Comments (19)
sorted by:
AntonioOfVenice [S] 32 points ago +32 / -0

From the court filing:

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s comments were offensive student speech. As the audio recording establishes, Plaintiff’s words were openly hostile to the panel and their presentation. (Compl., Ex. 46.B.) He was critical of the responses he received, he interrupted the panelists, and he repeated the same question multiple times despite receiving clear answers. (Id.) His tone was argumentative, bordering on contemptuous, and most of his questions sounded rhetorical rather curious, as if he had posed them solely to expose the illegitimacy of the subject matter. (Id.) Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that Plaintiff’s jarring tone and manner of expression drew notice from at least two faculty members, one of whom described Plaintiff as “antagonistic.”

Note that this is the same 'university' where the multiple rape hoax by Jackie took place, and which took action against fraternities without needing any evidence.

UVA should not exist.

ernsithe 20 points ago +20 / -0

as if he had posed them solely to expose the illegitimacy of the subject matter.

Hahaha. UVA acknowledges the illegitimacy of the subject matter.

ProdigalPlaneswalker 11 points ago +11 / -0

It's... right there in the testimony.

crunches ramen

Just... gotta look it up, cumo.

Freedom_burger 19 points ago +19 / -0

This is the crux of this whole thing, IMO:

as if he had posed them solely to expose the illegitimacy of the subject matter.

How much trouble must we be in where the legitimacy of an idea cannot be questioned in a forum designed expressly for that very thing?! Preposterous!

Intra 18 points ago +18 / -0

College is for indoctrination, granpa!

veus_dolt 11 points ago +11 / -0

We can just say Jackie Coakley here, can't we? It's not like naming someone who was sexually assaulted or anything, so there's no reason it should be a problem.

CZcowboy 6 points ago +6 / -0

If only Jefferson knew what his creation would’ve become....

AntonioOfVenice [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, he'd have never written the Declaration of Independence.

AntonioOfVenice [S] 28 points ago +28 / -0

UVA argued that a public university student mildly objecting to microaggression theory was offensive speech and thus not covered by the First Amendment.


Note that they are targeting a racial minority as well. I guess they feel rather threatened when one of the people whom they use as a shield for their cult's agenda speaks up against it.

Mad_Hattie 27 points ago +27 / -0

Why would "Safe speech" ever need protecting?

And this guy is a Dean of a School?

lgbtqwtfbbq 13 points ago +13 / -0

The best thing twitter has done is shown to the average person just how ignorant the average academic is outside their narrow area of expertise and how susceptible to poor reasoning and groupthink they are.

It's one thing to hear a PhD speak about their field of expertise, particularly in a classroom setting where they're teaching the same material over and over. It's a whole other thing entirely to hear them talk about anything else. Most people only experience the former, but twitter lets you experience the latter.

It's something you also come to realize when you work with or get to know enough PhDs, but that's not something the average person does.

Mad_Hattie 7 points ago +7 / -0

For a parent to want these types of people teaching their kids should be a kind of neglect.

KekistanPM 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'm listening to the Intellectuals and Society audiobook by Sowell. It hit upon this very topic; so many intellectuals think they're experts in everything just because they're experts in one thing. Their arrogance blinds them to their ignorance.

Ricwulf 6 points ago +6 / -0

If the UVA campus is not a place for free speech, then strip them of any and all taxpayer funds, and bar them from any further government grants as well. They don't get it both ways.

You wanna pull the "private property" bullshittery, then you need to be truly private. I'm sick and tired of the idea that these institutions that receive hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money (at minimum) simply getting to then walk all over human rights, like freedom of speech, or the right to privacy, or the right to a fair trial. They wanna behave like that? Then let them stand on their own two feet instead of leeching off taxpayers.

MustafaJones 4 points ago +4 / -0

The fact that a university doesn’t understand how the 1st amendment works is a very troubling indictment against the American education system.

almond_activator 3 points ago +3 / -0

doesn’t understand

They understand just fine. They simply find people readily accept the "Hanlon's Razor" argument because they've been trained since birth to have the memory of a goldfish.

News outlets that once reported Donald Trump's net worth was less than $100m are now claiming he lost $1.1b during his time in office as some sort of victory, and the people who read those articles, who parroted those claims, are today walking around, effectively claiming he lost 11x his total net worth, without a hint of irony, and will staunchly deny ever having claimed otherwise.

To quote the late great Ian Fleming: "Once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action."

The counter is in the thousands. There are no coincidences any more, not with these people.

PP2020 4 points ago +4 / -0

I cannot imagine graduating now VS when I did

Disagreeing with the definition of micro aggression and then being told that offensive speech is not covered under free speech

Good fucking god

akai_ferret 2 points ago +2 / -0

If I had the chance to rewrite the constitution I would include something extremely important I think the founders left out.

Criminal penalties for violating enumerated constitutional rights.

All the way up and down the chain.

From the SJW faculty members trying to violate this student's 1st amendment rights ... all the way up to a legislator sponsoring a bill that is later found to be in violation of the constitution.

In all cases where a gov representative/employee has been found to violate someone's constitutional rights they are automatically expelled from their position, incarcerated for no less than one year, and barred from ever holding public office or employment again.

AntonioOfVenice [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Considering how judges make up constitutional provisions on the spot, this may have been dangerous. They can just say that Voter ID violates constitutional rights, and throw the advocates in prison.

It is quite unsatisfying that these people get away with it though. Legislators should make the officials personally liable for millions of punitive damages in case of free speech violations.