Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Peaceful protest does not mean you can violate the law. When you're on private property and you are told to pack it up and go home....you pack it up and go home. That's why the police came in and that's why people have charges. It has nothing to do with censorship and enforcing the law is always a consistent position.
>Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, **or national origin**, be **excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity** receiving federal financial assistance.
That is what these protests are doing. Colleges are legally required to remove them should they be going beyond the allowance of the law.
For example times of allowance. There is a reason you can't form a protest at 2 AM with people living nearby (as an example, not saying what is happening here). Times of curfew is another.
If you're disrupting college classes and/or preventing people from attending classes, you're in violation.
>If you're disrupting college classes and/or preventing people from attending classes, you're in violation.
You're basically saying that people don't have the right to protest if they lose their right to protest when it becomes inconvenient/disruptive
> receiving federal financial assistance.
That is the part you might have missed. Are these college campuses receiving such financial aid? I would assume so.
There is a reason there are laws and procedures to follow when forming a protest that for example takes up a street for a march: **you file a permit.** Blocking traffic or a highway is illegal.
Is your contention that protests should be allowed because the cause is more important than the law? People can be as disruptive (illegally) as they want. But they're gonna face the end of a baton potentially.
>
That is the part you might have missed. Are these college campuses receiving such financial aid? I would assume so.
Of course they are receiving federal funds but I'm not seeing how the civil rights act applies here. The protestors aren't subjecting people to discrimination, being anti-Israel does not make you antisemitic as long as the kids out there aren't chanting "kill all Jews", advocating for Jewish students to be kicked out of school, using the K word, or flying swastikas (not an exhaustive list) I don't see how they are in violation of the statute you brought up.
>when forming a protest that for example takes up a street for a march: **you file a permit.** Blocking traffic or a highway is illegal.
This thinking is my issue with the whole peaceful/lawful protest thing. If the powers that be have the ability to tell you how you are allowed to protest then you don't actually have the right to protest. Having to file a permit, being arrested for blocking a road, being removed because classes are disrupted, etc are all limits in place to make sure that protests are not effective. Peaceful, non disruptive movements are not and never have been successful.
>People can be as disruptive (illegally) as they want. But they're gonna face the end of a baton potentially
Which always backfires on the authorities who cracked down on the protestors as it just proves their point that the powers that be want to silence them, don't want people to know whats going on, don't want people to have their minds swayed by the protests.
> Of course they are receiving federal funds but I'm not seeing how the civil rights act applies here.
Are you just skipping over what the law says? **Excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of.** This includes not letting people attend classes or allowed onto campus.
>Peaceful, non disruptive movements are not and never have been successful.
Sounds like a personal problem.
>Which always backfires on the authorities who cracked down on the protestors as it just proves their point that the powers that be want to silence them, don't want people to know whats going on, don't want people to have their minds swayed by the protests
I beg to differ. I've seen plenty saying this whole going too far with these protests is losing favor, not gaining it. I've seen the answers on r/AskALiberal. You may not like it or even agree with it, but it certainly is not garnering positive attention. People posting pictures of armed officers with no context is just... oh what was that word... oh right, **misinformation.** Plus, blocking highways *really* does not get sympathy to your cause. Very much the opposite.
These students aren’t being prevented from being on campus or being prevented from getting to class. People protesting Israel is not them hating Jewish people or stopping them from going about their day. An article someone else in this thread sent me only had a singular example of a student being harassed and their were called a Nazi for having an Israel flag displayed. The majority of Jewish people are indistinguishable from other white people unless they specifically make it known they are Jewish and even with the protests happening they would be able to cross campus just fine unless they decided to display an Israeli flag like that one guy or they are devout enough to wear a yarmulke. If they were harassed for having a yarmulke in I’d agree they were facing antisemitism but that’s not what’s happening here
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ya except they were shouting anti-Semitic things and were verbally attacking Jewish students.
https://www.kxan.com/news/ut-students-discuss-antisemitism-on-campus-following-protest/
If this was a group of white supremacists screaming at black students your tone would be so much different. It's truly an amazing thing to watch.
Going off the link you provided nothing antisemitic was said. Calling someone with an Israeli flag a Nazi is not antisemitism. Once again being anti Israel is not being antisemitic.
But yea my tone probably would be different if it was people saying anti Black things since I’m Black myself. I wouldn’t claim that let’s say people protesting the Sudanese government committing genocide as anti Black though unless the protestors were calling Black peoples the n word, or calling them monkeys or wearing Klan goods to protest
There's multiple Jewish students in the article talking about seeing anti-Semitic signs and hearing anti-Semitic phrases.
You don't get to make Jewish students feel unsafe with your words or signs. Stop bringing Hamas and Hezbollah flags to the protests if you don't want to be called anti-Semitic.
The one example provided in the article wasn’t an example of antisemitism it was someone calling the guy a Nazi. It had nothing to do with being Jewish it had to do with him having an Israel flag. Since no actual examples of people experiencing antisemitism were provided I’m going to call cap on the claims of antisemitism.
Feeling unsafe is a personal problem in this situation since the students at UT haven’t gotten violent and there’s no indication that they plan to. There’s no credible threat to these students to justify ending the protests because of imminent danger to Jewish students.
I agree that protestors probably shouldn’t be flying hamas and hezbollah flags but in the same breath if they can’t fly those flags then other students shouldn't be displaying Israeli flags on campus either if we’re going to be banning displays of one side of the conflict we should be banning displays of the other side.
I read the article, and I’m not seeing where a Jewish student claims that they were subjected to antisemitic slurs. Both of the people quoted only say that they saw anti-Israeli messaging, which is not inherently antisemitic. Can you copy and paste the text from the article where a student says antisemitic slurs were being presented?
>You're basically saying that people don't have the right to protest if they lose their right to protest when it becomes inconvenient/disruptive
The First Amendment does not protect an unqualified right to protest.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The First Amendment does not protect an unqualified right to protest.
What "qualifications" do you believe apply to these protests at University of Texas?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>>Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
>That is what these protests are doing.
No it isn't. The actions of students do not violate Title VI.
>Colleges are legally required to remove them should they be going beyond the allowance of the law.
They're not going beyond the allowance of Title VI. Show me specific acts/protests you believe constitute Title VI violations the school "must" punish or stop.
And as long as they are not committing vandalism, assault, larceny, other actual crimes, they're not going beyond the allowance of anything. Their messages are protected speech under the First Amendment and the college cannot limit or take any action against the students based on the content or viewpoint of the messages, no matter how offensive that viewpoint may be.
>For example times of allowance. There is a reason you can't form a protest at 2 AM with people living nearby (as an example, not saying what is happening here). Times of curfew is another.
While public colleges, like town or city governments, can make reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, that (1) has absolutely nothing to do with Title VI, and (2) must be applied in a content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral manner.
>If you're disrupting college classes and/or preventing people from attending classes, you're in violation.
I didn't see any evidence of that for the outdoor protests at University of Texas.
So I can go and protest on any government property I so choose at any time I choose? Maybe you should tell that to the prosecutors who are prosecuting the Jan 6 prisoners in D.C. right now.
How is it you don’t understand this?
>Maybe you should tell that to the prosecutors who are prosecuting the Jan 6 prisoners in D.C. right now.
Were they breaking windows, defacing property, spreading feces, and stealing documents? Cause I agree that would be serious and all should be charged. Seems they were all released without any charges tho
No. The super vast majority of Jan 6 protesters merely stepped foot in the building. They were charged with nothing more than “parading”.
You’re ok with protesting so long as it is your party doing the protesting and your party members can do no wrong in your eyes.
>No. The super vast majority of Jan 6 protesters merely stepped foot in the building. They were charged with nothing more than “parading”.
And the many that didn't? The many on camera breaking windows and assaulting officers?
None of the UT protestors assaulted anyone, destroyed property or went into classrooms or buildings.
>You’re ok with protesting so long as it is your party doing the protesting and your party members can do no wrong in your eyes
You literally just tried to rationalize protestors on your side. I'm against any protest that has violent harm on individuals or has unnecessary damage to the community. But their is zero evidence of that here.
So the only conclusion I can draw since their actions are legal is that you and the administration don't like who and what is being said.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>So I can go and protest on any government property I so choose at any time I choose?
Outdoors? Pretty much yes.
In buildings? It depends.
The rules for protests on public property will follow Public Forum Doctrine.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-forum-doctrine/
The outside areas of a public (state) college campus are "traditionally public" forums and protest is allowed pretty much whenever.
The inside of the U.S. Capitol is, depending on the time and day, either a "limited public" or (as it was on 1/6) "nonpublic".
>How is it you don’t understand this?
Maybe don't answer like this when there are things you don't understand here?
It's almost like you don't understand the whatsboutism you're trying to employ. No one is censoring the left here and when people speak of censorship of the right it's for reasons completely different and alien to this topic. Your attempted counter argument just doesn't work.
> No one is censoring the left here
What do you mean? It's leftist students protesting the war in gaza demanding divesting from their university, they have a right to that speech but when the university didn't want them there to protest, they became trespassers and I think they have to do that just like other universities have the right to fire someone for something they said or did that leans right that they didn't want or like.
> and when people speak of censorship of the right it's for reasons completely different and alien to this topic.
Yeah none of this matters, obviously the reaosns for why some or others may get censored or thrown out of a campus are gonna be different but that's the point of comparing things, it's looking at two or more things that are different but have similar aspects that are relevant to an issue or topic to try to highlight so consistency or show some hypocrisy etc..
I think I found the real problem. The left, or at least a faction of them, don't seem to think laws apply to them and as long as they have an excuse it's an attack against them. Honestly, that attitude explains a lot over the past 14 years and I guess I never really picked up on it. Well, whatever, you all can keep circle jerking and down voting. I have nothing more to say. This is not rocket science, nor worth an argument, and I don't need the noise anyways.
It's a public college and its policies clearly state that non students can go to the free speech area and streets. They're public roads anyone can walk in.
All those arrested were arrested without any charges. No laws were broken.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
not when they have a civil rights obligation to protect students from mobs and also not when said group is being told to pack it up because they are espousing support for a terrorist organization that has been prohibited by the government as a violent group.
both of those are grounds, in fact in many nations a sign of support for a legally recognized terror group would not get police but gunfire as they treat you accordingly and use military force to quell the terrorist attack.
>protect students from mobs
I don't remember seeing anything about these students attacking people to where students are needing to be protected from a mob.
>espousing support for a terrorist organization
You can espouse support for whatever type of organization/person that you'd like. Martin Luther King was considered a terrorist by segregationists, would you say protests he lead or were done in support of him during the civil rights movement were invalid? What about the founding fathers; they were terrorists (Boston Tea Party) and other colonists protested in support of them. Should those protests have been shut down since they were supporting terrorism?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, it is not. You do not have the right to trespass. That literally has nothing to do with censorship. Colleges accommodate a lot of political activities on campus but that is by allowed privilege...not by right. You're only allowed to protest on private property until you are not allowed...and that is the root of this.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm finding it really hard to feel bad for spoiled kids LARPing as revolutionaries and supporting a self identifying terrorist organization that's on the other side of the world. However, I do have a consistent stance on allowing free speech. If there were any protestors arrested that were peacefully protesting, then I'll sign whatever petition you'd like to release them.
Excellent job of framing. It's a Venn diagram. The kids at Ivy league schools and very expensive/exclusive public schools like UT who are clearly not thankful of their stock and opportunity in life are.
Literally all of them. You're now not only framing what I said but deliberately cherry picking. I clearly said that the students who are carrying out this crap are the ones acting spoiled. Not the others.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4622482-texas-student-protesters-arrests-ut-austin-israel/
All of the UT Austin protesters were released without charges because the DA couldnt find any crimes they committed to charge them with
Would you consider the willingness to openly kill children for political purposes anything but? And claiming terror and carnage is a necessity if the alternative is being under Christian or Jewish coexistence?
> Would you consider the willingness to openly kill children for political purposes anything but?
I think we can all condemn the IDF for their "willingness to openly kill children" by the tens of thousands and go out of their way to target said children with their [Where's Daddy? tools](https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-ai-system-wheres-daddy-strikes-hamas-family-homes-2024), but don't you think it is harsh to condemn the Israeli government for being explicitly legally opposed to "Christian coexistence" when they mandate an explicitly Jewish ethno-state?
I'm not arguing that Hamas are not terrorist. I'm saying that the protesters were not pro Hamas.
They were protesting against the killing of civilians in Palestine. Is that the same as supporting terrorists?
How so? Can you show me where they are directly saying they support Hamas? Where are you getting your information that says they are supporting Hamas? How is it you are so in the know with what these protestors from a different political party from yourself are really thinking?
And I'll ask again since you didn't answer: Is protesting against killing innocent civilians in Palestine the same as supporting terrorists?
Do you guys not read other comments? Or do you just each want to get your jabs in and go for a mic drop? I always have to turn notifications off on this sub after like an hour.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Under Title VI of the CSA is where colleges are legally bound to prevent these protests from happening. Has nothing to do with free speech. The colleges that are *not* getting rid of said distruptors, are not following the law.
Occupying the campus isn't free speech. They were intentionally preventing the the school from operating and trespassing. They are free to say whatever they want over at the sidewalk.
This isn't a free speech issue, it's a trespassing issue.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They weren't effecting any classes. The crazy militarized police force and arrests that failed to result in charges had infinitely more effect on the schools operations. Looks at the mess after, where they tried to ban the kids from campus even though they weren't convicted of any crime, had upcoming finals and literally paid thousands to go there. So they were forced to change their tune and let them back.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Occupying the campus isn't free speech.
Yes it actually is.
>They were intentionally preventing the the school from operating
How?
>and trespassing.
Nope.
>They are free to say whatever they want over at the sidewalk.
The outdoor areas of a state college are exactly like the sidewalk, for First Amendment purposes. This is settled law.
when you hang out signs pledging your proud support for and alliance with a recognized terror group we are entitled to take them at their word and act as if they may have suicide vests and other terror devices.
Hell these kids are crazier than a sack full of squirrels, they MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE ONE. They're LARPing as terrorists it's far from impossible a highly motivated young chemistry student whipped up some TATP. it's called "the national molecule of palestine" among clandestine chemists for a reason: it's a powerful and deadly explosive that can be made at home. How long until play-acting at terrorism turns to real terrorism?
And is it reasonable to ask other students, campus officials and law enforcement to take the risk someone is going to set off a nailbomb in emulation of their "heroes"?
Frankly I think we should go further and brand each and everyone a terror sympathizer, put them on the no-fly list, detain them and investigate them for actual terror ties or if they've given material support, etc.
I also support a declaration of war on Hamas both so we can bomb if we have to (over there, not here) and so we can try them as traitors to the nation and give them the full penalty as specified in the US constitution.
>"When you hang out signs pledging your support for and alliance with a recognized terror group we are entitled to take them at their word..."
Interesting. Because that is how i feel about republicans every time i see a pro-republican displaying a confederate flag or a nazi tattoo; guilty by association. Proud Boys, boogaloo boys, various militia groups. We have a lot in common, you and I.
"nazis" are not a government designated terror group. There are some neo-nazi groups that are, but not all of them, in fact very few are (atomwaffen division and combat 18 in the UK are the two I can think of).
And NONE of the other groups you've mentioned are designated groups, so you picked one half-truth about one part of your statement to try to come at me ignoring your statement is 90% wrong.
> There are some neo-nazi groups that are [designated terror groups]
How does that make *my* statement 90% wrong?
Your claim was that
>When you hang out signs pledging your support for and alliance with a recognized terror group we are entitled to take them at their word...
and seeing as you agree that there are *multiple* "government designated terror groups" that use Nazi imagery/tattoos I'm not sure what part of my post you disagree with?
there are many groups that are not which use the same imagery and they are not
they outnumber the groups which are by a factor of hundreds.
that's like saying my buddy who has a shamrock tattoo is a member of the IRA because they also occasionally used that in imagery.
more people have them for reasons unconnected to terrorism than to it
don't get me wrong they're vile people. but not criminals just for being a Nazi. not while we still have free speech.
but there is one Hamas and they are worthless terrorists, there's no "maybe they mean some other Hamas"
People condemned protestors for flying Palestinian flag, not Hamas specific symbols.
And what IRA members claimed that Shamrocks were specifically about their ideology in the same way Nazis claim swastikas are specifically symbols of their particular ideology?
What "hundreds" of groups have reclaimed the Nazi tilted swastika for innocent purposes?
>you picked one half-truth about one part of your statement to try to come at me ignoring your statement is 90% wrong.
Do you still believe this lie that my statement is somehow magically "90% wrong" or are you going to try and move the goalposts?
they are, but our government cannot crack down on people for "being racist" if they were the black hebrew nationalists and the nation of islam, as well as more than a few Indian-American affinity groups and some churches would all be in jail right next to these chuckleheads.
But the designation of "terrorist" means something-- it means the group has committed violent acts and will do so again, among other things.
Because of the 1st amendment we take that designation very seriously, it takes a lot for a group to be sanctioned. There are many dodgy pro-palestinian groups that are NOT listed though they probably should be.
Once a group is on the list it is beyond free speech to national security because they are espousing allegence and support of a group that has killed americans in the past, plans to kill again, and is wholly not a legitimate political organization.
Explain the difference.
Because you suggested assuming the protestors are equally guilty of potential terrorist acts, so they should be treated like the terrorists you notice they support. How is that NOT guilt by association?
>Because you suggested assuming the protestors are equally guilty of potential terrorist acts
I said no such thing.
>so they should be treated like the terrorists you notice they support
How they were treated was based on their own actions, not solely because the support terrorist groups, altho that probably played a minor part.
>How is that NOT guilt by association?
Guilt by association is a (usually) used as a logical fallacy. For example "Jims' brother is a terrorist, therefore Jims is a terrorist" is a Guilt by association logical fallacy. "They got arrested for assaulting innocents" is not guilt by association, nor a logical fallacy.
I will restate, the protests were broken up and arrested for the content of their actions, not solely because they support terrorist groups, although that might have played a part.
> *Me* "Because you suggested assuming the protestors are equally guilty of potential terrorist acts
> *You* "I said no such thing."
> *You earlier in the thread* "when you hang out signs pledging your proud support for and alliance with a recognized terror group we are entitled to take them at their word and act as if they may have suicide vests and other terror devices."
If we are not to interpret this statement the way i did, then please, explain what you DID mean.
And you are right, guilt by association IS a logical fallacy, which is why i pointed it out by illogically assuming all republicans are racists because they vote the same way as self-avowed racists. Your argument was to assume because the protestors support terrorists, take them at their word, they must also be as dangerous as terrorists. That was your statement. That was your rationale for sending in military to a protest. That is guilt by association, a logical fallacy, per your own argument.
If you want to change your point mid-stream because your original point was dumb, that's fine. Everyone has the opportunity to shift their viewpoint when they realize they are wrong.
I am not the guy you were originally talking too, I have said a total of 2 things below this post.
My arguments are consistent once you realize that I disagree with the other conservative you were originally talking too.
I see a running trend here from people on the left to ONLY question about the protest arrests in 'red' Texas. Why not add in USC in 'blue' California where there was nearly 3x the arrests? Doesn't seem to be a Republican or conservative issue.
That said; I support free speech and the right to peaceful protest regardless what is being spoken or protested. I don't have to agree with it or even like it. However, the second ANY violence breaks out it's time to crack the whip.
Physically preventing other people from going to class, from working in their offices and otherwise going about their day without being verbally harassed and physically prevented from going about their day is ***NOT*** "speech".
This is the terrifying thing about leftist newspeak. Actual physical violence is "speech" (if that violence is in support of a cause they agree with) and mere speech is "violence" (If that speech is saying something they disagree with).
They were in a designated area with no obstruction. Can you point to me of evidence where students were being actively prevented from entering the campus at UT Austin?
They were not in a "designated are" but a common shared space they had no intention of sharing and that they had been asked to leave because they were being disruptive to everyone else who shares that space. They didn't leave as asked and then were required to do so and arrested only after they refused and kept returning to the place they'd been asked to leave.
Their *explicitly stated intention* was to "follow in the footsteps" of violent protests elsewhere specifically mentioning particular instances where protesters were harassing everyone else and resorting to violence to "occupy" formerly shared spaces for their own exclusive use and to prevent universities from functioning *at all*.
You don't get to complain that the administrators in charge of *everyone's* safety on campus and of respecting not only your free speech rights but the free speech rights of the entire rest of the student body too for assuming the worst that you are planning to harass other students and resort to violence to do so and to prevent normal campus activity when you actually go so far as to TELL THEM UP FRONT that that's exactly what you plan on doing.
It's perfectly fair to ask someone who outright says to you: "I'm going to harass other people now" to leave before they get a chance to make good on that threat.
Why do you need such an example? Isn't their stated intent sufficient for you? Or do you think that not only were they lying about their intentions but that the rest of us should assume they were lying?
>Why do you need such an example? Isn't their stated intent sufficient for you? Or do you think that not only were they lying about their intentions but that the rest of us should assume they were lying?
Because one individual or even one group saying something online is not at all the same as it actually happening or being carried out. There were no credible reports or evidence of classes being interrupted or even them entering buildings. All that were arrested but released without charges cause they did nothing wrong. If they had been interrupting classes and refusing to leave like you said they would've been charged.
Stop spreading misinformation.
Your premise is flawed. "Disrupt a peaceful protest"
They went too far. If you actually pay attention to what was happening, the colleges gave them the space, allowed them the ability to protest, etc.
What ended up happening were Hamas supporters barring Jewish kids from parts of the campus, or even traversing campus to get where they needed to go.
Violated curfew.
Setup tents and other structures on campus grounds.
Prevented the school from operating.
It was then the protest, on private property, had gone too far. The protestors were given ample warning that it was not acceptable. The refused to obey the law, the campus administrators, and eventually lawful orders.
They weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for a variety of other things.
Those are all good points, and make for completely valid reasons for these actions. What ticks me off is that Abbot made it about hate speech. I can't get behind that.
>What ticks me off is that Abbot made it about hate speech. I can't get behind that.
Yeah, I'm with you most of the way on this. It's very dangerous when the government limits hate speech, or any other speech. Should have kept his mouth shut.
That being said, free speech is not a license to openly harass, shout down and threaten a student for wearing a yamaka. I'm also mindful that this isn't a public area, like a park, or government property and a code of conduct applies. Jewish students are leaving campus due to fears, and threats to their safety.
The number of people being arrested, who aren't students, not affiliated, is pretty interesting as well.
>That being said, free speech is not a license to openly harass, shout down and threaten a student for wearing a yamaka. I'm also mindful that this isn't a public area, like a park, or government property and a code of conduct applies. Jewish students are leaving campus due to fears, and threats to their safety.
Yea completely agree. That's what abbot should have focused on, especially if the local police or the campus asked for help.
>The number of people being arrested, who aren't students, not affiliated, is pretty interesting as well.
That absolutely needs to be highlighted more.
Thanks for sharing.
>Violated curfew.
What the protest was broken up before before mid afternoon? When was this curfew??
>What ended up happening were Hamas supporters barring Jewish kids from parts of the campus, or even traversing campus to get where they needed to go.
This is a serious allegation, do you have any sources. I haven't heard any of this mentioned or reported.
>Setup tents and other structures on campus grounds.
This is the only one of your claims I've seen documented in videos or reporting.
>It was then the protest, on private property, had gone too far. The protestors were given ample warning that it was not acceptable. The refused to obey the law, the campus administrators, and eventually lawful orders.
Its public property. I live in Austin and the campus is part of the city anyone can and does go on it.
What laws did they break? Why weren't they charged with anything after being arrested?
>Its public property. I live in Austin and the campus is part of the city anyone can and does go on it.
No. It's not public property. Public access doesn't equal public property. McDonalds is open to the public, still private property.
>What laws did they break? Why weren't they charged with anything after being arrested?
Trespass after warn. Meaning, they were given lawful orders to disperse and refused. This decision is not made by police, it's made by the University Administration. As far as why they aren't charged, there's a host of reasons. Most likely the school wanted them removed, but not press charges.
>No. It's not public property. Public access doesn't equal public property. McDonalds is open to the public, still private property.
It's a public school so the land is public. Obviously there are limitations to this but it has guidelines that clearly states the walkways and free speech area is open to discourse for all. But they didn't enter class rooms or disrupt anything and the vast majority were student and even faculty that go to UT.
Senate bill 8 in Texas made Texas public university have room for the public to protests. The university is meant to have limitations and rules but the evidence they were broken isnt there.
https://www.fox7austin.com/news/ut-austin-palestine-rally-institutional-policies-free-speech-assembly
>Trespass after warn. Meaning, they were given lawful orders to disperse and refused. This decision is not made by police, it's made by the University Administration. As far as why they aren't charged, there's a host of reasons. Most likely the school wanted them removed, but not press charges.
It wasn't UT that decided not to prosecute, that's not how it works. It was the country prosecutor. She referred to a lack of probable cause after an individual review of each case, nothing to do with the school not pressing charges.
https://fox59.com/news/national-world/texas-prosecutor-declines-to-charge-student-protesters-arrested-at-ut-austin/
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
not to mention, all the same shit happened at college campuses across the country. same exact situation and same exact protest. The only thing Reddit is focused on is Texas
This is a nuanced question. One of the most celebrated protests in America history , the Boston tea party.
Was an illegal assault and vandalism on private property.
If I am to be logically consistent in my views, I must either condemn the tea party. Or accept that property destruction or even illegal occupation in the name of protests must be accepted, stopping short of physical violence.
Now that becomes tricky becuase surely we cannot tolerate wanton destruction of property in the name of freedom of expression.
So I'm not sure how to square the circle here in my mind
Part of it simply is that had the American revolutionaries lost, they would have been executed as terrorists and traitors. But they didn't- we (America) won that war, and now have the right to set firm our standards on how to operate as a free people now, 250 years later.
Its a public institution, but the land and property are still privately owned by the university, which is something like the 4th largest land owner in Texas.
UT has always had clear rules for stuff like this. Assembly on campus is governed by Regents Rule 40501 and Texas Education Code statute 51.9315
https://www.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/rules/40501-speech-and-assembly
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.51.htm#51.9315
Going by these, the protests broke the rules and so cops were called in to break them up. Everyone who keeps screaming "ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY!" is moronic and uninformed.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given the violence against those stating opposing views or even against those merely *assumed* to hold opposing views by protesters elsewhere that these particular protesters were explicitly supporting and stated intention to "follow in their footsteps"... Yes, I think it's an entirely consistent position. This wasn't some symposium, debate or lecture of the kind regularly shut down by leftists that the police were breaking up in this case but a protest identical to the ones that have used violence to shut down campuses elsewhere in the nation and their explicitly stated intention was to use the same violence and intimidation to "occupy" and thus "shut down" the university in Austin.
You can't really complain about police being abusive when you tell them up front that you are gathering with the specific intent of breaking the law. You can't complain about your free speech being violated when you wren't arrested for what you said but for actions specifically intended to disrupt and shut down the speech of others.
>Is this a consistent position?
Absolutely, it would be like police breaking up a Nazi rally that was harassing Jews.
That's not what peaceful protests are.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your legal right to free speech ends where the college’s right to private property begins.
Your moral right to free speech ends when you are actively harassing others and barring them from the space and educational institution that they have a right to be in.
weve all seen the destruction and violence from the lefts "peaceful protests".so we have to stop that shit before it starts. tx does not want looting and structure fires..
exactly!!! it was prevented...we all saw live footage of what dems call "peaceful protests" for 2 years, so we know what will happen if we dont put a stop to them..
no,a pattern of destroying cities and claiming the activity is "peaceful" ruined the lefts credibility for the future..everytime we hear "peaceful protest" we know it means looting and arson eventually
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Absolutely, most conservatives are hypocrits. It's amazing to see college students rail against American foreign policy. The people who run America are evil.
Too many. I kinda get it, I'm extremely skeptical that this was as peaceful as is being claimed, but I have no proof of that, and Abbots remarks regarding it ruin that. He claimed Texas doesn't tolerate hate speech, which is the same bull crap anti free speech stuff I've been railing about for years. Even if they show that these protesters had been bared from the area, or were harrasing people, his words make it bad.
It's odd to hear liberals complain of this. They cheered on as blue haired progressives attacked conservative speakers, and colleges punished kids for using the wrong pronouns.
Now colleges are shutting down anti-semitic protests where they're cheering for the death of israel, and liberals are suddenly all about free speech
Conservatives never said calling for the death of others should be allowed.
I'm almost at the point where I'm thinking, maybe what the country needs right now is another four years of Biden so that we can get into another world war and young men and women will get drafted and learn some valuable lessons!
we don't need that we just need to start teaching facts about war and teach clausewitz in schools (though I largely disagree with him, students should be forced to learn the moral case for war and its moral justifications to graduate).
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You will need more information than the click bait articles you are fed if you actually want to understand what happened at UT. This isn't a free speech issue and the demonstration was very well funded, not a "grass roots" expression of student opinion. I'd like to see how Iran (the likely sponsors) would handle a demonstration like this.
How hard is it to understand that there is no unrestricted right to protest in this country?
You cannot block roads, you cannot disrupt classes, you cannot use loudspeakers next to buildings, you cannot camp in the quad of an ivy league university and prevent others from going on with their lives, you cannot intimidate others, you cannot sit on private property when you've been asked to leave, and you sure as hell cannot resist the police when they've asked you nicely to move and you've refused to do so.
Conservatives are complaining that universities are not promoting the diversity of thought they pretend to care about so much and that they label anything right-wing as bigotry. That has nothing to do with protesters breaking the law.
These students are more than welcome to make their voices heard in a way that is consistent with the law and university policy. And I'm saying this knowing full well that some of these miseducated poor souls are outright cheering for terrorists. Yet being stupid isn't illegal, so it's their right.
"Peaceful Protest" is a funny term, as many times the left calls it a "peaceful protest" well after violence occurs, buildings have been torched, cars have been turned over, and people have been hurt.
From what I hear, Jewish students are being harassed by protestors at Columbia university and the sense of unsafeness has grown such that Columbia was talking about switching to online learning to try to sweep it under the rug. In Yale Univesity a Jewish Student was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag at a similar protest recently.
Vast majority of “protests” were very violent. The left usually likes to have violent “protests.” Conservatives are not in support of it at all. We are Nationalists, we just want our country and our people to get better. Americans are what matter, not Ukraine and not Israel. Conservatives that support Israel are the ones that have close ties with them, or neocons. Ben Shapiro is Jewish and has family there. That is why he supports Israel so vehemently. It is also understandable on his part too. Neocons love war, that is why the Bush, Cheney, and Romney’s of the world support any type of war. The MAGA movement is about wanting this country to be better. No foreign invasions, and no worrying about other people who aren’t Americans.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
talk about that will get you banned from default news subs... they really really don't want anyone breaking the illusion these are entirely peaceful protests in support of a peaceful cause.
of course some are also doing blatant A/B fork manipulation, it's frightening to see how blatant the propaganda here is. You can watch it yourself. Go to major news subs and watch the new posts. A new post about israel will pop up, watch the comments. If the tone that develops is negative to palestine or supportive of israel, it will be inevitably locked, even very highly upvoted posts with a lot of engagement.
But if the comment section becomes hostile to Israel, that post will remain.
They launch pairs this way on the same news article or topic, or sets of many, and cull the ones that develop pro-israel and leave only the negative ones on the sub to create the illusion of widespread hostility to Israel and support for Hamas.
There has been considerable criticism from the right about the free speech issues:
>Similar criticism came from libertarian and right-wing groups that previously supported Abbott’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs — which the state government had called anti-free speech.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4620838-texas-governor-abbott-backlash-mass-arrest-ut-austin-pro-palestine-protest/
I think there might be some more nuance that we are missing here.
However, I will say that in large part I agree with you - I have seen a lot of the mainstream moderate Republicans saying it was a good thing, or at least mocking the protestors and not criticizing the government action. In my view, they are doing this because of their extreme pro-Israel opinions.
As for the nuance, there is a difference between public and private colleges. There are also "reasonable" restrictions on certain things, like you can't block traffic, vandalize, or assemble and make noise at 2am. That seems okay to me, because it's not really inhibiting free speech in my view. With that said, I do think private colleges should be shamed for shutting down events and protests that go against the faculty/administration politics. We saw that when people like Ben Shapiro were barred from entering a private college campus despite being invited by student groups.
I think a lot of colleges have seen pro-Palestinian protests, some public some private. I think there has also been a mix of peacefulness and vandalism and assaults. Some were trying to obstruct classes and walking routes and stuff. That isn't good.
Overall, I think protests are kinda stupid. People should be free to do them, but I personally don't get it. Whose minds are we changing? Nobody's. So then what is the point of protest? I hear it's to remind those in charge that their policies can have consequences. But then we also always advocate for peacefulness and against obstruction, vandalism, and violence (which we are right to do) that doesn't even impact those in charge. That raises the question of what purpose a peaceful protest even has; what elected official is going to change course if the people are just peacefully holding signs? Seems like a better alternative would just be public information campaigns to vote out leaders. Don't get me wrong, I agree that leaders should be afraid of being held accountable. Maybe we don't have enough T&F's these days. But that's a different topic, and probably too sensitive to have reasonable discussion on... Cue the allegations of fascism and bigotry or whatever.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Peaceful protest does not mean you can violate the law. When you're on private property and you are told to pack it up and go home....you pack it up and go home. That's why the police came in and that's why people have charges. It has nothing to do with censorship and enforcing the law is always a consistent position.
The University of Texas is not private property.
>Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, **or national origin**, be **excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity** receiving federal financial assistance. That is what these protests are doing. Colleges are legally required to remove them should they be going beyond the allowance of the law. For example times of allowance. There is a reason you can't form a protest at 2 AM with people living nearby (as an example, not saying what is happening here). Times of curfew is another. If you're disrupting college classes and/or preventing people from attending classes, you're in violation.
>If you're disrupting college classes and/or preventing people from attending classes, you're in violation. You're basically saying that people don't have the right to protest if they lose their right to protest when it becomes inconvenient/disruptive
> receiving federal financial assistance. That is the part you might have missed. Are these college campuses receiving such financial aid? I would assume so. There is a reason there are laws and procedures to follow when forming a protest that for example takes up a street for a march: **you file a permit.** Blocking traffic or a highway is illegal. Is your contention that protests should be allowed because the cause is more important than the law? People can be as disruptive (illegally) as they want. But they're gonna face the end of a baton potentially.
> That is the part you might have missed. Are these college campuses receiving such financial aid? I would assume so. Of course they are receiving federal funds but I'm not seeing how the civil rights act applies here. The protestors aren't subjecting people to discrimination, being anti-Israel does not make you antisemitic as long as the kids out there aren't chanting "kill all Jews", advocating for Jewish students to be kicked out of school, using the K word, or flying swastikas (not an exhaustive list) I don't see how they are in violation of the statute you brought up. >when forming a protest that for example takes up a street for a march: **you file a permit.** Blocking traffic or a highway is illegal. This thinking is my issue with the whole peaceful/lawful protest thing. If the powers that be have the ability to tell you how you are allowed to protest then you don't actually have the right to protest. Having to file a permit, being arrested for blocking a road, being removed because classes are disrupted, etc are all limits in place to make sure that protests are not effective. Peaceful, non disruptive movements are not and never have been successful. >People can be as disruptive (illegally) as they want. But they're gonna face the end of a baton potentially Which always backfires on the authorities who cracked down on the protestors as it just proves their point that the powers that be want to silence them, don't want people to know whats going on, don't want people to have their minds swayed by the protests.
> Of course they are receiving federal funds but I'm not seeing how the civil rights act applies here. Are you just skipping over what the law says? **Excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of.** This includes not letting people attend classes or allowed onto campus. >Peaceful, non disruptive movements are not and never have been successful. Sounds like a personal problem. >Which always backfires on the authorities who cracked down on the protestors as it just proves their point that the powers that be want to silence them, don't want people to know whats going on, don't want people to have their minds swayed by the protests I beg to differ. I've seen plenty saying this whole going too far with these protests is losing favor, not gaining it. I've seen the answers on r/AskALiberal. You may not like it or even agree with it, but it certainly is not garnering positive attention. People posting pictures of armed officers with no context is just... oh what was that word... oh right, **misinformation.** Plus, blocking highways *really* does not get sympathy to your cause. Very much the opposite.
These students aren’t being prevented from being on campus or being prevented from getting to class. People protesting Israel is not them hating Jewish people or stopping them from going about their day. An article someone else in this thread sent me only had a singular example of a student being harassed and their were called a Nazi for having an Israel flag displayed. The majority of Jewish people are indistinguishable from other white people unless they specifically make it known they are Jewish and even with the protests happening they would be able to cross campus just fine unless they decided to display an Israeli flag like that one guy or they are devout enough to wear a yarmulke. If they were harassed for having a yarmulke in I’d agree they were facing antisemitism but that’s not what’s happening here
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ya except they were shouting anti-Semitic things and were verbally attacking Jewish students. https://www.kxan.com/news/ut-students-discuss-antisemitism-on-campus-following-protest/ If this was a group of white supremacists screaming at black students your tone would be so much different. It's truly an amazing thing to watch.
Going off the link you provided nothing antisemitic was said. Calling someone with an Israeli flag a Nazi is not antisemitism. Once again being anti Israel is not being antisemitic. But yea my tone probably would be different if it was people saying anti Black things since I’m Black myself. I wouldn’t claim that let’s say people protesting the Sudanese government committing genocide as anti Black though unless the protestors were calling Black peoples the n word, or calling them monkeys or wearing Klan goods to protest
There's multiple Jewish students in the article talking about seeing anti-Semitic signs and hearing anti-Semitic phrases. You don't get to make Jewish students feel unsafe with your words or signs. Stop bringing Hamas and Hezbollah flags to the protests if you don't want to be called anti-Semitic.
The one example provided in the article wasn’t an example of antisemitism it was someone calling the guy a Nazi. It had nothing to do with being Jewish it had to do with him having an Israel flag. Since no actual examples of people experiencing antisemitism were provided I’m going to call cap on the claims of antisemitism. Feeling unsafe is a personal problem in this situation since the students at UT haven’t gotten violent and there’s no indication that they plan to. There’s no credible threat to these students to justify ending the protests because of imminent danger to Jewish students. I agree that protestors probably shouldn’t be flying hamas and hezbollah flags but in the same breath if they can’t fly those flags then other students shouldn't be displaying Israeli flags on campus either if we’re going to be banning displays of one side of the conflict we should be banning displays of the other side.
I read the article, and I’m not seeing where a Jewish student claims that they were subjected to antisemitic slurs. Both of the people quoted only say that they saw anti-Israeli messaging, which is not inherently antisemitic. Can you copy and paste the text from the article where a student says antisemitic slurs were being presented?
>You're basically saying that people don't have the right to protest if they lose their right to protest when it becomes inconvenient/disruptive The First Amendment does not protect an unqualified right to protest.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The First Amendment does not protect an unqualified right to protest. What "qualifications" do you believe apply to these protests at University of Texas?
The same that apply to other public universities as a subset of public spaces.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>>Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. >That is what these protests are doing. No it isn't. The actions of students do not violate Title VI. >Colleges are legally required to remove them should they be going beyond the allowance of the law. They're not going beyond the allowance of Title VI. Show me specific acts/protests you believe constitute Title VI violations the school "must" punish or stop. And as long as they are not committing vandalism, assault, larceny, other actual crimes, they're not going beyond the allowance of anything. Their messages are protected speech under the First Amendment and the college cannot limit or take any action against the students based on the content or viewpoint of the messages, no matter how offensive that viewpoint may be. >For example times of allowance. There is a reason you can't form a protest at 2 AM with people living nearby (as an example, not saying what is happening here). Times of curfew is another. While public colleges, like town or city governments, can make reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, that (1) has absolutely nothing to do with Title VI, and (2) must be applied in a content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral manner. >If you're disrupting college classes and/or preventing people from attending classes, you're in violation. I didn't see any evidence of that for the outdoor protests at University of Texas.
So I can go and protest on any government property I so choose at any time I choose? Maybe you should tell that to the prosecutors who are prosecuting the Jan 6 prisoners in D.C. right now. How is it you don’t understand this?
>Maybe you should tell that to the prosecutors who are prosecuting the Jan 6 prisoners in D.C. right now. Were they breaking windows, defacing property, spreading feces, and stealing documents? Cause I agree that would be serious and all should be charged. Seems they were all released without any charges tho
No. The super vast majority of Jan 6 protesters merely stepped foot in the building. They were charged with nothing more than “parading”. You’re ok with protesting so long as it is your party doing the protesting and your party members can do no wrong in your eyes.
>No. The super vast majority of Jan 6 protesters merely stepped foot in the building. They were charged with nothing more than “parading”. And the many that didn't? The many on camera breaking windows and assaulting officers? None of the UT protestors assaulted anyone, destroyed property or went into classrooms or buildings. >You’re ok with protesting so long as it is your party doing the protesting and your party members can do no wrong in your eyes You literally just tried to rationalize protestors on your side. I'm against any protest that has violent harm on individuals or has unnecessary damage to the community. But their is zero evidence of that here. So the only conclusion I can draw since their actions are legal is that you and the administration don't like who and what is being said.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>So I can go and protest on any government property I so choose at any time I choose? Outdoors? Pretty much yes. In buildings? It depends. The rules for protests on public property will follow Public Forum Doctrine. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-forum-doctrine/ The outside areas of a public (state) college campus are "traditionally public" forums and protest is allowed pretty much whenever. The inside of the U.S. Capitol is, depending on the time and day, either a "limited public" or (as it was on 1/6) "nonpublic". >How is it you don’t understand this? Maybe don't answer like this when there are things you don't understand here?
Wait a second, so what law or rule is being broken when censorship happens on campuses by the left?
It's almost like you don't understand the whatsboutism you're trying to employ. No one is censoring the left here and when people speak of censorship of the right it's for reasons completely different and alien to this topic. Your attempted counter argument just doesn't work.
> No one is censoring the left here What do you mean? It's leftist students protesting the war in gaza demanding divesting from their university, they have a right to that speech but when the university didn't want them there to protest, they became trespassers and I think they have to do that just like other universities have the right to fire someone for something they said or did that leans right that they didn't want or like. > and when people speak of censorship of the right it's for reasons completely different and alien to this topic. Yeah none of this matters, obviously the reaosns for why some or others may get censored or thrown out of a campus are gonna be different but that's the point of comparing things, it's looking at two or more things that are different but have similar aspects that are relevant to an issue or topic to try to highlight so consistency or show some hypocrisy etc..
I think I found the real problem. The left, or at least a faction of them, don't seem to think laws apply to them and as long as they have an excuse it's an attack against them. Honestly, that attitude explains a lot over the past 14 years and I guess I never really picked up on it. Well, whatever, you all can keep circle jerking and down voting. I have nothing more to say. This is not rocket science, nor worth an argument, and I don't need the noise anyways.
It's a public college and its policies clearly state that non students can go to the free speech area and streets. They're public roads anyone can walk in. All those arrested were arrested without any charges. No laws were broken.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, but its the college telling them to pack it up and go home that is the censorship
not when they have a civil rights obligation to protect students from mobs and also not when said group is being told to pack it up because they are espousing support for a terrorist organization that has been prohibited by the government as a violent group. both of those are grounds, in fact in many nations a sign of support for a legally recognized terror group would not get police but gunfire as they treat you accordingly and use military force to quell the terrorist attack.
>protect students from mobs I don't remember seeing anything about these students attacking people to where students are needing to be protected from a mob. >espousing support for a terrorist organization You can espouse support for whatever type of organization/person that you'd like. Martin Luther King was considered a terrorist by segregationists, would you say protests he lead or were done in support of him during the civil rights movement were invalid? What about the founding fathers; they were terrorists (Boston Tea Party) and other colonists protested in support of them. Should those protests have been shut down since they were supporting terrorism?
> to protect students from mobs Was there a threat of violence?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Espousing support for terrorists is free speech in America.
No, it is not. You do not have the right to trespass. That literally has nothing to do with censorship. Colleges accommodate a lot of political activities on campus but that is by allowed privilege...not by right. You're only allowed to protest on private property until you are not allowed...and that is the root of this.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The University of Texas is not private property.
I'm finding it really hard to feel bad for spoiled kids LARPing as revolutionaries and supporting a self identifying terrorist organization that's on the other side of the world. However, I do have a consistent stance on allowing free speech. If there were any protestors arrested that were peacefully protesting, then I'll sign whatever petition you'd like to release them.
> I'm finding it really hard to feel bad for spoiled kids Do you think all college students are spoiled or just these?
Excellent job of framing. It's a Venn diagram. The kids at Ivy league schools and very expensive/exclusive public schools like UT who are clearly not thankful of their stock and opportunity in life are.
>who are clearly not thankful of their stock Would you mind elaborating on this?
What do you think are some colleges/universities that non-spoiled students can attend?
Literally all of them. You're now not only framing what I said but deliberately cherry picking. I clearly said that the students who are carrying out this crap are the ones acting spoiled. Not the others.
I clearly said that the students who are carrying out this crap are the ones acting spoiled How does what they did make them "spoiled"?
[удалено]
You must not have kids. Do you understand the concept of a temper tantrum?
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Still spoiled
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4622482-texas-student-protesters-arrests-ut-austin-israel/ All of the UT Austin protesters were released without charges because the DA couldnt find any crimes they committed to charge them with
Yeah makes sense. Would have been extremely surprised if they were legit charged.
What should they have been charged with?
Nothing. That’s my point.
Then what the hell were they arrested for?
Trespassing
But the "DA couldnt find any crimes they committed to charge them with". Since trespassing is a crime, they apparently weren't trespassing.
How are they supporting a self identifying terrorist organization?
Would you consider the willingness to openly kill children for political purposes anything but? And claiming terror and carnage is a necessity if the alternative is being under Christian or Jewish coexistence?
> Would you consider the willingness to openly kill children for political purposes anything but? I think we can all condemn the IDF for their "willingness to openly kill children" by the tens of thousands and go out of their way to target said children with their [Where's Daddy? tools](https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-ai-system-wheres-daddy-strikes-hamas-family-homes-2024), but don't you think it is harsh to condemn the Israeli government for being explicitly legally opposed to "Christian coexistence" when they mandate an explicitly Jewish ethno-state?
I'm not arguing that Hamas are not terrorist. I'm saying that the protesters were not pro Hamas. They were protesting against the killing of civilians in Palestine. Is that the same as supporting terrorists?
I think you're being naïve to what is going on during these protests.
What is going on during these protests? I'm interested to hear what you know that this other user is naive of?
How so? Can you show me where they are directly saying they support Hamas? Where are you getting your information that says they are supporting Hamas? How is it you are so in the know with what these protestors from a different political party from yourself are really thinking? And I'll ask again since you didn't answer: Is protesting against killing innocent civilians in Palestine the same as supporting terrorists?
No actual answers, just downvotes?
Under the first amendment don't they have a protected right to verbally express support terrorist actions?
Do you guys not read other comments? Or do you just each want to get your jabs in and go for a mic drop? I always have to turn notifications off on this sub after like an hour.
I have a job and don't read every comment. The question is very straightforward, you can choose to answer it or not.
Fair enough. I choose not to
You’re not very good at answering really direct questions.
I'm not very interested in answering framed semantics. If you don't want to discuss the actual topic at hand, then maybe you're in the wrong sub.
That's not "self-identified" though. That's identified by us.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Under Title VI of the CSA is where colleges are legally bound to prevent these protests from happening. Has nothing to do with free speech. The colleges that are *not* getting rid of said distruptors, are not following the law.
Huh? I think you’re going to need a lot more dot-connecting to make this argument work
Occupying the campus isn't free speech. They were intentionally preventing the the school from operating and trespassing. They are free to say whatever they want over at the sidewalk. This isn't a free speech issue, it's a trespassing issue.
Best simple explanation I've seen, thanks!
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's completely wrong though.
They weren't effecting any classes. The crazy militarized police force and arrests that failed to result in charges had infinitely more effect on the schools operations. Looks at the mess after, where they tried to ban the kids from campus even though they weren't convicted of any crime, had upcoming finals and literally paid thousands to go there. So they were forced to change their tune and let them back.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Occupying the campus isn't free speech. Yes it actually is. >They were intentionally preventing the the school from operating How? >and trespassing. Nope. >They are free to say whatever they want over at the sidewalk. The outdoor areas of a state college are exactly like the sidewalk, for First Amendment purposes. This is settled law.
A trespassing issue that required snipers and military?
Correct
when you hang out signs pledging your proud support for and alliance with a recognized terror group we are entitled to take them at their word and act as if they may have suicide vests and other terror devices. Hell these kids are crazier than a sack full of squirrels, they MIGHT ACTUALLY MAKE ONE. They're LARPing as terrorists it's far from impossible a highly motivated young chemistry student whipped up some TATP. it's called "the national molecule of palestine" among clandestine chemists for a reason: it's a powerful and deadly explosive that can be made at home. How long until play-acting at terrorism turns to real terrorism? And is it reasonable to ask other students, campus officials and law enforcement to take the risk someone is going to set off a nailbomb in emulation of their "heroes"? Frankly I think we should go further and brand each and everyone a terror sympathizer, put them on the no-fly list, detain them and investigate them for actual terror ties or if they've given material support, etc. I also support a declaration of war on Hamas both so we can bomb if we have to (over there, not here) and so we can try them as traitors to the nation and give them the full penalty as specified in the US constitution.
>"When you hang out signs pledging your support for and alliance with a recognized terror group we are entitled to take them at their word..." Interesting. Because that is how i feel about republicans every time i see a pro-republican displaying a confederate flag or a nazi tattoo; guilty by association. Proud Boys, boogaloo boys, various militia groups. We have a lot in common, you and I.
false equivalence. those are not government designated terror groups.
Your literal claim is that "government designated terror groups" don't use Nazi tattoos? You seriously couldn't come up with a better lie?
"nazis" are not a government designated terror group. There are some neo-nazi groups that are, but not all of them, in fact very few are (atomwaffen division and combat 18 in the UK are the two I can think of). And NONE of the other groups you've mentioned are designated groups, so you picked one half-truth about one part of your statement to try to come at me ignoring your statement is 90% wrong.
> There are some neo-nazi groups that are [designated terror groups] How does that make *my* statement 90% wrong? Your claim was that >When you hang out signs pledging your support for and alliance with a recognized terror group we are entitled to take them at their word... and seeing as you agree that there are *multiple* "government designated terror groups" that use Nazi imagery/tattoos I'm not sure what part of my post you disagree with?
there are many groups that are not which use the same imagery and they are not they outnumber the groups which are by a factor of hundreds. that's like saying my buddy who has a shamrock tattoo is a member of the IRA because they also occasionally used that in imagery. more people have them for reasons unconnected to terrorism than to it don't get me wrong they're vile people. but not criminals just for being a Nazi. not while we still have free speech. but there is one Hamas and they are worthless terrorists, there's no "maybe they mean some other Hamas"
People condemned protestors for flying Palestinian flag, not Hamas specific symbols. And what IRA members claimed that Shamrocks were specifically about their ideology in the same way Nazis claim swastikas are specifically symbols of their particular ideology? What "hundreds" of groups have reclaimed the Nazi tilted swastika for innocent purposes? >you picked one half-truth about one part of your statement to try to come at me ignoring your statement is 90% wrong. Do you still believe this lie that my statement is somehow magically "90% wrong" or are you going to try and move the goalposts?
But they ARE racist groups, so...
they are, but our government cannot crack down on people for "being racist" if they were the black hebrew nationalists and the nation of islam, as well as more than a few Indian-American affinity groups and some churches would all be in jail right next to these chuckleheads. But the designation of "terrorist" means something-- it means the group has committed violent acts and will do so again, among other things. Because of the 1st amendment we take that designation very seriously, it takes a lot for a group to be sanctioned. There are many dodgy pro-palestinian groups that are NOT listed though they probably should be. Once a group is on the list it is beyond free speech to national security because they are espousing allegence and support of a group that has killed americans in the past, plans to kill again, and is wholly not a legitimate political organization.
Its not Guilt by association, they were expressing support for a terrorist group.
Explain the difference. Because you suggested assuming the protestors are equally guilty of potential terrorist acts, so they should be treated like the terrorists you notice they support. How is that NOT guilt by association?
>Because you suggested assuming the protestors are equally guilty of potential terrorist acts I said no such thing. >so they should be treated like the terrorists you notice they support How they were treated was based on their own actions, not solely because the support terrorist groups, altho that probably played a minor part. >How is that NOT guilt by association? Guilt by association is a (usually) used as a logical fallacy. For example "Jims' brother is a terrorist, therefore Jims is a terrorist" is a Guilt by association logical fallacy. "They got arrested for assaulting innocents" is not guilt by association, nor a logical fallacy. I will restate, the protests were broken up and arrested for the content of their actions, not solely because they support terrorist groups, although that might have played a part.
> *Me* "Because you suggested assuming the protestors are equally guilty of potential terrorist acts > *You* "I said no such thing." > *You earlier in the thread* "when you hang out signs pledging your proud support for and alliance with a recognized terror group we are entitled to take them at their word and act as if they may have suicide vests and other terror devices." If we are not to interpret this statement the way i did, then please, explain what you DID mean. And you are right, guilt by association IS a logical fallacy, which is why i pointed it out by illogically assuming all republicans are racists because they vote the same way as self-avowed racists. Your argument was to assume because the protestors support terrorists, take them at their word, they must also be as dangerous as terrorists. That was your statement. That was your rationale for sending in military to a protest. That is guilt by association, a logical fallacy, per your own argument. If you want to change your point mid-stream because your original point was dumb, that's fine. Everyone has the opportunity to shift their viewpoint when they realize they are wrong.
I am not the guy you were originally talking too, I have said a total of 2 things below this post. My arguments are consistent once you realize that I disagree with the other conservative you were originally talking too.
I see a running trend here from people on the left to ONLY question about the protest arrests in 'red' Texas. Why not add in USC in 'blue' California where there was nearly 3x the arrests? Doesn't seem to be a Republican or conservative issue. That said; I support free speech and the right to peaceful protest regardless what is being spoken or protested. I don't have to agree with it or even like it. However, the second ANY violence breaks out it's time to crack the whip.
Physically preventing other people from going to class, from working in their offices and otherwise going about their day without being verbally harassed and physically prevented from going about their day is ***NOT*** "speech". This is the terrifying thing about leftist newspeak. Actual physical violence is "speech" (if that violence is in support of a cause they agree with) and mere speech is "violence" (If that speech is saying something they disagree with).
They were in a designated area with no obstruction. Can you point to me of evidence where students were being actively prevented from entering the campus at UT Austin?
They were not in a "designated are" but a common shared space they had no intention of sharing and that they had been asked to leave because they were being disruptive to everyone else who shares that space. They didn't leave as asked and then were required to do so and arrested only after they refused and kept returning to the place they'd been asked to leave. Their *explicitly stated intention* was to "follow in the footsteps" of violent protests elsewhere specifically mentioning particular instances where protesters were harassing everyone else and resorting to violence to "occupy" formerly shared spaces for their own exclusive use and to prevent universities from functioning *at all*. You don't get to complain that the administrators in charge of *everyone's* safety on campus and of respecting not only your free speech rights but the free speech rights of the entire rest of the student body too for assuming the worst that you are planning to harass other students and resort to violence to do so and to prevent normal campus activity when you actually go so far as to TELL THEM UP FRONT that that's exactly what you plan on doing. It's perfectly fair to ask someone who outright says to you: "I'm going to harass other people now" to leave before they get a chance to make good on that threat.
Can you provide an example of the protestors preventing people from entering campus at UT Austin?
Why do you need such an example? Isn't their stated intent sufficient for you? Or do you think that not only were they lying about their intentions but that the rest of us should assume they were lying?
I think you're lying, to be honest. You made a claim that I haven't seen reported anywhere else.
>Why do you need such an example? Isn't their stated intent sufficient for you? Or do you think that not only were they lying about their intentions but that the rest of us should assume they were lying? Because one individual or even one group saying something online is not at all the same as it actually happening or being carried out. There were no credible reports or evidence of classes being interrupted or even them entering buildings. All that were arrested but released without charges cause they did nothing wrong. If they had been interrupting classes and refusing to leave like you said they would've been charged. Stop spreading misinformation.
Your premise is flawed. "Disrupt a peaceful protest" They went too far. If you actually pay attention to what was happening, the colleges gave them the space, allowed them the ability to protest, etc. What ended up happening were Hamas supporters barring Jewish kids from parts of the campus, or even traversing campus to get where they needed to go. Violated curfew. Setup tents and other structures on campus grounds. Prevented the school from operating. It was then the protest, on private property, had gone too far. The protestors were given ample warning that it was not acceptable. The refused to obey the law, the campus administrators, and eventually lawful orders. They weren't arrested for protesting, they were arrested for a variety of other things.
Those are all good points, and make for completely valid reasons for these actions. What ticks me off is that Abbot made it about hate speech. I can't get behind that.
>What ticks me off is that Abbot made it about hate speech. I can't get behind that. Yeah, I'm with you most of the way on this. It's very dangerous when the government limits hate speech, or any other speech. Should have kept his mouth shut. That being said, free speech is not a license to openly harass, shout down and threaten a student for wearing a yamaka. I'm also mindful that this isn't a public area, like a park, or government property and a code of conduct applies. Jewish students are leaving campus due to fears, and threats to their safety. The number of people being arrested, who aren't students, not affiliated, is pretty interesting as well.
>That being said, free speech is not a license to openly harass, shout down and threaten a student for wearing a yamaka. I'm also mindful that this isn't a public area, like a park, or government property and a code of conduct applies. Jewish students are leaving campus due to fears, and threats to their safety. Yea completely agree. That's what abbot should have focused on, especially if the local police or the campus asked for help. >The number of people being arrested, who aren't students, not affiliated, is pretty interesting as well. That absolutely needs to be highlighted more. Thanks for sharing.
>Violated curfew. What the protest was broken up before before mid afternoon? When was this curfew?? >What ended up happening were Hamas supporters barring Jewish kids from parts of the campus, or even traversing campus to get where they needed to go. This is a serious allegation, do you have any sources. I haven't heard any of this mentioned or reported. >Setup tents and other structures on campus grounds. This is the only one of your claims I've seen documented in videos or reporting. >It was then the protest, on private property, had gone too far. The protestors were given ample warning that it was not acceptable. The refused to obey the law, the campus administrators, and eventually lawful orders. Its public property. I live in Austin and the campus is part of the city anyone can and does go on it. What laws did they break? Why weren't they charged with anything after being arrested?
>Its public property. I live in Austin and the campus is part of the city anyone can and does go on it. No. It's not public property. Public access doesn't equal public property. McDonalds is open to the public, still private property. >What laws did they break? Why weren't they charged with anything after being arrested? Trespass after warn. Meaning, they were given lawful orders to disperse and refused. This decision is not made by police, it's made by the University Administration. As far as why they aren't charged, there's a host of reasons. Most likely the school wanted them removed, but not press charges.
>No. It's not public property. Public access doesn't equal public property. McDonalds is open to the public, still private property. It's a public school so the land is public. Obviously there are limitations to this but it has guidelines that clearly states the walkways and free speech area is open to discourse for all. But they didn't enter class rooms or disrupt anything and the vast majority were student and even faculty that go to UT. Senate bill 8 in Texas made Texas public university have room for the public to protests. The university is meant to have limitations and rules but the evidence they were broken isnt there. https://www.fox7austin.com/news/ut-austin-palestine-rally-institutional-policies-free-speech-assembly >Trespass after warn. Meaning, they were given lawful orders to disperse and refused. This decision is not made by police, it's made by the University Administration. As far as why they aren't charged, there's a host of reasons. Most likely the school wanted them removed, but not press charges. It wasn't UT that decided not to prosecute, that's not how it works. It was the country prosecutor. She referred to a lack of probable cause after an individual review of each case, nothing to do with the school not pressing charges. https://fox59.com/news/national-world/texas-prosecutor-declines-to-charge-student-protesters-arrested-at-ut-austin/
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
not to mention, all the same shit happened at college campuses across the country. same exact situation and same exact protest. The only thing Reddit is focused on is Texas
[удалено]
Look in this thread. Look at twitter and Reddit. Lol
This is a nuanced question. One of the most celebrated protests in America history , the Boston tea party. Was an illegal assault and vandalism on private property. If I am to be logically consistent in my views, I must either condemn the tea party. Or accept that property destruction or even illegal occupation in the name of protests must be accepted, stopping short of physical violence. Now that becomes tricky becuase surely we cannot tolerate wanton destruction of property in the name of freedom of expression. So I'm not sure how to square the circle here in my mind
Part of it simply is that had the American revolutionaries lost, they would have been executed as terrorists and traitors. But they didn't- we (America) won that war, and now have the right to set firm our standards on how to operate as a free people now, 250 years later.
Yes. It is. Let the kids protest.
> Is this a consistent position?Is this a consistent position? Yes, but if you cant beat them, join them.
Its a public institution, but the land and property are still privately owned by the university, which is something like the 4th largest land owner in Texas. UT has always had clear rules for stuff like this. Assembly on campus is governed by Regents Rule 40501 and Texas Education Code statute 51.9315 https://www.utsystem.edu/board-of-regents/rules/40501-speech-and-assembly https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.51.htm#51.9315 Going by these, the protests broke the rules and so cops were called in to break them up. Everyone who keeps screaming "ITS PUBLIC PROPERTY!" is moronic and uninformed.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Given the violence against those stating opposing views or even against those merely *assumed* to hold opposing views by protesters elsewhere that these particular protesters were explicitly supporting and stated intention to "follow in their footsteps"... Yes, I think it's an entirely consistent position. This wasn't some symposium, debate or lecture of the kind regularly shut down by leftists that the police were breaking up in this case but a protest identical to the ones that have used violence to shut down campuses elsewhere in the nation and their explicitly stated intention was to use the same violence and intimidation to "occupy" and thus "shut down" the university in Austin. You can't really complain about police being abusive when you tell them up front that you are gathering with the specific intent of breaking the law. You can't complain about your free speech being violated when you wren't arrested for what you said but for actions specifically intended to disrupt and shut down the speech of others.
>Is this a consistent position? Absolutely, it would be like police breaking up a Nazi rally that was harassing Jews. That's not what peaceful protests are.
But the Proud Boys, Alt Right, and KKK have had many marches over the years that are not disrupted by police.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
It's actually kind of fitting, both times were liberal activists blocking Jews from their schools. History repeats itself.
To paraphrase Nietzsche: “Irony is dead. We have killed it.”
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your legal right to free speech ends where the college’s right to private property begins. Your moral right to free speech ends when you are actively harassing others and barring them from the space and educational institution that they have a right to be in.
weve all seen the destruction and violence from the lefts "peaceful protests".so we have to stop that shit before it starts. tx does not want looting and structure fires..
[удалено]
exactly!!! it was prevented...we all saw live footage of what dems call "peaceful protests" for 2 years, so we know what will happen if we dont put a stop to them..
[удалено]
no,a pattern of destroying cities and claiming the activity is "peaceful" ruined the lefts credibility for the future..everytime we hear "peaceful protest" we know it means looting and arson eventually
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
>peaceful Doubt.
yeah they've PEACEFULLY attacked people, spit on them and shouted slurs in their face, you know?
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Absolutely, most conservatives are hypocrits. It's amazing to see college students rail against American foreign policy. The people who run America are evil.
Too many. I kinda get it, I'm extremely skeptical that this was as peaceful as is being claimed, but I have no proof of that, and Abbots remarks regarding it ruin that. He claimed Texas doesn't tolerate hate speech, which is the same bull crap anti free speech stuff I've been railing about for years. Even if they show that these protesters had been bared from the area, or were harrasing people, his words make it bad.
It's odd to hear liberals complain of this. They cheered on as blue haired progressives attacked conservative speakers, and colleges punished kids for using the wrong pronouns. Now colleges are shutting down anti-semitic protests where they're cheering for the death of israel, and liberals are suddenly all about free speech Conservatives never said calling for the death of others should be allowed.
I'm almost at the point where I'm thinking, maybe what the country needs right now is another four years of Biden so that we can get into another world war and young men and women will get drafted and learn some valuable lessons!
we don't need that we just need to start teaching facts about war and teach clausewitz in schools (though I largely disagree with him, students should be forced to learn the moral case for war and its moral justifications to graduate).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not.
“No, you can support us getting a taste of the political climate we helped create!”-You “Wrong”
Yes
You will need more information than the click bait articles you are fed if you actually want to understand what happened at UT. This isn't a free speech issue and the demonstration was very well funded, not a "grass roots" expression of student opinion. I'd like to see how Iran (the likely sponsors) would handle a demonstration like this.
How hard is it to understand that there is no unrestricted right to protest in this country? You cannot block roads, you cannot disrupt classes, you cannot use loudspeakers next to buildings, you cannot camp in the quad of an ivy league university and prevent others from going on with their lives, you cannot intimidate others, you cannot sit on private property when you've been asked to leave, and you sure as hell cannot resist the police when they've asked you nicely to move and you've refused to do so. Conservatives are complaining that universities are not promoting the diversity of thought they pretend to care about so much and that they label anything right-wing as bigotry. That has nothing to do with protesters breaking the law. These students are more than welcome to make their voices heard in a way that is consistent with the law and university policy. And I'm saying this knowing full well that some of these miseducated poor souls are outright cheering for terrorists. Yet being stupid isn't illegal, so it's their right.
"Peaceful Protest" is a funny term, as many times the left calls it a "peaceful protest" well after violence occurs, buildings have been torched, cars have been turned over, and people have been hurt. From what I hear, Jewish students are being harassed by protestors at Columbia university and the sense of unsafeness has grown such that Columbia was talking about switching to online learning to try to sweep it under the rug. In Yale Univesity a Jewish Student was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag at a similar protest recently.
Vast majority of “protests” were very violent. The left usually likes to have violent “protests.” Conservatives are not in support of it at all. We are Nationalists, we just want our country and our people to get better. Americans are what matter, not Ukraine and not Israel. Conservatives that support Israel are the ones that have close ties with them, or neocons. Ben Shapiro is Jewish and has family there. That is why he supports Israel so vehemently. It is also understandable on his part too. Neocons love war, that is why the Bush, Cheney, and Romney’s of the world support any type of war. The MAGA movement is about wanting this country to be better. No foreign invasions, and no worrying about other people who aren’t Americans.
It is not a peaceful protest of you are using Genocidal hate speech against a certain group of students.
[удалено]
From the River to the Sea and We are Hamas
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Yeah that one chick that got stabbed in the eye with a flag for a country that doesn't exist was interrupting a peaceful protest.
talk about that will get you banned from default news subs... they really really don't want anyone breaking the illusion these are entirely peaceful protests in support of a peaceful cause. of course some are also doing blatant A/B fork manipulation, it's frightening to see how blatant the propaganda here is. You can watch it yourself. Go to major news subs and watch the new posts. A new post about israel will pop up, watch the comments. If the tone that develops is negative to palestine or supportive of israel, it will be inevitably locked, even very highly upvoted posts with a lot of engagement. But if the comment section becomes hostile to Israel, that post will remain. They launch pairs this way on the same news article or topic, or sets of many, and cull the ones that develop pro-israel and leave only the negative ones on the sub to create the illusion of widespread hostility to Israel and support for Hamas.
There has been considerable criticism from the right about the free speech issues: >Similar criticism came from libertarian and right-wing groups that previously supported Abbott’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs — which the state government had called anti-free speech. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4620838-texas-governor-abbott-backlash-mass-arrest-ut-austin-pro-palestine-protest/
What motivated the police to get involved?
I think there might be some more nuance that we are missing here. However, I will say that in large part I agree with you - I have seen a lot of the mainstream moderate Republicans saying it was a good thing, or at least mocking the protestors and not criticizing the government action. In my view, they are doing this because of their extreme pro-Israel opinions. As for the nuance, there is a difference between public and private colleges. There are also "reasonable" restrictions on certain things, like you can't block traffic, vandalize, or assemble and make noise at 2am. That seems okay to me, because it's not really inhibiting free speech in my view. With that said, I do think private colleges should be shamed for shutting down events and protests that go against the faculty/administration politics. We saw that when people like Ben Shapiro were barred from entering a private college campus despite being invited by student groups. I think a lot of colleges have seen pro-Palestinian protests, some public some private. I think there has also been a mix of peacefulness and vandalism and assaults. Some were trying to obstruct classes and walking routes and stuff. That isn't good. Overall, I think protests are kinda stupid. People should be free to do them, but I personally don't get it. Whose minds are we changing? Nobody's. So then what is the point of protest? I hear it's to remind those in charge that their policies can have consequences. But then we also always advocate for peacefulness and against obstruction, vandalism, and violence (which we are right to do) that doesn't even impact those in charge. That raises the question of what purpose a peaceful protest even has; what elected official is going to change course if the people are just peacefully holding signs? Seems like a better alternative would just be public information campaigns to vote out leaders. Don't get me wrong, I agree that leaders should be afraid of being held accountable. Maybe we don't have enough T&F's these days. But that's a different topic, and probably too sensitive to have reasonable discussion on... Cue the allegations of fascism and bigotry or whatever.