2015 #269
Context is everything. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #2
Yes. And the song said that the SAE fraternity would not accept African-Ameircans who wished JDPriestly Mar 2015 #43
Bingo! nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #51
We should not make criminals out of people making extemely offensive statements or thoughts. tritsofme Mar 2015 #3
They are not criminals mountain grammy Mar 2015 #28
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #161
I don't think that's exactly what geek is saying.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #164
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #165
it is illegal for fraternities on college campuses to discriminate on the basis of race. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #168
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #172
Speech that incites to violence is illegal dissentient Mar 2015 #6
Agreed. They would be considered "fighting words", Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #14
Were they broadcasting those words for public consumption or was there an expectation of privacy? Throd Mar 2015 #16
I was addressing the hypothetical situation in the post. Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #18
It doesn't matter.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #30
A public (state-ran) university can not have a policy in opposition to the first amendment. X_Digger Mar 2015 #244
So who decides what is free speech and what is not? Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #7
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #105
Some judges are appointed by politicians. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #108
Don Siegelman doesn't. nt valerief Mar 2015 #139
Your honor, I rest my case. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #143
The OP dicused limiting free speach for racists becasue wha they said is unacceptable. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2015 #212
This article is racist and should be banned! Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #8
If this article truly was racist thucythucy Mar 2015 #54
The point of my post Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #55
Still not sure of your position here. thucythucy Mar 2015 #88
You're confused about what 'free speech' is. The protection of COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #202
Which also makes it subject to the Fourteenth Amendment thucythucy Mar 2015 #218
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. It's not a violation of equal protection COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #220
The equal protection clause thucythucy Mar 2015 #258
If these boys had been hauled off to jail mountain grammy Mar 2015 #93
"those boys" huh? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #98
Huh? mountain grammy Mar 2015 #104
This brings up a point about the media sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #9
Factually incorrect Telcontar Mar 2015 #11
If I am wrong I apologize,but sadoldgirl Mar 2015 #22
Then someone could claim Thom Hartman lied. See how the slope gets slippery? onenote Mar 2015 #23
Here is a detailed explanation Telcontar Mar 2015 #25
I disagree. The racist frat boys are but the low hanging fruit on curbing free speech. Throd Mar 2015 #10
A slap on the wrist, OK, but expulsion is PC gone mad. Yorktown Mar 2015 #13
Agreed, especially since the university did not expel a student who punched a girl so hard Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #17
Didn't know that. Agreed. Total loss of proportions. Yorktown Mar 2015 #20
That was completely different and you know it! Dr. Strange Mar 2015 #21
Expulsion is the choice of the president of the university mountain grammy Mar 2015 #31
The President of the University is still subject to the First Amendment onenote Mar 2015 #57
The song stated that there would never be an African-American in SAE. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #44
normally one goes through a degree of due process before penalizing someone onenote Mar 2015 #58
They didn't violate a law, they were never arrested mountain grammy Mar 2015 #103
I was responding to the post above mine onenote Mar 2015 #151
Sorry if I offended you. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #157
Nope. Because the frat boys did not make policy. Yorktown Mar 2015 #313
No, it's well-deserved. alarimer Mar 2015 #61
The students should not have been expelled. Jenoch Mar 2015 #24
I disagree. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #32
Why? Jenoch Mar 2015 #36
I apologize. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #45
I don't know what rules they broke, Jenoch Mar 2015 #47
insofar as it's private speech, yes. Insofar as it's direct evidence that they engaged geek tragedy Mar 2015 #74
The "they" in this case are two pledges who have no power to deny entrance based on race.. X_Digger Mar 2015 #245
Their fraternity taught them that song, fostered an environment where they felt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #252
That's not really an answer, now is it? X_Digger Mar 2015 #255
There was an ongoing conspiracy to violate civil rights laws by geek tragedy Mar 2015 #256
Conspiracy has an actual legal meaning. You should look it up. Oh wait, nevermind. X_Digger Mar 2015 #259
The administration busted the chumps were dumb enough to get themselves on video. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #260
Butbutbut.. conspuracy, dagnabbit! X_Digger Mar 2015 #262
Funny how you sputter with outrage when people criticize racist billboards geek tragedy Mar 2015 #265
No, I scold people for wanting to take unconstitutional action against racism. X_Digger Mar 2015 #267
You jumped in and freaked out because people geek tragedy Mar 2015 #268
Are you in the same thread as I am? We're discussing a state agency expelling a couple of racists.. X_Digger Mar 2015 #270
No, your whining that people objected to racism from a past thread. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #271
So you can't support the premise upthread so you a) start another thread looking for backup.. X_Digger Mar 2015 #272
My point is that Jim Crow needs to be stamped out, and that anyone geek tragedy Mar 2015 #273
They need to do so *within the law* not outside it. The ends don't justify the means. X_Digger Mar 2015 #274
Hostile environment is well-established law. There's no first amendment right geek tragedy Mar 2015 #276
Can't seem to nail down a theory, can you? X_Digger Mar 2015 #278
all of the above. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #279
The words come out of my mouth just fine, thanks. They don't need your help. X_Digger Mar 2015 #282
No. Wait, not just no, but fuck no. X_Digger Mar 2015 #26
There were no criminal charges.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #33
So if a cop holds you overnight for blasphemy but there are never any charges, that's cool, right? X_Digger Mar 2015 #34
They were never held overnight or in custody at all and no law enforcement was involved. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #37
I read the article from the OP. What, then, exactly, is the author looking for? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #59
you can ask the Jews of Europe how free speech is working for them. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #60
The French authorities have arrested Bridget Bardot numerous times for Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #63
when speech is intended to deprive people of the benefits of public programs geek tragedy Mar 2015 #69
Then anyone who is pro-marriage equality is enaged in anti-religious discrimination. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #97
I asked someone else this: do you think white students wearing KKK robes should be allowed to geek tragedy Mar 2015 #99
Again, you keep asking for power yet you won't define the limits of that power. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #101
Care to answer the question? thucythucy Mar 2015 #158
Why did you truncate the spelling of the word "nigger"? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #162
I truncated the spelling out of consideration for others thucythucy Mar 2015 #217
Systems don't make people free, they just shift around who is being held down and Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #221
And yet after all this discussion you still haven't answered the question. thucythucy Mar 2015 #263
wait. You admit the system is broke and corrupt and inherently biased but Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #283
What the fuck is "comfering more power" thucythucy Mar 2015 #305
comferring = conferring ... a.k.a. a typo. Seems rather obvious, really. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #306
I didn't notice the typo, thucythucy Mar 2015 #307
"I am truly glad you can see yourself endorsing civil rights law. You really had me wondering." Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #308
What you said is perfect mountain grammy Mar 2015 #261
You're entirely welcome. thucythucy Mar 2015 #264
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #167
Didn't the US just assassinate (by drone) someone for hate speech against the US? delrem Mar 2015 #41
No. They killed him because he was geek tragedy Mar 2015 #52
How did he participate? Yes: through speech. delrem Mar 2015 #62
just like mafia bosses order hits on rivals and witnesses "through speech" nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #66
Not that I'm aware of. delrem Mar 2015 #68
here is just one example geek tragedy Mar 2015 #70
OK. very slim evidence, with no conviction or substantiation, but OK. delrem Mar 2015 #83
It's outside the US and part of a war treestar Mar 2015 #102
I'm sure! delrem Mar 2015 #135
The Constitution doesn't apply to non-US persons. jeff47 Mar 2015 #115
Absolutely! Hellfire missiles apply! delrem Mar 2015 #123
Yes, they do. But pretending that is not the case doesn't help. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #132
Who's pretending that's not the case? Not me. delrem Mar 2015 #140
So you're gonna delete your post then? jeff47 Mar 2015 #147
You might want to read post #83, Jeff. delrem Mar 2015 #214
Sadly true! JDPriestly Mar 2015 #42
why cannot people understand DonCoquixote Mar 2015 #50
Lots of things are privileges, not rights onenote Mar 2015 #56
Public universities, ran by state government-- are subject to the first amendment. X_Digger Mar 2015 #242
What everyone seems to forget is that free speech is not free from consequence. alarimer Mar 2015 #64
No. The real issue here is whether the government can COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #67
do you think the KKK should be able to start a whites-only geek tragedy Mar 2015 #71
Not a First Amendment issue. There is no constitutional COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #72
there's no constitutional right to a college education either nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #73
That's true. But that's also not what is at issue COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #75
they were punished for creating a hostile environment, which would include their geek tragedy Mar 2015 #77
Really? What 'hostile environment' did they create???? COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #84
um, racial discrimination? nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #86
Hostile environment is a specific, legally defined term. COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #89
so you are saying that discrimination and hostile environment are geek tragedy Mar 2015 #91
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #170
no, discrimination as in refusing to admit black students into the fraternity nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #171
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #174
You do realize, don't you, that the fraternity has black members? hack89 Mar 2015 #196
Last one pledged 14 years ago. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #198
For that particular chapter. hack89 Mar 2015 #199
this particular chapter. I make no claims about the national body. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #200
"Where you cannot name a specific person discriminated geek tragedy Mar 2015 #178
No, I'm saying hostile environment is one sub-set COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #189
I view the video as hostile Yonx Mar 2015 #311
This message was self-deleted by its author Yonx Mar 2015 #310
This article claims that Westboro picketed 'military funerals'? How precious is straight privilege? Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #87
The Westboro Church picketing is different.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #96
"the network had every right to suspend him as an offending employee" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #106
Bullshit and more bullshit. geek tragedy Mar 2015 #109
"You somehow always find a way to argue that racists and bigots rights trump everyone else's." Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #116
you just argued that A&E should have no first amendment right to avoid geek tragedy Mar 2015 #122
You're arguing your employer can fire you for posting on DU. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #126
No, I'm arguing they have the right to not use me in their promotional materials geek tragedy Mar 2015 #129
The whatever-it-is codes proposed in the OP didn't mention a "promotional materials" clause. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #141
Which is why laws were made to protect those trying to form unions.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #113
Laws are constructs of people, not things that are good in and of themselves. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #120
so why are you complaining that the Duck Dynasty bigot got taken off the air? geek tragedy Mar 2015 #125
I think the issue is laws vs policy.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #146
So you have no idea what employment law is? jeff47 Mar 2015 #127
You wrote -- Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #142
Nope, but denying reality is a very dumb tactic. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2015 #145
I don't see how I can be accused of denying reality when I wrote Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #149
And if that was what I replied to, it might have been relevant. jeff47 Mar 2015 #153
"So what statement got you punished so badly that you are so desperately defending the pro-lynching" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #155
Did you bother to read what I typed? Ok, I'll repeat it. The author defines Westboro actions thus: Bluenorthwest Mar 2015 #119
The students' right to appeal was spelled out in President Boren's letter... Spazito Mar 2015 #112
and there you go. They have the right to appeal. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #117
Yep, due process was afforded them... Spazito Mar 2015 #121
Yep, they will slink away mountain grammy Mar 2015 #128
Slink away, yes, learn a lesson in life and reality, I doubt it... Spazito Mar 2015 #138
You're probably correct.. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #150
Convicting someone of a violation and then telling COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #250
Why are you so much more upset about this than the Ferguson PD's oppression of geek tragedy Mar 2015 #253
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #257
It wasn't a "conviction", it was a decision made by the President of OSU... Spazito Mar 2015 #275
Do you have any idea of what "Due Process" means? COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #280
I do... Spazito Mar 2015 #281
But... "kids will be kids" Spazito! And if that means that they create a hostile environment for Number23 Mar 2015 #300
Yep, some of the posts in this thread are... Spazito Mar 2015 #301
Bad cases make bad law DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #137
the actual adage is "Hard cases make bad law" onenote Mar 2015 #234
With appeals those clowns might be twenty five years old when it works its way through the courts. DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #236
You'd think the offenders would want to keep their heads down and tblue37 Mar 2015 #144
Which is why the punishment was so appropriate. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #152
Be careful what you wish for . . . YarnAddict Mar 2015 #148
Yes, we do have to be careful, I agree. mountain grammy Mar 2015 #154
State universities are state actors Kurska Mar 2015 #166
They have a right to enforce rules and regulations mountain grammy Mar 2015 #169
They do not have a right to impose free speech restrictions. Kurska Mar 2015 #173
Students and faculty at state universities are barred geek tragedy Mar 2015 #181
You have to prove intent to harass, intimidate or menace. Kurska Mar 2015 #182
In this case, no. But this case geek tragedy Mar 2015 #183
DING DING DING! We have a winner. COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #203
So universities should be allowed to limit unpatriotic, anti-war speech, for example? (nt) Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #180
I'm sure you mean unpatriotic AND anti war speech mountain grammy Mar 2015 #187
So could a public university specify "no anti-war activity or speech" in its "code of conduct" Nye Bevan Mar 2015 #191
Unfortunately, if it were a private university it probably could. COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #205
Yes I think so too mountain grammy Mar 2015 #229
Theoretically yes, I guess they could mountain grammy Mar 2015 #228
Could a public university have a policy saying that "anyone who uses the Lord's name in a profane or onenote Mar 2015 #219
it's not fairly subjective, it's totally subjective. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #225
+1,000,000 n/t X_Digger Mar 2015 #246
Oh, we're supposed to be against free speech and the 1st Amendment, now? Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #224
So you think "hostile atmosphere" civil rights actions are per se unconstitutional? geek tragedy Mar 2015 #254
No, telling them to STFU would be tantamount to trying to censor their speech. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #284
hostile environment rules are themselves a restriction on speech though, no? nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #285
There are differences between restrictions and laws, i.e. government censorship. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #286
I think of Jews in France or Sweden or wherever and wonder if they're clamoring geek tragedy Mar 2015 #287
I'm probably closer to that situation than you are. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #288
If you want the real answer, look at the immigrant populations geek tragedy Mar 2015 #289
Yet Again, it has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #290
in general, I think this topic is not a good one for abstract discussions but is rather geek tragedy Mar 2015 #291
I agree, but the law professor who wrote the article deliberately drew a larger set of lines. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #292
i agreed with the platitudes, and the frustration. nt geek tragedy Mar 2015 #293
Being frustrated is fine, but a law professor in particular should know better. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #294
the whole thing is rather shoddy for a law professor, for one the students would be unlikely to geek tragedy Mar 2015 #295
Kent Greenfield is a "he", isn't he? Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #296
derp, for some reason when mountain grammy posted it I got my wires crossed and assumed geek tragedy Mar 2015 #298
Thats a wtf for sure. Warren DeMontague Mar 2015 #309
hostile environment rules are a restriction on conduct onenote Mar 2015 #297
the chant by itself at that moment didn't create a hostile environment, but it revealed practices geek tragedy Mar 2015 #299
if we're discussing the two students onenote Mar 2015 #302
I largely agree, but I think you touch on one key thing, is that the last thing the frat boys geek tragedy Mar 2015 #303
No doubt. onenote Mar 2015 #304
Not very well thought out. phil89 Mar 2015 #231
No such thing as free speech The Rob Black Show Mar 2015 #233
I believe whites who supported blacks were also lynched... graegoyle Mar 2015 #247
Are you seriously trying to argue that singing that song COLGATE4 Mar 2015 #251
Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2015 #266
There were violations here Yonx Mar 2015 #312
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Limits of Free Speech»Reply #86