Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:50 No.14178021

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:50 No.14178021

What sayeth Chief Nigger on this?

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:51 No.14178039

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:51 No.14178039

Replies: >>14178140

so if a rank hamplanet started spreading the rumor that you gave her a rimjob and swallowed her shit pebbles, that would be cool with you?

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:54 No.14178103

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:54 No.14178103

This is not limited to material that a reasonable person would find offensive. Nor is limited to material that, put together, creates a “hostile, abusive, or offensive educational environment.” (I think even speech codes that would have these requirements are unconstitutional, but the speech codes that the government is urging would in any event not have these requirements.) Every instance of such material of a “sexual nature,” under the government’s approach, would be “sexual harassment” and would need to be banned.

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:55 No.14178140

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:55 No.14178140

>>14178039
That has little to do with whether the Federal government should require every university in the US to adopt speech codes for students that violate the First Amendment.

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:56 No.14178147

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:56 No.14178147

Replies: >>14178197 >>14178235

>>14177999 (OP)
links please

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:56 No.14178152

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:56 No.14178152

>Trying to legislate porn on the internet
>Trying to legislate nigger behaviour
>Trying to legislate sex at all

Ahahahahah what a bunch of faggots.Don't they realize they'll never get anywhere with this ?

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:56 No.14178166

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:56 No.14178166

Man, I just told my dirtiest anal sex joke to a girl dating a guy in the Navy too.

I liked that joke.

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:57 No.14178170

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:57 No.14178170

>>14178131
If universities wish to receive federal funding and federally backed student loans they will have to comply.

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:58 No.14178197

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:58 No.14178197

Replies: >>14178227

>>14178147
http://thefire.org/article/15767.html

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:59 No.14178220

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:59 No.14178220

I guess I take issue with this on a fundamental level, but realistically, this won't have much of an effect. Only an idiot would let any of those things see the public eye in the first place.

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:59 No.14178226

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:59 No.14178226

>>14177999 (OP)
Don't touch my 1st amendment or my second amendment will ..... double check and mate mother fuckers

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:59 No.14178227

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:59 No.14178227

>>14178197
Thank you! Including in the first post next time.

Anonymous
05/14/13(Tue)09:59 No.14178235

Anonymous 05/14/13(Tue)09:59 No.14178235

>>14178147
Here's the letter from DOJ.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/um-ltr-findings.pdf