@TonyStark You're welcome. It is a sensible reminder of the importance of free speech, even when we don't like it, while providing guidelines to ensure safety and where free speech ends and prohibited speech begins.
@MJ I’m not sure where people lost the plot on “your rights stop where they interfere with mine” but I’m very tired of the hypocrisy. It’s one or the other, not just on stuff you agree with.
@TonyStark@MJ
Have you seen what the "protesters" have done to Humboldt CalPoly campus? The poor majority of students there that were just trying to finish out their college experience differently than they started during the pandemic now have their campus closed down just because of a few clowns that think it's their way or the highway.
One description of the riotous protesters' demands about U.S. military decisions that I've not heard is how poor policy it would be for mob rule to drive it.
@GreenFire@MJ Yeah, I’ve seen it, unfortunately. I also have seen a lot of callous remarks like “well, who cares about a graduation because people are suffering in Gaza?”
Well, of course they are. And it’s terrible. And nobody is denying that. But I thought we all learned caring isn’t a pie or a contest. And a graduation is important. I was the first person in my family to get into a really good school and graduate. It was an important moment in my life and for my family.
@GreenFire@TonyStark@MJ The protesters didn't have the power to close the campus. The administrators are the ones who closed it. Blame the perpetrators of the closure, not the victims.
Most sit-ins are intended to be civil disobedience and those participating certainly should know that they will be subject to arrest and usually are arrested. That's generally the point.
I know nothing of the specific event you appear to be discussing, but if it entails civil disobedience, including blocking use of or access to university facilities, and they got arrested, it would imply they got what they wanted.
@joeinwynnewood@CurtAdams@TonyStark@MJ
I've seen videos of even professors acting like the protesters are above-the-law and there are certainly tons of social media posters that don't think that civil disobedience carries the risk of consequences:
@TonyStark These are great general principles when everyone is behaving well, which has been the case in many places where police swooped in unnecessarily. But what do you with the Columbia encampment physically removing "Zionists" from the public spaces? How about building or office occupations? How do you remove outside protesters (or do you)? Are Hamas flags threatening speech? Bringing in cops in riot gear is obviously wrong, but what is the right way for an administration to handle this?
@richard_merren The piece literally explains this and I’m just gonna start blocking whoever replies to me and doesn’t read it. I’m too busy for mindless nonsense.
@richard_merren Anyone and everyone on this platform knows what I support. It’s utter bullshit for people to show up here and assume I or the ACLU are promoting Hamas.
@TonyStark@richard_merren haha, I think literally every one of these replies being like "what if..." just flat out didn't read the article and are arguing with you to find out what it said.
@mhanson101@TonyStark Did you read the article. I did. I read it a second time before I replied again. This topic is impossible to discuss. People assume that every attempt to discuss is a secret plan to trick you somehow. It is ridiculous. If you don't like my question, or think it is beneath you, or you think it is some kind of sinister plan, thendon't answer it. But I honestly don't see how you get an accusation of pro-hamas sympathies out of my post or see it as any kind of attack on you.
@richard_merren@mhanson101 If it’s “impossible to discuss” don’t discuss it then. Magically, you can scroll by.
I don’t agree with most of what’s going on. I’ve been super clear about it. But disallowing what you don’t agree with is how we see Matisyahu being canceled and fearing what might happen is how we see Holocaust memorials being covered up.
The ACLU generally stands for all people, and some people hate them for it. Generally the right but you do you.
@TonyStark@mhanson101 Check your assumptions.. I have been a supporters the ACLU for decades. When George Bush (the older one) started complaining about "card-carrying ACLU members", I demanded that they send me a card I could carry. I know you hear a lot of crap from people here, but stop making up and arguing against crap that you are not hearing from me.
@richard_merren@mhanson101 I have things to do like take my kid to softball and walk my dog and go to an Earth Day event so you can keep blathering but it’ll be to yourself. This is a very clear and easy statement from them that you’re simply refusing to try and get. Because you didn’t read it in the first place and now like so many on social media, you want to die on a hill. Enjoy.
@TonyStark@mhanson101 This is just such a wrong assessment of what happened here, but you can't see through anger. I didn't disagree with you, didn't challenge the article, and didn't express any support for police on campus. I don't know what you're digging in about but I'm tired of the insults and the randos piling on with invitations to fuck myself. I still honestly have no idea why my post set you off, but I really don't care anymore. Go be pissed off about something else.
@richard_merren I left this thread 3 hours ago. And now you said something really awful to a moderator and minimized them. Something is seriously wrong with you.
@mhanson101@TonyStark And you get folks like mhanson who are just excited to have an opportunity to dunk on people when they see what looks like a conflict brewing.
@richard_merren@TonyStark the example you brought up is something that was specifically addressed in the article. If an individual is targeted, that goes beyond general protest.
@mhanson101@TonyStark And do your condescending lessons in reading comprehension extend to answering the asked question of what administrators should do in that case (which is not a "what if" as you rudely and falsely tossed out in your comment, but an actual thing on video from Columbia)? Sending in riot cops is bad all around. So what more surgical tools do they have to stop that bad behavior without infringing on the rest of the protest? This is what I didn't see in the ACLU article.
@richard_merren@mhanson101 I’m not sure which thing on video you mean as there’s been a few but the ones I’m aware of, the students were arrested and expelled from school. That’s the “last resort” part.
@TonyStark@mhanson101 There is a video of students linking arms and chanting that zionists have entered the camp and physically forcing them out in an advancing line. There are lots of instances of students being denied access to buildings. There have been plenty of examples of occupied offices and buildings. (Yes, there are also tons of videos and testimonials of respectful, peaceful behavior.)
When administrators set the sensible policies in the ACLU letter, what are the enforcement tools?
@TonyStark@mhanson101 i don't want the students arrested and expelled for everything, both because that is an over-the-top response, and because theirnar,their are, presence creates dangers and inflames the situation. I agree with the ACLU piece you posted. The police action here at UT was ridiculous and dangerous. But after setting reasonable rules, what are reasonable measures that universities have to address behavior in progress outside of these reasonable rules?
@richard_merren@mhanson101 I’m asking nicely that you actually read it. The campus can act to disperse things like this and then if it doesn’t work, go to the last resort of calling for assistance. Physical intimidation is strictly out.
@TonyStark@mhanson101 Again, I read it and am discussing what was omitted. How do they disperse? Do they come to the camps and just say "please disperse"? Because that is obviously being done and not terribly effective. What is the mechanism by which they disperse students as in your excerpt? I genuinely do not know the answer, and it is clear that the university administrators have no clue how to do this. The ACLU, while great, offers no suggestion on how to do this.
@richard_merren@mhanson101 There’s not a cut and dried solution and it will take time. Now you’re just moving the goalposts though which makes is impossible to talk with you.
@richard_merren@TonyStark is your question based on the premise that you either use riot police to indiscriminately target peaceful protestors and bad actors alike or doing nothing? I'm really confused what you are asking.
You can make sure that bad actors are removed and allow peaceful protestors to continue protesting. The article is about what should happen, and criticizing what is happening. Poor decisions are what led to the article being written.
@mhanson101@TonyStark As I said, but you are not hearing, I agree with the article. I am asking what universities can do other than call police, expel, or ignore. How are bad actors removed. The article (rightly, I have to say to you YET AGAIN) says not to use riot police, but doesn't offer suggestions on what is a good way to proceed. Obviously these administrators need public advice on how to nonviolently enforce rules, but he ACLU offered no advice and I don't know what to tell them. Do you?
@richard_merren@mhanson101 The article doesn’t say that. It says “last resort” not never. I feel like I have no choice left but to block you. I hate it but you’re resolutely misrepresenting it.
@TonyStark It does seem reasonable, or at least internally consistent. On the other hand, it seems like a rejection of the basis of almost any campus speech code, which I think most of us would agree would be too sweeping. It’s hard to imagine learning in an environment of harrasment and intimidation.
@TonyStark No, I read the whole thing. If one isn’t pursued “individually,” it says, then there is only “untargeted speech,” which under almost no circumstances crosses the line the ACLU sets out:
“The only exception for such untargeted speech is where it is so severe or pervasive that it denies students equal access to an education — an extremely demanding standard that has almost never been met by pure speech.”
@desafinado Later on it literally spells out that interfering with education and freedom of movement is not allowed. Not debating you if you refuse to take it in.
@TonyStark The problem here, as I see it, is that we all belong to various categories of human. Either euphemistically or explicitly, one may call for the killing, expulsion, or persecution of this or that category in general without making it personal, so to speak - but to everyone in that category, it’s definitely personal. It’s not “untargeted” just because it applies to more than one person.
@TonyStark I get that the ACLU is standing in the mainstream of first amendment jurisprudence, here. But I just don’t think the issue is quite so straightforward as they make it out to be. YMMV.
@TonyStark I think that there is some place for campus speech codes and that too absolutist a take on freedom of speech tends to exclude that place. Any clearer?
Add comment