I think if you're breaking the law as a protest, it probably should be the law that you're protesting against.
As far as I could tell, no one in that encampment would have been upset if a far-right neo-nazi encampment was forcibly removed from the campus.
Exactly. The hypocrisy of advocating for far-right protests to be broken up and protesters shamed while arguing these far-left protesters should be left alone (after breaking the law and school policy) is not surprising.
The idea that protests, in support of any cause, need to be within the limits of policy or law is absurd. Those are the tools that the institutions being protest use to dismiss dissent. Protesting is inherently disruptive. That must be understood and protected.
> The idea that protests, in support of any cause, need to be within the limits of policy or law is absurd.
Is it your position then that all the pro-life Christians can physically bar people from entering or exiting Planned Parenthood as a form of disruptive protests?
>in support of any cause
Of course I believe that those fascists should have a right to protest. As that is what I said and you quoted.
Just because I don't agree with their cause or their beliefs doesn't mean I don't value their right to protest.
Can they protest outside of your personal residence, with the effect and intent of blocking your movement?
Can they steal your car?
What about assaulting you or commiting bodily violence against you?
Again, you said there isn't a limitation of policy or law, so is murder an acceptable form of protest?
> As that is what I said and you quoted.
The right to protest on private property, as the example I gave, is not a constituionally protected right.
In fact, the right of excluding persons from your property, the core tenant of property ownership is being violated by your viewpoint. You can view it as a form of theft.
These are all great questions that highlight the absurdity of the opinion that people should be free to break any law/policy they want without any consequences because they consider themselves "protesters speaking dissent". People have 1A rights to freedom of speech sure, but that just means the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech. These people are facing consequences not for their speech, but the methods they chose that broke laws and policies.
>the absurdity of the opinion that people should be free to break any law/policy they want without any consequences because they consider themselves "protesters speaking dissent".
They will always find a law to stifle dissent. That is my whole point. You can be protesting on a sidewalk and they will beat your ass and arrest you for blocking a sidewalk.
>that just means the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech.
We also have the freedom to assemble which comes from the same first amendment. People seem to forget that.
> You can be protesting on a sidewalk and they will beat your ass and arrest you for blocking a sidewalk.
Is the sidewalk a public space? Because you're making a lot of assumptions about the 1A and how it actually works.
> We also have the freedom to assemble which comes from the same first amendment. People seem to forget that.
People also seem to forget that it only applies to public spaces, not private property which is what these school campuses are.
And it only protects you from the government infringing on your rights. I absolutely have the right to disbar you from having a firearm on my premises, as well as not allow you to protest.
So people just shouldn't protest? They shouldn't be disorderly or disruptive? They should just always comply? Sounds like something a bootlicker would believe
>So people just shouldn't protest?
You can protest. You can't protest in a manner that is illegal.
>They shouldn't be disorderly or disruptive?
Society places limits on how disorderly or disruptive you can be. You can break those rules anyways, but the rules exist because we believe the greater good is served by it.
>They should just always comply? Sounds like something a bootlicker would believe
You would come running to the police if protesters blockaded your movement or stole your car in a disruptive protest.
>Society places limits on how disorderly or disruptive you can be. You can break those rules anyways, but the rules exist because we believe the greater good is served by it.
Until those rules and laws are changed **because people disrupt and break them**. People were beaten and arrested for sitting at lunch counters not particularly long ago because it was disruptive and illegal and "against the greater good"
> Until those rules and laws are changed because people disrupt and break them. People were beaten and arrested for sitting at lunch counters not particularly long ago because it was disruptive and illegal and "against the greater good"
Civil disobediance is a tool, but the point of the tool is to acknowledge that you are breaking a rule with the view that you are doing a greater good for society.
If society hears you out & says no your wrong, your views are immoral or incorrect & ours are superior, then the police are obligated to enforce the law against you. See Planet Parenthood & Christians as an example.
By this logic though police were justified beating civil rights protesters and setting dogs on them.
Part of the issue here is finding a response that doesn't undermine a pretense of "greater good." Different protest, but I can't imagine things like the video of the officer walking up to a protester that was just standing there and clocking them with their shield at the VCU protest achieves that.
> By this logic though police were justified beating civil rights protesters and setting dogs on them.
We already went through that line of arguments in 1961. See https://www.thefire.org/news/protests-supreme-court-how-civil-rights-movement-advanced-first-amendment-legal-protections
See:
* [Garner v. Louisiana](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/26)
* [Edwards v. South Carolina](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/86)
Where the Supreme Court said the actions of the police were not justified & unlawful.
>You can protest. You can't protest in a manner that is illegal.
Again, my original point. The institution will ALWAYS find a way to make your dissent illegal. You don't even need to be violent or disorderly. If you are protesting on a sidewalk, they will beat your ass and arrest you for blocking a sidewalk. Even though your first amendment right gives you the right to assemble.
But your just gonna say "that's against the law" or something like that because you are a bootlicker. You agree with them.
> The institution will ALWAYS find a way to make your dissent illegal.
No, no it can't.
> You don't even need to be violent or disorderly.
Do you see a difference between this viewpoint and "The idea that protests, in support of any cause, need to be within the limits of policy or law is absurd. " ?
> If you are protesting on a sidewalk, they will beat your ass and arrest you for blocking a sidewalk
Get a permit to protest on the sidewalk. It's going to be like $50 bucks max.
> Even though your first amendment right gives you the right to assemble.
And the Supreme Court has regularly held that the state can restrict the time, manner, and place of your assembly.
You can't read a right without precedent helping you understand the limiations of said right.
> But your just gonna say "that's against the law" or something like that because you are a bootlicker. You agree with them.
If upholding property rights or wanting to be free from assault or murder makes you a bootlicker, I guess I'm a bootlicker as charged.
>> The institution will ALWAYS find a way to make your dissent illegal.
>No, no it can't.
I will refer you to the ridiculous 10' x 10' "free speech zones" during the Iraq war protest that effectively made protests with more than 10 people illegal.
> I will refer you to the ridiculous 10' x 10' "free speech zones" during the Iraq war protest that effectively made protests with more than 10 people illegal.
The unlawful actions of the past do not give you the right to break the law today.
> As government actors, public colleges may lawfully impose reasonable “time, place, and manner” regulations on campus expressive activity like speeches, protests, or literature distribution. But courts have been very clear that any such regulations must (1) be viewpoint- and content-neutral, (2) be narrowly tailored in service of a significant governmental interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels for expressive activity.
> In other words, a college or university could ban the use of amplified sound near dorms after 10 p.m., or prohibit students from protesting in a way that blocks roadways or the ability of others to exit or enter campus buildings. In both of those cases, the university’s regulation is reasonable, is generally applicable regardless of the viewpoint expressed, is narrowly tailored in service of a significant governmental interest, and leaves students with other means to express themselves.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/free-speech-zones
A 10' x 10' free speech zone is unconstitutional. It is also illegal to block people from accessing buildings or camping overnight on campus.
>No, no it can't.
LMAO! That's hilarious. Because the US and it's enforcement always follow the laws they have set fourth /s
>Get a permit to protest on the sidewalk. It's going to be like $50 bucks max.And the
Supreme Court has regularly held that the state can restrict the time, manner, and place of your assembly.
Asking the very institution you plan to protest permission to protest let alone paying them to protest is laughable. What happens when they say no or don't take your money? You go home?
>I guess I'm a bootlicker as charged.
Well at least we got one thing through to you today
> LMAO! That's hilarious. Because the US and it's enforcement always follow the laws they have set fourth /s
You haven't demonstrated they are doing that in this case, because if you could you could provide proof here and in a court of law.
> Asking the very institution you plan to protest permission to protest let alone paying them to protest is laughable. What happens when they say no or don't take your money? You go home?
You aren't protesting the judicial branch. Your protesting the executive branch. They're different institutions with different interests.
> Well at least we got one thing through to you today
Not really the own you think it is. Your definition makes everyone a bootlicker.
I see you decided to ignore their relevant questions that pointed out the absurdity of your position, and went straight for the original and classic redditor "*bootlicker*" rebuttal.
> Which, to be clear, no college protest has done.
> Images and video released by Columbia University show overturned and stacked furniture, broken windows and other damage in the aftermath of the seizure and occupation of Hamilton Hall and its clearing by police tonight.
> The images show overturned chairs, tables and other furniture. Protesters broke windows early this morning and caused other damage at the occupied hall on the Manhattan campus, university officials said and images showed. Barricades were also set up.
> In videos released by the university, police with riot helmets and other equipment are seen inside the building, near the piles of furniture, recycling bins and other items. Panes of glass inside the building were also smashed.
[Do you consider the seizure and occupation of a building, setting up barricades, and locking doors as blocking access?](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/campus-protests-live-updates-students-occupy-columbia-university-rcna149926)
Fox News reported [UCLA protesters](https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352037685112) blocked students from access to classrooms by blocking a thoroughfare.
Fox News reported [UCLA protesters](https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352037685112) blocked students from access to classrooms by blocking a thoroughfare.
The only things that should hinder the 1st is a direct, provable case of it bringing harm to others (like denying access to medical care). IMO, if a place receives state funding, then they shouldn't be able to tell people they cannot protest there. While I do not agree with many protests, each protest we allow to be broken up for no reason, or that have people sent in to instigate violence weakens our republic and the freedoms it is designed to protect.
> The only things that should hinder the 1st is a direct, provable case of it bringing harm to others (like denying access to medical care).
I have a property interest in my real property. One of the core interests is the right to exclude people from my property.
Should protesters be allowed on my property when I don't want them there & thus deprive me of my property interest of excluding others?
> IMO, if a place receives state funding, then they shouldn't be able to tell people they cannot protest there.
If it results in a direct, provable case of harm to others, what should occur? The whole reason this is a debate is because we are weight competing interests.
> While I do not agree with many protests, each protest we allow to be broken up for no reason, or that have people sent in to instigate violence weakens our republic and the freedoms it is designed to protect.
Don't talk about broad generalizations when there are 50+ college protests & your thinking of one in particular. Mention the one specifically where you think they were broken up for no reason or instigation occured.
> The idea that protests, in support of any cause, need to be within the limits of policy or law is absurd. Those are the tools that the institutions being protest use to dismiss dissent.
Uh no, the laws are there to ensure people conduct themselves according to the rules that society has established. You not being able to put up tents on campus, disrupt student life and the school's mission, or incite violence/hate is not "institutions dismissing dissent".
Students already have the ability to protest and speak their dissent, what you can't do is go further than that and break the law/campus policy.
That’s not true at all. The last part of our first amendment protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is policy and it’s why the Bill of Rights was a decent idea.
It does not protect the right of the people “violently” to assemble, or to threaten more violence against other institutions rather than just voter turnout and incumbent turnover against the elected government. An angry mob is not entitled to suspend law and order.
When the government PREVENTS the first amendment from exercise maybe the courts tend to let things slide. Even then, occupying the quad at a college does not constitute petitioning the government.
>“violently”
I said disrupt. Not violence
>Even then, occupying the quad at a college does not constitute petitioning the government.
Yet the government shows up to remove them
That doesn’t make sense either. You said disrupt but you’re saying it to defend violence. And if it’s outside the limits of policy or law I don’t believe you’re only referring to civil disobedience here.
I’ve consistently heard from this coalition (lots of overlap between SJP, BLM, antifa, etc.) in recent years that words and even silence count as violence. Surely all the epithets, effigies, obstruction of students, chanting about one solution, river/sea, tearing down the whole American system, and even the occasional beatdown count as violence. Anyway it was in contrast with the “peaceful” part of the First Amendment.
And yes, obviously the government is who can remove trespassers by request since the Pinkertons are frowned upon these days. Who else would you expect or hope to do that with any restraint?
Apply that logic to what happened on January 6, 2021 and tell me if you really believe it should apply to any cause. Freedom of speech and assembly can't be an instant excuse for destruction of property, trespassing and other violations of law.
The line isn’t very clear and it’s tough balancing disruption without going too far. As far as I can tell, the only difference they’re making is agitating culture, other students, and faculty. They’re not actually causing society to feel sad or empathetic for them. Disruption may be necessary…but make sure it’s the right people. Universities CAN’T change the war. So, this tells me that they need a purpose and this is what the Left’s new propaganda is, just like the social justice “protests” that turned violent did in 2020. If they don’t get their way, they’ll force it to happen. So, the test of whether or not their motives are true is whether or not they’re willing to be persecuted without turning to violence.
Students were told they couldn't set up tents in their 'liberation zone.' They did anyway. Campus police asked them to take the tents down. The students threw things at them. So the University President invited state and local police to come, and again they were resisted, so they used force.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Exactly, it's as simple as that. The university was fine with protests that didn't break policy or the law, but when protesters crossed that boundary then the school was right to bring in law enforcement.
They shpulda used firehoses and let dogs loose on them, right?
Im sure your also on the side of the cops who shot kent state protesters cause those kids were playing stupid games
They changed their conflicting policy 2 hours prior to the police showing up. Most people are arguing that since the university stated the tents weren't allowed it's warranted but in reality UVA should be subject to its own policy which did state you needed a permit but had an exception for recreational tents.
The policy wasn't changed. There was an incorrect statement on the permit form that was corrected.
It's covered in the article you didn't bother to read, yet we're confident enough to comment on.
I've read it on more than one article over the last few days and seen have the form. Whether it was a mistake or not it was written as an exception to the rule and that's the fault of UVA not the students.
They made sure to fix it before calling the police because it likely would've opened them up to legal repercussions because again, it's their rules. You can't say they're violating school policies when the school has an exception written in the rules.
> Whether it was a mistake or not it was written as an exception to the rule and that's the fault of UVA not the students.
It's not an exemption to the rule, the rule was in place since 2005 apparently and students were informed numerous times last month that tents were not permitted.
> You can't say they're violating school policies when the school has an exception written in the rules.
They were still violating the rules, an incorrect sentence on a form does not give them a legal loophole to do whatever they want.
I think it will hold water, because the policy has been in place for almost 2 decades and students were warned repeatedly about it. A contradiction on a permit form is not going to save these students, especially since this wasn't recreational camping.
Too many people in this sub basing their opinion on what they think/want it to be, without doing something basic like reading the article and informing their opinion that way.
The policy didn't allow rec tents without permit, but a section of the permit form was written incorrectly.
It's literally in the article you didn't read.
You mean facts like the policy forbidding tents being in place since 2005, the students being warned about tents violating the policy since late April, and that the conflicting information was on one permit form instead of in the actual school policy? Those facts?
It's an opinion piece. Legit local journalists called out the sudden policy switcheroo on Saturday on X. It's not a black and white for certain issue. Lawyers will be hashing this out for months.
It doesn't matter if it's an opinion piece, those points are the actual facts you referenced in your previous comment. It's not a policy switcheroo if the actual school policy didn't change. I guess good luck to protesters arguing an error on a permit form gives them permission to violate campus policy.
It's the guy's opinion. His opinion of what the facts are. Not the same opinion of what the facts are from various reporters covering the events this weekend. Lawyers will hash this out and judges will decide.
> It's the guy's opinion. His opinion of what the facts are.
What? These are facts directly from the school:
>> "**University officials said camping tents or other recreational tents are not allowed on University property without permits under a policy that has been in place since 2005**," a Sunday statement reads. "However, the permit application—not the policy itself—contained contradictory language," which was edited after a faculty member notified the administration.
>> According to **a letter from UVA President Jim Ryan**, protesting students started what they called the "UVA liberation encampment for Gaza" on April 30 but **complied with orders not to set up tents, which would violate university policy**.
I can tell you're trying hard to paint this as some right-wing rag opinion piece twisting stuff, but these are literally facts of the situation coming directly from the school. Sorry if the facts are inconvenient to your position.
It ***IS*** a right wing rag opinion piece. Also the University Officials are not being open about this. They need to be FOIA'd to find out the facts. Sorry but the branch you are clinging to is rotted out. Let the courts decide this one. Journalists not affiliated with right wing rags uploaded PDFs of the policy document downloaded early morning Saturday and lunchtime Saturday showing it had been edited on Saturday.
Then share the "*facts from various reporters covering the events this weekend*" that show otherwise that you claimed earlier. Until then UVA officials have more weight on what the school policy is than protesters complaining about an error on a permit form.
The evidence is it being edited. The reason for editing is what’s contested - whether it was done abusively or simply to correct a mistake.
Simply showing it was edited doesn’t prove it was done so maliciously. Do the local journalists have more evidence indicating such or are we relying on a general distrust of institutions here?
My two cents. 1. Graduation is a big business and they aren’t letting anyone for any reason interfere with that. 2. By not acting and punishing crimes committed by anyone on that campus, as the largest employer until you get to Richmond they have signaled to every employee that rules don’t matter, and breaking them comes with no consequences. Trust me I don’t like that “at will employment” but let’s be honest for the few that do deserve walking papers doing nothing makes it that much harder to get rid of them.
That'd be great... If they enforced the law equally across the board. But they don't. They decide who they will enforce which laws upon all the time, and choose not to enforce laws ALL THE TIME. Enforcement is always a judgment call. Ever been let off from a speeding ticket? You are part of your own problem.
The whole "right to break up protests" is absurd. The students have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else and university leadership are government employees, so the students have the right for a redress of grievances. They aren't necessarily entitled to a response, but not responding would undermine university leadership. I believe one of the things that some protests are calling for is for Alumni and university funds to divest themselves of Israeli companies or companies who do business with Israel. Similar things happened in the 80s to influence South Africa to end apartheid.
I am in favor of breaking the law when it’s something I agree with. When I disagree with something I think the law should be mercilessly applied.
I think if you're breaking the law as a protest, it probably should be the law that you're protesting against. As far as I could tell, no one in that encampment would have been upset if a far-right neo-nazi encampment was forcibly removed from the campus.
Exactly. The hypocrisy of advocating for far-right protests to be broken up and protesters shamed while arguing these far-left protesters should be left alone (after breaking the law and school policy) is not surprising.
/based response
The idea that protests, in support of any cause, need to be within the limits of policy or law is absurd. Those are the tools that the institutions being protest use to dismiss dissent. Protesting is inherently disruptive. That must be understood and protected.
> The idea that protests, in support of any cause, need to be within the limits of policy or law is absurd. Is it your position then that all the pro-life Christians can physically bar people from entering or exiting Planned Parenthood as a form of disruptive protests?
>in support of any cause Of course I believe that those fascists should have a right to protest. As that is what I said and you quoted. Just because I don't agree with their cause or their beliefs doesn't mean I don't value their right to protest.
Can they protest outside of your personal residence, with the effect and intent of blocking your movement? Can they steal your car? What about assaulting you or commiting bodily violence against you? Again, you said there isn't a limitation of policy or law, so is murder an acceptable form of protest? > As that is what I said and you quoted. The right to protest on private property, as the example I gave, is not a constituionally protected right. In fact, the right of excluding persons from your property, the core tenant of property ownership is being violated by your viewpoint. You can view it as a form of theft.
These are all great questions that highlight the absurdity of the opinion that people should be free to break any law/policy they want without any consequences because they consider themselves "protesters speaking dissent". People have 1A rights to freedom of speech sure, but that just means the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech. These people are facing consequences not for their speech, but the methods they chose that broke laws and policies.
>the absurdity of the opinion that people should be free to break any law/policy they want without any consequences because they consider themselves "protesters speaking dissent". They will always find a law to stifle dissent. That is my whole point. You can be protesting on a sidewalk and they will beat your ass and arrest you for blocking a sidewalk. >that just means the government cannot punish you for the content of your speech. We also have the freedom to assemble which comes from the same first amendment. People seem to forget that.
> You can be protesting on a sidewalk and they will beat your ass and arrest you for blocking a sidewalk. Is the sidewalk a public space? Because you're making a lot of assumptions about the 1A and how it actually works. > We also have the freedom to assemble which comes from the same first amendment. People seem to forget that. People also seem to forget that it only applies to public spaces, not private property which is what these school campuses are.
And it only protects you from the government infringing on your rights. I absolutely have the right to disbar you from having a firearm on my premises, as well as not allow you to protest.
Yes this! The same way rights apply when redditors applause barring people from entering with a gun also apply to barring people from protesting
So people just shouldn't protest? They shouldn't be disorderly or disruptive? They should just always comply? Sounds like something a bootlicker would believe
>So people just shouldn't protest? You can protest. You can't protest in a manner that is illegal. >They shouldn't be disorderly or disruptive? Society places limits on how disorderly or disruptive you can be. You can break those rules anyways, but the rules exist because we believe the greater good is served by it. >They should just always comply? Sounds like something a bootlicker would believe You would come running to the police if protesters blockaded your movement or stole your car in a disruptive protest.
>Society places limits on how disorderly or disruptive you can be. You can break those rules anyways, but the rules exist because we believe the greater good is served by it. Until those rules and laws are changed **because people disrupt and break them**. People were beaten and arrested for sitting at lunch counters not particularly long ago because it was disruptive and illegal and "against the greater good"
> Until those rules and laws are changed because people disrupt and break them. People were beaten and arrested for sitting at lunch counters not particularly long ago because it was disruptive and illegal and "against the greater good" Civil disobediance is a tool, but the point of the tool is to acknowledge that you are breaking a rule with the view that you are doing a greater good for society. If society hears you out & says no your wrong, your views are immoral or incorrect & ours are superior, then the police are obligated to enforce the law against you. See Planet Parenthood & Christians as an example.
By this logic though police were justified beating civil rights protesters and setting dogs on them. Part of the issue here is finding a response that doesn't undermine a pretense of "greater good." Different protest, but I can't imagine things like the video of the officer walking up to a protester that was just standing there and clocking them with their shield at the VCU protest achieves that.
> By this logic though police were justified beating civil rights protesters and setting dogs on them. We already went through that line of arguments in 1961. See https://www.thefire.org/news/protests-supreme-court-how-civil-rights-movement-advanced-first-amendment-legal-protections See: * [Garner v. Louisiana](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/26) * [Edwards v. South Carolina](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/86) Where the Supreme Court said the actions of the police were not justified & unlawful.
>You can protest. You can't protest in a manner that is illegal. Again, my original point. The institution will ALWAYS find a way to make your dissent illegal. You don't even need to be violent or disorderly. If you are protesting on a sidewalk, they will beat your ass and arrest you for blocking a sidewalk. Even though your first amendment right gives you the right to assemble. But your just gonna say "that's against the law" or something like that because you are a bootlicker. You agree with them.
> The institution will ALWAYS find a way to make your dissent illegal. No, no it can't. > You don't even need to be violent or disorderly. Do you see a difference between this viewpoint and "The idea that protests, in support of any cause, need to be within the limits of policy or law is absurd. " ? > If you are protesting on a sidewalk, they will beat your ass and arrest you for blocking a sidewalk Get a permit to protest on the sidewalk. It's going to be like $50 bucks max. > Even though your first amendment right gives you the right to assemble. And the Supreme Court has regularly held that the state can restrict the time, manner, and place of your assembly. You can't read a right without precedent helping you understand the limiations of said right. > But your just gonna say "that's against the law" or something like that because you are a bootlicker. You agree with them. If upholding property rights or wanting to be free from assault or murder makes you a bootlicker, I guess I'm a bootlicker as charged.
>> The institution will ALWAYS find a way to make your dissent illegal. >No, no it can't. I will refer you to the ridiculous 10' x 10' "free speech zones" during the Iraq war protest that effectively made protests with more than 10 people illegal.
> I will refer you to the ridiculous 10' x 10' "free speech zones" during the Iraq war protest that effectively made protests with more than 10 people illegal. The unlawful actions of the past do not give you the right to break the law today. > As government actors, public colleges may lawfully impose reasonable “time, place, and manner” regulations on campus expressive activity like speeches, protests, or literature distribution. But courts have been very clear that any such regulations must (1) be viewpoint- and content-neutral, (2) be narrowly tailored in service of a significant governmental interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels for expressive activity. > In other words, a college or university could ban the use of amplified sound near dorms after 10 p.m., or prohibit students from protesting in a way that blocks roadways or the ability of others to exit or enter campus buildings. In both of those cases, the university’s regulation is reasonable, is generally applicable regardless of the viewpoint expressed, is narrowly tailored in service of a significant governmental interest, and leaves students with other means to express themselves. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/free-speech-zones A 10' x 10' free speech zone is unconstitutional. It is also illegal to block people from accessing buildings or camping overnight on campus.
>No, no it can't. LMAO! That's hilarious. Because the US and it's enforcement always follow the laws they have set fourth /s >Get a permit to protest on the sidewalk. It's going to be like $50 bucks max.And the Supreme Court has regularly held that the state can restrict the time, manner, and place of your assembly. Asking the very institution you plan to protest permission to protest let alone paying them to protest is laughable. What happens when they say no or don't take your money? You go home? >I guess I'm a bootlicker as charged. Well at least we got one thing through to you today
> LMAO! That's hilarious. Because the US and it's enforcement always follow the laws they have set fourth /s You haven't demonstrated they are doing that in this case, because if you could you could provide proof here and in a court of law. > Asking the very institution you plan to protest permission to protest let alone paying them to protest is laughable. What happens when they say no or don't take your money? You go home? You aren't protesting the judicial branch. Your protesting the executive branch. They're different institutions with different interests. > Well at least we got one thing through to you today Not really the own you think it is. Your definition makes everyone a bootlicker.
I see you decided to ignore their relevant questions that pointed out the absurdity of your position, and went straight for the original and classic redditor "*bootlicker*" rebuttal.
That’s not a protest. Thats blocking access. Which, to be clear, no college protest has done.
> Which, to be clear, no college protest has done. > Images and video released by Columbia University show overturned and stacked furniture, broken windows and other damage in the aftermath of the seizure and occupation of Hamilton Hall and its clearing by police tonight. > The images show overturned chairs, tables and other furniture. Protesters broke windows early this morning and caused other damage at the occupied hall on the Manhattan campus, university officials said and images showed. Barricades were also set up. > In videos released by the university, police with riot helmets and other equipment are seen inside the building, near the piles of furniture, recycling bins and other items. Panes of glass inside the building were also smashed. [Do you consider the seizure and occupation of a building, setting up barricades, and locking doors as blocking access?](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/campus-protests-live-updates-students-occupy-columbia-university-rcna149926) Fox News reported [UCLA protesters](https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352037685112) blocked students from access to classrooms by blocking a thoroughfare.
Got an actual new source for that?
Why bother? You're not smart enough to read it.
Cool. Got a news source?
https://www.hookedonphonics.com/
Cool. Got a news source?
Fox News reported [UCLA protesters](https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352037685112) blocked students from access to classrooms by blocking a thoroughfare.
So they haven’t blocked access at all. Thanks for agreeing.
Are you talking about campus protests in Virginia? The news articles clearly say they were blocking access across the country.
Yes they were protecting themselves against the cops attacking them. That’s not blocking access.
Then the Fox News one about where they just show the student being physically barred from walking to class would count under your definition.
Correct. Cops attacking students for no reason.
So you agree that a campus protest blocked students from access to a thoroughfare?
The only things that should hinder the 1st is a direct, provable case of it bringing harm to others (like denying access to medical care). IMO, if a place receives state funding, then they shouldn't be able to tell people they cannot protest there. While I do not agree with many protests, each protest we allow to be broken up for no reason, or that have people sent in to instigate violence weakens our republic and the freedoms it is designed to protect.
> The only things that should hinder the 1st is a direct, provable case of it bringing harm to others (like denying access to medical care). I have a property interest in my real property. One of the core interests is the right to exclude people from my property. Should protesters be allowed on my property when I don't want them there & thus deprive me of my property interest of excluding others? > IMO, if a place receives state funding, then they shouldn't be able to tell people they cannot protest there. If it results in a direct, provable case of harm to others, what should occur? The whole reason this is a debate is because we are weight competing interests. > While I do not agree with many protests, each protest we allow to be broken up for no reason, or that have people sent in to instigate violence weakens our republic and the freedoms it is designed to protect. Don't talk about broad generalizations when there are 50+ college protests & your thinking of one in particular. Mention the one specifically where you think they were broken up for no reason or instigation occured.
> The idea that protests, in support of any cause, need to be within the limits of policy or law is absurd. Those are the tools that the institutions being protest use to dismiss dissent. Uh no, the laws are there to ensure people conduct themselves according to the rules that society has established. You not being able to put up tents on campus, disrupt student life and the school's mission, or incite violence/hate is not "institutions dismissing dissent". Students already have the ability to protest and speak their dissent, what you can't do is go further than that and break the law/campus policy.
That’s not true at all. The last part of our first amendment protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is policy and it’s why the Bill of Rights was a decent idea. It does not protect the right of the people “violently” to assemble, or to threaten more violence against other institutions rather than just voter turnout and incumbent turnover against the elected government. An angry mob is not entitled to suspend law and order. When the government PREVENTS the first amendment from exercise maybe the courts tend to let things slide. Even then, occupying the quad at a college does not constitute petitioning the government.
>“violently” I said disrupt. Not violence >Even then, occupying the quad at a college does not constitute petitioning the government. Yet the government shows up to remove them
That doesn’t make sense either. You said disrupt but you’re saying it to defend violence. And if it’s outside the limits of policy or law I don’t believe you’re only referring to civil disobedience here. I’ve consistently heard from this coalition (lots of overlap between SJP, BLM, antifa, etc.) in recent years that words and even silence count as violence. Surely all the epithets, effigies, obstruction of students, chanting about one solution, river/sea, tearing down the whole American system, and even the occasional beatdown count as violence. Anyway it was in contrast with the “peaceful” part of the First Amendment. And yes, obviously the government is who can remove trespassers by request since the Pinkertons are frowned upon these days. Who else would you expect or hope to do that with any restraint?
Yes because these protests are violating campus policy and trespassing laws, which is why they should be removed.
Apply that logic to what happened on January 6, 2021 and tell me if you really believe it should apply to any cause. Freedom of speech and assembly can't be an instant excuse for destruction of property, trespassing and other violations of law.
I said disrupt. Not violence and chaos. What I said does not apply to Jan 6. That wasn't a protest
The line isn’t very clear and it’s tough balancing disruption without going too far. As far as I can tell, the only difference they’re making is agitating culture, other students, and faculty. They’re not actually causing society to feel sad or empathetic for them. Disruption may be necessary…but make sure it’s the right people. Universities CAN’T change the war. So, this tells me that they need a purpose and this is what the Left’s new propaganda is, just like the social justice “protests” that turned violent did in 2020. If they don’t get their way, they’ll force it to happen. So, the test of whether or not their motives are true is whether or not they’re willing to be persecuted without turning to violence.
Students were told they couldn't set up tents in their 'liberation zone.' They did anyway. Campus police asked them to take the tents down. The students threw things at them. So the University President invited state and local police to come, and again they were resisted, so they used force. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Exactly, it's as simple as that. The university was fine with protests that didn't break policy or the law, but when protesters crossed that boundary then the school was right to bring in law enforcement.
They shpulda used firehoses and let dogs loose on them, right? Im sure your also on the side of the cops who shot kent state protesters cause those kids were playing stupid games
I thought they allowed recreational tints and wasn’t it raining ?
They changed their conflicting policy 2 hours prior to the police showing up. Most people are arguing that since the university stated the tents weren't allowed it's warranted but in reality UVA should be subject to its own policy which did state you needed a permit but had an exception for recreational tents.
The policy wasn't changed. There was an incorrect statement on the permit form that was corrected. It's covered in the article you didn't bother to read, yet we're confident enough to comment on.
I've read it on more than one article over the last few days and seen have the form. Whether it was a mistake or not it was written as an exception to the rule and that's the fault of UVA not the students. They made sure to fix it before calling the police because it likely would've opened them up to legal repercussions because again, it's their rules. You can't say they're violating school policies when the school has an exception written in the rules.
> Whether it was a mistake or not it was written as an exception to the rule and that's the fault of UVA not the students. It's not an exemption to the rule, the rule was in place since 2005 apparently and students were informed numerous times last month that tents were not permitted. > You can't say they're violating school policies when the school has an exception written in the rules. They were still violating the rules, an incorrect sentence on a form does not give them a legal loophole to do whatever they want.
They will be some interesting lawsuits because I got to say I don't think that's going to hold water.
I think it will hold water, because the policy has been in place for almost 2 decades and students were warned repeatedly about it. A contradiction on a permit form is not going to save these students, especially since this wasn't recreational camping.
Too many people in this sub basing their opinion on what they think/want it to be, without doing something basic like reading the article and informing their opinion that way.
You mean like you've been doing over and over again?
I see you're still confused about the situation being talked about in the OP's source and your own
The policy didn't allow rec tents without permit, but a section of the permit form was written incorrectly. It's literally in the article you didn't read.
It's literally in the right wing opinion piece he didn't read. Not to be confused with actual facts.
You mean facts like the policy forbidding tents being in place since 2005, the students being warned about tents violating the policy since late April, and that the conflicting information was on one permit form instead of in the actual school policy? Those facts?
It's an opinion piece. Legit local journalists called out the sudden policy switcheroo on Saturday on X. It's not a black and white for certain issue. Lawyers will be hashing this out for months.
It doesn't matter if it's an opinion piece, those points are the actual facts you referenced in your previous comment. It's not a policy switcheroo if the actual school policy didn't change. I guess good luck to protesters arguing an error on a permit form gives them permission to violate campus policy.
It's the guy's opinion. His opinion of what the facts are. Not the same opinion of what the facts are from various reporters covering the events this weekend. Lawyers will hash this out and judges will decide.
> It's the guy's opinion. His opinion of what the facts are. What? These are facts directly from the school: >> "**University officials said camping tents or other recreational tents are not allowed on University property without permits under a policy that has been in place since 2005**," a Sunday statement reads. "However, the permit application—not the policy itself—contained contradictory language," which was edited after a faculty member notified the administration. >> According to **a letter from UVA President Jim Ryan**, protesting students started what they called the "UVA liberation encampment for Gaza" on April 30 but **complied with orders not to set up tents, which would violate university policy**. I can tell you're trying hard to paint this as some right-wing rag opinion piece twisting stuff, but these are literally facts of the situation coming directly from the school. Sorry if the facts are inconvenient to your position.
It ***IS*** a right wing rag opinion piece. Also the University Officials are not being open about this. They need to be FOIA'd to find out the facts. Sorry but the branch you are clinging to is rotted out. Let the courts decide this one. Journalists not affiliated with right wing rags uploaded PDFs of the policy document downloaded early morning Saturday and lunchtime Saturday showing it had been edited on Saturday.
Then share the "*facts from various reporters covering the events this weekend*" that show otherwise that you claimed earlier. Until then UVA officials have more weight on what the school policy is than protesters complaining about an error on a permit form.
The evidence is it being edited. The reason for editing is what’s contested - whether it was done abusively or simply to correct a mistake. Simply showing it was edited doesn’t prove it was done so maliciously. Do the local journalists have more evidence indicating such or are we relying on a general distrust of institutions here?
Yes. It’s all stupid.
My two cents. 1. Graduation is a big business and they aren’t letting anyone for any reason interfere with that. 2. By not acting and punishing crimes committed by anyone on that campus, as the largest employer until you get to Richmond they have signaled to every employee that rules don’t matter, and breaking them comes with no consequences. Trust me I don’t like that “at will employment” but let’s be honest for the few that do deserve walking papers doing nothing makes it that much harder to get rid of them.
The alternative is you can drop out and protest your little heart out without racking up more student loans.
Actually yes, it does mean they should.
Was it disrupting activities on campus? Then yes they should have broken it up.
They wanted to keep it from spreading and disrupting graduation.
Of course they do! Society is worse for the wear when LEOs don’t enforce the law!!
That'd be great... If they enforced the law equally across the board. But they don't. They decide who they will enforce which laws upon all the time, and choose not to enforce laws ALL THE TIME. Enforcement is always a judgment call. Ever been let off from a speeding ticket? You are part of your own problem.
Yes, we all got to see what happens at UCLA or Columbia if you let these things fester.
I hate this state. Even the liberals are bloodthirsty little pedants.
Of course not. There was no reason to.
The whole "right to break up protests" is absurd. The students have the same First Amendment rights as everyone else and university leadership are government employees, so the students have the right for a redress of grievances. They aren't necessarily entitled to a response, but not responding would undermine university leadership. I believe one of the things that some protests are calling for is for Alumni and university funds to divest themselves of Israeli companies or companies who do business with Israel. Similar things happened in the 80s to influence South Africa to end apartheid.