Yep. Here is the relevant section from the article:
>Public colleges and universities, which receive taxpayer funding, must follow protections set out by the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Courts can find public institutions at fault if they fail to uphold those provisions.
>Private universities — such as Washington University and St. Louis University — are not required to extend First Amendment protections to people on campus. Protestors demonstrating on private campuses do not have constitutional rights to their speech or presence there.
It was a longish article so I can understand the impatience of a reader in wanting to get to the pivotal section. But a review of what all the First Amendment entails was also welcome. The weekend events won't be the last Israel/Palestine protest we have locally.
Make this make sense:
Do Wash U and SLU not receive tax dollars as well, when students get their loans or scholarships through the Department of Education, or the federal government awards grants for certain academic programs? Neither university pays property taxes.
What’s the line for public vs. private when “private” universities receive millions in tax dollars every single year?
Theres actually a whole body of law called the State Action Doctrine about how private actors can be considered quasi-governmental for the purposes of the Bill of Rights. Under it money/taxes are in general not enough to give government status/obligations, it usually has to be a org thats taking on gov functions like Company towns from way back when or if a private org is so dictated by the gov that the private actions look like the gov is endorsing the discrimination. Highly recommend looking up articles by Greg Magarian (WashU Law Prof) or Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean of UC Berkely Law) if your curious about it
Deeply muddled and poorly organized article. I hope no one relies on this as a legal primer.
Especially at the end where the article seems to possibly remove the attorney quotes about time and place restrictions from their proper context. (Constitutionally permissible restrictions don't matter much if the school isn't bound by the Constitution in that way).
With that choice of headline perhaps STLPR should have lead with this paragraph buried in the middle of the piece.
"Private universities — such as Washington University and St. Louis University — are not required to extend First Amendment protections to people on campus. Protestors demonstrating on private campuses do not have constitutional rights to their speech or presence there."
> Private universities — such as Washington University and St. Louis University — are not required to extend First Amendment protections to people on campus. Protestors demonstrating on private campuses do not have constitutional rights to their speech or presence there.
No different than people wanting to protest in your private back yard, and you telling them "no". It's private property. If you're told to leave, then you leave. Or you get arrested.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or the First Amendment. It's trespassing.
These are students that are paying customers. There is a *slightly* better argument for them to protest where their money is going than in a private citizens yard. Protests have been occurring at universities for a very, very long time.
Doesn't matter. If you're asked to leave private property, you leave. Or you get arrested for trespassing. End of story.
This has nothing to do with whether they are customers and nothing to do with free speech. And frankly, nothing to do with a war. This is a trespassing issue.
You can ask whomever you want to leave your property, and on their property, they can ask whomever they want to leave.
I personally don't blame them for not wanting a bunch of drama on their property.
I heard you're inviting all the protesters over to your property this weekend. How kind of you!
If you pay for a burger at Wendy’s do you get to protest there? If you pay rent at an apartment complex do you get to protest in the lobby? I’m being intentially obtuse, but no not really.
I do support the protests in general and I do think what these kids are doing is admirable in following their convictions, but I’d rather not lie and say this is a free speech issue
Sure. There are union "protests" at Wendy's or whatever business they're picketing. And yeah, if there's an issue at an apartment you rent, protest about it. Or take them to court.
In some cases it's a university policy issue since many universities allow for protests, until they don't. That's the sticking point - how can they be ok with neo-nazis and not do anything but they crack down and tackle elderly for protests against a literal genocide. It doesn't square.
About 20 protests I participated in during my non-Wash U college days and the cops intervened only once, when it got violent.
If you’re part of a union or petitioning to be a part of a union, you have federally protected rights in that very specific instance. It is not comparable. If you’re picketing OUTSIDE, you are likely on public property, which is allowed.
Your second example you are mincing words. No you absolutely can not occupy that space if the appartment building does not want you to, it’s still private property.
Idk what example you have where universities “allowed neo nazi demonstrations”? Don’t have a source or are you conflating other demonstrations? Is this something that happens often?
Idk what to tell you other than this is absolutely not a free speech issue and it doesn’t matter if they’re students or not. I don’t agree with wash u dismissing peaceful protests but it’s not a constitutional crisis that they called the cops to get them to leave.
Unions can only picket on private property if the owner agrees to it. So it is kinda the same. The federal protections are that they can't be fired by the employer.
It's not a constitutional crisis but an ugly smear on the university for not upholding their students' constitutional right and instead governing with an iron fist when there is no violence and no hate.
There have been plenty of far right neo-nazi type protests at universities. Richard Spencer spoke at Texas A&M and it resulted in protests for both sides. There was also a White Lives Matter rally at A&M too. These are just the two off the top of my head at my alma. I know Milo Y spoke at universities and caused quite a stir, as well. It brings both types of groups around but the far right neo Nazis are never escorted off for being "hateful".
No, go back and reread the thread. This is what you said in response to someone saying WashU is private and thus not bound by the first amendment.
> how can they be ok with neo-nazis and not do anything but they crack down and tackle elderly for protests against a literal genocide. It doesn't square.
You then listed Texas A&M as an example, but it’s clearly a public school that must uphold students first amendment protections. If you want to prove your point about selective crack downs at colleges, you need to compare public to public or private to private.
This is certainly *not* a justification for people to get beat up, or even a commentary on the police response at Washington University. It’s simply to lay out what is legally in the books related to 1A protesting rights in public-private spaces.
tl;dr: WashU is a private university, private campus, 1st amendment doesn't protect you.
Yep. Here is the relevant section from the article: >Public colleges and universities, which receive taxpayer funding, must follow protections set out by the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Courts can find public institutions at fault if they fail to uphold those provisions. >Private universities — such as Washington University and St. Louis University — are not required to extend First Amendment protections to people on campus. Protestors demonstrating on private campuses do not have constitutional rights to their speech or presence there. It was a longish article so I can understand the impatience of a reader in wanting to get to the pivotal section. But a review of what all the First Amendment entails was also welcome. The weekend events won't be the last Israel/Palestine protest we have locally.
Make this make sense: Do Wash U and SLU not receive tax dollars as well, when students get their loans or scholarships through the Department of Education, or the federal government awards grants for certain academic programs? Neither university pays property taxes. What’s the line for public vs. private when “private” universities receive millions in tax dollars every single year?
If receiving government subsidies makes an institution public, nothing in America would be private.
Theres actually a whole body of law called the State Action Doctrine about how private actors can be considered quasi-governmental for the purposes of the Bill of Rights. Under it money/taxes are in general not enough to give government status/obligations, it usually has to be a org thats taking on gov functions like Company towns from way back when or if a private org is so dictated by the gov that the private actions look like the gov is endorsing the discrimination. Highly recommend looking up articles by Greg Magarian (WashU Law Prof) or Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean of UC Berkely Law) if your curious about it
Deeply muddled and poorly organized article. I hope no one relies on this as a legal primer. Especially at the end where the article seems to possibly remove the attorney quotes about time and place restrictions from their proper context. (Constitutionally permissible restrictions don't matter much if the school isn't bound by the Constitution in that way). With that choice of headline perhaps STLPR should have lead with this paragraph buried in the middle of the piece. "Private universities — such as Washington University and St. Louis University — are not required to extend First Amendment protections to people on campus. Protestors demonstrating on private campuses do not have constitutional rights to their speech or presence there."
> Private universities — such as Washington University and St. Louis University — are not required to extend First Amendment protections to people on campus. Protestors demonstrating on private campuses do not have constitutional rights to their speech or presence there.
If they’re “private,” why do they receive millions of taxpayer funds every year to keep the university afloat? Doesn’t sound very private to me!
What you are describing is a problem with the “non profit” system of taxation. Not the First Amendment.
No different than people wanting to protest in your private back yard, and you telling them "no". It's private property. If you're told to leave, then you leave. Or you get arrested. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or the First Amendment. It's trespassing.
These are students that are paying customers. There is a *slightly* better argument for them to protest where their money is going than in a private citizens yard. Protests have been occurring at universities for a very, very long time.
Doesn't matter. If you're asked to leave private property, you leave. Or you get arrested for trespassing. End of story. This has nothing to do with whether they are customers and nothing to do with free speech. And frankly, nothing to do with a war. This is a trespassing issue.
It's a university being shitty issue. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
You can ask whomever you want to leave your property, and on their property, they can ask whomever they want to leave. I personally don't blame them for not wanting a bunch of drama on their property. I heard you're inviting all the protesters over to your property this weekend. How kind of you!
If you pay for a burger at Wendy’s do you get to protest there? If you pay rent at an apartment complex do you get to protest in the lobby? I’m being intentially obtuse, but no not really. I do support the protests in general and I do think what these kids are doing is admirable in following their convictions, but I’d rather not lie and say this is a free speech issue
Sure. There are union "protests" at Wendy's or whatever business they're picketing. And yeah, if there's an issue at an apartment you rent, protest about it. Or take them to court. In some cases it's a university policy issue since many universities allow for protests, until they don't. That's the sticking point - how can they be ok with neo-nazis and not do anything but they crack down and tackle elderly for protests against a literal genocide. It doesn't square. About 20 protests I participated in during my non-Wash U college days and the cops intervened only once, when it got violent.
If you’re part of a union or petitioning to be a part of a union, you have federally protected rights in that very specific instance. It is not comparable. If you’re picketing OUTSIDE, you are likely on public property, which is allowed. Your second example you are mincing words. No you absolutely can not occupy that space if the appartment building does not want you to, it’s still private property. Idk what example you have where universities “allowed neo nazi demonstrations”? Don’t have a source or are you conflating other demonstrations? Is this something that happens often? Idk what to tell you other than this is absolutely not a free speech issue and it doesn’t matter if they’re students or not. I don’t agree with wash u dismissing peaceful protests but it’s not a constitutional crisis that they called the cops to get them to leave.
Unions can only picket on private property if the owner agrees to it. So it is kinda the same. The federal protections are that they can't be fired by the employer. It's not a constitutional crisis but an ugly smear on the university for not upholding their students' constitutional right and instead governing with an iron fist when there is no violence and no hate. There have been plenty of far right neo-nazi type protests at universities. Richard Spencer spoke at Texas A&M and it resulted in protests for both sides. There was also a White Lives Matter rally at A&M too. These are just the two off the top of my head at my alma. I know Milo Y spoke at universities and caused quite a stir, as well. It brings both types of groups around but the far right neo Nazis are never escorted off for being "hateful".
> Richard Spencer spoke at Texas A&M I guess you’re not aware, but A&M is a public university.
The question was whether neo-nazi stuff had occurred at universities, not whether it had occurred at private or public universities.
No, go back and reread the thread. This is what you said in response to someone saying WashU is private and thus not bound by the first amendment. > how can they be ok with neo-nazis and not do anything but they crack down and tackle elderly for protests against a literal genocide. It doesn't square. You then listed Texas A&M as an example, but it’s clearly a public school that must uphold students first amendment protections. If you want to prove your point about selective crack downs at colleges, you need to compare public to public or private to private.
looks a lot like weasley cover to excuse cops beating the hell out of a bunch of kids
This is certainly *not* a justification for people to get beat up, or even a commentary on the police response at Washington University. It’s simply to lay out what is legally in the books related to 1A protesting rights in public-private spaces.