Rights

[The Sicatoka]

Hello and welcome to today's class. I'm "The Sicatoka". I'll be giving today's lecture on civics and government as your normal instructor is preparing to take the others "to school" on these issues in the near future.

First, let's clear up some misconceptions about "rights." Some of you have foolishly begun to believe you have rights that don't exist.

Let me summarize these pseudo-rights, and why you are wrong about them.

1. There is no right to exclusive self-portrayal.

To believe otherwise is to believe that only Democrats can tell you about Mr. Clinton and only Republicans can tell you about Mr. Bush.

2. There is no right to not be offended.

Someone will always find something to be offensive to them. I know someone offended by Cheerios. No, I'm not kidding.

3. There is no right to respect.

Respect is a strange quantity. You have to give it before you have any given to you. You have to earn it. It's not guaranteed.

However, moving to rights we all have, under the US Constitution, we all are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and guaranteed freedom of speech. How you use them is up to you.

The right to free speech trumps psuedo-right number 1 in every case. Imagine a world where you could only hear one side of any story.

Pseudo-right 2 is covered by "equal protection" meaning we'll all be offended by something some day. I'd be offended if there wasn't something offensive out there; that'd be a pretty boring world otherwise. See? Equal.

As far as respect, unearned respect is just that - unearned - meaning it's worthless and hollow. To demand (unearned) respect rings even more hollow.

Your assignment is to go and actually read the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

That's it. Questions? No?

Class dismissed.

[CoteauRinkRat]

Is there just a semester and final exam? Any pop quizzes?

Great post Sicatoka

[KnowtheFacts]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I guess you can say what ever you want, just dont act on it. And dont use amendment one to justify the misconstruction of others rights.

[GrahamKracker]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I guess you can say what ever you want, just dont act on it.  And dont use amendment one to justify the misconstruction of others rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rock on NTF!! (Of course they STILL won't see it, they never will, we just have to stay the course. Great post though)

[johndahl]

Rock on NTF!! (Of course they STILL won't see it, they never will, we just have to stay the course. Great post though)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, I'll bite. What is the argument that traditional exercise of the right to free speech violates the ninth amendment by being construed to deny other rights? And what are "just don't act on it" and "misconstruction of other rights" supposed to mean?

[HockeyMom]

You can say whatever you want, but you can be held liable for it.

[johndahl]

You can say whatever you want, but you can be held liable for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm still a bit lost, and I took constitutional law at a good school. Is he saying use of the Sioux name amounts to hate speech, and so using the Sioux name under free speech amounts to a violation of another's civil rights such that the speaker should be held accountable despite first amendment protections? Not trying to be funny, just trying to read the post and make sense of it...

John

[HockeyMom]

I'm still a bit lost, and I took constitutional law at a good school. Is he saying use of the Sioux name amounts to hate speech, and so using the Sioux name under free speech amounts to a violation of another's civil rights such that the speaker should be held accountable despite first amendment protections? Not trying to be funny, just trying to read the post and make sense of it...

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The courts would have to rule that a REASONABLE person finds it to be racist/a violation of civil rights.

Does a mascot/logo/nickname prevent someone from their rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[GrahamKracker]

The courts would have to rule that a REASONABLE person finds it to be racist/a violation of civil rights.

Does a mascot/logo/nickname prevent someone from their rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it doesn't, then why did they do away with the little black sambo? or the fact that when Abercrombie came out w/ that caricature of Asians on their t-shirts they had to quit selling them? If the entire SIOUX nation is asking you to not use their name or a logo that is affiliated w/ their name, then who are you to complain?

If it isn't offensive, show me other ethnic groups that are used (and not vikings/leprechauns/animals). Yeah. Think about it. If this school was the home of the Fighting Jews, you think the Jewish community would embrace it? Yeah, I'm sure they would be all for H-Jew-O, Jew-veniers, Jew-Dogs.....

And its not just the Sioux Nation that has asked. the National Congress of American Indians has also asked for the retirement of the name, and that organization is compromised of tribal leaders of ALL of the federally recognized tribes. hetche to.

[PCM]

Does this help you legal types at all? It comes from an NCAA document entitled: Policy applies core principles to mascot issue.

The Executive Committee adopted the standard of "hostile and abusive" in part from case law. Members cited such language as being applied in civil cases in which decisions were reached on the basis of what "a reasonable person" would find to be hostile or abusive. The "hostile and abusive" standard also is stronger than simply "offensive," which courts have ruled is protected under the freedom of expression.

As I read this, it says the reason the NCAA decided that American Indian nicknames, mascots and logos weren't merely offensive, but "hostile and abusive" is because offensive speech is constitutionally protected speech. To get around that pesky First Amendment, the NCAA used its vast judiciary powers to declare that the names, mascots and logos it doesn't like are "hostile and abusive."

[johndahl]

If it doesn't, then why did they do away with the little black sambo? or the fact that when Abercrombie came out w/ that caricature of Asians on their t-shirts they had to quit selling them? If the entire SIOUX nation is asking you to not use their name or a logo that is affiliated w/ their name, then who are you to complain?

If it isn't offensive, show me other ethnic groups that are used (and not vikings/leprechauns/animals). Yeah. Think about it. If this school was the home of the Fighting Jews, you think the Jewish community would embrace it? Yeah, I'm sure they would be all for H-Jew-O, Jew-veniers, Jew-Dogs.....

And its not just the Sioux Nation that has asked. the National Congress of American Indians has also asked for the retirement of the name, and that organization is compromised of tribal leaders of ALL of the federally recognized tribes. hetche to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of those logos or mascots were retired for civil rights reasons. Any individual or company is free to use a racial stereotype such as those mentioned even today, and many do (the Cleveland Indians come to mind). Whether it's a good business decision or consistent with society's standards for good taste is a different issue.

The "hostile and abusive" standard used in hate speech case law can't be trivially applied to anything someone simply doesn't like - it's a very tough standard to meet. The use of "Sioux" as a nickname isn't likely even to be found offensive in a court, much less hostile and abusive, but at least I unserstand the point he was trying to make.

John

[dagies]

  If it doesn't, then why did they do away with the little black sambo?  or the fact that when Abercrombie came out w/ that caricature of Asians on their t-shirts they had to quit selling them?  If the entire SIOUX nation is asking you to not use their name or a logo that is affiliated w/ their name, then who are you to complain? 

  If it isn't offensive, show me other ethnic groups that are used (and not vikings/leprechauns/animals).  Yeah.  Think about it.  If this school was the home of the Fighting Jews, you think the Jewish community would embrace it?  Yeah, I'm sure they would be all for H-Jew-O, Jew-veniers, Jew-Dogs.....

  And its not just the Sioux Nation that has asked.  the National Congress of American Indians has also asked for the retirement of the name, and that organization is compromised of tribal leaders of ALL of the federally recognized tribes.  hetche to.

1. Not the entire Sioux nation. I know at least 2 who have no problem with the name. And at least 2 polls, so conveniently ignored by you and others, show otherwise.

2. Why do you throw out the Fighting Irish as irrelevant. They have Fighting in their name. They have the name of real people in their name. The only thing is, they have a cartoon for a logo. UND has a very tasteful Indian head logo. Amazing to me that you say Notre Dame is irrelevant to the discussion.

3. You've already said non-Sioux opinions on this matter are irrelevant. Therefore, we're not listening to the National Congress of AI.

[GrahamKracker]

[dagies]

1. name them

2. If the Irish had a problem w/ the name, I think we would have heard from the Irish Government. But, you have heard from the Sioux Governments.

3. Whatever. Its there, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

1. Cokey and Phil, and I won't give last names on a public forum.

2. What about all the Sioux that don't live on reservations. In fact, what about the Sioux who live on reservations that agree with the name? Surely even you won't say 100% of them are against the name.

3. Then you can no longer be critical of the logo because it was created by a non-Sioux indian. So we're back to square one. The logo was tastefully created by an American Indian. What's "hostile and abusive" about it again?

[ScottM]

I believe the terms "hostile" and "abusive" come from a line of Title VII cases that dealt with racial and gender discrimination/harassment primarily in the work place. The entire atmosphere of the workplace was considered as to whether it was "hostile" or "abusive". Usually it was a top-down environment where management either condoned, participated in and/or did nothing to stop racial epithets, sexual harassment, comments, conduct, etc. The standard is very rigorous, and fact intensive. I really doubt the use of the Sioux name/logo even approaches that threshold, regardless of the fact a few hypersensitive souls disagree with its usage. And as Harmeson pointed out, correctly, "Sioux" is in the public domain, for better or worse.

[dagies]

3. Whatever. Its there, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Hmmm.... Turtle Mountain Chairman says UND has done "a good job"

The chairman of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa said Thursday that UND has done "a good job" in its use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and Indian-head logo, and that nickname opponents and media have erroneously reported his stance.

Well....how about that?

[The Sicatoka]

Any individual or company is free to use a racial stereotype such as those mentioned even today, and many do (the Cleveland Indians come to mind).  Whether it's a good business decision or consistent with society's standardsfor good taste is a different issue. 

For example: Capital One credit cards.

The pillaging hoard of what looks to be Huns and Goths and Vandals.

The University of Idaho Vandals.

Don't say all the Vandals are gone. There were a Germanic tribe. Who knows where the bloodline is today.

PS - The UND "Pillaging Hoard" has a nice ring to it.

[The Sicatoka]

I guess you can say what ever you want, just dont act on it.  And dont use amendment one to justify the misconstruction of others rights.

A construed right to exclusive self-portrayal by you for you about you will disallow and nullify my enumerated right of free expression.

Ah, conundrum.

And the "free expression" wins except in cases of the extreme or direct physical danger. "ScottM" addressed the "extreme" already.

[Runninwiththedogs]

If it isn't offensive, show me other ethnic groups that are used (and not vikings/leprechauns/animals). Yeah. Think about it. If this school was the home of the Fighting Jews, you think the Jewish community would embrace it? Yeah, I'm sure they would be all for H-Jew-O, Jew-veniers, Jew-Dogs.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about those Cajuns? I heard they were Ragin'...