losing constitutional rights

[Vendzilla]

This is getting really fucking scary, here are some excerpts, or you can read the whole thing

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administ...070000053.html

Grossman recounted that her son was denied counsel, subjected to a two-hour long inquisition, refused the opportunity to present evidence (in the form of emails from the former girlfriend and other documents) and denied the opportunity to question witnesses against him.

Following the Education Department's directive, the University of Hawaii announced that students may be evicted from dormitories after no more than an accusation. At Yale, an unsubstantiated charge of sexual assault against a star football player was enough to deny him a Rhodes scholarship. At Xavier University, a student who was found not guilty of sexual assault by a judge was nonetheless told by the university that he would be prohibited from participating in classes or extracurricular activities with his "victim." Caleb Warner was banned from the campuses of the University of North Dakota for three years. When police investigated the case, they issued an arrest warrant for his accuser, charging her with making a false rape charge. Only after repeated interventions on Warner's behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) did the university finally admit that the charges were without foundation.

The reasonable person standard is now gone. The new definition of sexual harassment decreed by the Obama administration is "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," including "verbal conduct." The purported victim now has the power to decide whether a young man or woman (but it's nearly always a man) is branded a sexual harasser. It's entirely subjective.
Obama promised fundamental transformation. This is part of it. Freedom of speech is sacrificed, and a new army of sexual harassment "specialists" will descend on America's campuses to enforce the new dispensation.

[sperbonzo]

And from Reason.com....

"
Say Anything Sexual That Offends Anyone on Campus, You Must Be Punished or School Can Lose Federal Funding

Brian Doherty|May. 10, 2013 4:53 pm

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is alarmed today at a letter from the Departments of Justice and Education to the University of Montana.

Here are some of the reasons why, from a FIRE press release:

In a letter sent yesterday to the University of Montana that explicitly states that it is intended as "a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country," the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser while ignoring the First Amendment. The mandate applies to every college receiving federal funding—virtually every American institution of higher education nationwide, public or private.

The letter states that "sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as 'any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'" including "verbal conduct" (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an "objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation"—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished....

Among the forms of expression now punishable on America's campuses by order of the federal government are:

Any expression related to sexual topics that offends any person. This leaves a wide range of expressive activity—a campus performance of "The Vagina Monologues," a presentation on safe sex practices, a debate about sexual morality, a discussion of gay marriage, or a classroom lecture on Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita—subject to discipline.
Any sexually themed joke overheard by any person who finds that joke offensive for any reason.
Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

There is likely no student on any campus anywhere who is not guilty of at least one of these "offenses." Any attempt to enforce this rule evenhandedly and comprehensively will be impossible.

"The federal government has put colleges and universities in an impossible position with this mandate," said [FIRE president Greg] Lukianoff. "With this unwise and unconstitutional decision, the DOJ and DOE have doomed American campuses to years of confusion and expensive lawsuits, while students' fundamental rights twist in the wind."

The full letter, for them that like to read and weep. Universities that do not attempt to prohibit those novel definitions of "sexual harassment" are liable to losing federal funds under Title IX and Title IV which "prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex" since sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination under those acts, says the departments.

Yet another reason to get government money out of education, if more were needed."



.

[pornlaw]

Think thats bad...

Obama and Holder are seizing phone records of AP reporters... More chipping away at the First Amendment...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...cords/2156521/

[nation-x]

I am always impressed with the fact that conservatives almost always use editorials and opinion pieces as defacto proof to substantiate their penchant to blame Obama for everything.

Here are the facts. No one directed those colleges/universities to take those actions. The letter from the Department of Education was not a "mandate". It was an attempt to help schools understand the changes to Title IX and how to deal with accusations. In addition, their guidance says colleges may have to take steps to ensure victims are separated from their assailants in classes and dorms and investigate the accusation. It doesn't tell colleges how to punish the accused. Furthermore, it was The Supreme Court that established that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination under Title IX. Not the Obama Administration.

[suesheboy]

Originally Posted by nation-x

I am always impressed with the fact that conservatives almost always use editorials and opinion pieces as defacto proof to substantiate their penchant to blame Obama for everything.

Here are the facts. No one directed those colleges/universities to take those actions. The letter from the Department of Education was not a "mandate". It was an attempt to help schools understand the changes to Title IX and how to deal with accusations. In addition, their guidance says colleges may have to take steps to ensure victims are separated from their assailants in classes and dorms and investigate the accusation. It doesn't tell colleges how to punish the accused. Furthermore, it was The Supreme Court that established that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination under Title IX. Not the Obama Administration.

Thank you.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by nation-x

I am always impressed with the fact that conservatives almost always use editorials and opinion pieces as defacto proof to substantiate their penchant to blame Obama for everything.

Here are the facts. No one directed those colleges/universities to take those actions. The letter from the Department of Education was not a "mandate". It was an attempt to help schools understand the changes to Title IX and how to deal with accusations. In addition, their guidance says colleges may have to take steps to ensure victims are separated from their assailants in classes and dorms and investigate the accusation. It doesn't tell colleges how to punish the accused. Furthermore, it was The Supreme Court that established that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination under Title IX. Not the Obama Administration.

Ah yes, but fair is fair.... everything that happened under Bush, was "Bush's fault", therefore turn around is fair play. If a Republican gets back into office then everything will go back to being his fault in the eyes of the media and critics....

Heck, maybe if we have a republican in the white house, the news will start really covering some of our overseas drone murders of little children again!!







.

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Ah yes, but fair is fair.... everything that happened under Bush, was "Bush's fault", therefore turn around is fair play. If a Republican gets back into office then everything will go back to being his fault in the eyes of the media and critics....

Heck, maybe if we have a republican in the white house, the news will start really covering some of our overseas drone murders of little children again!!
.

To be fair... I don't consider everything that happened under Bush to be his fault... most of it was Cheney

As far as drone attacks go... there has been lots and lots of press about it from the left while it is almost completely ignored by conservative media... and thus not subject to mainstream coverage. This should highlight the fact that the media is not "liberal"... it is reactive to conservative concerns. Look at pretty much any mainstream media source right now and you will see the top stories are what conservatives want to discuss... Benghazi, the AP, The IRS.

[Fat Panda]

the constitution is a phony document, its fucking worthless and should be BURNED. its NEVER been lived up to or implemented in amerika.

im sick of this cesspool of hate, corruption, fascism, cronyism and nepotism

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by nation-x

To be fair... I don't consider everything that happened under Bush to be his fault... most of it was Cheney

As far as drone attacks go... there has been lots and lots of press about it from the left while it is almost completely ignored by conservative media... and thus not subject to mainstream coverage. This should highlight the fact that the media is not "liberal"... it is reactive to conservative concerns. Look at pretty much any mainstream media source right now and you will see the top stories are what conservatives want to discuss... Benghazi, the AP, The IRS.

so you're saying all of mainstream media is owned by conservative interests?

than why not talk about the war crimes being committed by a democratic president?

[nation-x]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

so you're saying all of mainstream media is owned by conservative interests?

than why not talk about the war crimes being committed by a democratic president?

What if I told you that Obama is a right winger when it comes to war and that the Republican Party wants more of that instead of less...

[baddog]

Originally Posted by SAC

the constitution is a phony document, its fucking worthless and should be BURNED. its NEVER been lived up to or implemented in amerika.

im sick of this cesspool of hate, corruption, fascism, cronyism and nepotism

So move; what is stopping you?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

This is getting really fucking scary, here are some excerpts, or you can read the whole thing

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-administ...070000053.html

Grossman recounted that her son was denied counsel, subjected to a two-hour long inquisition, refused the opportunity to present evidence (in the form of emails from the former girlfriend and other documents) and denied the opportunity to question witnesses against him.

Not sure how to break it to you,but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights.

[dyna mo]

political correct initiatives have been happening on college campuses for decades.

hell, none of y'all remember this same bs in the 90s with affirmative action ?

couldn't call blacks blacks in a classroom in cali public colleges, had to call them a-a for example. they could lodge a formal complaint against you. they also got prefential treatment for acceptance with lower entry scores, easier access to grant money, etc.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by nation-x

I am always impressed with the fact that conservatives almost always use editorials and opinion pieces as defacto proof to substantiate their penchant to blame Obama for everything.

Here are the facts. No one directed those colleges/universities to take those actions. The letter from the Department of Education was not a "mandate". It was an attempt to help schools understand the changes to Title IX and how to deal with accusations. In addition, their guidance says colleges may have to take steps to ensure victims are separated from their assailants in classes and dorms and investigate the accusation. It doesn't tell colleges how to punish the accused. Furthermore, it was The Supreme Court that established that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination under Title IX. Not the Obama Administration.

No one directed them, so when the DOJ is sent to your school to investigate, it's just to educate the campus on title IX?

Here's one of those letters
http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents...r-findings.pdf

This is fucked up , some ex GF gets pissed at you and you basically get thrown out of college

Given the numerous levels of review in the SCC process, some Title IX complaints have taken
many months to resolve. For example, one student filed a sexual assault complaint that took
over eleven months to resolve. For that complaint, the accused student availed himself of five
levels of review, the fifth level of review did not occur until six months after the complaint was
filed, and the remand proceedings took over four months to complete and resulted in a reversal.
Because of this reversal, the length of the process, and the possibility that she would continue to
see the accused student, the complainant seriously contemplated not returning to campus

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by nation-x

What if I told you that Obama is a right winger when it comes to war and that the Republican Party wants more of that instead of less...

id say you were mistaken. looking back over the past 10 years, i have trouble telling when you guys had an election..

[Tom_PM]

I'll believe it when I see the clues in a Stanley Kubrick film.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

I'll believe it when I see the clues in a Stanley Kubrick film.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by baddog

Not sure how to break it to you,but that has nothing to do with constitutional rights.

College students don't have constitutional rights? If someone can accuse you of a crime and you are not allowed the constitutional rights to a fair trial, any sex crime follows the person for the rest of their lives thru laws like Megans law.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

hell, none of y'all remember this same bs in the 90s with affirmative action ?

I remember Affirmative action, we use to chase people off job sites in downtown LA when they came on the site to question us about it. We yelled at them that we were American, that's all they needed to know. It's still going on in the colleges and I believe the Supreme Court is going to make some kind of ruling on it or recently did

[CIVMatt]

I'm a little freaked out by this AP phone record thing, wow

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

College students don't have constitutional rights? If someone can accuse you of a crime and you are not allowed the constitutional rights to a fair trial, any sex crime follows the person for the rest of their lives thru laws like Megans law.

'it's like talking to a brick wall'

[Fat Panda]

Originally Posted by baddog

So move; what is stopping you?

come on baddog I thought you were better than that! this is the typical response from brainwashed amerikans content with the status quo.

i love my country and have been fighting to change it!

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by SAC

come on baddog I thought you were better than that! this is the typical response from brainwashed amerikans content with the status quo.

i love my country and have been fighting to change it!

ur a commie!

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by CIVMatt

I'm a little freaked out by this AP phone record thing, wow

I read about that too, we're losing constitutional rights at an alarming rate and they want to take away more I'm sure

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

College students don't have constitutional rights? If someone can accuse you of a crime and you are not allowed the constitutional rights to a fair trial, any sex crime follows the person for the rest of their lives thru laws like Megans law.

Think of it this way; what constitutional rights do you have on GFY? NONE.

I did not say college students don't have Constitutional rights, they just don't apply in this scenario.

Originally Posted by SAC

come on baddog I thought you were better than that! this is the typical response from brainwashed amerikans content with the status quo.

i love my country and have been fighting to change it!

Really? What have you done?

Originally Posted by CIVMatt

I'm a little freaked out by this AP phone record thing, wow

That is a pretty major issue; between that and the IRS revelation they are making it very easy for the conspiracy nutters.

[Fat Panda]

im extremely politically active but sorry dont care to share the details on gfy

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by baddog

Think of it this way; what constitutional rights do you have on GFY? NONE.

I did not say college students don't have Constitutional rights, they just don't apply in this scenario.

Schools are not giving students a fair trial in fear of not conforming to the new mandates and losing federal funding, that's unconstitutional

[mikesouth]

It isnt Democrats or Republicans its Democrats AND Republicans Every president since Richard (The war on drugs) Nixon has used fear mongering to whittle away our constitutional rights. Democrats AND Republicans hate our freedom

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

It isnt Democrats or Republicans its Democrats AND Republicans Every president since Richard (The war on drugs) Nixon has used fear mongering to whittle away our constitutional rights. Democrats AND Republicans hate our freedom

Agreed, Bush started the patriot act, Obama renewed it a couple times and added to it.