It seems even so-called "conservatives" need safe spaces too....

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
6,345
2,716
1,743
47
DFW
#61
The university didn’t take up an investigation UNTIL THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY ASKED THEM TO....in MAY.

Per procedures of the law school.

On a bogus claim of defamation instead of what is clearly protected speech.

Made by law students that know the difference between satire and defamation.

But again, whatever it takes to defend “your guys”.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#62
Is March close enough proximity? Or is it because the investigation didn't occur until the society asked the administration to do something about it in May?



Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

"In response to questions on Wednesday, a spokesman for Stanford University said in an email that Wallace would be allowed to graduate after all, after administrators consulted with the university’s legal counsel, who concluded the matter involved issues of protected speech."

Why do you think they waited until March to even file it?

Until May to ask that it be investigated?

Why do you think a group of Stanford law students even filed a complaint alleging "defamation" over what is clearly satire/issues of protected speech to even start with?
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,615
4,405
1,743
#64
Obviously oversaturation was a typo it was supposed to be investigation. And if the investigation had been taken up in March when it was filed why would it have affected graduation that was still over a month away? The university had the choice to withhold the fillings or not and to not investigate the complaint in a timely manner, this the society skinny for them to look at it.
You and I disagree. Oh well.
I think the school should have addressed the complaint dinner and they made a bad decision to withhold the diploma.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
The university didn’t take up an investigation UNTIL THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY ASKED THEM TO....in MAY.

Per procedures of the law school.

On a bogus claim of defamation instead of what is clearly protected speech.

Made by law students that know the difference between satire and defamation.

But again, whatever it takes to defend “your guys”.
But the complaint was filed IN MARCH. Why didn't the school address it then?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
#66
But the complaint was filed IN MARCH. Why didn't the school address it then?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
How about this, you answer the questions I posed to you and I'll answer your question...

Why do you think they waited until March to even file it?

Until May to ask that it be investigated?


Why do you think a group of Stanford law students even filed a complaint alleging "defamation" over what is clearly satire/issues of protected speech to even start with?

No screw it, I'll answer it anyway.....in fact, I already have.

Because the complaint procedures of the University (of which the complainants are aware) are that they don't "address" the complaint until the complainant asks them to do so. Kind of, though not exactly like, the courts don't "address" a civil dispute by two litigants until suit is filed asking them to do so.

For the record, until you stop ignoring the questions posed to you and actually answer them....I won't be answering any more of your asinine questions. FAFO.

BTW, I don't believe you will answer those questions or, if you do, your answers will be "I don't know" or some variation that absolves them of anything.
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
73,341
41,555
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
#67
I'm not saying people at Stanford in general would not know it's satire. Others outside could and did believe it real. I'm just saying there is info missing in the article and it seems as if people are blaming the federalist society for the diploma debacle when they never asked that to happen.
Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell, they only claim that it was taken as real by some and it caused issues because of that and they wanted it investigated. If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

Why is that so hard for you to see and admit?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You are making absolutely no sense and going to ridiculous lengths to excuse "your side".

If the oversaturation had occurred in March or April, it never would have affected his graduation, diploma, or bar exam unless he was found at fault in some way by the school.

"Oversaturation"? Of First Amendment protected speech? Really? :facepalm:

The federalist society absolutely is responsible for the diploma debacle. It's obvious in the timing of their complaint, content of their complaint, and when they asked the University to pursue prosecution of the complaint.

The flyer was sent out in JANUARY. They waited until late March to even make the complaint and waited until May to ask the administration to pursue the matter.....

"The chapter’s leaders were not amused. They filed a complaint on March 27 with the university, which said in a message to Wallace that it wasn’t until May 22 that the complainants had asked the administration to pursue the matter."

THAT is why the "diploma debacle" occurred.

“In cases where the complaint is filed in proximity to graduation, our normal procedure includes placing a graduation diploma hold on the respondent,” said the spokesman, E.J. Miranda. “The complaint was resolved as expeditiously as possible, and the respondent and complainant have been informed that case law supports that the email is protected speech.”

You REALLY think a group of law students were completely unaware of the procedures and policies of the University when they waited 3-4 months closer to graduation to ask the University to pursue for disciplinary purposes?

Also, the society never claimed it wasn't satire as far as I can tell,

They absolutely did, in their complaint....

“Wallace defamed the student group, its officers, Sen. Josh Hawley, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton,” the complaint said. “Wallace, impersonating the Stanford Federalist Society, wrote on the flyer that ‘Riot information will be emailed the morning of the event,’ insinuating that the student group was encouraging and hosting a riot. He also wrote that Attorney General Paxton advocates for ‘overturn(ing) the results of a free and fair election’ by ‘calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol.’ And he wrote that Sen. Hawley believes that violent insurrections are justified."

You cannot defame someone with obvious satire. Satire is per se not defamatory as a matter of law. 1st Amendment 101. They specifically alleged he posted defamatory material. In doing so, they explicitly alleged it wasn't satire. It was the allegation from the guild that he had defamed them and Hawley and Paxton that would have been a violation warranting disciplinary procedures.

Why is THAT so hard for you to see and admit.
Obviously oversaturation was a typo it was supposed to be investigation. And if the investigation had been taken up in March when it was filed why would it have affected graduation that was still over a month away? The university had the choice to withhold the fillings or not and to not investigate the complaint in a timely manner, this the society skinny for them to look at it.
You and I disagree. Oh well.
I think the school should have addressed the complaint dinner and they made a bad decision to withhold the diploma.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
FAFO

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
34,593
10,636
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#73
You have a MUCH different definition of "Woke" than I do. Or the urban dictionary.
This is the definition I go by...basically ALL of Qanon
“being aware of the truth behind things 'the man' doesn't want you to know”

Here is how the Oxford dictionary defined it in 2017 and how it has evolved now. I wasn't clued in to the evolution to the term being used toward racial discrimination
Oxford English Dictionary as an adjective in June 2017. The dictionary defines it as “originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice”