There are, obviously, as evidenced here, endless opinions that can be expressed regarding ethics, dark humour, etc., however, I’m particularly interested in discussing James’ previous statement regarding freedom of speech.

Despite common misconceptions, freedom of speech isn’t without boundaries, and an examination of Supreme Court decisions certainly implicates La Maison’s chant as potentially culpable.

Restrictions exist against speech that incites a clear and present danger, fighting words, and, obscenity. Of course, defining obscenity is problematic; however, the Supreme Court maintains a three-part test for identifying obscene language:

1. Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient* interest?
2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

[Merriam-Webster defines 'prurient' as, "marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire; especially : marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire"]

Let’s examine La Maison’s chant according to these guidelines. Here is a transcript of the chant, as posted by a self-described “maggot”:

Rat Shit, Bat Shit, Nasty Old Twat
Sixty-Nine Assholes Tied In A Knot
Eat, Suck, Fuck
Gobble, Nibble, Chew
We’re From La Maison
So hey, FUCK YOU!
(http://stealinurmegahurtz.com/2009/09/michigan-tech-university-infringes-on-civil-rights/)

1. Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient* interest?

I doubt anyone would disagree that the chant is vulgar (another “maggot” describes it as such here: http://www.mtulode.com/opinion/2010/01/28/la-maison-hall-chant-banned-by-university/ – post by “Fellow Maggot”); whether it fits the definition of appealing to a prurient interest may be disputed, however.

2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?

Although the term “fuck” has gained colloquial use in many areas of society, it is still defined as being “usually obscene,” (Merriam-Webster) and describes a sexual act in a way that is generally considered offensive.

3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

I would be happy to listen to anyone making a reasonable argument for La Maison’s chant having serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If you feel you can make that justification somehow, please, enlighten me.

I concede that there may be debate regarding whether or not the chant patently fails on each of the three questions that the Supreme Court uses to define obscene and prohibited speech. I am an ardent defendant of freedom of speech, and I am extremely wary of any attempt at censorship; slippery slopes are concerning. However, as we exercise our rights to free speech, we ought to also ask the question, just because we can say something, does it mean that we should? In the case of La Maison’s chant, what is gained?

Keep on, keepin’ on!

Just wondering if you understand what that means…

And he probably knows about world war two, but remember its easy to get women to sign a document banning women’s suffrage. Its not that just women, but that’s an easy example of how stupid the general public is. Also, a last name of Reich isn’t horrible, its not like his name is Hitler, most likely his last name originates from before ww2 and other than the horrible puns its not really a bad name. Plus he’ll probably sweep in the white supremacists demographic!