[lex24]

I agree with you.  I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech.  The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot).  I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.

BC

As a technical matter, I must note that in California, under Education Code section 94367, subdivision (a), a private university stands in the shoes of the government for the purposes of First Amendment analysis.  But I was not making a legal argument so much as a social tolerance argument.  There simply is no recognized right to go through life without ever being offended, while there is a recognized right to free speech.  I just think people should remember that, be more willing to shrug off comments that offend them, and get on with their lives.  But as I said, I’m probabably just a dinosaur in modern times.

If any private university takes them to court over section 94367, my non-lawyer guess is that it will be tossed as unconstitutional government-mandated speech.

---

I have searched the United States Constitution and never found a a right not to be offended.  I also have searched the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still did not find a right never to be offended.  On occasion, the LSJUMB has offended me with comments critical of religious faith and conservative political ideology.  But I have shrugged it off because I believe, that under the Constitution, people have a right to think their own thoughts and freely express those thoughts so long as they do not preach physical violence.  I then get a hotdog and watch the second half.  I suppose I’m just a dinosaur.

Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you should exercise it.

There is a time and place for assholery comedy, and that wasn't it.

LSJUMB offends me with their ****** musicianship, but whatever. They are more irrelevant than irreverent at this point.

BYU got the best revenge. Beat the **** out of Stanford and the irrelevant band that had to sit there and watch.

Petros got off a great dig at the old guy still playin', but kudos to an old guy still playin'.

I would love for another band just to unload on Stanford at halftime and see what the reaction is. Will never happen because those types of bands are down to a handful, but it would be fun to watch.

I was thinking of going to the game just for the hell of it. Weird to say I'm glad I was sick all weekend, but in retrospect I am.

Unsolicited advice from this old trumpeter:  Just shut up and play your guitar.  And trumpets, and bones, and horns, and everything else. You can't be funny for 10,000 people let alone a full house, so you end up sad (trombone).

Winner. Best post on the subject. Stanfords bands spreads a lot of Ill will. And buttresses the notion many have on the arrogance of the institution and it’s students.  

And they suck to boot.

---

I agree with you.  I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech.  The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot).  I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.

BC

As a technical matter, I must note that in California, under Education Code section 94367, subdivision (a), a private university stands in the shoes of the government for the purposes of First Amendment analysis.  But I was not making a legal argument so much as a social tolerance argument.  There simply is no recognized right to go through life without ever being offended, while there is a recognized right to free speech.  I just think people should remember that, be more willing to shrug off comments that offend them, and get on with their lives.  But as I said, I’m probabably just a dinosaur in modern times.

You are correct of course.  There is no such right.  Yet, people lose their jobs and students get suspended over offensive comments.  I’m not arguing whether that’s “good” or “bad”.  But it’s an unassailable fact.  If the “antics” of the band had been to “poke fun” at a group other that Mormons, the consequences would have been more severe.

[lex24]

I agree with you.  I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech.  The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot).  I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.

BC

As a technical matter, I must note that in California, under Education Code section 94367, subdivision (a), a private university stands in the shoes of the government for the purposes of First Amendment analysis.  But I was not making a legal argument so much as a social tolerance argument.  There simply is no recognized right to go through life without ever being offended, while there is a recognized right to free speech.  I just think people should remember that, be more willing to shrug off comments that offend them, and get on with their lives.  But as I said, I’m probabably just a dinosaur in modern times.

If any private university takes them to court over section 94367, my non-lawyer guess is that it will be tossed as unconstitutional government-mandated speech.

---

I have searched the United States Constitution and never found a a right not to be offended.  I also have searched the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still did not find a right never to be offended.  On occasion, the LSJUMB has offended me with comments critical of religious faith and conservative political ideology.  But I have shrugged it off because I believe, that under the Constitution, people have a right to think their own thoughts and freely express those thoughts so long as they do not preach physical violence.  I then get a hotdog and watch the second half.  I suppose I’m just a dinosaur.

Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you should exercise it.

There is a time and place for assholery comedy, and that wasn't it.

LSJUMB offends me with their ****** musicianship, but whatever. They are more irrelevant than irreverent at this point.

BYU got the best revenge. Beat the **** out of Stanford and the irrelevant band that had to sit there and watch.

Petros got off a great dig at the old guy still playin', but kudos to an old guy still playin'.

I would love for another band just to unload on Stanford at halftime and see what the reaction is. Will never happen because those types of bands are down to a handful, but it would be fun to watch.

I was thinking of going to the game just for the hell of it. Weird to say I'm glad I was sick all weekend, but in retrospect I am.

Unsolicited advice from this old trumpeter:  Just shut up and play your guitar.  And trumpets, and bones, and horns, and everything else. You can't be funny for 10,000 people let alone a full house, so you end up sad (trombone).

Winner. Best post on the subject. Stanfords bands spreads a lot of Ill will. And buttresses the notion many have on the arrogance of the institution and it’s students.  

And they suck to boot.

---

I agree with you.  I would add, however, that the First Amendment protects people from having their speech curtailed by the government, not private organizations and that freedom of speech doesn't imply that everyone should be shielded from consequences of that speech.  The question here is not so much about freedom of speech, but about whether the University should be heavy handed about its response to speech that offended some people (a religious minority to boot).  I don't think the University should come down hard on the band, but I do think the band could do with some discussion about what topics are and are not appropriate targets for satire.

BC

As a technical matter, I must note that in California, under Education Code section 94367, subdivision (a), a private university stands in the shoes of the government for the purposes of First Amendment analysis.  But I was not making a legal argument so much as a social tolerance argument.  There simply is no recognized right to go through life without ever being offended, while there is a recognized right to free speech.  I just think people should remember that, be more willing to shrug off comments that offend them, and get on with their lives.  But as I said, I’m probabably just a dinosaur in modern times.

You are correct of course.  There is no such right.  Yet, people lose their jobs and students get suspended over offensive comments.  I’m not arguing whether that’s “good” or “bad”.  But it’s an unassailable fact.  If the “antics” of the band had been to “poke fun” at a group other that Mormons, the consequences would have been more severe.