The lawsuit and DI

[Chief Illiniwek Supporter]

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.

Churches usually don't go bankrupt, except when they try to hide the Rev. Micheal Jackson.....

[NanoBison]

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?

If you read the entire column, you would have seen this little particular item :

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., said the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was doing God's will by punishing non-Christians, CBS News reported. A church news release added: "God is punishing America for her sodomite sins. The 33 massacred at Virginia Tech died for America's sins against [Westboro Baptist Church]."

The tiny church, whose paster if Fred Phelps, is not affiliated with any national Baptist convention. The CBS News report said police are expected to break up any such protest. Funerals and memorial services are included in Virginia's disorderly conduct statute.

While you may think that everyone is entitled to free speech, no matter how vulgar or offensive, many places and municipalities already have added or are in the process of adding statues to the books, to block things that are just simply WRONG.

I'm not saying that I believe in limiting free speech, but at the same time, when it's doing irreparable harm to somebody, say for example... families in grieving, I have no problems with limiting @$holes like the members of the Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at funerals. They are the scum of the earth.

Now if you want to protest something legally and go through the appropriate measures (getting permits from the police), that's fine by me. Irritating or offending an individual is fine, but you cross the line when you show up at a funeral and mock/dishonor the deceased. Especially when it's in the hopes that "something happens" so your litigation team can sue and get money to continue your church's operations (which is what these slimebags do).

Sure, free speech is one of the great rights every American has, but at the same time, with rights come great responsibilities, hence why we have a common understanding of what's considered socially acceptable to say. Someone earlier commented on what words you shouldn't use and someone else countered with the ACLU strongly disagreeing. Sure that's fine, but I would challenge you to go into the a work place and utter those words and see if the ACLU is willing to fund your case brought against your employer after they can your ass.

[PCM]

Someone earlier commented on what words you shouldn't use and someone else countered with the ACLU strongly disagreeing. Sure that's fine, but I would challenge you to go into the a work place and utter those words and see if the ACLU is willing to fund your case brought against your employer after they can your ass.

Do you understand the difference between being willfully offensive, hostile and abusive in the workplace to coworkers and demanding that someone stop using a symbol or word because a small group of people finds it offensive? The argument isn't about whether free speech is protected everywhere in all situations. Obviously, it isn't.

If I'm offended because you fly the American flag on your front lawn every day, I don't have the right to force you to take it down. If you're offended because I burn the American flag on my front lawn every day, you don't have the right to stop me from doing that.

Get it?

[NanoBison]

Do you understand the difference between being willfully offensive, hostile and abusive in the workplace to coworkers and demanding that someone stop using a symbol or word because a small group of people finds it offensive? The argument isn't about whether free speech is protected everywhere in all situations. Obviously, it isn't.

If I'm offended because you fly the American flag on your front lawn every day, I don't have the right to force you to take it down. If you're offended because I burn the American flag on my front lawn every day, you don't have the right to stop me from doing that.

Get it?

Hey there bucko. I didn't even touch the "offensive, hostile and abusive" PC crap you so directly tied into the legal battles, in the above statements, between UND and NCAA over your logo/mascot. I simply corrected Chief Illiniwek Supporter, and gave my take on some other argument in the topic. I didn't once touch the LOGO debate in this thread. Don't shove it down my throat.

When people such as myself question you and others on the board to present another side to the issue, as did a few individuals earlier in this thread, there's no need to act like a dick when responding back.

And is there even a point to your last statement? I know it was simply a cheap shot at me and my education. But hey, I'm pretty used to that by now from posting on the SS boards. I could care less what you do with the flag. It's just a symbol.

[jimdahl]

I know it was simply a cheap shot at me and my education. But hey, I'm pretty used to that by now from posting on the SS boards.

The irony of these two sentences back-to-back is almost overwhelming.

[PCM]

Hey there bucko. I didn't even touch the "offensive, hostile and abusive" PC crap you so directly tied into the legal battles, in the above statements, between UND and NCAA over your logo/mascot.

Well, sparky, what you touched on doesn't matter because it was the NCAA that moved the goal posts of the argument for you. It was the NCAA which decided on its own that it wasn't enough for UND's logo and nickname to be merely "offensive." It had to be "hostile and abusive."

Why, in its infinite wisdom, did the NCAA Executive Committee do that? Well, it's because as the ACLU notes and the courts have upheld: offensive speech is constitutionally protected. So if you're going to engage in discussions in this forum about the Fighting Sioux nickname and North Dakota's lawsuit against the NCAA, it would be wise to understand why the "hostile and abusive" standard applies regardless of what you might think.

I simply corrected Chief Illiniwek Supporter, and gave my take on some other argument in the topic. I didn't once touch the LOGO debate in this thread. Don't shove it down my throat.

Then perhaps you should reference my ACLU post in the proper context. Because you made an agument and then pretended that my post was intended to address the argument you were making when, in fact, it wasn't.

When people such as myself question you and others on the board to present another side to the issue, as did a few individuals earlier in this thread, there's no need to act like a dick when responding back.

Obviously, MiniaturizedBison, you're a person who loves to dish it out but can't take it. If you don't want me to act like a dick to you, don't be a dick to me by referencing one of my posts out of context and don't be surprised when I call you on it.

And is there even a point to your last statement? I know it was simply a cheap shot at me and my education. But hey, I'm pretty used to that by now from posting on the SS boards.

I don't pretend to know enough about your education to take a cheap shot at it. But you are certainly sensitive and defensive about your education. Is there a reason for that?

I could care less what you do with the flag. It's just a symbol.

Miss the point much?

Oh my. Did I just take another cheap shot at you and your education?

[NanoBison]

Well, sparky, what you touched on doesn't matter because it was the NCAA that moved the goal posts of the argument for you. It was the NCAA which decided on its own that it wasn't enough for UND's logo and nickname to be merely "offensive." It had to be "hostile and abusive."

Why, in its infinite wisdom, did the NCAA Executive Committee do that? Well, it's because as the ACLU notes and the courts have upheld: offensive speech is constitutionally protected. So if you're going to engage in discussions in this forum about the Fighting Sioux nickname and North Dakota's lawsuit against the NCAA, it would be wise to understand why the "hostile and abusive" standard applies regardless of what you might think.

You are simply wrong here PCM. The NCAA didn't move the goal posts, you did. You're positioning them into my arguments as it suits your needs. It's a common theme on the SS bulletin board. People present you guys with a different take on the matter, everyone usually blasts them out of the water for not agreeing with the "common thoughts" of the board. What's going on between the NCAA and UND is simply UND's problem. They created this headache for themselves back when they changed their name in response to NDSU changing their name to the Bison. In a way it's many North Dakotan's problem as well, since I think this sheds a negative light on the state in general. Hence, my concern. Sure you may think you're fighting the "big bad NCAA" on the matter of "Free Speech". While many of you believe it may be the noble thing to do, perhaps you should take a step back and think about what are you really fighting for. From what I just read, in PCM's remarks above, he makes the arguments that, even if anyone is offended, UND has a right to continue using the name, because the ACLU and the courts have continuously upheld that everything is protected under free speech. Sure I can agree with that, but isn't that simply going against the purpose of using the name to begin with? To honor the people/tribe of the name you're using? Seems a bit hypocritical and arrogant to me. All I've read in the papers lately has nothing to do with working with the Tribes to come to an agreement. It all has to do with jubilations that the judge keeps siding with UND when it comes to hiding documents. It's disgusting really.

[NanoBison]

Then perhaps you should reference my ACLU post in the proper context. Because you made an argument and then pretended that my post was intended to address the argument you were making when, in fact, it wasn't.

Well you went ahead and shoved the debate down my throat, so I gave you my take above. Now in terms of you accusing me to "pretending that your post was intended to address the argument I was making when, in fact, it wasn't"... We'll here's your original argument that you made. In fact it's really nothing much. Your simple one line statement is :

I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong and even the ACLU disagrees with you. (as shown below)

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

(Emphasis added)

Sure that's great and all, but TRex did have an extremely valid point. You would be pretty ignorant to believe that ALL speech is protected, no matter what. You'd also have to be pretty ignorant to believe that there are no legal ramifications or consequences for simply spouting your mouth off, as you so please. There are many rules and statutes on the books, and they are being added constantly in the response to people or groups of people who simply takes their rights to the extreme edge. A good example would be the Westboro Baptist Church protesting at fallen soldiers funerals, or the Virginia Tech victim's funerals.

I think that it's perfectly fine to limit people like these. I've always believed in the "your rights end where mine begin" approach. There are simply certain things that should not be tolerated. Now, with the point of view you are presenting, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem if they showed up at a funeral of one of your loved ones claiming "this is God's will because the United States losing it's religion".

There's other situations, that have been mentioned before, that you simply just DO NOT DO:

You don't say sexually abusive things at work or in public.

You don't yell "fire" or "bomb" in a theatre or other crowded public place.

You don't make threats against the President of the United States of America and not expect the Secret Service to show up at your door.

You don't mouth off to an individual of authority (i.e. policeman), thinking you can claim "free speech" and all will be well.

I could go on and on and continue to list things that are just common sense things that are under the umbrella of what society deems unacceptable things to do.

Finally, if you think the ACLU is the says-all be-all voice on freedoms of Americans, guess again.

SO there you go. See? I was directly addressing what you said in my argument. You were wrong once again. Thanks for the accusal though.

[NanoBison]

Obviously, MiniaturizedBison, you're a person who loves to dish it out but can't take it. If you don't want me to act like a dick to you, don't be a dick to me by referencing one of my posts out of context and don't be surprised when I call you on it.

I've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are incorrect in YOUR assumptions.

I don't pretend to know enough about your education to take a cheap shot at it. But you are certainly sensitive and defensive about your education. Is there a reason for that?

Miss the point much?

Oh my. Did I just take another cheap shot at you and your education?

No, I'm pretty used to these types of responses on a board that chastises those who don't agree with the over-all general consensus. You're basically showing your true colors, as I'm sure I be heavily criticized, yet once again, for showing mine.

When it all comes down to it, I already know that no one is going to effectively change your guy's minds. I know many of you are the die-hard Fighting Sioux fans, and even if you do lose the legal battle and have to change the name, you'll be the people that continue to show up at the games wearing your Fighting Sioux gear.

[PCM]

You are simply wrong here PCM. The NCAA didn't move the goal posts, you did.

No, you are. Have you listened to the teleconference that the NCAA Executive Committee held on the day it announced its policy on American Indian nickname, mascots and imagery? Because if you had, you'd know that the it was explained then why the association decided to move the issue out of the realm of "offensive" and into the realm of "hostile and abusive."

I didn't do that, the NCAA did. And it was precisely to avoid the fact that offensive speech is constitutionally protected while hostile and abusive speech is not.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You and others continually attempt to compare situations that aren't similar or relevant and then claim that offensive speech isn't constitutionally protected when the courts and the ACLU have said that it is.

Can I go into work and use racial slurs or make sexually suggestive comments? Not if I want to expect to keep my job. Don Imus found that out the hard way, even though he said nothing illegal. Can I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? No. Can incite a riot and expect to get away with it? No.

So quite obviously there are situations in which people can't use the First Amendment to justify their actions and get away with it. We understand that. Nobody is arguing the point.

The point being argued which triggered the debate in this thread was whether the mere fact that some American Indians are offended by UND's nickname and logo means that UND should be required to change it. None of the examples you continue to cite apply to that situation.

[NanoBison]

The point being argued which triggered the debate in this thread was whether the mere fact that some American Indians are offended by UND's nickname and logo means that UND should be required to change it. None of the examples you continue to cite apply to that situation.

Fine, ignoring all the other posts you made which veer from this argument. Let's stick to SIMPLY this argument. So what your saying is that even if a few American Indians (I'm assuming your meaning Sioux) are offended, UND should maintain it's right to use the "Fighting Sioux" logo/mascot? From what you've written earlier I can only assume it's based upon "free speech"? Correct, or is there a different view? Pardon me if this is incorrect. If it is, fully explain your view, or provide me a link to it.

I can see how you are saying there's "offensive" speech and then "hostile/abusive" speech. But is there really a difference though? Is one more severe than the other? Does it matter? I can see how White Supremacists protesting in a downtown area could be considered "hostile/abusive" to certain groups of individuals and at the same time "offensive" other groups. I would imagine no matter what, it would all be grouped into protection under the 1st Amendment.

The other item is, even if the NCAA "moved" this from "offensive" to "hostile/abusive", and even if UND was to win the legal battle, what would the stance be on those Indians who deemed it so before this began? What would the result be?

[Wreckincrew]

People present you guys with a different take on the matter, everyone usually blasts them out of the water for not agreeing with the "common thoughts" of the board.

Good argument.....I'm sure it isn't that your opinion is in the minority, it has to be that most everyone else agrees with you, but is ganging up on you anyway.

It's disgusting really.

[NanoBison]

Good argument.....I'm sure it isn't that your opinion is in the minority, it has to be that most everyone else agrees with you, but is ganging up on you anyway.

It's disgusting really.

Good grief, I DID state that my opinion is in the minority, hence the "common thoughts" of the board statement. You even quoted me on it. Did you read what you quoted me on?

What's really disgusting is that this is how you guys wish to run this board. Everyone has to agree with the consensus.

Otherwise, you'll get threatened to be banned, like I did last night. It's called a Bulletin Board. But the way this one is being run, it should be called Bridge Club. Do you really want to be reading comments on a board where everyone agrees with you 100%? I should be able to present my differing view without threats from your administrators.

You guys dish out the $h*t towards me, but then get ruffled when I return it back? Sure my arguments may irritate the hell out of most of you, but at the same time, I don't think I've come close to crossing the line with insults with any of you. If I'm mistaken so be it. Ban me, I'll leave and you can get on to posting on your "happy" board with 1 less user that doesn't agree with you. Otherwise get used to the fact that I don't need to praise the Fighting Sioux to post on this board.

[PCM]

From what you've written earlier I can only assume it's based upon "free speech"? Correct, or is there a different view? Pardon me if this is incorrect. If it is, fully explain your view, or provide me a link to it.

That is only partially correct. I've written too many posts on this subject to provide links to a few that state my position.

Here's a thread on some of the legal aspects of a case filed against the University of Illinois by the Illinois Native American Bar Association.

Here's another thread in which I noted the serious issues affecting college athletics in which the NCAA claims to have no power or control to correct.

Here are a some of the opinion pieces I've written on the subject:

Hey, Hey, NCAA, Censored Logo Leads The Way

Hostility and abuse the NCAA way

Down the NCAA rabbit hole

An open letter to NCAA President Myles Brand

The free speech aspect is only one part of why I don't believe UND should change it's nickname and logo at this time.

I can see how you are saying there's "offensive" speech and then "hostile/abusive" speech. But is there really a difference though? Is one more severe than the other? Does it matter?

You need to ask the NCAA. They're the ones who thought it was important to make the distinction. Based on what others with far more legal expertise have said, the "hostile and abusive" standard is more difficult to prove than the "offensive" standard.

The other item is, even if the NCAA "moved" this from "offensive" to "hostile/abusive", and even if UND was to win the legal battle, what would the stance be on those Indians who deemed it so before this began? What would the result be?

Right now, the legal battle isn't about whether UND's name and logo are hostile and abusive, even though that's the battle the NCAA would prefer to fight. It's about whether the NCAA Executive Committee violated the organization's constitution and bylaws to enact the policy.

[PCM]

What's really disgusting is that this is how you guys wish to run this board. Everyone has to agree with the consensus.

That's completely false. I've been engaged in many debates on this board in which my opinion did not match the consensus opinion.

[NanoBison]

That's completely false. I've been engaged in many debates on this board in which my opinion did not match the consensus opinion.

Uh, no it's not. Many, huh? I think pretty much ALL of mine have been opinions that did not match the consensus.

But that's fine. You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine. I'd suggest just agreeing to disagree, but I don't even think we'd agree on that!

[PCM]

Uh, no it's not.

All I have to do is cite one instance to prove you wrong. Most Sioux hockey fans like fighting in hockey. I do not. I've been posting on and debating the subject for years. Some of the arguments have gotten rather heated. And yet, nobody has ever threatened to ban me for not agreeing with consensus opinion.

So, once again, you are wrong.

[Goon]

If it takes hauling the NCAA to court and demanding that the organization prove the "hostile and abusive" claims it's making, then I'm all for it because I don't believe the NCAA can do it. I'm fed up with being unfairly labeled based on hearsay, anecdotal evidence, fabricated incidents and exaggerated claims, some of which have occurred over many years and none of which are condoned by the vast majority of Grand Forks residents and Fighting Sioux sports fans.

I have always like this statement.

[Goon]

Uh, no it's not. Many, huh? I think pretty much ALL of mine have been opinions that did not match the consensus.

But that's fine. You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine. I'd suggest just agreeing to disagree, but I don't even think we'd agree on that!

I only agree with PCM 75% of the time and I have never been threatened with being banned. I don't agree with his stance on Fighting in hockey either.

[Diggler]

Uh, no it's not. Many, huh? I think pretty much ALL of mine have been opinions that did not match the consensus.

But that's fine. You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine. I'd suggest just agreeing to disagree, but I don't even think we'd agree on that!

1. According to you, the way this board is run, everyone has to agree.

2. Every debate you've been in on this board, you have not been in the majority.

3. You are still posting on this board.

One question, how's that work?

[Goon]

1. According to you, the way this board is run, everyone has to agree.

2. Every debate you've been in on this board, you have not been in the majority.

3. You are still posting on this board.

One question, how's that work?

Back to the Drawing Board.

[siouxforeverbaby]

Goon and Diggler, you are ruining the entertainment here. Just let Gramps do his things and soon all will be right in our world. Either way, NanoBison you aren't going to beat PCM so stop trying.

Back to the lawsuit, how many more months until December?

[Goon]

Goon and Diggler, you are ruining the entertainment here. Just let Gramps do his things and soon all will be right in our world. Either way, NanoBison you aren't going to beat PCM so stop trying.

Back to the lawsuit, how many more months until December?

Actually it quite entertaining. Back to PCM taking NanoBison to the Woodshed.

[administrator]

What's really disgusting is that this is how you guys wish to run this board. Everyone has to agree with the consensus.

Otherwise, you'll get threatened to be banned, like I did last night. It's called a Bulletin Board. But the way this one is being run, it should be called Bridge Club. Do you really want to be reading comments on a board where everyone agrees with you 100%? I should be able to present my differing view without threats from your administrators.

You guys dish out the $h*t towards me, but then get ruffled when I return it back? Sure my arguments may irritate the hell out of most of you, but at the same time, I don't think I've come close to crossing the line with insults with any of you. If I'm mistaken so be it. Ban me, I'll leave and you can get on to posting on your "happy" board with 1 less user that doesn't agree with you. Otherwise get used to the fact that I don't need to praise the Fighting Sioux to post on this board.

Since you chose to drag it into public and chose to misrepresent the contents of the warning, let me make the correction in public-

The warning asked you to stop two behaviors:

1) Stop the generic attacks on the membership of the board (many times in the last few days you've hurled general insults at the entire membership of the board)

2) Stop trying to drag NDSU into every discussion (you frequently take topics that are about UND and attempt to make them NDSU vs. UND debates)

As to our moderation standards -- my understanding is that we've tolerated you longer than the Bison board did; I think that confirms that you may engage in some undesirable behaviors beyond "not praising the Sioux enough". That said, this is just a clarification of the warning, you're still welcome to post about everything you think the Sioux do wrong, as long as you immediately begin following the two rules above.

[NanoBison]

Since you chose to drag it into public and chose to misrepresent the contents of the warning, let me make the correction in public-

The warning asked you to stop two behaviors:

1) Stop the generic attacks on the membership of the board (many times in the last few days you've hurled general insults at the entire membership of the board)

2) Stop trying to drag NDSU into every discussion (you frequently take topics that are about UND and attempt to make them NDSU vs. UND debates)

As to our moderation standards -- my understanding is that we've tolerated you longer than the Bison board did; I think that confirms that you may engage in some undesirable behaviors beyond "not praising the Sioux enough". That said, this is just a clarification of the warning, you're still welcome to post about everything you think the Sioux do wrong, as long as you immediately begin following the two rules above.

Drag it out in public? Please, all I've said is I've been threatened to be banned. If that's some breach of conduct on my part, heaven forbid. No need to be overly melodramatic. I just presented the point as I saw it from my view.

In terms of your two "warnings" :

1.) Generic attacks on the membership of this board? Show me a post of something that was crossing the line were I wrote something abusive towards one of your members. I'm sure I can go and find numerous posts from your other members towards me that get to the same level. All I can recall is telling PCM not be a dick, which he was being at the time.

2.) Stop trying to drag NDSU into every discussion? You've got to be kidding me, if you think that I am the instigator on most of the things here. Go back to many of my posts and you'll see a Sioux fan posted some snide remark about NDSU or its fans. I only simply responded to them returning the favor. If you want me to stop, then you'd best go and tell your other posters to quit "fishing".

I've already covered your moderation standards in my private message to you. Your completely wrong on your assumption above as well with my membership at the other boards. I sure appreciate the insinuation that you've TOLERATED me longer than the Bison board did. I've already covered this several times. I walked away from the Bisonville website. I've never been banned from it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it.

Sure you've given a general open invitation to come in and voice my opinion about what UND does wrong, but you and I both know that it's nothing more than a broken promise full of holes, with numerous contractual terms applied to me that probably will be overlooked on your other posters. That's something that I just don't want to be part of. So, as in the Bisonville case, I'm walking away.

Hope you guys are happy. You won't have to deal with me anymore.