Stumbled across this on Twitter...

https://twitter.com/andrewreue/status/95...6200322048

Proud of them. Took some real courage to take such a drastic, tough, well thought out action.

This is definitely the Backpage. I would imagine the editors-in-chief and Backpage editors would resign.

This is racist.

(01-11-2018 05:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Proud of them. Took some real courage to take such a drastic, tough, well thought out action.

Who is "them"? What action did they take?

And there is nothing "questionable" about the ad. It's disgusting.

Immature. Poor taste.
Ignore.

(01-11-2018 06:17 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 05:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Proud of them. Took some real courage to take such a drastic, tough, well thought out action.

Who is "them"? What action did they take?

And there is nothing "questionable" about the ad. It's disgusting.

That was intended to be sarcasm. My bad... tone doesn't always make it thru text as well as intended.

Tomball Owl, despite the thread title, I 100% agree that the ad is disgusting.

I am embarrassed someone allowed this to be printed. It is only a matter of time until this spreads all across social media.

Leebron just received a very polite email from me.

(01-11-2018 06:22 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Leebron just received a very polite email from me.

As stupid as this is, I don't believe Leebron should be the one involved. Keeping the press independent from the University suits is a good thing.

That said, the people in charge and the Thresher Faculty/Staff adviser should really exercise better judgement. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you act like an ******* idiot.

That said, on further thought - this does reflect poorly on Rice.. so maybe Leebron will need to make a statement.

(01-11-2018 06:14 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  This is definitely the Backpage. I would imagine the editors-in-chief and Backpage editors would resign.

+1. I’m guessing it happens by the end of the week.

Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.

(01-11-2018 06:20 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Immature. Poor taste.
Ignore.

The first two for sure, though that is to be expected from the Backpage at least sometimes. It will certainly not be ignored though.

Someone at some level really should have known better than to let this slide.

(01-11-2018 06:36 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.

Only if direct, personal, defamatory to an individual or direct group. Not a general statement. At least I think. Not a lawyer

Matal vs Tam majority opinion
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

I just really do wonder.. we had the same sort of thing happen when I was a student with a Backpage editor who thought he was waaaay funnier than anyone else thought he was. Do they actually read what they write? Or is it in such a filter bubble that no one was like "wtf" to this?

(01-11-2018 06:36 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.

Actually, it is. Hate to tell you there is no 'hate speech exception' to the 1st amendment with respect to government action.

The Thresher, being a private entity, may do whatever it pleases re: what it prints -- defamatory speech excluded.

Shouldnt detract from that the selection is in amazingly poor taste *and* judgement to be printed by the Thresher....

I found the article offensive.

I hope the editor(s) are not compelled to resign.

I do not need or want censors to protect my feelings.

(01-11-2018 07:32 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I found the article offensive.

I hope the editor(s) are not compelled to resign.

I do not need or want censors to protect my feelings.

It's not about not being offensive. It's about executing piss poor judgement, IMO.

I hope the Thresher is not censored or limited going forward. That said, there should be a penalty for being an idiot. Actions have consequences.

I didn't find it offensive as much as embarrassing. Nothi ng says rice has a bunch of non-funny weirdos better than this.

It was done out of spite of another person. Not funny, it is hateful.

(01-11-2018 06:36 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Hate speech is not covered by the first amendment.

That statement is frighteningly ignorant, much more so than anything in the Thresher.

(01-11-2018 11:39 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  It was done out of spite of another person. Not funny, it is hateful.

I think it's possible that it was meant as a joke, but of course is not funny and in poor taste.