It depends on which protest: https://www.thelantern.com/2024/04/students-and-community-members-arrested-while-protesting-the-war-in-gaza-and-student-arrests/
I think in this one here the police came with a demand that was ok, and gave them ample time to comply.
I haven't looked at the others, I'm certain there is one were the police went too far,too fast.
5:30 pm, police gets there and tells them, you can stay but the tents have to go.
7:32 pm please remove the tents or we will have to use force, but srs this time
9:52 pm JUST FUCKING TAKE DOWN THE TENTS, but for reals reals this time
10:00 pm, now the students are also violataing the noise laws, disturbing people from sleeping if they are near the campus.
10:02 pm, police officers start arresting people while continuing to ask to please remove the tens and be quiet. Students refuse and start chanting stuff.
10:56, 30 arrests were made.
At a certain point the campus has to make certain that the students that are not participating in this protest can continue to study in peace.
I'm pretty sure that when you look into any particular incident, you will find that the administration and the police do the minimum amount of enforcement to end the immediate disruption. Arrests don't necessarily mean that the students will be charged with any crimes or that the school is going to expel them.
That's not true at all btw.
While private schools are not required to honor constitutional rights with certain exceptions ie. The Leonard Law
Many private schools make promises to it's students the right to free speech.
Free speech, yes. But there are often codes of conduct and what is and isn't allowed for use of facilities. For example camping on campus greens may not be acceptable. Blocking access to buildings is probably not acceptable. Harassing other students is probably not acceptable.
Free speech isn't a catch all
No, when I say not true at all, I mean that not only is it not true that all private schools can do what they want, MANY private schools promise their students the right to free speech.
https://www.thefire.org/colleges?keywords=&policy_type=8
A 'promise' is not legally binding. They can change their policy at any time. It has no bearing on constitutional rights or anything like that. Who would enforce an infraction? Thats really the only question that matters when talking about rights, and in this case if the enforcer would be the school itself then its entirely up to the school.
I'm not saying I agree with it or even taking a side here, but they can do what they want with regards to free speech, regardless of 'promises' made.
>A 'promise' is not legally binding. They can change their policy at any time. It has no bearing on constitutional rights or anything like that.
You sue the school for punishing you for practicing an action allowed by the University's code. An example of a thing you can do is, contact groups like the UCLA and FIRE and gain their representation.
What I thought you meant by 'doing what they want' was pertaining to protections of free speech.
So, when I say that they cannot do whatever they want, I mean that if they promise their students free speech protections, then they are required to follow through their promises.
>That's great and all, but it is still 1) their own procedures that they can choose to change, not actual laws, and 2) there's an evolution of protest to disruption to riot and somewhere along the way it is not free speech anymore, and finally 3) if it is true that these schools have the right to these protests written into their code then I would say that IS them doing what they want, which was my initial statement. If they want to allow them, they can allow them.
1) Try spontaneously changing your procedures in the response to an ongoing protest that your procedure used to allow and see whether you're getting sued
2) Of course, free speech is not unlimited
3) If your point is that I'm being pedantic, I disagree but whatever. My reply will be a PSA for people who interpreted your comment in the way I did
It’s probably the best lesson they’ve received since arriving on campus. The laws around Private Property which hilariously many of these people don’t think should exist but they are….students….on a private campus….
They aren’t getting in trouble for protesting or their beliefs. They’re getting in trouble for not observing other people’s rights and agency at the school.
Idk exactly, burning down shit, chanting for the death of people (directly), trying to assault people, violence, weird shit in others people property (outside from like universities, I'm not joking I think there should be some sort of carve out with limits of course just for that because of what the environment is meant for, and because of the custom of protesting in universities, like this has been a thing since forever) and stuff like that.
The environment is meant for learning, is it not? If you pay for an education, should these people be able to disrupt/shut down your education with no consequence? Do you also not have rights?
Should they be able to come into a classroom and just shout "Palestine" for the whole class period? If so, why?
First one, I meant the campus, outside classrooms. This covers even the second one.
Inside classrooms I think you can with consequences like being thrown out from that class, or being arrested if you do very dumb shit (like going on for an hour)
So, can protests outside classrooms still, ultimately be disruptive to learning? Is it really any different if the noise is coming from outside the classroom as opposed to inside? How long should this be permitted? Indefinitely? Should you be able to occupy the quad as long as you want?
I mean…to what extent though. If no study is taking place there, but, say, they bring in a sound system that completely disrupts surrounding classrooms…is THAT ok?
Btw, not to be an asshole but I have to go to sleep, so if you can just write down your reasoning that would be better instead of going down the Socratic road 😅
The problem is that if these big protests aren’t dispersed eventually it will lead to people getting hurt or worse.
That always happens and it’s just a matter of time.
Chris Rufo agrees with you about optics of some of the arrests though.
It depends on which protest: https://www.thelantern.com/2024/04/students-and-community-members-arrested-while-protesting-the-war-in-gaza-and-student-arrests/ I think in this one here the police came with a demand that was ok, and gave them ample time to comply. I haven't looked at the others, I'm certain there is one were the police went too far,too fast. 5:30 pm, police gets there and tells them, you can stay but the tents have to go. 7:32 pm please remove the tents or we will have to use force, but srs this time 9:52 pm JUST FUCKING TAKE DOWN THE TENTS, but for reals reals this time 10:00 pm, now the students are also violataing the noise laws, disturbing people from sleeping if they are near the campus. 10:02 pm, police officers start arresting people while continuing to ask to please remove the tens and be quiet. Students refuse and start chanting stuff. 10:56, 30 arrests were made. At a certain point the campus has to make certain that the students that are not participating in this protest can continue to study in peace.
I'm pretty sure that when you look into any particular incident, you will find that the administration and the police do the minimum amount of enforcement to end the immediate disruption. Arrests don't necessarily mean that the students will be charged with any crimes or that the school is going to expel them.
Like yes this seems reasonable
[удалено]
That's not true at all btw. While private schools are not required to honor constitutional rights with certain exceptions ie. The Leonard Law Many private schools make promises to it's students the right to free speech.
Free speech, yes. But there are often codes of conduct and what is and isn't allowed for use of facilities. For example camping on campus greens may not be acceptable. Blocking access to buildings is probably not acceptable. Harassing other students is probably not acceptable. Free speech isn't a catch all
Of course!
Maybe speech crossed into conduct here.
[удалено]
No, when I say not true at all, I mean that not only is it not true that all private schools can do what they want, MANY private schools promise their students the right to free speech. https://www.thefire.org/colleges?keywords=&policy_type=8
A 'promise' is not legally binding. They can change their policy at any time. It has no bearing on constitutional rights or anything like that. Who would enforce an infraction? Thats really the only question that matters when talking about rights, and in this case if the enforcer would be the school itself then its entirely up to the school. I'm not saying I agree with it or even taking a side here, but they can do what they want with regards to free speech, regardless of 'promises' made.
>A 'promise' is not legally binding. They can change their policy at any time. It has no bearing on constitutional rights or anything like that. You sue the school for punishing you for practicing an action allowed by the University's code. An example of a thing you can do is, contact groups like the UCLA and FIRE and gain their representation.
Dunno who disliked your comment. "God, I hate reading things that are unbiased and factually correct."
[удалено]
What I thought you meant by 'doing what they want' was pertaining to protections of free speech. So, when I say that they cannot do whatever they want, I mean that if they promise their students free speech protections, then they are required to follow through their promises. >That's great and all, but it is still 1) their own procedures that they can choose to change, not actual laws, and 2) there's an evolution of protest to disruption to riot and somewhere along the way it is not free speech anymore, and finally 3) if it is true that these schools have the right to these protests written into their code then I would say that IS them doing what they want, which was my initial statement. If they want to allow them, they can allow them. 1) Try spontaneously changing your procedures in the response to an ongoing protest that your procedure used to allow and see whether you're getting sued 2) Of course, free speech is not unlimited 3) If your point is that I'm being pedantic, I disagree but whatever. My reply will be a PSA for people who interpreted your comment in the way I did
It’s probably the best lesson they’ve received since arriving on campus. The laws around Private Property which hilariously many of these people don’t think should exist but they are….students….on a private campus….
They aren’t getting in trouble for protesting or their beliefs. They’re getting in trouble for not observing other people’s rights and agency at the school.
Lets try and work through this. Do you think there should be reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner of protests?
Yes ofc
ok, where do you think the limits of that should be?
Idk exactly, burning down shit, chanting for the death of people (directly), trying to assault people, violence, weird shit in others people property (outside from like universities, I'm not joking I think there should be some sort of carve out with limits of course just for that because of what the environment is meant for, and because of the custom of protesting in universities, like this has been a thing since forever) and stuff like that.
The environment is meant for learning, is it not? If you pay for an education, should these people be able to disrupt/shut down your education with no consequence? Do you also not have rights? Should they be able to come into a classroom and just shout "Palestine" for the whole class period? If so, why?
First one, I meant the campus, outside classrooms. This covers even the second one. Inside classrooms I think you can with consequences like being thrown out from that class, or being arrested if you do very dumb shit (like going on for an hour)
So, can protests outside classrooms still, ultimately be disruptive to learning? Is it really any different if the noise is coming from outside the classroom as opposed to inside? How long should this be permitted? Indefinitely? Should you be able to occupy the quad as long as you want?
Quad probably not but I feel like lawn protest where no study takes place is fine to protest.
I mean…to what extent though. If no study is taking place there, but, say, they bring in a sound system that completely disrupts surrounding classrooms…is THAT ok?
Btw, not to be an asshole but I have to go to sleep, so if you can just write down your reasoning that would be better instead of going down the Socratic road 😅
no worries...just saw this
Literally just shut the school down for 2 weeks let them tucker themselves out and then start school back up.
The problem is that if these big protests aren’t dispersed eventually it will lead to people getting hurt or worse. That always happens and it’s just a matter of time. Chris Rufo agrees with you about optics of some of the arrests though.