In the instant case, Plaintiff’s comments were offensive student speech. As the audio recording establishes, Plaintiff’s words were openly hostile to the panel and their presentation. (Compl., Ex. 46.B.) He was critical of the responses he received, he interrupted the panelists, and he repeated the same question multiple times despite receiving clear answers. (Id.) His tone was argumentative, bordering on contemptuous, and most of his questions sounded rhetorical rather curious, as if he had posed them solely to expose the illegitimacy of the subject matter. (Id.) Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that Plaintiff’s jarring tone and manner of expression drew notice from at least two faculty members, one of whom described Plaintiff as “antagonistic.”
Note that this is the same 'university' where the multiple rape hoax by Jackie took place, and which took action against fraternities without needing any evidence.
We can just say Jackie Coakley here, can't we? It's not like naming someone who was sexually assaulted or anything, so there's no reason it should be a problem.
From the court filing:
Note that this is the same 'university' where the multiple rape hoax by Jackie took place, and which took action against fraternities without needing any evidence.
UVA should not exist.
We can just say Jackie Coakley here, can't we? It's not like naming someone who was sexually assaulted or anything, so there's no reason it should be a problem.