more comments...
« MoralHighGround wrote on Friday, Feb 04 at 09:44 AM »


As I said “Because that’s the beauty of freedom of speech, there are no, or should I say at least very few poorly defined, exceptions,” it’s pretty clear I'm aware of a few vague limitations. However, it’s clear your understanding of the legal system is pretty limited if you really think writing hate mail warrants an arrest/restraining order, or a limitation of the freedoms provided by the constitution. As I have never worn leggings/a visor/croakies or honestly any other things described in the original article, I assure you my issue does have to do with pride, but regarding my right to say exactly what I think and not have it stifled by the Plainsman.

Your math doesn’t exactly add up on the “one person v. group” argument because the comments left on the article were by individuals also (who at least semi identified themselves, and as they were registered on the Plainsman website could have been easily identified and prosecuted if there was any honest “threat” presented.) Not to mention, there is no limitation in the United States constitution that says an individual may say whatever they want, but a group’s opinion should be strictly LIMITED. (Please provide that amendment, if you can find it?) With your statement, “She was addressing a community and the community addressed her led to a large amount of verbal harassment,” you, like the Plainsman are essentially arguing that Kelly Tsaltas’ right to publicly harass and belittle an entire community is above the community’s right to actively respond.

Any person writing an attack on entire community should in fact expect a harsh response. Especially one who writes a hit piece on a very active percentage of the Auburn student body, Greeks. The prestige of the title “Opinion Journalist” comes with the likelihood that people will often offend and attack you personally if you attack something they are a part of. If Kelly Tsaltas didn’t want 30 % of the student body to hate her, she shouldn’t have intentionally insulted them in such a public forum. She obviously posted her personal rant about the fashion choices of Auburn students in a place that allowed varied responses, if all she wanted was high fives and positive reinforcement, she should have posted her rant on her facebook or personal blog.

Realistically speaking, I seriously doubt that you would argue the comments were any more harsh than….well for example, this: http://www.godhatesfags.com/ And as you’ve probably noticed the United States government hasn’t limited that speech either. I honestly believe if there was a shred of legitimate concern by the Plainsman of a violation of the law, they would have pursued it…and we all would have heard about it. As that hasn’t happened, I'm lead to believe it was nothing more than an unnecessary overreaction to what they didn’t find “fair” to their opinion blogger.

« adadad wrote on Friday, Feb 04 at 09:20 AM »
« brotastic wrote on Friday, Feb 04 at 08:01 AM »
"It is undoubtedly true that, 'The rights of free speech and free press are two of the most sacred rights Americans possess,' it is entirely wrong to believe that this 'sacred' right is limited to the people the Plainsman has pre determined are intellectual enough to exercise it."

The problem with this topic of free speech is that you must first understand that we do not currently exercise perfect freedom of speech in America today. I cannot find someone on the street and then proceed to write them one letter a day in an attempt to intimidate or insult that person. Really I am just writing words on a piece of paper, and I am even covering that piece of paper up so the victim could not even open it. But this is considered verbal harassment and I would most certainly have restraining orders taken out on me and would probably have a visit or two from the police if I didn't flat out go to jail.

If you really found it insulting that Tsalta made fun of your leggings or visor (which I think is the bigger issue here, how simple must you be to take this seriously? Someone made fun of Croakies, OUCH MY PRIDE!), then you are free to express your opinion about it. However, the anonymity of the internet combined with the fact that she was addressing a community and the community addressed her led to a large amount of verbal harassment. She is one person, not a group, so there IS a difference between her article and the comments that were made to her. Sending her threats because she said your leggings look funny could get you a visit from the police.

That is why your "right to freedom of speech" was hindered through the disabling of the comment section. The right to free speech, whether you think it is right or wrong, does not give you the freedom, much less the right, to threaten anyone, especially not because they said your hat is silly. It just doesn't, not in this country, whether you think it should or shouldn't.

Good god. I didn't come upon this article because someone said "Hey, this chick made fun of our visors! What a b*tch man can you beleive this!?" I found the article because someone said to me "Look at this, a girl wrote an article making fun of people's clothes and now shes getting death threats! Can you believe that!?"

This person and I were not gawking over how insulting or shocking the article was, in fact I can bet you I would not have even heard of it had people not reacted so poorly to it. Its just not that big of a deal. We were gawking at how hard all these children were trying to defend their leggings and visors, going so far as to make threats, and not even stopping for a second to think how downright moronic they were making themselves look in the process.