Man Expelled For Private Twitter Post

[DeanFor President]

A Kansas college student has been expelled for a Twitter post of "psycho bitch", ostensibly referring to his ex girlfriend, even though she wasn't named, his Twitter feed was set to private, it was off campus, and on his own time. Worthless educrats use Title IX as the justification.

This crap is really out of hand at this point. Common sense needs to be reintroduced to this country.


http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/15/student-expelled-for-tweeting-psycho-kan

 

[Raising Heel]

These kinds of incidents always beg for more context. An article from the Lawrence Journal-World provides some background:

On July 1, 2014, Yeasin was charged in Johnson County with criminal restraint, battery and criminal deprivation of property after allegedly refusing to let his ex-girlfriend out of his car and taking her phone during a fight in Olathe.

He sounds like a real charmer. To be clear, he wasn't expelled simply because he said mean things about her on Twitter. He was expelled because he repeatedly violated the terms of a no-contact order and created a hostile environment for her. I'm not sure whether the University had the jurisdiction to expel him, but his behavior was indefensible.

Whenever I feel like people are overreacting in a case like this, I always ask myself a similar question: What if that were MY daughter?

 

[gunslingerdick]

Whenever I feel like people are overreacting in a case like this, I always ask myself a similar question: What if that were MY daughter?

I think the same. And then I'm like, "why do I care, I don't have a daughter."

Well, the good news for him now is he can be as much of a jerk as he would like.

 

[DeanFor President]

These kinds of incidents always beg for more context. An article from the Lawrence Journal-World provides some background:

On July 1, 2014, Yeasin was charged in Johnson County with criminal restraint, battery and criminal deprivation of property after allegedly refusing to let his ex-girlfriend out of his car and taking her phone during a fight in Olathe.

He sounds like a real charmer. To be clear, he wasn't expelled simply because he said mean things about her on Twitter. He was expelled because he repeatedly violated the terms of a no-contact order and created a hostile environment for her. I'm not sure whether the University had the jurisdiction to expel him, but his behavior was indefensible.

Whenever I feel like people are overreacting in a case like this, I always ask myself a similar question: What if that were MY daughter?

It's not as simple as you attempt to portray it. The tweets WERE the supposed violations of the protective order, which read: “any physical, verbal, electronic or written communication with (his ex-girlfriend), her family, her friends or her associates.” She was blocked from his Twitter feed. The only way she saw it was friends showed it to her. HE wasn't communicating with her, or with her associates

These kinds of incidents always beg for more context. An article from the Lawrence Journal-World provides some background:

On July 1, 2014, Yeasin was charged in Johnson County with criminal restraint, battery and criminal deprivation of property after allegedly refusing to let his ex-girlfriend out of his car and taking her phone during a fight in Olathe.

He sounds like a real charmer. To be clear, he wasn't expelled simply because he said mean things about her on Twitter. He was expelled because he repeatedly violated the terms of a no-contact order and created a hostile environment for her. I'm not sure whether the University had the jurisdiction to expel him, but his behavior was indefensible.

Whenever I feel like people are overreacting in a case like this, I always ask myself a similar question: What if that were MY daughter?

Well, its not quite as simple as you try to portray it. The tweets WERE the violations of the protection order, which read. “any physical, verbal, electronic or written communication with (his ex-girlfriend), her family, her friends or her associates.”
She was blocked by him from seeing his feed, and the only way she saw it was friends showing it to her. He was not communicating with her, or her associates.

She suffered the abject horror of GASP! having someone laugh at her. The precious flower must be protected at all costs,

He was expelled in November 2013, but was charged with the incident you referred to in July 2014, so I' don't see how that could have been the basis of his expulsion.
I'm not sure how investigator Brooks can make the legal determination that speaking ABOUT someone on electronic media is the same as speaking or communicating DIRECTLY TO that person. Seems like quite a stretch to me. His attorney correctly argues that exact point.

The biggest issue is the "hostile environment" malarkey. Anyone can say about anyone else, over any issue, large, small, or perceived, that said individual is "creating a hostile environment" for them. Girl turned me down for a date? You got yourself a hostile environment right there, and she must be expelled.
To top it off, it occurred off campus.

 

[Raising Heel]

It's not as simple as you attempt to portray it.

Where did I suggest it was simple? It seems like a legally complex case, trying to reconcile Title IX with the First Amendment.

The biggest issue is the "hostile environment" malarkey. Anyone can say about anyone else, over any issue, large, small, or perceived, that said individual is "creating a hostile environment" for them.

That's quite an overreaction, as evidenced by the number of "anys" in that last sentence. It's not anyone, or any issue. It's a man who had previously committed crimes against her, including battery. She had a reasonable basis for concerns about her safety. The kind of behavior he displayed is often a preamble to physical abuse.

Have you or anyone you love ever been a victim of harassment or abuse?

 

[Heels Noir]

Give him the chair, I say. Damn troublemaker.

 

[DeanFor President]

Where did I suggest it was simple? It seems like a legally complex case, trying to reconcile Title IX with the First Amendment.

That's quite an overreaction, as evidenced by the number of "anys" in that last sentence. It's not anyone, or any issue. It's a man who had previously committed crimes against her, including battery. She had a reasonable basis for concerns about her safety. The kind of behavior he displayed is often a preamble to physical abuse.

Have you or anyone you love ever been a victim of harassment or abuse?

No overreaction here. You still haven't addressed the timeline issues, as it appears the alleged battery was after he was expelled. He was charged in July 14, and expelled in November 13. Was he convicted? Were the charges dropped? Was there any evidence? Obviously, no woman has EVER made up any lies to get an ex boyfriend in trouble. Have you ever had a disgruntled ex make up lies about things you allegedly did?

 

[gunslingerdick]

Was there any evidence? Obviously, no woman has EVER made up any lies to get an ex boyfriend in trouble. Have you ever had a disgruntled ex make up lies about things you allegedly did?

This is an important part of the equation. RH, as we all kind of are, is assuming that the dude really is an asshole. That might not be the case. Maybe she's a dirty whore that f*cked with him. His "not letting her out of the car" and "keeping her cell phone" hardly paint the picture of an Ike Turner. In high school, that was a common occurrence on a Friday night (except the cell phone part) for us. There were plenty of boyfriend/girlfriend spats at dead ends when we were all drinking.

I'd need a lot more information before calling him or her anything and making any kind of judgement on this issue.

 

[Raising Heel]

No overreaction here.

You stated that "anyone" could accuse "anyone else over any issue." That's overreacting. I don't think you could be more hyperbolic if you tried.

You still haven't addressed the timeline issues, as it appears the alleged battery was after he was expelled. He was charged in July 14, and expelled in November 13.

The incident occurred in the summer of 2013. I don't know why it took until the following July before he was charged, but delays aren't uncommon.

Was he convicted? Were the charges dropped? Was there any evidence?

He pleaded no contest and was found guilty.

These kinds of incidents always beg for more context.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article27055324.html

 

[DeanFor President]

Thanks for the details of the legal side of it. Don't you think "creating a hostile environment" is a little broad and subject to the whims of someone that is ticked off at someone else?
And the bottom line is, Twitter posts in no way violate a protective order. THey weren't directed at her, her family, or her associates, and she was specifically blocked from seeing them. And it occurred off campus. This is a freedom of speech issue, and not a harassment issue. Even if he is a dick, he still has the right to free speech.

 

[Raising Heel]

And the bottom line is, Twitter posts in no way violate a protective order. They weren't directed at her, her family, or her associates, and she was specifically blocked from seeing them. And it occurred off campus. This is a freedom of speech issue, and not a harassment issue. Even if he is a dick, he still has the right to free speech.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm in no way a legal expert, but its seems like the University overstepped and that will be confirmed in the ruling.

That's not what bothered me about this case. Here's what did. Every time somebody gets killed by a cop, people rush to defense of the cops by pointing out that person had to have broken the law in the first place for the situation to escalate. Well, this kid knowingly and willfully violated the terms of the no-contact agreement (even if they're ultimately determined to be non-binding). I guess my point is that he had the choice to not be a dick, but he chose to be a dick anyway. Discretion truly is the better part of valor.

 

[DeanFor President]

That maybe so. Seems to me the order, if it included electronic media posted to his account, not someone else's, and not communicated directly to someone else, can not be considered a valid order. In the military you are not required to follow an unlawful order. How can a lawful order of protection preclude one's right to free speech. We all know we have to right to be a dick! Lol.

Either way, I've enjoyed the discussion and differing views. Thanks