The lawsuit and DI

[PCM]

So, any alum who doesn't like the idea of the lawsuit is supposed to just grit our teeth and keep quiet?

You're obviously free to disapprove of the lawsuit all you want. Just don't pretend that it's your money or the public's money being spent on it.

Here's an idea. Why don't you post a list of causes to which you contribute and we can all pass judgement on whether or not you're wasting your money?

I sat through enough poly sci classes to fully appreciate free speech.

Oh no! You're playing the poly sci card again! You automatically win!

And no, your free speech wanting the Sioux logo doesn't top the free speech of the Indian Nations who are offended by it. Sorry.

You obviously didn't learn much. Offensive speech is protected under the constitution. Nobody has the right to censor words and images just because they are offended by them.

[Diggler]

So, any alum who doesn't like the idea of the lawsuit is supposed to just grit our teeth and keep quiet? I sat through enough poly sci classes to fully appreciate free speech. And no, your free speech wanting the Sioux logo doesn't top the free speech of the Indian Nations who are offended by it. Sorry.

So it's OK for you to say that people are wasting their money on the lawsuit, but it's not OK for me to say you're wasting bandwidth on this board?

[Goon]

So, any alum who doesn't like the idea of the lawsuit is supposed to just grit our teeth and keep quiet? I sat through enough poly sci classes to fully appreciate free speech. And no, your free speech wanting the Sioux logo doesn't top the free speech of the Indian Nations who are offended by it. Sorry.

Oh, ok. Wow, I am impressed and since you took Poly Science classes in college I am sure most of us are shaking in our boots. You obviously wasted your money then.

The matter of fact just because UND alumni and friends are spending their money on this lawsuit fund it's really not fair to assume if these people weren't spending money on the lawsuit they would spend it on something else at UND, that's just not true to assume that at all maybe they just spend the money at their lake home. Like Scott_M said maybe they just spend the money on other things like women and Keystone Lite or maybe they buy a new vehicle or something else that is tangible.

[aff]

Oh, ok. Wow, I am impressed and since you took Poly Science classes in college I am sure most of us are shaking in our boots. You obviously wasted your money then.

The matter of fact just because UND alumni and friends are spending their money on this lawsuit fund it's really not fair to assume if these people weren't spending money on the lawsuit they would spend it on something else at UND, that's just not true to assume that at all maybe they just spend the money at their lake home. Like Scott_M said maybe they just spend the money on other things like women and Keystone Lite or maybe they buy a new vehicle or something else that is tangible.

Alright, honest question here. I've read this same argument about 20 times in a row now.

So are you guys saying that NONE of the money that is being spent on the law suit would have been spent other places? Because my GUESS is its about 50-50. But even if only 10% of that money would have been spent at other locations on campus, and the other 90% is free and clear, doesn't that validate the argument that at least some of this money could be put to better use? 10% of that money would be one more kid going to UND for free, isn't that a valid argument? I think that while its definitely naive to think that all of this money would have been spent on campus, its equally naive to think that none of it would. And if some of it would have been spent in other locations, isn't that the point?

[petey23]

Alright, honest question here. I've read this same argument about 20 times in a row now.

So are you guys saying that NONE of the money that is being spent on the law suit would have been spent other places? Because my GUESS is its about 50-50. But even if only 10% of that money would have been spent at other locations on campus, and the other 90% is free and clear, doesn't that validate the argument that at least some of this money could be put to better use? 10% of that money would be one more kid going to UND for free, isn't that a valid argument? I think that while its definitely naive to think that all of this money would have been spent on campus, its equally naive to think that none of it would. And if some of it would have been spent in other locations, isn't that the point?

The money is being spent where the person who is donating it wants it to be spent. That's all that matters. Here is an idea, you spend your money where you want, and I'll spend what's left of my money after the government gives most of it away to things I have little or no say on, where I want. Fair enough?

[SiouxJuggernaut]

If memory serves from an article when The Al opened (admittedly a long time ago), it's not painted but is colored insets.

Its part painted and part colored inserts. The SIOUX in both end zones is painted, as well as each yard tick, the alerus logo, and the yard thick rectangle along the edges. All the normal lines are colored turf.

[Goon]

Alright, honest question here. I've read this same argument about 20 times in a row now.

So are you guys saying that NONE of the money that is being spent on the law suit would have been spent other places? Because my GUESS is its about 50-50. But even if only 10% of that money would have been spent at other locations on campus, and the other 90% is free and clear, doesn't that validate the argument that at least some of this money could be put to better use? 10% of that money would be one more kid going to UND for free, isn't that a valid argument? I think that while its definitely naive to think that all of this money would have been spent on campus, its equally naive to think that none of it would. And if some of it would have been spent in other locations, isn't that the point?

I honestly don't believe that, I don't think we can assume that. There are people that aren't going to give to the name litigation fund while there are others that are, its about priorties, preserving the logo is a huge priority I believe. The logo and the name is more important the university I believe that people that phantom. If anything its about university pride and states rights.

[Sioux-cia]

So are you guys saying that NONE of the money that is being spent on the law suit would have been spent other places?

The money that I earmarked for UND athletics, band, scholarships, etc., minus zero, went to where I donate it every year. The money that went to the lawsuit fund was 'extra' money that was not intended for any charitable donation except perhaps for another game worn jersey or two, a trip to Las Vegas, paying off another one of my kid's whatever, adding to my retirement fund.....

So I guess, you're right. The money donated to 'the law suit have been spent other places'.

[Hawkster]

Great point!!!

Actually, offensive speech IS NOT protected. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't use the "N" word to decribe African Americans, and due to sexual harassment, you can't use the "C" word to any female in the work place. Sorry, but offensive free speech isn't protected.

Getting back to the money issue, it may be costing UND more then you think. How many alums, besides me, quit giving because of the name controversy?

[Diggler]

Getting back to the money issue, it may be costing UND more then you think. How many alums, besides me, quit giving because of the name controversy?

And of course no alums will quit giving should UND change the name.

[PCM]

Actually, offensive speech IS NOT protected. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't use the "N" word to decribe African Americans, and due to sexual harassment, you can't use the "C" word to any female in the work place. Sorry, but offensive free speech isn't protected.

I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong and even the ACLU disagrees with you.

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

(Emphasis added) Edited April 18, 2007 by PCM

[The Sicatoka]

The only speech that can be censored is "fighting words".

Those who argue for speech codes contend that hate speech is akin to fighting words, a category of expression that does not receive First Amendment protection. In its 1942 decision Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court wrote that fighting words are those that incite an immediate violent response. ...

The speech codes that have been challenged in court have not fared well. Courts have struck these policies down as being either overbroad or vague. ...

As long as Sioux Falls or Sioux City exist, or as long as (tribally owned) Sioux Industries operates, or as long as the Standing Rock Sioux call themselves Sioux, Sioux can not be claimed as a "fighting word" (as it consistently does not "incite an immediate violent response").

[Ranger]

Freedom of speech and assembly...

Welcome to Minneapolis, MN, headquarters to the National Socialist Movement: http://www.nsm88.com/

I apologize for offending...pretty much everyone.

[Sioux-cia]

Actually, offensive speech IS NOT protected. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't use the "N" word to decribe African Americans, and due to sexual harassment, you can't use the "C" word to any female in the work place. Sorry, but offensive free speech isn't protected.

Getting back to the money issue, it may be costing UND more then you think. How many alums, besides me, quit giving because of the name controversy?

The only time such language is not protected is in the instance such as you discribe is when it can cause harm, i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater. That will get you jailed. The use of the N word or the C word may cause you to be disciplined or fired by your employer, school, etc. but will not get you jailed. You still can use the words if your so inclined.

[PCM]

The use of the N word or the C word may cause you to be disciplined or fired by your employer, school, etc. but will not get you jailed. You still can use the words if your so inclined.

Just imagine how many rappers would be in prison if using the "n" word was illegal.

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Wow, someone here needs to ask for a refund of their Poli Sci tuition money.

Sorry, but offensive free speech isn't protected.

The Nazi party held a parade in Skokie, IL a few years ago. I'll guarantee you that several people in Skokie found that highly offensive. Skokie wasn't chosen by accident-several Holocaust survivors were living there at the time. The Nazi's WANTED to offend. At least the Illinois Supreme Court (and perhaps federal courts) granted them permission to march. The ironic thing was that many of these people who hated the Nazi's paid taxes to support the police department that protected them that day.

Just imagine how many rappers would be in prison if using the "n" word was illegal.

And a few (very, very wealthy) comedians too.

[fee_0405]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did some Indian leaders in the state ask for the lawsuit money to be given to the tribe? (Of course, they still would not give their consent to continue the use of the Fighting Sioux.) I say just find their price and buy them off (like the Seminoles).

[Goon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did some Indian leaders in the state ask for the lawsuit money to be given to the tribe? (Of course, they still would not give their consent to continue the use of the Fighting Sioux.) I say just find their price and buy them off (like the Seminoles).

I can't imagine them being that brazen.

[siouxforeverbaby]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did some Indian leaders in the state ask for the lawsuit money to be given to the tribe? (Of course, they still would not give their consent to continue the use of the Fighting Sioux.) I say just find their price and buy them off (like the Seminoles).

what money, the money from when the judge realizes that the NCAA is being nothing that I can say on a family friendly board and UND wins the lawsuit or the money that is going towards paying it off?

[PCM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did some Indian leaders in the state ask for the lawsuit money to be given to the tribe?

I don't remember that happening. I know some tribal leaders have been critical of money being spent on the lawsuit, but I don't recall anyone saying that they should get the money instead.

[ScottM]

Just imagine how many rappers would be in prison if using the "n" word was illegal.

Yeah, but they'd have tons of "street cred" amongst the murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.

[redwing77]

Wow, someone here needs to ask for a refund of their Poli Sci tuition money.

The Nazi party held a parade in Skokie, IL a few years ago. I'll guarantee you that several people in Skokie found that highly offensive. Skokie wasn't chosen by accident-several Holocaust survivors were living there at the time. The Nazi's WANTED to offend. At least the Illinois Supreme Court (and perhaps federal courts) granted them permission to march. The ironic thing was that many of these people who hated the Nazi's paid taxes to support the police department that protected them that day.

And a few (very, very wealthy) comedians too.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

:guns engine:

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

I hate Illinois Nazis.

That line from the movie was inspired by the actual incident.

And... I'll be darned: Belushi and Ackroyd had just as much of a right to "offend" the Illinois Nazis as the Illinois Nazis had to offend residents of Skokie.

Why can't more people take Poli Sci courses and become unchallengable experts about the Constitution??

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funeral of the Va Tech victims:

http://www.abpnews.com/2094.article

I wonder if someone who sadly misunderstood the only Poli Sci class he ever wandered into will tell them that the US Constitution bans offensive speech; and therefore they can't protest?

[redwing77]

Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funeral of the Va Tech victims:

http://www.abpnews.com/2094.article

I wonder if someone who sadly misunderstood the only Poli Sci class he ever wandered into will tell them that the US Constitution bans offensive speech; and therefore they can't protest?

Why is this so surprising?

Their rhetoric is redundant and tiring. All they want is someone to assault them so they can get money. With 33 victims' families in attendance with emotions running high, seems like a "sure thing."

Let's hope the families and funeral attendees don't do anything stupid. I'd love for the Westboro Church to go bankrupt because no one gives a damn about what they say anymore.