BuckNekked

December 21st, 2016 at 6:39 AM ^

I dont understand the need to rush to judgement when we are privy to minimal information. We know nothing of this case or what happened just like we know nothing of what Manuel has said to the B1G about the officiating before or after The Game. Judging people with such limited information, and often only one side of the story, is what children do.

BoCanHam15

December 21st, 2016 at 6:44 AM ^

This is some stupid, shit! I don't approve of Warde. He's never done anything for me. Bitch, moan, bitch, moan! Hopefully none of you judges, oversee this case! Idiots don't know if any of this crap is true. For those of you piling on getting an unsportsmanlike penalty. You better pray that the next time someone accuses you of something. That you somehow are allowed due process and that the idiots on mgoblog don't get to prosecute you first.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 7:10 AM ^

...there are some First Amendement legal issues here.

Not saying you have to like it or dislike it.  But here is the core of the Free Speech Clause issue...

  UConn is a state school, so the First Amendment applies.  To what degree can a state university sanction a student for her speech? 

What limits to otherwise unrestricted state university student speech apply when that student is a member of a team, wearing the uniform of the university, and during an official game? 

The answers are not obvious under existing Free Speech Clause cases. 

 

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 8:18 AM ^

The Free Speech Clause in fact does prohibit government from imposing a burden (such as taking away a benefir such as a scholarship) becasue the government objects to the speakers speech or expression.

Yanking the scholarship is a burden on the student's free speech.

The only question under the law is whether being a member of a team at a state university gives the state actor (the university) an additional power to curb/prohibit/sanction/burden student speech that it would otherside not have for other members of the student body.

It is NOT 'you have the right to speak, but the state university has the right to sanction your speech.'  The Free Speech Clause does not work that way.

It is instead 'does being on the state university team give the state university a power to punish student speech that it otherwise would not have?'

 

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 8:39 AM ^

...If a state university student were to stand up in the middle of lecture and say "F you" or whatever, then the state university can punish the student.  The class room is not a public forum, so free speech rights are more limited and student speakers can be sanctioned/punished for disrupting lecture, etc.

But if the state university student attends a protest on the Diag (a public forum) and gives a speech saying "Prof. ___ is an F'ing antidisestablishmentarian tool" then the Free Speech Clause prevents the state university from pubishing/sanctioning the student. 

Generally, governent entities (including state universities) are prohibited from sanctioning speakers because of the content of the speaker's speech, at least when the speech takes place in a public forum.

 

ppToilet

December 21st, 2016 at 12:22 PM ^

Do we know that the scholarship was "yanked"? Did she have a 4-year scholarship or was it renewed annually? If the latter, then she does not have much of a "right" to a scholarship. Moreover, the scholarship is not a benefit bestowed upon all students and standards to maintain it are certainly reasonable and expected.

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 12:30 PM ^

that scholarship can and do have standards and conditions.

As a legal matter, however, those standards and conditions cannot be unconstitutional.

So if the standards and conditions include unconstitutional limits on student-athlete speech, then those conditions are not legally valid.

I get that some people are bothered by this, but I am just letting people know what the Free Speech Clause cases establish.  

Don't blame the messenger.  OP article is about a law suit and I am just giving some info related to the suit. 

 

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 7:10 AM ^

...there are some First Amendement legal issues here.

Not saying you have to like it or dislike it.  But here is the core of the Free Speech Clause issue...

  UConn is a state school, so the First Amendment applies.  To what degree can a state university sanction a student for her speech? 

What limits to otherwise unrestricted state university student speech apply when that student is a member of a team, wearing the uniform of the university, and during an official game? 

The answers are not obvious under existing Free Speech Clause cases. 

 

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 8:53 AM ^

is why this is a hard case.  Government employees do not have a constitutional right to flip the bird to everyone while doing their jobs. 

But state university scholarship student athletes are not employees, so the power of a state university to sanction a student for flipping the bird is much more limited than in cases dealing with government employees.

I'm not expressing any opinion one way or another on how this should come out. 

Just reporting on what the Supreme Court has held and, therefore, why there are in fact some real constitutional law issues in the UConn thing.

Sorry if folks don't like the way the Supreme Court has applied the First Amendment. 

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 8:24 AM ^

company the Free Speech Clause does not apply and you can and will be fired.

If you work for a government entity then the Free Speech Clause would mean that you cannot be fired becasue the government entity disagrees with your speech, but you can be fired if your speech disrupts or degrades the work of the government entity. 

Courts have not yet spoken on the speech rights of college athletes at state universities.  The UConn case falls in this area. 

From this fall, can a state university college football team punish a player for kneeling during the national anthem?  It remains an open question. 

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 12:41 PM ^

and conditions.

But that does not mean that all of those rules and conditions comply with the Constitution.  If they do not they are null and void.

[Edit:  Sorry folks don't like the way the law works.  But if the terms and conditions in a state university scholarship violate the Free Speech Clause then the terms and conditions are null and void.  That is what it means when something is unconstitutional.] 

Ghost of Fritz…

December 21st, 2016 at 11:02 AM ^

Hitting is not speech or expression.  No constitutional protection for hitting people.  Obviously.

Flipping the bird is speech/expression and does fall within the ambit if the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment

Again, people can like or dislike the way the Supreme Court applies the First Amendment. 

But the fact is that under the existing cases, the student-athlete has a very plausible Free Speech Clause argument against UConn.  Not a slam dunk.  But very plausible. 

Lots of shooting the messenger going on today. 

killerseafood3

December 21st, 2016 at 7:44 AM ^

She was just interviewed on good morning America and she blamed being a woman on why she lost her scholarship. After watching it, she took no responsibility. While regretting it, she said it was an impulse and she was just celebrating. While that may be true, the fact is, you are representing a college and have a free ride. Actions have consequences, and hey, you blew it. Tough lesson to learn, but certainly no reason to sue.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad