GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   A college student kicked out for posted photo (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1217689)

brassmonkey 09-19-2016 05:22 PM
A college student kicked out for posted photo
 
https://i.imgur.com/1M2tRXU.jpg

A white, blond-haired Kansas State University student has been expelled from school after Snapchatting a photo of herself and a friend wearing black clay face masks with the caption "Feels good to finally be a nigga."

The young woman, Paige Shoemaker, posted the image to her Snapchat story, meaning it could be seen by any of her followers, on Tuesday night. But the trouble started when a fellow student, Desmund Weathers, posted the image to Twitter, where it swiftly went viral - prompting public outcry, a formal response from the university, and a Facebook apology by Shoemaker on behalf of herself and her friend, Sadie Meier.

"We clearly understand that what was said and done was completely disrespectful," she wrote, in part, in her Thursday post, since shared more than 1,300 times. "I did want to inform everyone that it was NOT 'black face,' but it was a L'Oréal clay facial mask. The signs that were thrown also is an inside joke between our friends that represents 'West Coast is the best coast.' We never intended for the picture to offend anyone."

Shoemaker added, "We accept that there will be people who won't forgive us, but something had to be said. Ask anyone who knows us, we are the most accepting and least racist people. We know that we will ride up and learn from this mistake. We will be better. . We know what we did was wrong."

Kansas State University interim associate provost for diversity Zelia Wiley addressed the situation with a post to the school's website on Thursday. "On Sept. 15, the university received notice that a derogatory social message and photo was sent out via social media. The involved person is not currently enrolled at the university. It is our understanding the second individual in the photo is not associated with the university," Wiley began. "This racially offensive photo with a derogatory message has upset the K-State family and is not in concert with our principles of community. Such messages on social media are harmful to all."

She concluded, "As members of the K-State family, we should always visualize and work toward a safe, welcoming environment for our community. I and other members of the CCRT [Campus Climate Response Team] welcome the opportunity to speak with our affected students and employees as we continue create a culture of inclusion for the entire K-State family."

The message was in response to the hundreds of messages that flooded the university's Facebook page.

The post of Shoemaker's Snapchat image, by @JustDesmund with the caption "Welcome to Kansas State University. Where breakfast in the morning is some K-State Family with a side of Racism," has been retweeted more than 14,000 times. It's prompted tweets of support, from "smfh this is so unacceptable" to "Truly indefensible. There are complete morons out there, and sadly Trump has empowered/brought out some of the worst of them," but also plenty of comments suggesting he was taking Shoemaker's post too seriously.

article...

Colmike9 09-19-2016 05:28 PM
"The signs that were thrown also is an inside joke between our friends that represents 'West Coast is the best coast.'"

I lol'd.. :upsidedow

escorpio 09-19-2016 05:35 PM
:1orglaugh Big fucking deal. It's not like they were running through the streets setting shit on fire and screaming "if they black beat they ass!"

Rochard 09-19-2016 05:36 PM
West coast is the best coast.

mineistaken 09-19-2016 05:44 PM
Wtf, PC police went too far if you can now legally expell someone for jokes (be them racist, disrespectful or whatever)... Seriously?

mineistaken 09-19-2016 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brassmonkey (Post 21172138)
"Truly indefensible. There are complete morons out there, and sadly Trump has empowered/brought out some of the worst of them,"
Some moron even managed to drag Trump into this :helpme:error :1orglaugh

mozadek 09-19-2016 05:56 PM
She just won herself some friends at GFY.

Spunky 09-19-2016 05:57 PM
They should deport her

brassmonkey 09-19-2016 06:06 PM
funny racist back peddle. uh oh the boat has a big ass hole in it. oh my damn imma drown :( :helpme they gone keep my tuition money. stupid humor kick out of school? hell no! it's extreme let her be punished not take away an education.
https://i.imgur.com/jLjOD27.jpg

nico-t 09-20-2016 01:32 AM
ironically for the idiot PC police Ice-T fought them already way back in 89.

"Freedom of speech... just watch what you say"



i bet nobody would have expected in 2016 these lyrics are even more relevant now than back then. Western society going backwards.

rogueteens 09-20-2016 01:40 AM
its not like whitening up which isn't racist ....

http://images.moviepostershop.com/wh...1020251874.jpg

Paul Markham 09-20-2016 01:57 AM
What happened to the First Amendment?

ContentBay 09-20-2016 02:34 AM
Haha what an idiot :D

brassmonkey 09-20-2016 02:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 21172648)
What happened to the First Amendment?
you threw away your handbook in college? school policy came into play. this was done at school in the dorms. you are confused on the first amendment

LovinNothin 09-20-2016 05:53 AM
This generation is sucking off the PC tit so much even Big Brother is afraid.

Being a fucking jerk is the right of every American. Fuck these PC psychopaths that dictate social terms and ruin people's lives because of their negative expression or online childish remarks. Who fucking cares.

Just take care of your own shit and leave other people alone. If everybody did that, America would be a great place to live.

woj 09-20-2016 06:23 AM
Universities have always been places where anything goes, you could always say or do pretty much anything... you could be caught cooking meth in a chemistry lab and all you would get is a slap on the wrist... but get caught making a poor taste joke about some minority, instant expulsion... :error

sad truth is that university president probably knows better, but he had to throw someone under the bus, it was either the girls or him going down... if he didn't expel them, there would be protests on campus, media attention, etc and then he would be the one taking heat for not taking any action... :2 cents:

Best-In-BC 09-20-2016 06:49 AM
hahaha thats funny, fuck off, at least there going after a female for once.

NatalieK 09-20-2016 10:58 AM
stupid white girls thinking their all it, acting like bloods...


throw them to the curb :2 cents:

MiamiBoyz 09-21-2016 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 21172648)
What happened to the First Amendment?
Long dead I am afraid, thanks to the totally artificial, unnatural, and unhealthy PC bullshit people are forced to conform to these days.

The governments are trying to bring down western civilization as they have pretty much raped and stolen the wealth from the people and what better way than inject the parasitic scum of Muslim to run wild and terrorize the people.

Bama 09-21-2016 08:29 AM
Sweet, when all is said and done, they'll get a free ride the rest of the way thru college!

ynotscribe 09-21-2016 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiBoyz (Post 21174838)
Long dead I am afraid, thanks to the totally artificial, unnatural, and unhealthy PC bullshit people are forced to conform to these days.

The governments are trying to bring down western civilization as they have pretty much raped and stolen the wealth from the people and what better way than inject the parasitic scum of Muslim to run wild and terrorize the people.
This would have nothing to do with the First Amendment; it's a school policy / discipline issue. Students are free to speak their minds, but schools are typically free to restrict who they accept as students and to enforce a code of conduct.

DBS.US 09-21-2016 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 21172648)
What happened to the First Amendment?
People sit back and lets "school officials" tell them whats right and wrong:2 cents:

DBS.US 09-21-2016 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 21172648)
What happened to the First Amendment?


If you care, ask Zelia:winkwink:

Kansas State University
interim associate provost for diversity
Dr. Zelia Wiley [email protected]

blackmonsters 09-21-2016 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBS.US (Post 21175504)
If you care, ask Zelia:winkwink:

Kansas State University
interim associate provost for diversity
Dr. Zelia Wiley [email protected]
Save your email :

Annotation 18 - First Amendment - FindLaw


Quote:
Fighting Words and Other Threats to the Peace .--In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 95 the Court unanimously sustained a conviction under a statute proscribing ''any offensive, derisive, or annoying word'' addressed to any person in a public place under the state court's interpretation of the statute as being limited to ''fighting words''-- i.e., to ''words . . . [which] have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.'' The statute was sustained as ''narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace.'' 96 The case is best known for Justice Murphy's famous dictum. ''[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.'' 97
Chaplinsky still remains viable for the principle that ''the States are free to ban the simple use, without a demonstration of additional justifying circumstances, of so-called 'fighting words,' those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.'' 98 But, in actuality, the Court has closely scrutinized statutes on vagueness and overbreadth grounds and set aside convictions as not being within the doctrine. Chaplinsky thus remains formally alive but of little vitality. 99
On the obverse side, the ''hostile audience'' situation, the Court once sustained a conviction for disorderly conduct of one who refused police demands to cease speaking after his speech seemingly stirred numbers of his listeners to mutterings and threatened disorders. 100 But this case has been significantly limited by cases which hold protected the peaceful expression of views which stirs people to anger because of the content of the expression, or perhaps because of the manner in which it is conveyed, and that breach of the peace and disorderly conduct statutes may not be used to curb such expression.
The cases are not clear to what extent the police must go in protecting the speaker against hostile audience reaction or whether only actual disorder or a clear and present danger of disorder will entitle the authorities to terminate the speech or other expressive conduct. 101 Neither, in the absence of incitement to illegal action, may government punish mere expression or proscribe ideas, 102 regardless of the trifling or annoying caliber of the expression. 103
Group Libel, Hate Speech .--In Beauharnais v. Illinois, 104 relying on dicta in past cases, 105 the Court upheld a state group libel law which made it unlawful to defame a race or class of people. The defendant had been convicted under this statute after he had distributed a leaflet, a part of which was in the form of a petition to his city government, taking a hard-line white supremacy position and calling for action to keep African Americans out of white neighborhoods. Justice Frankfurter for the Court sustained the statute along the following reasoning. Libel of an individual, he established, was a common-law crime and was now made criminal by statute in every State in the Union. These laws raise no constitutional difficulty because libel is within that class of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment. If an utterance directed at an individual may be the object of criminal sanctions, no good reason appears to deny a State the power to punish the same utterances when they are directed at a defined group, ''unless we can say that this is a willful and purposeless restriction unrelated to the peace and well-being of the State.'' 106 The Justice then reviewed the history of racial strife in Illinois to conclude that the legislature could reasonably fear substantial evils from unrestrained racial utterances. Neither did the Constitution require the State to accept a defense of truth, inasmuch as historically a defendant had to show not only truth but publication with good motives and for justifiable ends. 107 ''Libelous utterances not being within the area of constitutionally protected speech, it is unnecessary . . . to consider the issues behind the phrase 'clear and present danger.''' 108
Beauharnais has little continuing vitality as precedent. Its holding, premised in part on the categorical exclusion of defamatory statements from First Amendment protection, has been substantially undercut by subsequent developments, not the least of which are the Court's subjection of defamation law to First Amendment challenge and its ringing endorsement of ''uninhibited, robust, and wide-open'' debate on public issues in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 109 In R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, explained and qualified the categorical exclusions for defamation, obscenity, and fighting words. These categories of speech are not ''entirely invisible to the Constitution,'' but instead ''can, consistently with the First Amendment, be regulated because of their constitutionally proscribable content.'' 110 Content discrimination unrelated to that ''distinctively proscribable content'' runs afoul of the First Amendment. Therefore, the city's bias-motivated crime ordinance, interpreted as banning the use of fighting words known to offend on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender, but not on such other possible bases as political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality, was invalidated for its content discrimination. ''The First Amendment does not permit [the city] to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.''
- See more at: Annotation 18 - First Amendment - FindLaw

1215 09-21-2016 03:58 PM
Ice Cube's old group the Westside Connection would recruit them for sex in a trailer.

Why do girls take "facial" pics and act like anyone cares?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc