:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I spent my freshmen year at Pepperdine University with a bunch of frustrated caucasians who blamed their rejection from the top UC schools on Asians. :rolleyes: They were lifelong California residents who were bitter about anyone from outside Cali taking a spot at their schools.

I have no idea what she said.........after her first eyeroll and head toss I stopped listening. :D

Actually, I think the first amendment is interpreted as broader than simply protection from government censorship of what we say. I did a little digging, and found (on Wikipedia):

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protection's, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.

separate article:

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not cause undue interruptions of school activities. Justice Abe Fortas wrote,

[S]chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students...are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.

However, since 1969 the Supreme Court has placed a number of limitations on Tinker interpretations. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), the Court ruled that a student could be punished for his sexual-innuendo-laced speech before a school assembly and, in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), the Court found that school newspapers enjoyed fewer First Amendment protections and are subject to school censorship. More recently, in Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) the Court ruled that schools could, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at school-sponsored events, even events away from school grounds, if students promote "illegal drug use."

So, as distasteful and stupid I think this woman's comments are, I still believe she has the right to make them and I don't believe the school (a government entity since it belongs to the State of California) has the right to punish her for being a jerk.

It used to be that people could have open discussions on just about any topic without resorting to demands that the opposing side be censored. When we lose our freedom to speak our own opinions, we will surely start losing other freedoms as well. I hate it that this is even going on in our own government. This is why, as much as I hate what she said, I believe her right to say it must be protected.

From The Constitution Explained - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


The 1st Amendment protects the people's right to practice religion, to speak freely, to assemble (meet), to address (petition) the government, and of the press to publish.

Great research and conclusion. In life you can learn from a smart person as well as a dumb person. With one you learn what to do and with the other what not to do.

Okay- people talking on their cell phones in the library was a HUGE pet peeve of mine in law school- it really really bugged me.

Yeah- not the most appropriate thing to put on youtube- but yes I am one of those crazy first amendment people and she didn't threaten anyone so its her right. It is everyone else's right, mine included to think (and say!) that she makes herself sound totally uneducated and unaware. The last thing she needs is to get thrown out of college though- she needs to get sentenced to a few more years there if anything.

I agree -- just as we have the right to say whatever political, religious, or personal thing we want -- these type of self-centered, ignorant people also have the right to air whatever worthless thought comes across their mind. She might benefit from some race relations and cultural diversity classes but I think think people like that are never going to engage brain before letting themselves speak -- it's a lost cause.

Maybe they should make a rant video about the blonde, airhead, overly large mammary glanded exhibitionists at UCLA who go around shushing people in the library! ;) Better yet -- everyone should ignore her as her main goal is to get attention.

Got a kick out of your reply! That would have been my response too if I had just run across it on Youtube. I only listened further because it was brought up here and I did not need to -- should have just read through the replies.

This is a big issue of political debate, what was intended by the framers of the Constitution and what has come out of the Supreme Court since then. :)

In my opinion all she did was make herself to look like the bigoted, airheaded a-- that she really is. I guess she didn't think about the fact that this tirade might just haunt her in years to come, when she goes out job hunting! You just can't put something like this on the internet and forget about it. It will wind up biting you in the butt, 9 times out of 10!:eek:

Trust me, I bet that girl is looking over her shoulder as we speak! She better add another class to her schedule....self defense!:D

Unbelievable!

I'm just curious and don't pretend to know the answer, but would this common reaction, that it is her right to have freedom of speech, be the same if she was targeting African-Americans or Lesbians?
She's targeting a specific group of people based on their race or origin of nationality. If she's not certain that EVERY "Asian" is on their cell phone EVERY time they are in the library EVERY 5-15 minutes then she does need to shut up!!
and how many times can a girl smack her lips in 2 mins? like omg, that is just like, the worst manner ever, i mean like, ditsy blondes they are just like sooo rude and ill-mannered EVERY TIME they are on youtube and like try to act like they are such a victim and like can't even record for like 2 minutes without like, editing the file and like omg! stfu!!!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well, this happened to my classmate today...after the video had gone viral...

"so i'm sitting at a starbucks in beverly hills and my mom calls.. as i'm wearing my UCLA sweater and talking in vietnamese.. this idiot says from a distance 'chingchonglinglongtingtong'.. are you freakin' serious? THIS VIDEO IS GOING TO HAUNT ME FOREVER. -__________-"


So she has the right to say whatever is on her mind and other students have to go through something like this because of her...? :confused::confused:

Poor girl. Discrimination is incredibly difficult to deal with. I've cried for hours because of it...and I'm sure she was pretty upset by that as well.