that's the thing.....
they DID do something wrong. They violated rules in the code of conduct. The same code that says cheating isn't allowed....
it's in the same goddamned handbook.


so I stand by my original statement. NCSU will never get donations from me.

11/20/2008 10:42:09 AM

Quote :

"this keeps coming up because the school gave these kids a mild slap on the wrist and allowed them to maintain their dignity (through anonymity) while denying dignity to many others"

Once you start your own University, you can run it however you want to.

11/20/2008 10:43:19 AM

comparing cheating to writing on the wall is like the dumbass hunchback comparing this incident to VA Tech.

11/20/2008 10:43:39 AM

wait but NCSU is a public school

so... in a way it IS my university

11/20/2008 10:43:57 AM

Quote :

"NCSU will never get donations from me."

THEY LOST ANY POSSIBILITY OF RECEIVING MY DONATIONS A LONG TIME AGO, EVEN BEFORE THE WHOLE "HACKING" THING HAPPENED.

11/20/2008 10:44:11 AM

I'm surprised how quick some of you are to demand punishment against people for expressing their ideas. Do you think expelling someone is going to do any good? You'd be sending them home with a vendetta and they would be used as a symbol for people with like beliefs.

I've been saying for years that the best thing any of us can do is lead by example. Punishing people for thoughts and words is very 1984ish. If you want to do any good you will change their minds through open discussion and the example you set.

Freedom of speech for all!*
















*except those who offend me.

11/20/2008 10:47:20 AM

^Agreed.

11/20/2008 10:49:04 AM

I'm not calling for their expulsion

I just want their identities to be made public so that they can be ostracized by civil society

they're welcome to have backwards ideas but no one is obligated to like it

11/20/2008 10:50:01 AM

Quote :

"This week, William J. Barber, the head of the state NAACP chapter, dismissed N.C. State officials' response to the graffiti as "tepid." In a release, he said he wants to meet with UNC-system President Erskine Bowles to demand aggressive action to incidents he has deemed hate crimes."

AGGRESSIVE ACTION!!

HANG THEM! FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING (FOR THOSE COMMITTING THE "HATE CRIMES")

11/20/2008 10:52:28 AM

^^Geez you're naive. They wouldn't be ostracized, they would be hunted and assassinated. Then others like the KKK would rise up against the murderers and we would have a full-on race war. Yea, they fucked up. But lots of people talk shit about races/religions/homosexuals/transgenders/etc. There is no reason to make the issue bigger.

11/20/2008 10:55:52 AM

Quote :

"I just want their identities to be made public so that they can be ostracized by civil society"

MAKING THEIR NAMES PUBLIC WOULD PROBABLY RESULT IN THE UNIVERSITY BEING SUED HONESTLY, AND WITH GOOD REASON.

IF THEY WERE TO MAKE THEIR NAMES PUBLIC AT THIS POINT THEY WOULD BE IN VERY REAL DANGER, POSSIBLY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE SCALE THIS HAS REACHED. I'D SAY IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME THAT THEY DIDN'T INTEND FOR THIS TO BE AN INTERNATIONAL FIASCO NOR DID THEY THINK THAT ANYONE WOULD BE CONCERNED FOR THEIR SAFETY. THE PROBABILITY THAT THERE'S SOMEONE IN THIS COUNTRY OR ANOTHER WHO INTENDS HURT/KILL THEM IF THEY CAN FIND OUT WHO THEY ARE IS INCREDIBLY HIGH.

THEY NEVER SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO ANYTHING, THEY SIMPLY MADE A STATEMENT IN AN AREA IN WHICH THEY ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE STATEMENTS. EVEN THE KKK'S RIGHT TO SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY, WHILE DISGUSTING TO MOST OF US, IS PROTECTED IN THIS COUNTRY. IF YOU RECALL, THE ACLU HAS FOUGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS BEFORE AND THEY'VE SAID THAT THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN. THE UNIVERSITY'S CODE OF CONDUCT CLEARLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY RULES AGAINST THESE ACTIONS AND IF IT DID THE STUDENTS WOULD BE RECEIVING MORE PUNISHMENT.

11/20/2008 10:57:02 AM

haha, o lawd--somebody's been taking the pamphlets too seriously

11/20/2008 10:57:18 AM

ha, so you want them to do like they did to the duke lax players. we all see how well that went.

11/20/2008 10:59:47 AM

Look, these guys did something really stupid and wrong. Yes, they did it in an area allowing for Free Expression. It was probably impulsive because they were sad their guy lost the election. Was it any message that should ever be considered by a rational person? ABSOLUTELY NOT. They have been reprimanded. Their lives have not been ruined because of it. They are receiving a punishment. They are being rehabilitated. They will hopefully come out of this whole ordeal as more thoughtful, caring people who think about their actions. Can we all agree on all these points? Good. Then everyone just STFU.

I don't think kids tagging an area that is designated for graffiti is a crime. I don't think it's worth ruining their lives over. I think it was tasteless and thoughtless and appropriate action was taken by the University to deal with it. The University does not condone this sort of action and made the right move by painting over it and finding out who the students are and punishing them accordingly. They never should have wrote what they did and the University was going to take a huge PR hit no matter what they did because someone would have found out about it.

But all you people who are defending this disgusting message of hate need to check yourselves because it's people like you who allow this type of atmosphere to exist. Sure they were expressing their ideas. But these are not ideas that are acceptable to be expressed. Your support for their right to say these things is equally as disgusting. We should be condemning these types of ideas at all costs because they are 100% completely wrong. I applaud the University for taking moderate action while being pulled by fringe groups in both directions. I honestly think the best course of action was taken.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 11:00:09 AM

Quote :

"Sure they were expressing their ideas. But these are not ideas that are acceptable to be expressed."

PLEASE, MOVE TO NORTH KOREA AND LEAVE US ALONE.

11/20/2008 11:01:40 AM

Oh, STFU you racist mother fucker. Expressing a message saying you want to "shoot a nigger (also read: President) in head" is in no way acceptable in any way. You should type out exactly what it is you're defending every time you do it you fucking moron.

11/20/2008 11:05:22 AM

Quote :

"Your support for their right to say these things is equally as disgusting. "

Sorry but you get it all or none, you can't defend someone's right to say things you agree with without defending everyone's right to say what they want. It's called a double standard, look into it.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:05 AM. Reason : it]

11/20/2008 11:05:27 AM

See my previous post. No one should be defending anyone's right to "shoot niggers in the head." This is disgusting in any way you perceive it.

I don't mean to be vulgar by typing this out. I'm simply trying to prove a point. Things like this are indefensible.

11/20/2008 11:07:03 AM

^^you mean like how some states allow felons to vote and some don't?

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:08 AM. Reason : or that you can lie, but not under oath?]

11/20/2008 11:07:16 AM

Quote :

"^^ I was going to say that there isn't a tradition of enslaving women and murdering them to oppress them but that is simply not true... society just doesn't care as much about women"

Perhaps this is because we don't have a media hungry group stirring up scandals in the media over words. Yes, there are a few femi-nazi groups that make the news every once in a while, but they get a fraction of the media coverage that the NAACP gets at best.

I think what these people did was moronic, but it did not warrant this kind of attention in the media. NCSU should have handled this internally and told the media and the NAACP to stay out of it. I'm more offended that this gets more news coverage and action from the administration than the violent crimes that have happened on campus lately does. Words don't kill; Knives and guns DO.

After all of this I hope that they do paint over the FET...but I hope they paint it Carolina Blue so everyone can remember the fainting dandies that got all a'flutter over a simple word.

11/20/2008 11:09:05 AM

Quote :

"Sorry but you get it all or none, you can't defend someone's right to say things you agree with without defending everyone's right to say what they want. It's called a double standard, look into it."

YEP, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT EVERYONE IS ALLOWED TO BE FREE IN THEIR THOUGHTS AND EXPRESSIONS.

IF THEY COMMIT A VIOLENT CRIME OR THREATEN TO COMMIT A VIOLENT CRIME AGAINST SOMEONE THEN THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY, BUT THEIR RIGHT TO THINK AND SAY THINGS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE IS COMPLETELY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

11/20/2008 11:09:25 AM

Quote :

"No one should be defending anyone's right to"

I'm not defending anyone's right to do anything but express what's on their mind. I don't always agree with the message but that doesn't matter.

V

Quote :

"because 4 idiots wrote how they felt "

I really don't think they felt this way, they did it just to get a rise out people. I guess it worked too well.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:12 AM. Reason : g]

11/20/2008 11:09:51 AM

Is there one black person on campus living in fear now? Are black people running scared and locking their doors because 4 idiots wrote how they felt on the Free Expression Tunnel?

Show me one person who now truly feels threatened and scared, and I'll show you a liar. No threats were made against these people. Shitty, non-serious threats were made towards one person, and one person only. The only way this affected black people was to piss them off and give them more of a reason to say whitey is racist.

Sure, I wouldn't like it if some black person wrote, "Kill that honkey" when referring to a white President. But I would not be scared, I wasn't threatened.

This kids committed no crime. They chose to express themselves, where self-expression is allowed, as long as certain groups agree with said expression. They did not incite violence (unless there's a massive war occurring in the Brickyard, that I missed).

What these kids did was make stupid decisions. Racial slurs don't do anyone any good, and can be hurtful (which is not the same as threatening, frightening, etc), and are more or less, punishable by the University. Furthermore, the punishment isn't, and shouldn't be automatic expulsion. If every person on this campus was expelled for expressing their feelings about another group, race, etc (in a negative manner, obviously), this campus would shrink quickly. These 4 idiots should receive a fair punishment, but that does not include expulsion. In fact, if you want to educate these morons, expulsion would have the opposite effect. Community service, diversity training, and a public apology are fair and education punitive actions.

Quit yer bitching and tell the NAACP to go fuck themselves.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ^in any case, it was a dumb decision]

11/20/2008 11:10:16 AM

Quote :

"Words don't kill; Knives and guns DO."

WORDS, GUNS AND KNIVES DO NOT KILL.... PEOPLE DO.


I DO AGREE THAT THE VIOLENT CRIMES ON CAMPUS SHOULD RECEIVE MORE ATTENTION THAN THIS THOUGH. STUDENTS ARE IN FAR MORE DANGER OF A VIOLENT ROBBERY OR RAPE THAN OF BEING LYNCHED BY THESE IDIOTS (SOMETHING THEY NEVER EVEN SAID THEY WOULD DO TO ANYONE). THAT'S WHY, AT THE VERY LEAST, CONCEALED CARRY BY VALID PERMIT HOLDERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON CAMPUS.

11/20/2008 11:11:31 AM

Quote :

"but I hope they paint it Carolina Blue so everyone can remember the fainting dandies that got all a'flutter over a simple word."

Seriously, it's people like you making light of what was written that are pissing off the people on the other side. Please do not trivialize the language that was used.

11/20/2008 11:11:39 AM

i've always been more of an urban league fan, personally

11/20/2008 11:12:29 AM

Quote :

""Sure they were expressing their ideas. But these are not ideas that are acceptable to be expressed.""

what kinda lame pussy tarhole shit is this?

frankly i think your ideas are not acceptable to be expressed either...

11/20/2008 11:14:06 AM

LET'S SHOOT THAT NIGGER IN THE HEAD

Just so we're all on the same page, you all are going on the record as defending someone's right to say this?

11/20/2008 11:15:31 AM

^I'm not defending what they said. I'm defending them against stupid punishment.

And those statements were determined no to be credible threats. And... I've heard plenty of people saying something about killing Bush. Where is the outrage there?

11/20/2008 11:17:05 AM

^^ SURE. THE STATEMENT WAS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION SON.

11/20/2008 11:17:23 AM

3^ you just did

Quote :

"I've heard plenty of people saying something about killing Bush. Where is the outrage there?"

that's the itchy bit of their assholes

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM. Reason : s]

11/20/2008 11:17:49 AM

^^^^ that's free speech for you, embrace it or move to N. Korea as ST suggested.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ^^^]

11/20/2008 11:18:20 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEhfydhSXBg

11/20/2008 11:19:33 AM

Actually, this isn't protected by the Constitution because in its simplest form, it is considered a threat. So you're wrong SAABIDIOT

11/20/2008 11:20:29 AM

Supporting their right to say something is not the same as supporting what they say. Trying to equate these things just shows how weak your anti-speech argument is.

You're being an extremely naive fucktard in this thread, IMStoned... I'd kind of expect better from ya.

11/20/2008 11:20:33 AM

advocating the assassination of the president is not protected speech

11/20/2008 11:21:35 AM

Quote :

"Actually, this isn't protected by the Constitution because in its simplest form, it is considered a threat. So you're wrong SAABIDIOT"

AND THAT'S WHY ALL OF THE NAACP LAWYERS, NCSU LAWYERS, POLICE AND SECRET SERVICE HAVE STATED THAT THEY BROKE THE LAW AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.


OH WAIT....

11/20/2008 11:21:39 AM

IT ISN'T A THREAT. IT IS A GODDAMNED PROPOSAL.

HOW ARE YOU STILL CLAIMING IT TO BE A THREAT WHEN THE MOTHERFUCKING SECRET SERVICE IS TELLING YOU THAT IT ISN'T?

Get this fact down:
The SECRET SERVICE has investigated and determined their statements to be NOT A THREAT. Your argument is baseless and unfounded.

11/20/2008 11:22:14 AM

the Secret Service didn't say they didn't break the law

they said they weren't a threat

11/20/2008 11:22:30 AM

And the Wake County DA said they didn't break a law. Fuck off.

11/20/2008 11:23:07 AM

^^ more specifically, it said they weren't a "credible" threat, which means they weren't actually amassing weapons to kill the president.

[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:24 AM. Reason : ]

11/20/2008 11:23:59 AM

Quote :

"§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20. "

they did break the law... the Secret Service chose not to pursue it because they have limited resources and can't prosecute ever hayseed and hucklebuck that spouts bullshit


[Edited on November 20, 2008 at 11:25 AM. Reason : -]

11/20/2008 11:24:30 AM

The only people giving that word any power are the ones who keep screaming about it.

11/20/2008 11:24:30 AM

Quote :

"the Secret Service didn't say they didn't break the law they said they weren't a threat"

IF THEY BROKE THE LAW THEY'D BE PROSECUTED, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THEY NEVER SAID THEY PLANNED TO DO ANYTHING TO ANYONE.

JUST BECAUSE THE SECRET SERVICE DIDN'T SAY, "THEY DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW" DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY DID BREAK THE LAW.

11/20/2008 11:25:08 AM

Oh, look, the OTHER naive fucktard is back to be naive.

Seriously, as was proposed, if you fucks are getting personally offended by the first amendment, just move to N. Korea as was suggested. I'm out of this thread, no point in trying to convince someone with the intellectual capacity of a 14-year-old.

11/20/2008 11:25:15 AM

Quote :

"IF THEY BROKE THE LAW THEY'D BE PROSECUTED. PLAIN AND SIMPLE."

ahaha

11/20/2008 11:26:00 AM

the first amendment doesn't protect this kind of speech

11/20/2008 11:26:00 AM

14 is giving certain users way too much credit, i'd go more with 2 or 3... 1 usually but not many can speak at that age...

11/20/2008 11:26:57 AM

Quote :

"ahaha"

PROSECUTING THEM MEANS MORE MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT. IF THEY BROKE THE LAW, THEY'D BE PROSECUTED. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE SECRET SERVICE, POLICE AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD WANT TO LET YOU OFF THE HOOK IF THEY CAME TO YOUR HOME AND FOUND THAT YOU'D BROKEN THE LAW?

11/20/2008 11:26:59 AM

Quote :

"What these kids did was make stupid decisions. Racial slurs don't do anyone any good, and can be hurtful (which is not the same as threatening, frightening, etc), and are more or less, punishable by the University. Furthermore, the punishment isn't, and shouldn't be automatic expulsion. If every person on this campus was expelled for expressing their feelings about another group, race, etc (in a negative manner, obviously), this campus would shrink quickly. These 4 idiots should receive a fair punishment, but that does not include expulsion. In fact, if you want to educate these morons, expulsion would have the opposite effect. Community service, diversity training, and a public apology are fair and education punitive actions."

Wait a minute, so these guys who could EASILY be expelled under the university's policies deserve some grace ( ) yet you don't think that the illegal immigrant in the other thread who was otherwise a BENEFIT to his society deserves ANY consideration, and should automatically be expelled?

You would rather defend obvious idiots and racist, but you'd throw good, hardworking people out of the country?

Do you realize what this makes you look like?

11/20/2008 11:27:36 AM