What made you LOL today?
- Thread starter AlienALX
- Start date
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Get over yourself, Terrorists of both the left and the right also use the word "the" shall we stop using that too ? Do yourself and everyone a favour and move on, This is already way off topic.
Greenback
Active member
Let's be fair this teacher is going with the current PC pick your gender as you see fit not anything scientific, but the main part that got me wasn't so much that, it was the teachers attitude instead of a discussion on the topic he puts the kid in a room, it just reminds me of what we see in colleges and universities with people deplatformed because they don't have the right think, and it seems he's got to stay there untill he thinks correctly.
Wouldn't it of been better for the teacher to explain about gender dysphoria or hermaphrodite's instead of segregating him like having his own opinion is a crime not to be encouraged as some put in the comments it's Orwell's 1984
If you see the protests in Birmingham over kids being taught about different relationships part of the protester's claims is it's indoctrination (which is quiet funny considering it's on religious grounds they don't want their kids taught) and video's like this would reinforce those statements
An attorney paid megabucks to win a libel claim pointing out that someone could have thrown food on the floor as a form of protest signifies what exactly?
You realise this libel claim is literally someone attempting(I think it will be successfully appealed on 1st amendment rights) to sue a college for not censoring their students? I thought censorship and forced ideals is exactly what we didn't want?
You realise this libel claim is literally someone attempting(I think it will be successfully appealed on 1st amendment rights) to sue a college for not censoring their students? I thought censorship and forced ideals is exactly what we didn't want?
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Look into the case. The students tried shoplifting, got caught by the cops, and they played the race card. They nearly ruined the small company because they were so vocal about racism and whatnot. They improperly accused an innocent entity.
Yeah but the libel case is against the university for not silencing the resulting protests(As they say, they're not the students parents and don't have legal jurisdiction over their actions), this case is not against the students or protesters themselves and does not implicate them legally.
Appellate courts always seems to take no risks when it comes to first amendment rights and because the defendants in this case aren't the people directly responsible for the cause of the libel damages I find it hard to see any appeal being unsuccessful.
Appellate courts always seems to take no risks when it comes to first amendment rights and because the defendants in this case aren't the people directly responsible for the cause of the libel damages I find it hard to see any appeal being unsuccessful.
Last edited:
Greenback
Active member
that student's at college are treated as if they are kids at nursery
You should read through it there were administrators at the protest handing out fliers and an email saying unleash the student's, another email saying if the bakery drops the charges against the 3 coloured men they would stop the protest, to say the college wasn't involved is just burying your head in the sand
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You didn't look into the case then.
The evidence presented with regards to administrators was internal emails not actions or public statements. Other evidence included quotes from retired professors and faculty staff not aligned with the college itself.
This whole claim rests on a jury finding the college itself responsible for the actions of its professors and students, but this would mean the college impeding on professors and students first amendment rights.
This whole claim rests on a jury finding the college itself responsible for the actions of its professors and students, but this would mean the college impeding on professors and students first amendment rights.
Last edited:
Greenback
Active member
Irrelevant to the case against the college itself what any students or professors(Who are generally not staff) did if the college had no legal jurisdiction over their actions. IE if the college can claim they believed they had no right to censor other people.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Professor's aren't staff now? Lmao sorry but that's funny.
They get paid by the college but AREN'T staff. Gotcha
You still have even read the whole case. There's a lot more than what was said here.
They get paid by the college but AREN'T staff. Gotcha
You still have even read the whole case. There's a lot more than what was said here.
Nope, most professors at a given college or uni arn't staff of that college, the vast vast majority are independent entities who collaborate with several colleges, and often aren't officially or can't legally be paid by those they do assist or collaborate with, which is why academics are generally the worst paid staff in education you can find, this is one of the many fundamental misunderstandings of jurisdiction by the jury that means it likely will be appealed.
In the UK many academics earn just enough to be above the poverty line, around £18k. Generally graduates out-earn academics within their first year of work. Academics do it because they are passionate about their subject, if they were there for the money they'd be in industry.
In the UK many academics earn just enough to be above the poverty line, around £18k. Generally graduates out-earn academics within their first year of work. Academics do it because they are passionate about their subject, if they were there for the money they'd be in industry.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
This isn't the UK now is it? This is the US. You clearly haven't read the case dude.
I don't have payment figures for the US but the structure of academic organisations has been fairly constant around the world for centuries, as has this issue of whether colleges have the capacity to censor influential figures within them. Attacking an education facility financially for not being strict enough on their faculty is a very slippery slope and the actions taken in this case can't be proven to have any impact on the perpetrators of the libel(Which I don't deny occurred).
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Just to quote the above.
"You should stop drinking the Kool aid and read through the things"
"You should stop drinking the Kool aid and read through the things"
I have read the case and like the many other nearly identical cases before it I would bet a lot of money on this also being appealed on the same freedom of speech/1st amendment arguments. All the college has to do is claim they believed they had no right to censor their faculty, professors, students ect who are all legally separate entities.
The only clear damning evidence presented was all done while members were explicitly not speaking on the colleges behalf, in private communications or otherwise, which an appellate court would never accept as being intentional libel.
There's a long history of libel cases being used in the US to attempt to censor controversial actions within their universities, they always pass on the local small jury and always flop at the appeals courts.
The only clear damning evidence presented was all done while members were explicitly not speaking on the colleges behalf, in private communications or otherwise, which an appellate court would never accept as being intentional libel.
There's a long history of libel cases being used in the US to attempt to censor controversial actions within their universities, they always pass on the local small jury and always flop at the appeals courts.
Last edited:
