US colleges revise rules on free speech in hopes of containing anti-war demonstrations

Also from Texas, this has been driving me crazy for years. At least they are now against international law now. Cold comfort

That sounds like a blatant and extreme violation of the First Amendment.

While the comment that you are replying to does lack nuance, the intent is clear. There is obviously a difference between murder and self defense.

You can support with food, medicine, and infrastructure. If we believe in killing something so dearly, we can send our own people. Harder to be a war monger if your own ass is on the line.

The people pretending to educate citizens, then denying the citizens educating each other.

The people pretending that war is good when Your Favorite Team does it.

The people that act like murder is actually a complex issue.

Some of the universities mentioned in the article are public institutions. SCOTUS held in Healy v James that the 1st Amendment applies to public universities. So some of the actions could be considered 1st Amendment violations.

Fun fact, the 1st amendment also applies to any organization or persons receiving money from the government (without it just being through sales ofc)

"It's not illegal so that makes it cool."

I personally find the ides that if you want an eduction, which is required for modern living, you need to abandon your rights as a citizen. Mandatary and needed public goods shouldn't strip you of your mandatory and needed rights.

Students have their rights stripped, especially as a child, because some Karens and Kevins didn't want to be a member of the HOA, they wanted to be a school board member.

Bags searched and confiscated, protests shut down, students having harmless objects taken away out of a nebulous fear of "could maybe do somethig in the future".

I believe it was intentional.

This just seems to be how they type in general.

Protests don’t really work if they’re not disruptive.

At the same time, any legitimate authority has a vested interest in minimizing disruption.

It's one of those things where I think neither side is inherently in the wrong, at least insofar as the question of "Protest vs. Disruption" is concerned. One must protest for what one believes is right, even if that protest must be disruptive to achieve its goals, and one must be prepared for a response from the authorities if that protest is sufficiently disruptive. You have to break rules, and you have to accept that the authorities are not necessarily wrong in trying to enforce the rules.

Short of saying "Only people I like are allowed to protest" or "Republicans can shut down the interstate highway indefinitely because they hate gay marriage", neither of which are particularly appealing, I don't really think that there's another option.

That this is all done by universities in the defense of a genocidal apartheid state, though? Not very morally ambiguous. This isn't a minor policy disagreement, or even a major one. This is support of corruption in US politics, the blatant sabotage of US interests abroad, and apartheid and genocide in Israel. Fuck these places trying to run interference for Israel.

The dynamic still holds as valid. It's just that the universities are shitty fucking authorities for taking the side that many of them have.

The right to a free exchange of ideas includes the right to disagree with protestors without being harmed.

This is a common idea, but its misguided. It requires that you can pressure leadership to change their behaviors by inconveniencing people and/or costing the leadership money, otherwise it has no mechanism for success. This has never really proven to be the case when they have the cheaper alternative of using the law to remove you.

What actually needs to be done is rallying support among the masses themselves for either a paralyzing general strike, or at least a show of voting force that threatens politicians with removal in the next election cycle. Neither of these goals is furthered by simple disruptive protest. A small minority cannot impose their will without first gaining a significant amount of support from the majority, so ultimately, behaviors that are sympathetic to those less politically-engaged will see better success than behaviors that are not.

Your right to free speech is not infringed if people choose not to listen to you, or if they listen but remain unconvinced. On the contrary, you're infringing on their rights if you force them to listen, and especially if you attempt to extort them. (I consider "extortion" the right word to describe the behavior of protesters who deliberately cause serious disruptions unless their demands are met.)

Allowing protests only after 5:00 PM is reasonable because protests that take place after courses have ended for the day are less disruptive to the university's primary goal of educating students. Protesters are still left with plenty of time to express their ideas. Many protesters are going to be upset about this because they want to be disruptive, but that is not their right.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my objection is to the following argument that some people are making:

1. I have the right to protest.
2. My protest isn't going to be effective unless I am disruptive.
3. Therefore, I have the right to be disruptive.

I'm saying that (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2). The right to speak does not imply the right to be heard and obeyed.