|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 25, 2024 11:06:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ivanbalt on Apr 25, 2024 11:27:23 GMT -5
Obviously Abbott is only "pro-life" when it's a fetus.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 11:35:19 GMT -5
Abbott has exposed himself as a hypocrite
As I said on a different thread, there's no reason why non-violent protests should be met with violence. If these students were destroying property or assaulting people it would be one thing. But for the most part, all they're doing is giving speeches, praying, and dancing. So the heavy-handed response is disproportionate.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 25, 2024 11:40:35 GMT -5
Abbott has exposed himself as a hypocrite As I said on a different thread, there's no reason why non-violent protests should be met with violence. If these students were destroying property or assaulting people it would be one thing. But for the most part, all they're doing is giving speeches, praying, and dancing. So the heavy-handed response is disproportionate. Free speech for me and not for thee.
|
|
|
Post by kandace on Apr 25, 2024 11:59:09 GMT -5
Abbott has exposed himself as a hypocrite As I said on a different thread, there's no reason why non-violent protests should be met with violence. If these students were destroying property or assaulting people it would be one thing. But for the most part, all they're doing is giving speeches, praying, and dancing. So the heavy-handed response is disproportionate. Free speech for me and not for thee. They are committing the unforgivable crime of offending narcissistic senses of superiority. Across all cultures and nations that always elicits a violent response.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 25, 2024 12:55:43 GMT -5
His approach reminds me a little of this governor who famously vowed to 'clean up the mess at Berkeley'.
Abbot thinks that this plays well with his base and it probably does but a lot of his base voters have kids in colleges and universities and those kids are going to have something to say at the dinner table when they come home for the summer.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 25, 2024 13:10:22 GMT -5
Maybe we can resurrect the discussion about the Palestinian movement a bit
I thought this was an interesting comment
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 13:25:47 GMT -5
No protest movement is perfect and there are always detractors who focus on a few negative things in order to discredit the entire movement. If you don't believe me, read what people were saying about MLK Jr or Nelson Mandela 40-50 years ago. Or just look at how people focused on the violence four years ago to discredit the George Floyd protests.
Many of these activists support a pluralistic and democratic Israel that grants equal Rights and citizenship to Jews and Palestinians.
But the people who want Israel to remain a 'Jewish majority State' oppose a one-state solution that grants equal Rights to the Palestinians because demographically, non-Jews would outnumber Jews in Israel. Hence why we're sort of stuck in the unworkable position of trying to reach a Two-State solution while Netanyahu opposes versus a status quo where Palestinians are violently forced to live in an apartheid system.
Even if you oppose the goals of these activists, it's worth giving them credit for using non-violent civil disobedience.
If we can't tolerate non-violent protests, what kinds of protests CAN we tolerate?
|
|
|
Post by cowboyz on Apr 25, 2024 13:32:31 GMT -5
No protest movement is perfect and there are always detractors who focus on a few negative things in order to discredit the entire movement. If you don't believe me, read what people were saying about MLK Jr or Nelson Mandela 40-50 years ago. Or just look at how people focused on the violence four years ago to discredit the George Floyd protests. Many of these activists support a pluralistic and democratic Israel that grants equal Rights and citizenship to Jews and Palestinians. But the people who want Israel to remain a 'Jewish majority State' oppose a one-state solution that grants equal Rights to the Palestinians because demographically, non-Jews would outnumber Jews in Israel. Hence why we're sort of stuck in the unworkable position of trying to reach a Two-State solution while Netanyahu opposes versus a status quo where Palestinians are violently forced to live in an apartheid system. Even if you oppose the goals of these activists, it's worth giving them credit for using non-violent civil disobedience. If we can't tolerate non-violent protests, what kinds of protests CAN we tolerate? A sanctioned non-violent protest? Prior approval so there are not trespassing. That seemed to be part of the issue with this particular protest.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 13:37:25 GMT -5
There was a tense debate about allowing the "Unite the Right" rally to happen in Charlottesville a few years ago. In the name of free speech, the protest was allowed to go forward despite the repugnant views of some of the groups that attended.
If we can tolerate actual neo-nazis exercising their speech Rights, we can tolerate non-violent anti-war activists protesting against their schools' ties to a foreign government that is under investigation at the Hague for genocide.
Gov. Abbott seems to only care about free speech for the far-Right. Which is hypocritical.
Freedom of Speech is about protecting our Rights to express offensive or unpopular speech, and not so much about the Right to say things that don't offend anyone. You have the Right to do both but no one objects to speech if they're not offended.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 13:41:15 GMT -5
No protest movement is perfect and there are always detractors who focus on a few negative things in order to discredit the entire movement. If you don't believe me, read what people were saying about MLK Jr or Nelson Mandela 40-50 years ago. Or just look at how people focused on the violence four years ago to discredit the George Floyd protests. Many of these activists support a pluralistic and democratic Israel that grants equal Rights and citizenship to Jews and Palestinians. But the people who want Israel to remain a 'Jewish majority State' oppose a one-state solution that grants equal Rights to the Palestinians because demographically, non-Jews would outnumber Jews in Israel. Hence why we're sort of stuck in the unworkable position of trying to reach a Two-State solution while Netanyahu opposes versus a status quo where Palestinians are violently forced to live in an apartheid system. Even if you oppose the goals of these activists, it's worth giving them credit for using non-violent civil disobedience. If we can't tolerate non-violent protests, what kinds of protests CAN we tolerate? A sanctioned non-violent protest? Prior approval so there are not trespassing. That seemed to be part of the issue with this particular protest. Sanctioned or not, I don't think it was necessary to deploy State Troopers to a non-violent protest. The same cops who were too scared to take on a single mass shooter at Uvalde by the way. And the Freedom Riders who violated Jim Crow laws in the South in the 1960s were lawbreakers too when they non-violently protested. Did they deserve to be beaten by the police? I'll ask again, what's the best way to protest? Or do you support protests being banned? It just seems like some people dislike all protests or at least for causes they don't agree with.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 25, 2024 13:42:05 GMT -5
Unite the Right had a permit to march/protest. Did the UT protestors? Either way I think sending in state troopers to arrest them was an abuse of power.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyz on Apr 25, 2024 13:46:26 GMT -5
A sanctioned non-violent protest? Prior approval so there are not trespassing. That seemed to be part of the issue with this particular protest. Sanctioned or not, I don't think it was necessary to deploy State Troopers to a non-violent protest. The same cops who were too scared to take on a single mass shooter at Uvalde by the way. And the Freedom Riders who violated Jim Crow laws in the South in the 1960s were lawbreakers too when they non-violently protested. Did they deserve to be beaten by the police? I'll ask again, what's the best way to protest? Or do you support protests being banned? It just seems like some people dislike all protests or at least for causes they don't agree with. Did they leave when they were non violently asked to leave their unsanctioned protest? Do you have an issue with people being required to follow the proper steps to get a permit to schedule a protest? Even BLM was getting required permits for some of their protests after some got out of control. Were these people beaten by Police? I already answered your question, I don't think you liked my answer.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 13:48:53 GMT -5
Unite the Right had a permit to march. Did the UT protestors? It's not clear to me that these students needed a permit. See below: Here’s what the law says about protesting on Texas college campuses Is a permit necessary to protest?
Individuals themselves don’t usually need a permit to exercise their First Amendment rights, but some entities like cities may require one for unusually large protests or parades, in which case “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions may apply. Texas law allows universities to set “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions for common outdoor areas, as long as they allow "members of the university community to assemble or distribute written material without a permit or other permission from the institution."
Courts have historically indicated permitting deadlines can’t be unreasonable and burden First Amendment rights, limiting permit request deadlines to a certain number of days before an event, according to the ACLU. Entities may charge fees but only to cover the administrative costs of processing an application and issuing a permit. Permit requirements and fees must be neutral without discriminating against certain viewpoints...
What happens if I'm confronted by authorities?
Police have at times ordered people gathered for a protest to disperse. The ACLU says shutting down a protest through a dispersal order should be a last resort only exercised by police if there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, traffic interference or an immediate threat to public safety.
A dispersal order must provide protestors a reasonable opportunity to comply, including a clear and detailed notice with enough time and an unobstructed path to leave.
But people who don’t follow orders to disperse by authorities may face arrest, even if they are otherwise protesting peacefully, Creeley said.
“You don't have a First Amendment right to violate lawful orders. If you engage in civil disobedience, part of the power of your message comes from your willingness to accept the consequences of breaking the law,” he said.-------- It sounds like a lot of this stuff is in a legal gray area. I prefer the schools give students time and space to protest than try to use force to stop them from protesting. But I'm also sure that some of these activists know they're going to be arrested and are prepared to deal with the consequences. I just don't like to see cops beating up non-violent protesters. It's always a bad look. And there's only a few more weeks of school anyway. No need to take drastic measures.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 13:51:42 GMT -5
Sanctioned or not, I don't think it was necessary to deploy State Troopers to a non-violent protest. The same cops who were too scared to take on a single mass shooter at Uvalde by the way. And the Freedom Riders who violated Jim Crow laws in the South in the 1960s were lawbreakers too when they non-violently protested. Did they deserve to be beaten by the police? I'll ask again, what's the best way to protest? Or do you support protests being banned? It just seems like some people dislike all protests or at least for causes they don't agree with. Did they leave when they were non violently asked to leave their unsanctioned protest? Do you have an issue with people being required to follow the proper steps to get a permit to schedule a protest? Even BLM was getting required permits for some of their protests after some got out of control. Were these people beaten by Police? I already answered your question, I don't think you liked my answer. Some were and a news cameraman was violently arrested for no reason Real Jim Crow stuff. Stay classy Texas...
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 25, 2024 13:57:31 GMT -5
Abuse of power. Typical for Texas under Abbot.
|
|
|
Post by alienrace on Apr 25, 2024 13:58:52 GMT -5
A sanctioned non-violent protest? Prior approval so there are not trespassing. That seemed to be part of the issue with this particular protest. This. I mean, duh, right?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 13:59:38 GMT -5
Larger protest today. Member of Congress has joined the students. Thank you Governor Abbott.
None of this would've happened if you didn't respond so heavy-handed yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 25, 2024 14:03:17 GMT -5
A sanctioned non-violent protest? Prior approval so there are not trespassing. That seemed to be part of the issue with this particular protest. This. I mean, duh, right? How can students who pay to attend the university, and live there, trespass?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 25, 2024 14:06:29 GMT -5
A lot of people don't understand the point of permitting. For a large event like these, permits will lay out the when and where to minimize disruption to other people's lawful use of the property. I don't know if this is going to disrupt graduation ceremonies, for example, but students that don't want to be involved in these protests shouldn't have the protests forced into their lives. Permits also do things like insure adequate restroom/portable toilets are available, and address public safety concerns such as making sure there are adequate first aid/medical response available. For a protest this size, lack of a permit is, on its face, a public safety problem.
Without the permit, this becomes trespassing the moment the university decides it's trespassing. Failing to disburse when told to do so necessitates a "heavy hand."
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 25, 2024 14:15:41 GMT -5
Unite the Right had a permit to march. Did the UT protestors? It's not clear to me that these students needed a permit.See below: Here’s what the law says about protesting on Texas college campuses Is a permit necessary to protest?
Individuals themselves don’t usually need a permit to exercise their First Amendment rights, but some entities like cities may require one for unusually large protests or parades, in which case “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions may apply. Texas law allows universities to set “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions for common outdoor areas, as long as they allow "members of the university community to assemble or distribute written material without a permit or other permission from the institution."
Courts have historically indicated permitting deadlines can’t be unreasonable and burden First Amendment rights, limiting permit request deadlines to a certain number of days before an event, according to the ACLU. Entities may charge fees but only to cover the administrative costs of processing an application and issuing a permit. Permit requirements and fees must be neutral without discriminating against certain viewpoints...
What happens if I'm confronted by authorities?
Police have at times ordered people gathered for a protest to disperse. The ACLU says shutting down a protest through a dispersal order should be a last resort only exercised by police if there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, traffic interference or an immediate threat to public safety.
A dispersal order must provide protestors a reasonable opportunity to comply, including a clear and detailed notice with enough time and an unobstructed path to leave.
But people who don’t follow orders to disperse by authorities may face arrest, even if they are otherwise protesting peacefully, Creeley said.
“You don't have a First Amendment right to violate lawful orders. If you engage in civil disobedience, part of the power of your message comes from your willingness to accept the consequences of breaking the law,” he said.-------- It sounds like a lot of this stuff is in a legal gray area. I prefer the schools give students time and space to protest than try to use force to stop them from protesting. But I'm also sure that some of these activists know they're going to be arrested and are prepared to deal with the consequences. I just don't like to see cops beating up non-violent protesters. It's always a bad look. And there's only a few more weeks of school anyway. No need to take drastic measures. Like you I am not clear about the permit as well. From re-reading the article it appears that they had to seek permission from somebody in the University admin. If that is true, what is the process? Is there even a formal process? Or is it, if we like what you want to do, fine, if not .... nope. And with no recourse? Somehow this whole thing is not meeting the legal smell test IMO.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 25, 2024 14:17:39 GMT -5
A lot of people don't understand the point of permitting. For a large event like these, permits will lay out the when and where to minimize disruption to other people's lawful use of the property. I don't know if this is going to disrupt graduation ceremonies, for example, but students that don't want to be involved in these protests shouldn't have the protests forced into their lives. Permits also do things like insure adequate restroom/portable toilets are available, and address public safety concerns such as making sure there are adequate first aid/medical response available. For a protest this size, lack of a permit is, on its face, a public safety problem. Without the permit, this becomes trespassing the moment the university decides it's trespassing. Failing to disburse when told to do so necessitates a "heavy hand." Any chance you could quote the sentence(s) addressing permitting by the University from that article? I must have missed it.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 14:20:57 GMT -5
It's not clear to me that these students needed a permit.See below: Here’s what the law says about protesting on Texas college campuses Is a permit necessary to protest?
Individuals themselves don’t usually need a permit to exercise their First Amendment rights, but some entities like cities may require one for unusually large protests or parades, in which case “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions may apply. Texas law allows universities to set “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions for common outdoor areas, as long as they allow "members of the university community to assemble or distribute written material without a permit or other permission from the institution."
Courts have historically indicated permitting deadlines can’t be unreasonable and burden First Amendment rights, limiting permit request deadlines to a certain number of days before an event, according to the ACLU. Entities may charge fees but only to cover the administrative costs of processing an application and issuing a permit. Permit requirements and fees must be neutral without discriminating against certain viewpoints...
What happens if I'm confronted by authorities?
Police have at times ordered people gathered for a protest to disperse. The ACLU says shutting down a protest through a dispersal order should be a last resort only exercised by police if there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, traffic interference or an immediate threat to public safety.
A dispersal order must provide protestors a reasonable opportunity to comply, including a clear and detailed notice with enough time and an unobstructed path to leave.
But people who don’t follow orders to disperse by authorities may face arrest, even if they are otherwise protesting peacefully, Creeley said.
“You don't have a First Amendment right to violate lawful orders. If you engage in civil disobedience, part of the power of your message comes from your willingness to accept the consequences of breaking the law,” he said.-------- It sounds like a lot of this stuff is in a legal gray area. I prefer the schools give students time and space to protest than try to use force to stop them from protesting. But I'm also sure that some of these activists know they're going to be arrested and are prepared to deal with the consequences. I just don't like to see cops beating up non-violent protesters. It's always a bad look. And there's only a few more weeks of school anyway. No need to take drastic measures. Like you I am not clear about the permit as well. From re-reading the article it appears that they had to seek permission from somebody in the University admin. If that is true, what is the process? Is there even a formal process? Or is it, if we like what you want to do, fine, if not .... nope. And with no recourse? Somehow this whole thing is not meeting the legal smell test IMO. I agree. Even if they didn't have a permit, unless they were being violent or destroying property, the State police shouldn't have been brought in. I agree with the ACLU that it should be a last resort in the event of threats to public safety.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 25, 2024 14:28:22 GMT -5
Like you I am not clear about the permit as well. From re-reading the article it appears that they had to seek permission from somebody in the University admin. If that is true, what is the process? Is there even a formal process? Or is it, if we like what you want to do, fine, if not .... nope. And with no recourse? Somehow this whole thing is not meeting the legal smell test IMO. I agree. Even if they didn't have a permit, unless they were being violent or destroying property, the State police shouldn't have been brought in. I agree with the ACLU that it should be a last resort in the event of threats to public safety. The following may sound like I am making a joke, but I am not. My gut feeling is that Abbott was ticked about people dancing. 👨🦽I wonder what he was like a person before the tree fell on him. Was he always such a bitter, self serving, hate filled J.O.?
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on Apr 25, 2024 14:42:26 GMT -5
A lot of people don't understand the point of permitting. For a large event like these, permits will lay out the when and where to minimize disruption to other people's lawful use of the property. I don't know if this is going to disrupt graduation ceremonies, for example, but students that don't want to be involved in these protests shouldn't have the protests forced into their lives. Permits also do things like insure adequate restroom/portable toilets are available, and address public safety concerns such as making sure there are adequate first aid/medical response available. For a protest this size, lack of a permit is, on its face, a public safety problem. Without the permit, this becomes trespassing the moment the university decides it's trespassing. Failing to disburse when told to do so necessitates a "heavy hand." Kinda like 1/6.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 14:53:58 GMT -5
The video clip below is just a few months old:
Solution:
Designated Free speech zone on campus but only students or faculty can participate.
The general public shouldn't be allowed to participate in protests on campus because bad actors could cause trouble and potentially harm the safety of the students.
It sounds like that's what Columbia U in NY is doing for now and things seem to be settling down at the place where this stuff started last week now that only students are participating.
|
|
|
Post by alienrace on Apr 25, 2024 14:56:07 GMT -5
Even if they didn't have a permit, unless they were being violent or destroying property, the State police shouldn't have been brought in. So then, who would you have removed them? They refused to leave, so is it "let them do whatever they want"? Seems to be a lot of that attitude these days.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 25, 2024 15:09:09 GMT -5
There was a tense debate about allowing the "Unite the Right" rally to happen in Charlottesville a few years ago. In the name of free speech, the protest was allowed to go forward despite the repugnant views of some of the groups that attended. If we can tolerate actual neo-nazis exercising their speech Rights, we can tolerate non-violent anti-war activists protesting against their schools' ties to a foreign government that is under investigation at the Hague for genocide. Gov. Abbott seems to only care about free speech for the far-Right. Which is hypocritical. Freedom of Speech is about protecting our Rights to express offensive or unpopular speech, and not so much about the Right to say things that don't offend anyone. You have the Right to do both but no one objects to speech if they're not offended. Um... You're conflating several different issues here. I have personally planned and coordinated dozens of protests and participated in many more. I got a permit for about 90 percent of them. I have also been arrested more than once. The reason the "unite the right" rally was allowed to go ahead is because of a concept in 1st amendment juris prudence known as a 'time and place' restriction. Basically a municipality can say, 'there are no parades or permits' on Charles Street but a municipality cannot say 'there can be no Saint Patrick's day parades on Charles Street'. Rules and regulations regarding speech cannot be discriminatory or show favoritism. Take this to a college campus and there may be legitimate reasons why a college would not allow protests or disruptive activities in certain areas or at certain times and that could certainly apply to consecutive overnight encampments on the quad. If these students feel strongly enough about the issue to violate those rules, good for them, but that also means that they should be prepared to face consequences for breaking the law, school policy, or codes of conduct. The history of civil disobedience is a history of people placing themselves at a certain level of personal risk, legally, societally, and even their personal safety, in order to affect change. It is not a game. Yes, Abbot has completely over-reacted and it will probably backfire on him as it should.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 25, 2024 15:11:50 GMT -5
I agree. Even if they didn't have a permit, unless they were being violent or destroying property, the State police shouldn't have been brought in. I agree with the ACLU that it should be a last resort in the event of threats to public safety. The following may sound like I am making a joke, but I am not. My gut feeling is that Abbott was ticked about people dancing. 👨🦽I wonder what he was like a person before the tree fell on him. Was he always such a bitter, self serving, hate filled J.O.? "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution' - attributed to Emma Goldman
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 25, 2024 15:13:40 GMT -5
Even if they didn't have a permit, unless they were being violent or destroying property, the State police shouldn't have been brought in. So then, who would you have removed them? They refused to leave, so is it "let them do whatever they want"? Seems to be a lot of that attitude these days. I'm with the ACLU on this. Police from outside of the campus security should be called as a last resort. Not clear if that's what happened. It looks more like Gov Abbott was trying to make a statement or an example of the students and it backfired. I haven't seen any evidence so far that the students were being violent or harming public safety. They weren't even blocking roads as we've seen some protesters do recently.
|
|