Homophobic Trumpster loses his college scholarship

Cal Poly has revoked the scholarship of a wrestler who was captured shouting an anti-gay slur at a pro-Trump counter-protest of the Families Belong Together march in Modesto, California on June 30. The wrestler, Bronson Harmon, was filmed carrying a Trump sign and gives the finger to Abdul Lasaing, who was filming the pro-Trump marchers. As Harmon passes, he flips the bird and says “f**k you faggot.” Harmon was marching with his father and a friend.

Ha Ha!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA what an idiot

[quote]“I totally regret it,” Bronson Harmon said of the slur. “I got caught up in the heat of the moment. I was there to peacefully protest the things that we believe and people were harassing us, spitting on us and calling us Nazis.”

You were there counter-protesting KIDS BEING KIDNAPPED FROM THEIR PARENTS.

A thing you believe in is lost toddlers?

Love how he claims his first amendment freedom of speech was violated. No one prevented him from stating something. You can say what you want but are not immune from the consequences.

And he’s a fattie. You can practically see the post-college beer gut and receding hairline already. All he needs is an obese frau by his side and a stained NASCAR shirt to complete the picture.

It actually unusual for college wrestlers to have that much body fat. Weight is so critical that they put all their effort into making sure all of the pounds are muscle

[quote] You can say what you want but are not immune from the consequences.

They never, never, never understand this.

Freedom of speech has never meant freedom of consequences from that speech. You aren't being arrested, so your rights haven't been violated. Doesn't mean the rest of society has to indulge your ass, you suck as a human being and these are the consequences.

[quote] “But I still feel like my freedom of speech was taken away and I don’t think my scholarship should have been revoked over something like that.

I agree. His scholarship should not have been revoked over this.

His scholarship should have been revoked because he clearly failed the American Government and Institutions requirement at California High Schools. He obviously doesn't know anything about the First Amendment or free speech.

Why is it these people ALWAYS hide behind "freedom of speech" as they attempt to take the rights granted by the other 26 amendments away from other people.

I love it. No one is "owed" a scholarship and any aggressive public display will carry some sort of consequences. He was lucky to have been given free money for wrestling anyway. While most of us can appreciate hot guys in teeny, painted-on singlets groping one another's sweaty asses - wrestling is not a spectator sport that brings any real income into a college. The dumb closet case was lucky to have received any sort of scholarship to begin with and now is served just deserts.

He's a simple simpleton. And the stuff of porn.

I’m sure HRC & GLAAD are on it.

Back to the body fat -- it says he and his coach disagreed about what what he was supposed to fight under. Sound like somebody was in denial and difficult.

[quote]and now is served just deserts.

Oh Dear! not even an oasis as a side?

R12 More like his coach set a target weight but he didn't want to put down the doritos

He's clearly lost his mind after being pressed against hard bodies, sweaty balls and perky cocks for years.

It is an interesting question. The Cal Poly Athletic Department hasn't gone on record as to why the scholarship was pulled. Cal Poly is a state university. It is also not one of the universities on the very short list with self-supporting athletic departments. Also universities are very touchy about speech. Faculty don't like being told what they can say, teach and research. One of the reasons the tenure system is in place.

Today most universities have a code of conduct in place for student athletes. My guess is push comes to shove both the school and Harmon know his scholarship was yanked technically because of the report made to the police.

R8 - I don't think this is a clear cut as you would like it to be. A private university may have the right to withdraw a scholarship based upon speech. but a state university may not.

The whole free speech arguement is moot since this kid is under investigation for misdemeanor assault. I’m sure the university has a clause in their student athlete protocols that makes clear any press that might reflect badly on the school is grounds for revocation of any offers made.

I lived in the Cal Poly's college town, San Luis Obispo, for 30 years. Good for them.

Red neck Modesto can shove it!

He's not from OUR Oakdale.

r13 gets his own special "oh, dear." "Just deserts" is correct. It comes from the same root as "deserve."

This deplorable is looking fine as hell

R18 me too! Well for a few years, not thirty. Did you go to Linnea's?

R25 I have to agree. Would hit that

Suuuuurrrrrrrre he was "harassed" and "spit on".

R25 He actually looks less attractive than most college athletes. I was disappointed after tracking down his pictures. Your self loathing is making him seem hotter than he is

R29 other people find different things hot. Keep your freshman psychology musings.

I don't think it even takes a freshman psychology major to be smart enough to see something is wrong with a gay man turned on by a guy he only knows about because of his homophobia. It's not exactly rocket science

R31 some of us are capable of appreciating hot stupid rednecks on purely physical criteria.

[quote]I agree. His scholarship should not have been revoked over this. His scholarship should have been revoked because he clearly failed the American Government and Institutions requirement at California High Schools. He obviously doesn't know anything about the First Amendment or free speech.

[quote][R8] - I don't think this is a clear cut as you would like it to be. A private university may have the right to withdraw a scholarship based upon speech. but a state university may not.

Well, I was mocking his level of stupid.

Of course, he should have his scholarship revoked for behavior that reflects poorly on the granting institution - irrespective of the institution's public/private status. While there are many types of scholarships, the underlying notion is that the recipient is noteworthy and will add something valuable to both the school and school community, so is given financial incentives to attend and, more importantly, should not be prevented from going purely from financial considerations.

When a recipient's behavior belies that premise, revoking such a scholarship is well within an institution's prerogative.

^ I am in the same camp, r33. I grew up around them and appreciate their fuckability regardless of their political stance or idiocy.

I have no primal urges to get into this one’s singlet, however. He really needs to step it up in the weight room to reach a higher hate-fuck level. Maybe that correlates to his own goals for a weigh-in.

He'll be playing his PC victim card for his remaining 60 years even after his kids and neighbors have repeatedly had to tell him, "Yes, you've told us that story. They took away your scholarship for being a douche. We know."

[R31] I absolutely don't give a fuck what this kid thinks, I was just talking about his body.

I grew up in texas and fucked guys like this on the regular, they will never admit they love cock and they deflect, deflect, deflect

There's no self loathing when my dick is in one of these guys

Next career move: Sean Cody.

[quote]I don't think this is a clear cut as you would like it to be. A private university may have the right to withdraw a scholarship based upon speech. but a state university may not.

Please, he should be happy the college has not revoked his admission (yet).

People who get into stupid trouble can find themselves with their college admissions revoked, any admissions or offers of scholarship are all conditional.

You called it, r36. I can easily see that happening.

If any of you were fucking guys who called you f*****s to your face you have a problem

[quote]People who get into stupid trouble can find themselves with their college admissions revoked, any admissions or offers of scholarship are all conditional.

Remember a while back that group of students who had all been admitted to Harvard, but got their admissions revoked because of some pretty outrageous stuff they were saying on a message board?

[quote]Harvard University revoked admission offers to at least 10 incoming students after the school discovered the individuals were posting explicit and obscene memes in a Facebook chat group that advocated sexual assault and mocked the death of children.

[quote]The potential students began sharing posts in a private chat group that splintered off from a larger one of about 100 students who contacted each other through the school's official Class of 2021 Facebook page that was meant for new students to meet each other, the Harvard Crimson first reported on Sunday.

If this was an athletic scholarship it is renewed on a yearly basis. So in reality the athletic department can decide for whatever reason to not renew your scholarship.

“Just deserts” is correct r13. If you’re going to be a pedant you should try to get it right.

He'll get a full ride scholarship to Liberty University. He isn't pretty enough for Sean Cody.

Agreed, way below even modern Sean Cody standards

[quote]“Just deserts” is correct [R13].

But is it a vegetable?

[quote] Agreed, way below even modern Sean Cody standards

Maybe Bromo or Sketchy Sex -- and quick before he becomes a fattie. He doesn't appear to have any other options.

If he's gay he's likely already friends with the rich gays that live on the hills around SLO.

[quote]“Just deserts” is correct [R13]. If you’re going to be a pedant you should try to get it right. —Sara Lee

Deserts here is the plural of desert, meaning "that which one deserves". "Desert" is now archaic and rarely used outside this phrase.

How typical a bigot who relies on an entitlement program hating on others. Then crying foul when he realizes that the entitlement program is taken away from him for misbehaving.

When I think of a college wrestler, I think of a lean young man at his physical peak like Bryce Meredith here. With sculpted shoulders. The scorned Deplorable looks sloppy.

Coming soon to Sean Cody?!

R25, thanks for that link. His most recent pictures show him in a bathing suit designed like the American flag. I'm sure this "fine example of American youth" deplores the actions of Colin Kaepernick and other NFL players who have taken a knee. Yet, here he is in an article of clothing that clearly does not reverence the flag.

Good for Cal Poly!

[quote]Back to the body fat -- it says he and his coach disagreed about what what he was supposed to fight under. Sound like somebody was in denial and difficult.

Fit-fathead.

In this terrible time where we see Trump so boldly spew his hate and arrogance without any consequences. Feeling helpless that nothing is stopping him from making people like this feel it's ok to spew their hate. I'm glad that there are moments in this modern world where people are being video taped for their vile behavior. And, more importantly suffering some consequence.

A wrestler named Bronson? Very apt.

He already has a porn name.

[quote]I don't think this is a clear cut as you would like it to be. A private university may have the right to withdraw a scholarship based upon speech. but a state university may not.

They are well aware of that r16. Why do you think they haven't used that as the reason for revoking his scholarship?

Genuine question: what specific words / terms can legally allow a University (state or private) to withdraw an already accepted scholarship? Is it when the speech is incendiary to such an extent that it violates the 14th Amendment and therefore isn't protected by the 1st Amendment?

I imagine slurs against minority races and LGB (because these can be protected classes in 'incitement to racial hatred' cases). But the recipient of the slur in this case, Abdul Lasaing, possibly wasn't gay - does that play a role? What about ethnicities? Would "wop" (slur against Italians), "frog-eater" / "French surrender monkey", "chink", "Jap", "bitch" (in misogynist context) etc also trigger scholarship withdrawal?

If the withdrawal is based not on the speech itself, but on its results (damage to University's reputation) - does the University have to prove the claimed damage? E.g. let's say the incident wasn't widely reported in the press and the reputational damage is therefore minimal or non-existent?

Or is the withdrawal based on violations of the University's Charter? Can state Universities rely on this excuse just like private Universities? Does the University then have to prove that it drew the student's attention to its Charter when he accepted the offer?

And if the student has already relied on the offer and incurred expenses based on that reliance (e.g. moved to another state, rented accommodation, rented a car, etc). And let's say without the scholarship the student is now financially unable to attend. Would the University be obliged to compensate the student for all the expenses he incurred based on his reliance on the accepted offer, which was then unexpectedly unilaterally withdrawn?

Homophobic? Uh huh. The bitch could be working for Sean Cody and would love every minute of it.

So glad our internet legal minds are hard at work parsing through this historic case for us.

[quote]And if the student has already relied on the offer and incurred expenses based on that reliance (e.g. moved to another state, rented accommodation, rented a car, etc). And let's say without the scholarship the student is now financially unable to attend. Would the University be obliged to compensate the student for all the expenses he incurred based on his reliance on the accepted offer, which was then unexpectedly unilaterally withdrawn?

Nope. People are looking at this as if if there is some "right to attend". A scholarship or admission is a privilege granted by a university, and that privilege can be revoked.

"Would the University be obliged to compensate the student for all the expenses he incurred based on his reliance on the accepted offer, which was then unexpectedly unilaterally withdrawn?"

In what universe would this ever occur? No matter how they might attempt to portray themselves, all colleges are businesses at the end of the day. No one has a "right" to get anything for free.

Fugly both inside and out!

He's lucky. he learned early on that there are consequences for ones actions. If more places did this, this is how racism could be eliminated. If it isn't acceptable anywhere then there is no point in being a racist.

[quote] So you also support the right of religious or military institutions to revoke scholarships or expel gay students if it violates their charters, yes, OP?

It doesn't matter whether he supports it or not, as they do have that right.

Lovely family. If my parents had ever heard me say that, I’d be slapped silly.

This is more a case of verbally harassing someone than "free speech" anyway. It's not like he sat down somewhere and calmly expressed his opinion that homosexuality is a choice or something and lost a scholarship over that.

r74 Nah he probably just ended up feeling more aggrieved by the librul "downfall of America" blah blah blah.

You can't teach stupid.

You may be able to make it shut up for awhile, but it's not the same as learning.

Bronson Harmon - and many others nowadays - needs to learn that free speech doesn't give him a free pass for hate speech and harassment. Words always have consequences, some good and some bad. If he had accepted the offered scholarship, he no doubt committed to a code of conduct as a student of the university. Plus, with everyone having cameras on their phones and a plethora of social media outlets available, not much is kept quiet, so people need to be extra vigilant in how they act. I don't see this as a burden. In fact, many people who we've seen saying/doing deplorable things while hiding behind their false comfort of free speech seem to forget about common courtesy and decency.

Now, that being said, he could easily make up his lost scholarship $ by camming on Chaturbate. Just sayin'.

The fact that he'd yell these things while walking with his father says a lot about his upbringing. Cal Poly's freshman girls should watch out for this ticking time-bomb.

"I don't think this is a clear cut as you would like it to be. A private university may have the right to withdraw a scholarship based upon speech. but a state university may not."

Scholarships are tied to university and/or athletic department codes of conduct. It's a contract and it says "we can take away this scholarship for these reasons." Scholarships usually greatly favor the granting institution (thank college football) There's probably multiple bases upon which his scholarship can be revoked beyond speech. If he wants to argue that the pulling of his scholarship is an infringement of his speech he can certainly argue that in court if he wants to.

Seriously r81, often these things are as vague as "conduct unbecoming of X university"

The sad thing is. This asshat will/could probably put up a gofund campaign and all the bigots would happily give.

Someone should ask him if he was named after actor Bronson Pinchot just to put a bee in his bonnet. "Come to think of it, you look like him!"

The fact that the father has his forearms tattooed tells you everything you need to know about this kid and his character.

[quote]The sad thing is. This asshat will/could probably put up a gofund campaign and all the bigots would happily give.

I'd like to see every wingnut do this. The money would mostly go to beer and food, not legal fees, so it would enrich local service employees, and have the added benefit of draining the finances of deplorables—a massive transfer of wealth, second only to the one from the American public to the top .01%.

[quote]I don't think it even takes a freshman psychology major to be smart enough to see something is wrong with a gay man turned on by a guy he only knows about because of his homophobia.

That is the DL way: “Mamma’s mussy” and lusting after guys who would just as soon assault or murder them.

[quote]He's lucky. he learned early on that there are consequences for ones actions.

He likely didn’t learn shit. He’ll pull the whining “straight white men are so put upon” song and dance for the remainder of his life.

[quote]If more places did this, this is how racism could be eliminated. If it isn't acceptable anywhere then there is no point in being a racist.

The issue here is homophobia (which is the only reason anybody on this thread isn’t supporting him. If his epithet had been racist, DLers would be calling anybody who objected a “snowflake”, “PC”, and the like, and rallying around the turd POS).

[quote]Cal Poly's freshman girls should watch out for this ticking time-bomb.

He’d find those there who share his beliefs. They [bold]always[/bold] find one another.

For r67, every college application and/or offer of admission makes admission contingent upon admittee's adherence to a code of conduct -- probably spelled out at the school website -- otherwise school could not withdraw offer. Cal Poly wouldn't have withdrawn offer if there was any doubt that it could do so without being liable to admittee for damages.

R34 - are you honestly suggesting that a public institution has the right to control a students speech by threatening to take away a scholarship the student earned? I'd be very surprised to find an example outside of athletics where a misdemeanor assault charge gets your scholarship yanked.

Do you think the federal government should be able to yank Pell Grants based upon a student's speech?

[quote] I'd be very surprised to find an example outside of athletics where a misdemeanor assault charge gets your scholarship yanked.

I know if you just get a weed conviction you will get your pell grant revoked, happened to a friend of mine.

R70 / R71 / R88, you say it's only a "right" / "privilege". So does that mean that under US law it's not a "contract" at all based on offer and acceptance?

Sure, no one has an automatic "right to attend". But once the University makes an offer and the student accepts the offer - is there no contract under US law?

In contract law, Party A makes an offer, Party B accepts the offer = could be a contract (though usually requires at least token consideration between the parties). Party A of course has a right to terminate the contract, based on various stipulated contractual terms. So does Party B.

But in contract law, if (after the offer's accepted and before it's terminated) Party B had already relied on the contract / accepted offer - and by "relied" I mean incurred associated expenses - then Party A is liable to pay compensation for those incurred expenses.

For example, let's say Oxford University makes you an offer (for 1 year). You tell Oxford you accept the offer. You then buy transatlantic plane tickets and move to Oxford and lease a flat there, in reliance on the accepted offer. In your 2nd week there, Oxford tells you they're terminating / revoking the (already) accepted offer. Because you apparently violated their Charter: e.g. kept calling Prince Philip "a Nazi bastard" on Facebook (as a hypothetical, I don't know Oxford's speech rules). Like most students, you never read Oxford's specific small-print "speech rules" on some buried page on their confusing website.

You don't have enough funds to afford Oxford Uni without their offer, so you're forced to leave. You're now severely & unexpectedly out-of-pocket: you need to find money to move back / fly from the UK back to the US (1 year sooner than you expected, so you'd don't have the money lined up for this 2nd move yet); you owe future rent on your accommodation (e.g. you can't terminate the lease so early, it has a 6-week minimum stay clause); you've already spent thousands buying college books required by Oxford specifically, etc.

Could Oxford Uni be liable to compensate you for the (reasonable) transatlantic move & book costs you incurred in reliance on the accepted offer? (Let's pretend Oxford Uni is on US territory and US laws apply).

The school can revoke both offers of admissions and scholarships it awards. It does so in accordance with the limitations, stipulations, and restrictions to which a person agrees when accepting said offer of admissions or scholarships.

It is not a violation of his "free speech" because it isn't a First Amendment issue. Stop trying to argue that it is. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences nor has it ever meant that a person can say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Otherwise, getting your ass fired for calling your boss a jackass would be a free speech violation.

Acceptance of the offer of admission or scholarship means you've accepted those restrictions - whether you bothered to read them or not. And really, how stupid would you have to be not to realize that certain behaviors could put them in jeopardy? If he had merely marched and carried a sign, I'd agree that that was insufficient to warrant revocation of the scholarship award. But, c'mon. This guy goes way beyond simple protest and demonstrates a decided lack of self-possession and control along with some clear anger management issues.

[quote] Acceptance of the offer of admission or scholarship means you've accepted those restrictions - whether you bothered to read them or not.

Is there an obligation for the school to acquaint the acceptee with any onerous conditions though?

Because my iTunes contract (which I didn't read like most and mindlessly clicked on upon download) can stipulate that I e.g. hereby give up rights to my retirement fund in favour of Apple Co., or that if I ever publish any negative comments about Steve Jobs they'll delete my entire iTune music library and revoke my right access it. But that won't be enforced, since any onerous conditions need to be drawn to the attention of the acceptee ("red hand rule").

If you are too dumb to realize that acting like a jackass could get you removed from college you shouldn't be at college in the first place.

What has become of people that they are so entitled that they think they should be able to do whatever they want and there should be absolutely no consequences for them.

Yet another piece of California hillbilly trash.

Ship him and Pa back to the dust bowl.

Who is the law student prattling on? Universities can legally revoke scholarships for behavior such as this. No matter how much you try to dazzle us with your knowledge of contract law and no matter how many university-based scenarios you present for comparison, you won't change the fact that it's legal. If you don't like it, you've just found your area of legal focus - become an attorney who represents parties whose college scholarships or other aid have been revoked.

Not to beat a dead horse, but his right to free speech is not being violated. He said what he wanted to say, and he can still say whatever he wants to say. He has free will. If what he says is harassment, libel, slander, etc., there may be consequences. Likewise, if he chooses to break a contract by doing XYZ, then he's freely making that choice.

If he had said "Fuck you, faggot" to a cop, he'd be arrested. To a judge, he'd be held in contempt. To a teacher, he'd be expelled. This isn't a free speech issue. He's a punk, empowered-feeling kid who should be doing volunteer work and learning some humility instead of counter-protesting in support of the orange ass-wipe.

R97 - It's entirely possible Cal Poly looked for a reason to yank his scholarship for some reason other than what he said. Harvard was criticized for the scenario posted above. The accepted students were clearly warned. I assume Harvard was sensitive to the criticism they received because they made it very clear these were not matriculated students.

Although Cal Poly has not released a statement as t why the scholarship was yanked anybody who reads a newspaper must relize the bad press universities receive when student athletes get in trouble. An assault charge is particularly troubling for a wrestler. The criminal charges would be enough to yank the scholarship. Without having to open the free speech can of worms.

I find it troubling that some colleges, universities and people on this thread are finding censorship a better option than education when it comes to unpopular opinions.

R90 - since when is a drug conviction a First Amendment issue?

[quote]I find it troubling that some colleges, universities and people on this thread are finding censorship a better option than education when it comes to unpopular opinions.

And no doubt you attack NFL players who didn't stand for the anthem...

Girl, bye. You guys are transparent.

[quote]Is there an obligation for the school to acquaint the acceptee with any onerous conditions though?

No, and your itunes example is a ridiculous case of reductio ad absurdum.

[quote]I find it troubling that some colleges, universities and people on this thread are finding censorship a better option than education when it comes to unpopular opinions.

I find it troubling that people are trying to couch this in terms of free speech or censorship and demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what the First Amendment is, does, and protects, let alone decades of legal rulings on the limitations of free speech by both conservative and liberal courts.

His right to free speech has not be abrogated. He has not been imprisoned nor subjected to criminal or legal proceedings. He HAS had to accept the consequences of his free speech - economic and social consequences.

And as far as the NFL players go, they too must abide by codes of conduct established by either their teams or the NFL in their contracts. If they choose to exercise their right to protest, then they should also be subject to whatever economic or social consequences go along with that.

The essence of such things is not false equivalence, but equitable application. There was a reason why the ACLU has taken the case of hate groups to support their civil rights.

Loser Boy has shut down his Twitter account now that this story has gone national and beyond.

His father looks like a skinhead. (Photo taken from video of the incident.)

Best comment so far: "This strapping young lad will be able to get a full scholarship to Trump University."

Sadly, these inbred, uncultured idiots will be held up as Patriots by the orange ass-wipe's Kool Aide drinkers.

Hurling out gay slurs in public...

Why is Alec Baldwin still around with a career?

Why has he not paid the price for his behavior?

He's really plain looking and his body looks like a baby's.

Oakdale High.. This is one of the images/videos you get for it on a quick search. seems like a nice school

Classic dolt. Bye Felicia!

Are you kidding me R100. I just wrote I opposed censorship why on earth would you conclude I opposed the NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem?

R101 - Cal Poly hasn't said why his scholarship was yanked. Most of the thread has been about a hypothetical. Could Cal Poly have yanked the scholarship based upon what he said? Cal Poly is a state university. As a state entity can Cal Poly abridge someone's speech by disciplinary action? In this case speech at an event not on the Cal Poly campus and not associated with Cal Poly. I've looked at the tape and I challenge you to point out a court decision supporting the state's right to punish someone for only yelling a gay slur. The sate never shut down Westboro Baptist Church demonstrations.

Well, r99 / 107 - as you pint out, Cal Poly has not stated categorically why they revoked his scholarship.

So for all we know, he's done plenty of other things which violate their codes of conduct about which we are not aware. So, the answer to your question, "Could Cal Poly have yanked the scholarship based upon what he said?" is wholly unknown. What we can surmise is that he violated some terms laid out in his scholarship.

[quote]Oakdale wrestler says he was 'forcefully removed' from team. Coach disagrees.

He also has a history of diva-like behavior. We have no idea whether he went to the Cal Poly wrestling coach making unreasonable demands and this video was just the last straw with the wrestling program with regard to his being too much work. Again - as you point out - the school has made no comment about why his scholarship was revoked.

Also, you neglect to mention that it's not just the one comment in the video, but also other incidents at the same event along with an alleged altercation.

I do agree that a state school may - a big may - have fewer degrees of freedom when it comes to certain situations. However, you continue to argue they are abridging his freedom of speech. You really need to learn what that is and isn't. And while you cannot sign a binding contract or agreement to commit an illegal act, you can sign agreements that waive certain rights (as every credit card company that uses arbitration will tell you) and you can sign an agreement to abide by certain codes of conduct, which when violated, may be grounds for terminating the agreement.

Here is a simplified infographic for you on free speech that was posted in another thread.

So, you can use that patently disingenuous strategy of "just asking questions." However, you need to cite specific case law to support your contention that it somehow violates his free speech (or due process or what have you) for them to revoke his scholarship. And no, I do not have to cite case law that supports my position because YOU are the one making an affirmative defense for him.

Too bad Trump University isn't around any longer. He would have been awarded an honorary degree.

Oakdale used to have a Hershey's factory where you could take a tour. (Unlike the one in PA, you went through the actual factory.) Sadly, it closed down a decade ago.

R96, you lack reading comprehension. I don't "like it" or dislike it - I was asking general questions about US law, because most of Europe has a completely different approach to speech and athletic grants than the US. Many universities here are not even allowed to prioritise athletes over students with better grades in the admissions process.

And thank you for your condescension. I'm not a law student prattling on. I'm a qualified solicitor, and I have no interest in becoming an attorney for your local idiots.

And, R101, my iTunes example is not a "ridiculous case of reductio ad absurdum". It's a common way to explain the so-called "red hand rule", which requires people to highlight certain specific conditions for everyone's attention, in order for those conditions to be binding / enforceable. I was just wondering if US universities were subject to the same rule.

[quote]And, [R101], my iTunes example is not a "ridiculous case of reductio ad absurdum". It's a common way to explain the so-called "red hand rule", which requires people to highlight certain specific conditions for everyone's attention, in order for those conditions to be binding / enforceable. I was just wondering if US universities were subject to the same rule.

If you are truly merely trying to understand the difference - which, by the way, sharply diverges from your initial posts and belies the original position you took that this was a Free Speech issue - let's assume that you lack experience with such matters.

Neither the letter of intent that he would have signed nor the school's code of conduct are complex documents with pages of fine print. The itunes ToS is substantially more complicated than either. The university code of conduct appears to be 3-page Word document with a lot of white space that is written in simple and easily understandable language for anyone with a sufficient grasp of English to gain admission to the school in the first place. There are no hidden clauses, "legalese," or other "gotcha" complexities.

[quote]And thank you for your condescension. I'm not a law student prattling on. I'm a qualified solicitor, and I have no interest in becoming an attorney for your local idiots.

You sound more like a regular alt-right Nazi whining about freedom of speech when he can't call others fa**ots and ni**ers.

R108 - I'm not defending him. If you follow the thread from the beginning you will people posting Cal Poly had the right to revoke a scholarship based upon what he said. I agree. I suspect they yanked his scholarship because he violated the terms of the scholarship when he was arrested.

Your logic is seriously flawed. When it comes to the state abridging someone's First Amendment rights it's the responsibility of the state to prove the necessity to abridge the rights. That necessity must outweigh the constitutional guarantee.

In other words it is your responsibility to prove the necessity.

Though I wholly disagree with your rationale, r116, the basis for limiting his free speech is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)). The Supreme Court said that schools may limit speech that creates a serious disruption at school or violates other students’ rights.

So, they do have the right to set rules to limit his "free speech."

However, as I also stated, we have no idea why they revoked his scholarship. And as previously noted, you can sign an agreement that limits your rights, such as agreeing to abide by the school's code of conduct. If he willingly signs an agreement to abide by the school's code of conduct and violates it, they can revoke his scholarship, just like you forfeit money if you sign an NDA, then blab. So, it really isn't a case of free speech. Even if it were based in part on that video, Tinker vs. Des Moines gives them the legal basis to do so.

Dear lord, you people. Anyway, here's a picture of the guy he trained with while he was off his high school team.

[quote] I find it troubling that some colleges, universities and people on this thread are finding censorship a better option than education when it comes to unpopular opinions.

"F*ck you, F@ggot!" is not an opinion it's an assault. Speech intended to intimidate, threaten or menace someone is not constitutionally protected.

This is sad that most people can't get over being called a faggot. Suck it up and move on. It's good he said it because then it shows what an asshole he is. I don't think he should have had his scholarship revoked. This wasn't on school property was it? I don't think so. This is also a slippery slope of what constitutes "hate speech". Hate speech is constitutionally protected. I love how the video warns you of "graphic content".. Really?!?! Fucking grow a pair and learn self defense...

R121 see R118. Your argument is invalid.

It's not an argument r122. I'm not falling into this tribalism crap. So he called someone a faggot, there are much worse things he could have done. The "victim" could have easily said "the one yelling faggot usually is one".. That usually shuts them up. I know I've used it more than once...

And what about Alec Baldwin like someone earlier mentioned?!? Why isn't his career destroyed? Why wasn't there a witch hunt against him like Roseanne?!?!

So, r123, what exactly is your point?

1.That calling someone a "faggot" is no bid deal and definitely not hate speech, so ought not be censured?

2.That it was a victimless crime, so doesn't matter, since it wasn't the guy filming who has made any claims of being a "victim," rather people viewing it who find it offensive.

3.That his free speech has been abridged - which I have previously demonstrated is not true.

4.That there is some double standard for: a) "liberals" (as Alec Baldwin has often been called - correctly or incorrectly); b)white men like Baldwin get a pass that a woman or Jewish woman like Roseanne didn't; c) Everyone should get a pass if anyone gets one, irrespective of the context, past history, or severity of the comments.

Make a cogent thesis statement, then support it with your points (preferably actual facts and not opinions), then let us judge the merits, rather than listing a bunch of random non sequiturs the dance around some unclear, and therefore unrebuttable, point.

R118 - Tinker refers to speech on school property or school evens which are disruptive. The incident in question was neither on school property or at school associated event.

I also don't see anything in the Cal Poly student rights and responsibilities that apply. Not on campus and not at a university event.

Again - yes I'm sure the reason given Harmon by the Athletic Department was the misdemeanor assault charge. Although considering he is a wrestler I do appreciate the irony that an assault charge is a problem for the wrestling team.

r126 - The Supreme Court has yet to rule directly on off campus and social media cases, so the underlying logic of Tinker is the most applicable ruling.

Subsequent decisions have continued to expand the scope of a school's ability to enforce discipline.

- Morse v. Frederick, in 2007, a five-to-four majority voted to uphold the suspension of a student who held up a banner reading “bong hits 4 jesus” at an off-campus, school-supervised event - of course, this was school-sponsored even if off campus.

- The Supreme Court decline to hear, Bell v. BELL v. Itawamba Country School Board. In Bell, the Fifth Circuit upheld the suspension of a rap posted by a student that was filled with profanity and accused two teachers of sexual harassment of another student.

- The Supreme Court decline to hear an appeal of Keefe v. Adams. In Keefe, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, accepted the college’s rationale that Keefe could be summarily kicked out because the college has the authority to enforce “compliance with professional ethical standards.” The case arose from harassing Facebook posts.

Poor, poor r 124.. Who hurt you? I'm guessing you're a professor and/ or a millennial that leans towards Marxism?!?!? You are what is wrong with the left. The guy called someone a fucking faggot, that is completely victimless. He was not representing the school in any way, and he was not on school property or a school sponsored event. There was no reason to take away his scholarship. People say nasty things and exhibit asshole behavior, does not mean you can go around trying to destroy their life. Are we going to set up a system where all speech and thought is monitored, and anything that doesn't align with a particular agenda is censured?!?! Or worse.... You must live in a very sad world if being called a horrible name makes you feel "hurt" and "victimized".. Fucking grow a pair like I said before and learn self defense. Better yet, learn gun safety and buy a pistol. Come down off your lofty pedestal and join the real world...

"Homophobic Trumpster" is redundant.

Poor, poor r128 (who can't even figure out how to identify other respondents correctly), I'm neither a professor nor millennial. But, I suppose anyone with a college degree is an enemy to you since you spend so much time vilifying people with one - I guess we know who hurt you, r128.

I went to college and did exactly as was intended. I received an education and rather than taking it as gospel, took away a broad base of foundation learning in a wide variety of subjects coupled with critical thinking skills. You know what was the single best piece of advice one professor gave during my freshman year? He told us we should always find out what we can about our professors and the authors of books we're reading for classes so we can place their statements in context of their broader ideologies and political beliefs. I'm just someone who, unlike people like you, values information, learning, and critical thinking. I'm also not like your usual reddit readers with whom you're used to posturing who live in your information vacuum and who lets stupid, vague, and illogical tantrums pass for coherent thought.

As your kind always does, you deflect and focus on silliness, rather than actual cogent arguments with facts to support your premises. The saddest part is that you are so focused on defending him that you actually don't even understand the underlying principles in question - and you continue to think it's about name calling. You can't even structure a coherent position, just a bunch of random thoughts that are like a dog whistle to your kind. By the way, the use of "?!?!" is a tell for people who spend too much time in the reddit echo chambers.

Even as you whine and whine about other people playing the victim, you cry so sadly about "trying to destroy their life" - so is your little wrestler a victim here of a witch hunt by the thought police because they decided to DESTROY HIS LIFE?!?! (I added that so you might be comforted by the familiar).

Why don't we meet halfway. I'll come down from my lofty pedestal and you can come up from your mother's basement or troll tunnel. I may be what's wrong with the left (I'm not and consider myself a moderate or centrist), but you're sadly merely typical of deplorables.

R127 - not one case listed is close to what Harmon did. All your examples tie back to the school directly. It is far from a blanket decision giving the school 24/7 censorship rights over students or in Harmon's case potential students.

[quote]There was no reason to take away his scholarship.

If he violated the school's code of conduct, there was every reason to do so. And, contrary to your drama queen histrionics, his life isn't "destroyed." All that happened was that he lost his scholarship.

[quote]Are we going to set up a system where all speech and thought is monitored, and anything that doesn't align with a particular agenda is censured?!?!

Speaking of drama queen histrionics.... Come back when you've actually got a point to make and the data to back it up.

[quote]Your logic is seriously flawed. When it comes to the state abridging someone's First Amendment rights....

Speaking of "seriously flawed logic"....

[quote]All your examples tie back to the school directly.

You have trouble with reading comprehension, clearly. See Keefe v. Adams, which was in that post that you responded to and that did not "tie back to the school directly." Moreover, it was clearly on point to this instance. Nor is anyone insisting on, or actually doing, "24/7 censorship rights over students."

[quote]I find it troubling that some colleges, universities and people on this thread are finding censorship a better option than education when it comes to unpopular opinions.

I find it troubling that you think that "fuck you, faggot!" is an "unpopular opinion."

As I said, r131: "The Supreme Court has yet to rule directly on off campus and social media cases, so the underlying logic of Tinker is the most applicable ruling. Subsequent decisions have continued to expand the scope of a school's ability to enforce discipline." This would also include the court's decision NOT to hear to an appeal, thereby allowing lower court rulings to stand.

As I also previously noted, Harvard rescinded the admissions for ten students based on solely on postings on a private message board not affiliated with the school. Harvard“reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission under various conditions including if an admitted student engages in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral character.”

As far as I can tell, no case has been brought against Harvard for violating their "free speech." What I will stipulate is that Harvard is a private institution and has many more degrees of freedom in certain situations.

Although it's moot since we don't know WHY his scholarship was revoked and everyone is merely speculating that it's due to the video, r127, is it your contention that a public school does not have the right to place such limitations on recipients of a scholarship (or admissions)?

Such restrictions or application of a student code of conduct would hardly constitute "24/7 censorship rights over students."

Please shit in my "faggot" mouth...

Thus r121 / r123 / r128 / r137 shows us what we all knew from the beginning.

R134 - the student's comments were directly related to the profession he was studying as well as other students in the program. Not the same as Harmon's speech.

R136 - Harvard made it very clear that they were not taking action against Harvard students. As the people who had their admission rescinded were not yet students. You might want to ask yourself why Harvard took this position. Also the Harvard case is different - it's not a state school.

I've never claimed Cal Poly didn't have the right to rescind the scholarship. Read Cal Poly's student code of conduct vs. student athlete code of conduct.

[quote][R136] - Harvard made it very clear that they were not taking action against Harvard students. As the people who had their admission rescinded were not yet students. You might want to ask yourself why Harvard took this position. Also the Harvard case is different - it's not a state school.

Yes r139 - thanks for pointing out, once again, something I specifically noted in my post - that "Harvard is a private institution and has many more degrees of freedom in certain situations." And yes, we do know why Harvard's would never have taken the action against students as they value open dialogue without reprisal in order to ensure intellectual freedom - and have articulated that position in their own codes of conduct.

Your reading of Keefe v. Adams is awfully narrow - I'd be interested in hearing what cases you believe would justify such a narrow reading. Again, as I noted, there are limited cases of off-campus and/or online rulings - though of course, I'm not a lawyer and am not familiar with the body of case law that may exist on the matter.

[quote]I've never claimed Cal Poly didn't have the right to rescind the scholarship.

What is your "claim" then? And more to the point, how do you support it? I've stated my position and provided support for it, even though I stated I disagreed with your position that it was incumbent on me to do so.

Your turn - make your case.

Stop engaging the troll. He isn't even a gay man. He's a incel trumper who has nothing to do but hang out here

[quote]the student's comments were directly related to the profession he was studying as well as other students in the program. Not the same as Harmon's speech.

No substantive difference, sorry. Either way, it was offensive, presumably violated the code of conduct, and it's immaterial whether it was directed at some stranger on the street or his fellow students.

So far, all you've done in this thread is whine. You have yet to make the case as to why the student's scholarship should not have been taken away.

Trumpers don’t play fair. They can fuck off

Look I'm afraid that this whole legal discussion is probably totally moot. Mr. Homophobe wrestler was charged with assaulting sonebody right after the taped insults.

Unless armchair lawyers one and two above know for a fact that the guy lost his scholarship only because of the tape, there's nothing to argue.

That said, schools having a code of conduct that is enforced by expulsion is not some sort of threat to our civil liberties. The guy upthread clutching his pearls over somebody facing consequences for calling people f****t is trying to equate it to the censorship of differing views. F****t is not a view. It's a childish slur. Letting people speak like that and try to intimidate others by screaming at them has the effect of silencing speech and debate. I would say throw the little brat out.

[quote]Unless armchair lawyers one and two above know for a fact that the guy lost his scholarship only because of the tape, there's nothing to argue.

r144 - I recognize that reasoning with these people is well nigh useless. However, sometimes you can't let their baseless statements go unchallenged. When they cry "First Amendment" you can't get away from a legal discussion. Sometimes, you just have to board to bus to crazytown if that's where they're heading.

Just telling them they're wrong or the point is moot won't convince them. And, how will they ever learn if someone somewhere doesn't point out where the fallacy is? It may be pointless, but you have to try. If nothing else, an "armchair" discussion provides a few DLers with some additional information at a more user-friendly level with which some folks can go on to refute these silly claims in the future or at least a starting point do their own further reading on the subject.

But, since you've ended the discussion by caveat that I'm wrong, I'll move along.

They never learn. And Cal Poly was a lot smarter - or least more prescient - than some of you here.

After a year at community college, Brandon was offered a second chance at Wartburg College, a conservative Christian (Lutheran) institution and enrolled for the fall of 2019. He never started.

"Earlier this week, (July 2019) photos and videos surfaced of Bronson attending a counter protest led by Neo Nazis who harassed and threatened Black Lives Matter protestors in Oakdale, California."

Back to Burger King, I guess...

LOL You couldn't write this shit