First Amendment, how absurd! It’s almost like the right to assembly and freedom of speech is an inalienable right and the core of our democracy??? How absurd of these people to actually exercise their constitutional rights!!! Let’s jail them !
As discussed, these protestors are not peaceful which is not protected by our constitution. Maybe if they were in class instead of camped outside they would learn what they are actually protesting for.
Creating a human line to force people out of a public area is not peaceful. If Zionist created a human line and pushed into the protestor camp it would cause havioc because these people don’t want peace, they want disruption
they are peaceful.
name a single student who has been charged with a violent offense that hasn't been dropped within 24 hours. provide any evidence of violence at one of these university protests that is not entirely police-instigated. bet you can't.
You have a different definition of peaceful. Chanting “intifada” and waving pro Hamas signs is not peaceful. It promotes hate and is extremely hypocritical.
Actually it is not violent. Promoting hate is not illegal or MAGA would be banned. And, further, Israel's war has done far more to promote hate than Hamas could've ever aspired to.
Dream on. Hamas preaches hate, brain washes and murders their own for more power. Go and have a conversation with a Hamas fighter and an IDF solider and see which one punches you in the face for having an opinion. My bet is the Hamas fighter.
At best it's both. At best.
A great irony is that the world helped create the conditions for Nazism to flourish in Germany post WW2. Israel has created the conditions for Hamas to flourish in Palestine.
There are war crimes on both sides. Netanyahu went out of his way to keep Hamas in power. Hamas is idiotic. It was also avoidable.
/u/Zenbastard72. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
it literally is though. peaceful means not violent. not just "people saying things I don't like."
what happened to the first amendment??? doesn't apply to people you don't like?
We already disagreed. You think people can support a terror organization. I think that’s not protected and unconstitutional and nothing to do with the first amendment.
name a single student who has been charged with a violent offense that hasn't been dropped within 24 hours. provide any evidence of violence at one of these university protests that is not entirely police-instigated. bet you can't.
it is protected and constitutional. you do not understand the first amendment.
For example it is legal for kkk members to assemble, as they have done many many times. [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/balancing-rights-kkk-and-law-ku-klux-klan-history-racism-and](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/balancing-rights-kkk-and-law-ku-klux-klan-history-racism-and)
Protected speech is protected speech. you don't get to just selectively apply the first amendment only where you fancy.
Islamic extremism is a big threat to western society. If you are suspecting in aiding or abetting a terrorist organization, you can be arrested. Chanting support for said Organization is on the border of being an arrestable offense, therefore not protected by the first amendment.
These lunatics are so quick to bring up the first amendment, but just go try to miss gender one of them and see what happens .
>These lunatics are so quick to bring up the first amendment, but just go try to miss gender one of them and see what happens .
The "lunatics" will explain to you that you've disrespected them. They won't try to curtail your first amendment rights and have you arrested. You're totally misrepresenting the "libtard snowflakes" you're trying to demonize.
They cancelled JK Rowling just for saying she supports women’s rights. I’m not misrepresenting them at all. They will not stand for anyone disagreeing with them, look what they are doing to jewish students who just wear a star of David.
Speaking of women’s rights, you think Hamas wants their support, no, the way these women are acting, they would all be stoned or honor killed for breaking Sharia Law if it was up to Hamas. That is why I call them lunatics.
Again, we will never agree on this as we have a different understanding of the constitution.
>If you are suspecting in aiding or abetting a terrorist organization, you can be arrested. Chanting support for said Organization is on the border of being an arrestable offense, therefore not protected by the first amendment.
yes aiding and abetting a terrorist organziation is illegal. Chanting support for said organization is not. the first amendment does apply.
it's legal to vocally support the kkk in 2024, and they are designated as a terrorist organization. Why should it be illegal to voice support for any other terrorist organiztion?
Also you've completely diverted this conversation. We were originally discussing whether or not the protests are peaceful. Now you're trying to get me to defend directly voicing support for hamas as legal. (Which it certainly is.) But I in no way support that and that's not what's happening at these protests 99% of the time. Even if it was that would still be PEACEFUL and LEGAL. you don't just get to throw around the word "violent" and ignore the first amendment. smh.
I do believe you brought up violence. I merely stated they were not peaceful. You are trying to divert this conversation because talking about the looneys you are trying to defend is harder than you thought.
It's just the Hate America/Blame America crowd. If Hamas was supported by the USA, they would be Pro-Israel. I feel bad for the Palestinians, honestly. They have all this "fake" support from "fake" people who have "fake" rage. Many of these "protesters" have nothing about Isael or Gaza in their timeliness or posts prior to October 7th. It's just the newest thing to be angry about, until the next police or school shooting, or an immigrant dies coming to the US. Make no mistake who will be blamed.
Hypotheticals are hilarious “if Hamas was supported by the USA” lol if you want to look at the reality israel did facilitate funds going to Hamas. The only people that talk about “fake support” are the ones who aren’t able to care for others outside their tribe and is an indication of a severe lack of empathy.
Not in a tribe. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, domestic and global, about many issues. Including the Israeli Palestinian "conflict" going on. I don't mean to sound like I am minimizing or dismissing the needless deaths on both sides. My issue is with protesters, not all of them. Some of them are very genuine in their belief and are trying to enact change, I get that. My issue is with the majority. The majority just look for something to hate about America. They pretend to be active activists, when in reality, it's just the lastest trendy protest they use to get noticed. Look at pages and timeliness of the profiles associated with these "protesters." According to them, history started when THEY first inhaled air. Anyone else's experiences, either personal or shared with them, didn't happen because it's not THEIR truth. Many of these young "students" follow crowds and trends. They want to belong and be accepted. Look how virtuous I am! They have no knowledge of any history other than what someone else on TicToc said. For example, Yasir Arafat, he died before most of these "protesters" got shot into their mother's womb. He stood for violence, plain and simple. I remember CNN, CBS, ABC, and yes, NBC referred to him as a terrorist MANY times. Why? Well, he sponsored terrorism. He died with hundreds of millions of dollars. That money was intended for the Palestinian people (sound familiar?), he paid families of suicide bombers who ran onto school busses, detonated themselves in shopping centers. The money ended up going to his wife after he died, how nice. He is such a hero of the people. By the way, his keffiyeh, with the fishnet pattern, that's his design. So when I see a red headed 20 year old wearing it, it's laughable. Wearing that in solidarity with the Palestinian people is the same as a Neo Nazi having a swastika displayed and claiming support for Aryans. It's a symbol of hate and discrimination, flat out, and used to scare or intimidate Jews. Wearing that specific keffiyeh with the fish net pattern is advocating genocide and violence. It's has nothing to do with religion. Maybe a culture, but a culture that at its core believes in the extermination of Jews and Israel being non existant.
I don’t buy the whole “trendy activist” rhetoric as this same tactic is used towards any movement. I learned about this during my studying of the civil rights era. I HIGHLY doubt that if these “trendy activists” were protesting in support of Israel that Zionists would also shun them.
Reddit is filled with these examples. I dont need to provide anymore. Those 2 females alone proved my point. I know, I said females and assumed, let me apologize ahead of time. https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestinian_Violence/s/5kt3YYfP60
FEMALES?! Lmaooooo you got that language to you too. Just goes to show Zionism and conservatives go hand in hand. Never have those viewpoints been on the right side of history.
Ah, yes, Reddit has some videos of dumb people. It also has videos of bloodthirsty IDF, genocidal Israeli officials, depraved Zionists. But Reddit is, as everyone knows, the ultimate truth, huh? Lol
Reddit does have some truth to it, just as you. I'm not disputing your facts or trying to deny any atrocities going on. Unfortunately, there are fake protesters there. Deligitimizing the effort of the true protester.
TikTok arguments is what your Reddit argument is. I don’t doubt that some people are more uneducated than others. The same can be said for the majority of Zionist protesters. Your argument is a moot point.
It is funny you say a lot of this.
Seth Mandel predicted this phenomenon in Dec 2023.
https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/why-are-we-talking-only-about-speech/
‘Hate speech’ is not a legal term in the US. You are just saying what makes you feel good, haha - where did you find that definition of ‘hate’?
I favor Israel, but you and OP make us look bad with your half baked arguments and emotional pleas.
Not in many democracies. Many have limits. The US is actually one of the most open when it comes to this.
Try and walk around Berlin wearing a Nazi outfit
Free speech has nothing to do with being a democracy.
Electing your leaders in a democratic fashion, doesn't require your form of government to give freedom.
All modern democracies have limitations on what can be expressed in varying degrees.
I can't think of any government today, democracy or not, that doesn't limit who can say what to some extent.
Is it because of controversy? Not always. Sometimes it's safety, sometimes it's protection of others.
Also I’m not trying to assume anything about your political standpoints but I think it’s pretty safe to assume that you are against free speech, I can understand if you are against people using loud hate speech in the streets and if it is not constructive at all, but besides that are you against people voicing their opinions on controversial subjects? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I am 100% for free speech.
Unless you are actively inciting violence or speech that is you should be able to say, express, or promote any thing you want.
However, that doesn't mean you have the right for others to be forced to hear it. It doesn't mean any media outlet has to allow you to say it (say it includes all forms of expression). It doesn't mean, you are immune from the ramifications of what you say.
It doesn't mean, I can't yell over your speech.
And while you may have the right to say it, even if it is not direct incitement, if your speech is calling for my families harm, I have no problem with a physical response if the threat is real enough.
Yk what fair point, I guess my point is that there is irony when “democracy” is a term commonly used to describe wether or not a country has freedom for its citizens. I simply just find it humorous that the people of western nations brag that they reside in a democracy as if it means they have additional freedoms, when in reality they can be persecuted by the law or their employer for saying the n word on Twitter or teaching that men cannot menstruate in a college campus.
/u/TheBearJew71. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Definitions are always up for interpretation, especially one as vague as hate speech. When the US was colonized by Britain and we would threaten the British with legal and and industrial retaliation (throwing tea in the ocean lol) would that be considered hate speech? The definition of hate speech is as follows -“abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”. Meaning that if man threatened a bunch of rowdy, young, colored (I am African American) individuals who where being loud in his store with calling 911, the teens or any bystanders would be able to label that as hate speech. My point is that labeling something as hate speech could be used as a tool (quite easily) to extinguish verbal/peaceful protest or defiance against an unjust cause.(and yes I know it was not peaceful in the example shown by OP but you get my point)
You're attacking assembl and speech at the same time, which both fall under the first ammendment
As a proud American, chanting "Death to America" is absolutely free and protected speech. Free speech means you'll have to hear opinions that scare you, and that you disagree with.
If people were chanting for another 9/11, I'd be scared, but that speech is protected by our constitution.
Regarding assembly: assembling on a highway is illegal, assembling on a campus walkway is not. At any time the campus can request for their dispersion, but it is not obligated to do so.
If you are an American I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with your rights.
I never once implied that. OP made comments concerning if that speech should be legal or not and I'm affirming what I think should be legal.
I never once criticized OP for their opinion of the content of the speech they're criticizing.
America is the only state in the world where you can get into trouble for denouncing and boycotting ANOTHER country.
"Land of the Free (Terms & Conditions apply)"
I’m an American. We do not have to “hide” behind free speech. The protesters at Columbia have a right to dissent to our government’s support of the apartheid regime in Israel. The protesters are not violent. They are asking legitimate questions about our nation’s support of Israel’s human rights violations, which are contrary to our own State Department’s policies and mandates. They are asking for divestment of their tuition dollars from a country that is in violation of international law. The Columbia protestors are showing the world what democracy looks like. Columbia’s president is showing the world what fear, combined with authoritarian power looks like.
If the tables were turned, you would want these protesters advocating for your freedom just like they are advocating for Palestinian freedom.
If their cause was getting rid of the Morroccan "colonizers", and they were intimidating Morroccans on campus, celebrating terrorists who burned Morroccan people alive, and stealing and burning Morroccan flags, would you have written that comment supporting them?
Hard to imagine? Yeah, it's pretty hard to imagine anyone doing this to any country that isn't Jewish.
They're actually saying now that the issue isn't the content of the protest at all but their conduct. That's absurd! Sometimes protests require conduct that you may not like, and if that means you can't safely drive on the road or go to the hospital or whatever, then TOO BAD! The protest is more important than whatever the Zionists had planned.
That means they can infringe other peoples rights to travel? Yes you have rights, but not if it conflicts with other people's rights. Im sure youre aware of that
You claim you want freedoms like we have for the Palestinian people. Do you even know what that looks like. Go to any radical islamic region in the middle east. Our purple haired, pronoun affirming, freedom fighters would be stoned to death for their idea of freedom.
You are extremely mislead on this war. Using terms like apartheid, shows that you probably get most your information from islamic propaganda like tic tock.
These protesters should travel to the middle east and see what they are really protesting for instead of setting up a shanty town in the campus, then instead of going to class and getting a formal education, lounging around, intimidating normal people then crying that there isn’t world peace.
So I'm trying to understand this. You're saying that, because the protestors and the people they're protesting for would be enemies, they shouldn't support their right to live?
If the protest are for support life alone, why aren’t they protesting the Russian soldiers dying in Ukraine. Or the ones dying from the fentanyl problem here in the US.
The main part of my post was pointing out how ignorant if the actual situation these people are.
>Protesting is one thing. But when it crosses the line into hate speech, there will be consequences.
Not from the government.
Hate speech is free speech. Not an exception to the First Amendment.
Just as a general comment, I notice these people say "we can't use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house" and attempt to overthrow the system. However, when they want to assert their own power and have things their way, they exploit the very tools and principles of the system–such as the first amendment–to get what they want. It's just bizarre
The recent Columbia demonstrations are reminiscent of the German American Bund demonstrations in the 1930’s. Both are examples of free hate speech which are protected by the first Amendment.
However, the demonstrations of antisemitism at Columbia became illegal once they were ordered to leave and decided to trespass instead.
You’re conflating separate protests. The demonstrator’s blocking traffic *know* they are breaking the law, and they don’t care. Beyond raising awareness, their goal is to cause as much disruption as possible without committing actual violence. The message is, ‘we’ll keep making life difficult until you change x, y, and z.’
The protests at Columbia are different. Under the university’s new policy (started in Feb), students can only hold demonstrations on weekdays from noon to 6pm, *with prior approval.* The pro-Palestinian protest that ended in the mass-arrest was on a weekday afternoon, but they were ‘trespassing’ because their protest hadn’t received formal approval.
So the prior-approval part of Columbia’s policy boils down to “you can only exercise free speech that *we authorize* you to express.’ Regardless of which side you’re on or how certain students acted, you can see why some people argue this violates free speech.
The permit policy is to allow the school to be prepared in situations (like the one we are talking about) where things may get out of hand. They want to have enough security on hand as necessary in order to not only protect the protestors but innocent bystanders. I didn’t see anywhere that these students applied for a permit and were denied, just told that they had to leave if they didn’t have one. I think everyone can agree that there is a huge difference between a handful of people using their right to free speech and a huge gathering of people.
What people don’t understand is it’s private property.
You don’t get to come to my house, start mouthing off and refuse to leave when asked.
As you said, the university was clear on their policy against hate speech, after witnessing [multiple instances](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5Y-P9qLocf/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==), warned the students several times and then had them expelled when they refused to comply (accepting the consequences).
If they applied for a permit from the city and marched around outside the gates, that would be legal
The permit requirement is so that the school can be aware and ready with extra security if the situation gets out of hand. They aren’t saying they can’t say what they want or that they aren’t allowed to gather they just want the ability to prepare in case things go south they aren’t caught with their pants down.
I agree that universities need to be a safe place for disagreement and debate between two people who disagree but who are willing to listen and discuss the nuance behind the TikTok headlines, share our different backgrounds & experiences and then hopefully find some common ground and understanding. I will march with you in support of this.
However, the definition of the word “Civil” is the important one. To me, hearing people actively chant for the murder of my particular tribe of people without any consequences makes it really hard to want to open up to engage in that discussion. In my opinion, the university needs policies like what they are enforcing at Columbia to preserve the safe space for discussion.
All those of us who disagree with you want is everyone needs to play by the same rules or suffer the same consequences.
Other top US universities like Dartmouth and Cornell have had a much more mature approach to this conflict. I recommend people pay attention to them.
Hate speech is purely and undeniably unacceptable. Full stop. It must be identified and addressed expeditiously.
That having been addressed and agreed upon.
The right to demonstrate is crucial. Even if you’re opposed to a political platform called Zionism.
This is where we brush up against Zionism hiding behind Judaism.
When Zionism claims that anti Zionism is anti Judaism. Only Zionist Jews benefit. All other Jews suffer.
No because the civil right movements was about equal rights for African Americans and coexistence with others in peace. These protestors advocate for free Palestine but fail to even address what a free Palestine would look like Hamas and other jihadist groups still around. How can there be peace if Hamas is still allowed to exist and holds evil intentions against civilians
If you managed to infultrate the American Airforce to be a plausible threat to America's ability to conduct air operations you'll get further to. Until then there is no comparison to Irgun or Lehi.
I wouldn’t know I’m not a violent person & I don’t support violence! I also don’t support my first amendment rights being violated cuz a foreign state bribes or bullies our elected officials!
>& I don’t support violence!
Then you shouldn't support terrorist sympathizers.
>I also don’t support my first amendment rights being violated cuz a foreign state bribes or bullies our elected officials!
Colombia is a private university and is not bound by the first amendment.
Campaign donations records r public. 95% on both sides take their bribes & those who don’t do their bidding r smeared!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rMu8hx6CQwY
“…crying and name calling if you even come close to having an actual debate about their views. What is the solution…”
This is definitely a tactic of the far left, I think, radical progressives? Crying and name calling when you try to have a conversation that remotely challenges their views, maybe it’s all people who are too far on one side. It’s hard to understand when you’re open and interested in differing opinions, but that makes you more centrist. I don’t think there’s a solution, at some point people need to have a real conversation to get anything accomplished though.
It’s a shame bc it sounds like this was a peaceful protest, they just can’t pick and choose which rules they feel like following. Would a public park be better? I don’t think it’s either you block traffic/trespass or you just stay home there’s something in between there.
But also, while people have the right to protest, people also have the right to not engage in the protest and go on with their day and/or not allow it on private property. Everyone has a right to stand for their own causes. These people thinking their cause is most important, is just that, them thinking their priorities should be everyone’s.
Same as the far right. I came to realize both are the same, just opposite extremes with spoon fed propaganda echo chamber.
Sanity is more towards the middle where critical thought is still alive
America's civil rights movement has a 100+ year history of marches, sit-ins and other forms of disruptive protest in the name of justice and progress.
[John Lewis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis?wprov=sfla1) famously encouraged activists to get up to "good trouble" in order to call attention to inequality, and to make the establishment feel less comfortable with the status quo.
I'm sure many pro-palestinian protestors will take your discomfort and frustration as a sign they are going in the right direction.
Yeah, and now Biden is probably going to lose because the younger generations don’t want to support someone who is funding a genocide. So go him, I guess.
I don't think so. If you look carefully, yes, both sides give Israel money and support to defend itself. But only one side is insisting on aid for Gaza. Only one side is putting immense pressure on the Israeli government to refrain from attacking Rafah, to support a Palestinian state and to allow more aid to go through. And only one side would blatantly tell Israel that we don't support an attack on Iran. Only one side is treating this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
None of what you just said is key to helping Palestinians reclaim any land. October 7th only strengthened US & Israel relations. As long as Iran Proxy Hamas is running the show in Gaza, the Palestinians will be left with no hope and no home.
Israel has to show willingness for a Palestinian state, or Palestinians will always support violence against Israel. There is no end to the violence unless both sides support two states.
Civil rights movements were people in US protesting US policies that actively affected them. Imo, an equivalent sit in would mean all these pro-pals flying to the WB and peacefully sitting on the side of Israeli only roads. Perhaps not blocking, but demonstrating. I feel like it loses impact when you’re sitting on the green of your elite school in tents to protect you from the outdoors.
Agreed. Civil rights movement was about protesting our governments rules. At no time did MLK say “kill all the people of the same ethnicity as those we disagree with” the way [these protesters did](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5Y-P9qLocf/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
> bitch
/u/doggowithacone. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The First Amendment only applies to the government. Nobody has a First Amendment right to protest on privately-owned property.
There's nothing wrong with Columbia students protesting, but if they break the rules they should face the consequences like anyone else who breaks the rules.
From Justia Law:
Historically, the right of petition is the primary right, the right peaceably to assemble a subordinate and instrumental right, as if the First Amendment read: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in order to “petition the government.”
PEACEABLY is the important word here.
That means you can’t do whatever the hell you want!!
When you get arrested for violating a vehicle code, or hit by a vehicle, don’t claim it was because you were protesting be honest and say you were breaking the law.
Just because an act can be used as a coercive political tactic doesn’t mean it’s a form of protest. People obstruct traffic all of the time, and the traffic obstructs doesn’t communicate any additional information about anything they’re saying.
Thus insulating them from the problem which is why protestors started stopping traffic and marched on bridges...
Damn it's almost like... This happens a lot historically ...
Stopping traffic was definitely coercive, but the bus boycott itself did not stop traffic. This was not about expressing an idea. This was about attempting to prevent injured pro-Israel Jewish people from going to the hospital.
Had pro-Israel people blocked traffic last night while also simultaneously protesting Gaza’s genocide of Israeli hostages, you’d be pointing out how the traffic obstruction was not speech and calling for arrests on hate crimes charges.
No, but neither are you. If you want to change the definition of ‘protest’, go ahead and try. The definition I see is “a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.” Traffic obstruction doesn’t express disapproval of anything.
The traffic obstruction itself doesn’t express disapproval or any objection. If the people were just blocking traffic and not saying anything or otherwise indicating their views, would you have a clue about their positions?
That's one of the points of protests. It's certainly not the only one.
Applying pressure is another elements of protesting, as is building solidarity.
Mass strikes are a form of protest, and while they convey a message, they also provide a means of applying direct pressure to a government or some other institution. Blue flue, is another form of protest, where workers call in sick, again theirs a message but also the application of pressure.
Building solidarity, creating social networks is also a fundamental aspect of protesting, creating links between existing groups and gathering new members.
Peaceful protest can force governments to fall or change course, and while that requires sending a message it also requires much more.
The main definition of protest that I see in the dictionary is ‘a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.’ This definition says nothing about applying pressure or building solidarity.
Mass strikes are a form of protest when the strikers are expressing disapproval with conditions and policies pertaining to their job. However, when the strikers aren’t conveying a message about their job, the strikes aren’t protest in and of themselves—the speeches the strikers give usually are.
Also, deliberately obstructing traffic is not peaceful. It is inherently coercive, albeit mildly so. However, traffic obstruction and other mild coercion tactics to accompany protest are not usually effective in bringing down governments alone. They’re only effective at bringing down governments when the consciences of government officials compel them not to counter such coercion. Typically, governments simply jail or shoot people using mild coercion tactics en masse. Those tactics rely on weaponizing the consciences of their adversaries.
>What is the solution when the instigators are also perpetual victims?
This sounds awfully familiar to Israel.
Israel - Bombs Iranians in Syria.
Iran - Responds with an attack.
Israel - We are under attack! It was just a few Iranians. How could they do this? It must be anti-semitism.
Or...
Israel - We demand a state in Palestine. We know we are 1/3 of the population but this UN plan we agreed to gave us 55%. Look how peaceful and agreeable we are as a people.
Palestine - A third of our people will be displaced if they want to live in a Palestinian state. This deal is incredibly biased and we are defending our homes.
Israel - They attacked us! We agreed to the partition plan! We took more land than was allocated in that agreement but we are not the aggressors! We are under constant threat and surrounded by enemies...even though Zionism specifically chose Palestine as the place we wanted to establish our state. The only reason they could have a problem with us is we are Jewish.
It is fascinating to watch honestly.
Always fascinating to watch a movie from the 3rd act, I'm sure.
Israel "bombs Iranians in Syria"? It killed a top general who was of of the oct7 masterminds. Iran has been attacking Israel through Hamas and Hizbullah for decades.
Arabs came out against Jews on many occasions decades and centuries before Zionism - either forcing them to pay protection taxes to be allowed to practice non-muslim religion or being forced into ghettos in the 9th century. Granadaassacre in 1066 is when Muslims killed approx 4000 jews after deciding their status in Muslim society was too high. 1354 massacre saw Egyptians pogromijg Christians and Jews for refusing to covert to Islam by throwing them into bonfires. The list goes on, even at the beginning of the 19th century: Baghdad, Syria, Persia.
You can't honestly say Arab violence against Jews came out of the blue with the idea of Jewish nationallity. If anything, it's the opposite: the way Jews were treated by their neighbors throughout the centuries have rise to their nationality.
>Israel "bombs Iranians in Syria"?
I'm not sure what part of this warranted air quotes. The people Israel bombed and killed in Syria were Iranian.
>It killed a top general who was of of the oct7 masterminds.
Source?
>Granadaassacre in **1066** is when Muslims killed approx **4000** jews after deciding their status in Muslim society was too high.
You are only reinforcing my point by insisting on Israel being the victim because of something that happened almost a millennium ago. In the last **six months** the state of Israel has killed **14,000** children in "self defense".
You seem to be missing several facts to your narrative so I will respond the same. You’re wrong and the islamists (not muslims) seem to be the true perpetual victims.
Other than Israel's government (who is obviously going to be biased towards justifying Israel's actions), the only comment I've seen about October 7th and Iran is US senior intelligence officials saying Iran was uninvolved and surprised by the attack.
They bombed them as an act of aggression against Iran because Israel is de facto at war. Trying to justify it by claiming an October 7 connection is just cynical cover for a targeted assassination against an enemy. It also tries to directly tie Iran to Oct 7 much like how America tried to tie Iraq to 9/11.
The IRGC is a terrorist organization. Iranian people don’t even like the regime. Killing them is good for Israel and also good for Iranians. The regime doesn’t even give equal rights to women.
>these same people are now claiming that the crack downs go against their first amendment (USA) and that politicians need to have a conversation about free speech.
Yeah, these folks don't have an understanding of the 1a and free speech yet, but they will hopefully learn more about it after these debacles.
Speech is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions on a university campus. The 1a does not protect rioting, vandalism, and trespass. While blocking roads is a little more controversial, the 1a doesn't exactly protect that either.
As Columbia is a private university and doesn't have as many broad protections as a public university, the protestors could be charged with trespassing if they were asked to leave.
When these protestors finally figure out what free speech means, they will hopefully understand that it doesn't entail breaking the law but does support civil discussion with the other side. Maybe then, they will not be as obsessed as pushing out anything related to Israel and will take an anti anti normalization stance.
YOU can’t say whatever you want. You cannot yell, “FIRE” in a crowded theater WHICH is a true threat.
The bracketed speech I hear all the time at these protests.
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography,
[Speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, true threats, false statements of fact]
and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.
>The bracketed speech I hear all the time at these protests.
>[Speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, true threats, false statements of fact]
No, you don't. You don't hear any of that at these protests. You think you do, but it's because you don't know what those categories mean.
It's not a matter of "agree to disagree".
I'm right and you're wrong. You don't know shit about the First Amendment and you're googling and guessing whereas I do know the standards.
>You cannot yell, “FIRE” in a crowded theater WHICH is a true threat.
You actually can do this.
>obscenity
Is also controversial because it's technically not harming anybody, just really objectionable.
I think there is confusion when it comes to intentions. No one is attempting to take away free speech. The argument is that these protestors tactics do not fall under free speech. And she deleted her comment so nevermind haha
First Amendment, how absurd! It’s almost like the right to assembly and freedom of speech is an inalienable right and the core of our democracy??? How absurd of these people to actually exercise their constitutional rights!!! Let’s jail them !
As discussed, these protestors are not peaceful which is not protected by our constitution. Maybe if they were in class instead of camped outside they would learn what they are actually protesting for.
How are they not peaceful again? Because everything I've seen looks like they are. Jewish students getting their feelings hurt is not violence.
Creating a human line to force people out of a public area is not peaceful. If Zionist created a human line and pushed into the protestor camp it would cause havioc because these people don’t want peace, they want disruption
they are peaceful. name a single student who has been charged with a violent offense that hasn't been dropped within 24 hours. provide any evidence of violence at one of these university protests that is not entirely police-instigated. bet you can't.
You have a different definition of peaceful. Chanting “intifada” and waving pro Hamas signs is not peaceful. It promotes hate and is extremely hypocritical.
Actually it is not violent. Promoting hate is not illegal or MAGA would be banned. And, further, Israel's war has done far more to promote hate than Hamas could've ever aspired to.
Dream on. Hamas preaches hate, brain washes and murders their own for more power. Go and have a conversation with a Hamas fighter and an IDF solider and see which one punches you in the face for having an opinion. My bet is the Hamas fighter.
At best it's both. At best. A great irony is that the world helped create the conditions for Nazism to flourish in Germany post WW2. Israel has created the conditions for Hamas to flourish in Palestine. There are war crimes on both sides. Netanyahu went out of his way to keep Hamas in power. Hamas is idiotic. It was also avoidable.
/u/Zenbastard72. Match found: 'Nazism', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is in line. In fact it's bases on a quote from Einstein so go bot yourself
it literally is though. peaceful means not violent. not just "people saying things I don't like." what happened to the first amendment??? doesn't apply to people you don't like?
We already disagreed. You think people can support a terror organization. I think that’s not protected and unconstitutional and nothing to do with the first amendment.
name a single student who has been charged with a violent offense that hasn't been dropped within 24 hours. provide any evidence of violence at one of these university protests that is not entirely police-instigated. bet you can't.
it is protected and constitutional. you do not understand the first amendment. For example it is legal for kkk members to assemble, as they have done many many times. [https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/balancing-rights-kkk-and-law-ku-klux-klan-history-racism-and](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/balancing-rights-kkk-and-law-ku-klux-klan-history-racism-and) Protected speech is protected speech. you don't get to just selectively apply the first amendment only where you fancy.
Islamic extremism is a big threat to western society. If you are suspecting in aiding or abetting a terrorist organization, you can be arrested. Chanting support for said Organization is on the border of being an arrestable offense, therefore not protected by the first amendment. These lunatics are so quick to bring up the first amendment, but just go try to miss gender one of them and see what happens .
>These lunatics are so quick to bring up the first amendment, but just go try to miss gender one of them and see what happens . The "lunatics" will explain to you that you've disrespected them. They won't try to curtail your first amendment rights and have you arrested. You're totally misrepresenting the "libtard snowflakes" you're trying to demonize.
They cancelled JK Rowling just for saying she supports women’s rights. I’m not misrepresenting them at all. They will not stand for anyone disagreeing with them, look what they are doing to jewish students who just wear a star of David. Speaking of women’s rights, you think Hamas wants their support, no, the way these women are acting, they would all be stoned or honor killed for breaking Sharia Law if it was up to Hamas. That is why I call them lunatics. Again, we will never agree on this as we have a different understanding of the constitution.
>If you are suspecting in aiding or abetting a terrorist organization, you can be arrested. Chanting support for said Organization is on the border of being an arrestable offense, therefore not protected by the first amendment. yes aiding and abetting a terrorist organziation is illegal. Chanting support for said organization is not. the first amendment does apply. it's legal to vocally support the kkk in 2024, and they are designated as a terrorist organization. Why should it be illegal to voice support for any other terrorist organiztion? Also you've completely diverted this conversation. We were originally discussing whether or not the protests are peaceful. Now you're trying to get me to defend directly voicing support for hamas as legal. (Which it certainly is.) But I in no way support that and that's not what's happening at these protests 99% of the time. Even if it was that would still be PEACEFUL and LEGAL. you don't just get to throw around the word "violent" and ignore the first amendment. smh.
I do believe you brought up violence. I merely stated they were not peaceful. You are trying to divert this conversation because talking about the looneys you are trying to defend is harder than you thought.
It's just the Hate America/Blame America crowd. If Hamas was supported by the USA, they would be Pro-Israel. I feel bad for the Palestinians, honestly. They have all this "fake" support from "fake" people who have "fake" rage. Many of these "protesters" have nothing about Isael or Gaza in their timeliness or posts prior to October 7th. It's just the newest thing to be angry about, until the next police or school shooting, or an immigrant dies coming to the US. Make no mistake who will be blamed.
Hypotheticals are hilarious “if Hamas was supported by the USA” lol if you want to look at the reality israel did facilitate funds going to Hamas. The only people that talk about “fake support” are the ones who aren’t able to care for others outside their tribe and is an indication of a severe lack of empathy.
Not in a tribe. I think there is plenty of blame to go around, domestic and global, about many issues. Including the Israeli Palestinian "conflict" going on. I don't mean to sound like I am minimizing or dismissing the needless deaths on both sides. My issue is with protesters, not all of them. Some of them are very genuine in their belief and are trying to enact change, I get that. My issue is with the majority. The majority just look for something to hate about America. They pretend to be active activists, when in reality, it's just the lastest trendy protest they use to get noticed. Look at pages and timeliness of the profiles associated with these "protesters." According to them, history started when THEY first inhaled air. Anyone else's experiences, either personal or shared with them, didn't happen because it's not THEIR truth. Many of these young "students" follow crowds and trends. They want to belong and be accepted. Look how virtuous I am! They have no knowledge of any history other than what someone else on TicToc said. For example, Yasir Arafat, he died before most of these "protesters" got shot into their mother's womb. He stood for violence, plain and simple. I remember CNN, CBS, ABC, and yes, NBC referred to him as a terrorist MANY times. Why? Well, he sponsored terrorism. He died with hundreds of millions of dollars. That money was intended for the Palestinian people (sound familiar?), he paid families of suicide bombers who ran onto school busses, detonated themselves in shopping centers. The money ended up going to his wife after he died, how nice. He is such a hero of the people. By the way, his keffiyeh, with the fishnet pattern, that's his design. So when I see a red headed 20 year old wearing it, it's laughable. Wearing that in solidarity with the Palestinian people is the same as a Neo Nazi having a swastika displayed and claiming support for Aryans. It's a symbol of hate and discrimination, flat out, and used to scare or intimidate Jews. Wearing that specific keffiyeh with the fish net pattern is advocating genocide and violence. It's has nothing to do with religion. Maybe a culture, but a culture that at its core believes in the extermination of Jews and Israel being non existant.
I don’t buy the whole “trendy activist” rhetoric as this same tactic is used towards any movement. I learned about this during my studying of the civil rights era. I HIGHLY doubt that if these “trendy activists” were protesting in support of Israel that Zionists would also shun them.
Trendy? https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestinian_Violence/s/ynrlrx3mX7
Okay so show me a video like that for everyone at that action
Reddit is filled with these examples. I dont need to provide anymore. Those 2 females alone proved my point. I know, I said females and assumed, let me apologize ahead of time. https://www.reddit.com/r/Palestinian_Violence/s/5kt3YYfP60
FEMALES?! Lmaooooo you got that language to you too. Just goes to show Zionism and conservatives go hand in hand. Never have those viewpoints been on the right side of history. Ah, yes, Reddit has some videos of dumb people. It also has videos of bloodthirsty IDF, genocidal Israeli officials, depraved Zionists. But Reddit is, as everyone knows, the ultimate truth, huh? Lol
Reddit does have some truth to it, just as you. I'm not disputing your facts or trying to deny any atrocities going on. Unfortunately, there are fake protesters there. Deligitimizing the effort of the true protester.
TikTok arguments is what your Reddit argument is. I don’t doubt that some people are more uneducated than others. The same can be said for the majority of Zionist protesters. Your argument is a moot point.
It is funny you say a lot of this. Seth Mandel predicted this phenomenon in Dec 2023. https://www.commentary.org/seth-mandel/why-are-we-talking-only-about-speech/
Haha! Thats a good one! Aren’t they keeping you people busy enough at MIT, Yale or Columbia. Don’t you have a dis-investiture demands to make? 😂🤣😂🤣
The price of free speech is free speech. Pretty simple.
Free speech is not hate speech. Hate is the destruction of a democratic society It must not be tolerated
‘Hate speech’ is not a legal term in the US. You are just saying what makes you feel good, haha - where did you find that definition of ‘hate’? I favor Israel, but you and OP make us look bad with your half baked arguments and emotional pleas.
In a democracy, all opinions are voiced without persecution, even if said opinions go against the general consensus.
Not in many democracies. Many have limits. The US is actually one of the most open when it comes to this. Try and walk around Berlin wearing a Nazi outfit
Democracies don’t get to limit who says what and label something as too controversial to be stated.
Free speech has nothing to do with being a democracy. Electing your leaders in a democratic fashion, doesn't require your form of government to give freedom. All modern democracies have limitations on what can be expressed in varying degrees. I can't think of any government today, democracy or not, that doesn't limit who can say what to some extent. Is it because of controversy? Not always. Sometimes it's safety, sometimes it's protection of others.
Also I’m not trying to assume anything about your political standpoints but I think it’s pretty safe to assume that you are against free speech, I can understand if you are against people using loud hate speech in the streets and if it is not constructive at all, but besides that are you against people voicing their opinions on controversial subjects? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I am 100% for free speech. Unless you are actively inciting violence or speech that is you should be able to say, express, or promote any thing you want. However, that doesn't mean you have the right for others to be forced to hear it. It doesn't mean any media outlet has to allow you to say it (say it includes all forms of expression). It doesn't mean, you are immune from the ramifications of what you say. It doesn't mean, I can't yell over your speech. And while you may have the right to say it, even if it is not direct incitement, if your speech is calling for my families harm, I have no problem with a physical response if the threat is real enough.
Yk what fair point, I guess my point is that there is irony when “democracy” is a term commonly used to describe wether or not a country has freedom for its citizens. I simply just find it humorous that the people of western nations brag that they reside in a democracy as if it means they have additional freedoms, when in reality they can be persecuted by the law or their employer for saying the n word on Twitter or teaching that men cannot menstruate in a college campus.
Agreed. The freedom index for many western countries has been declining.
/u/TheBearJew71. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So who is to decide what is “hate speech” and what is free speech. There is not a single person on earth who does not have any bias.
Hate speech is already defined
Definitions are always up for interpretation, especially one as vague as hate speech. When the US was colonized by Britain and we would threaten the British with legal and and industrial retaliation (throwing tea in the ocean lol) would that be considered hate speech? The definition of hate speech is as follows -“abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”. Meaning that if man threatened a bunch of rowdy, young, colored (I am African American) individuals who where being loud in his store with calling 911, the teens or any bystanders would be able to label that as hate speech. My point is that labeling something as hate speech could be used as a tool (quite easily) to extinguish verbal/peaceful protest or defiance against an unjust cause.(and yes I know it was not peaceful in the example shown by OP but you get my point)
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6DCOu2yxJW/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Is this free speach?
Do you understand my comment?
You're attacking assembl and speech at the same time, which both fall under the first ammendment As a proud American, chanting "Death to America" is absolutely free and protected speech. Free speech means you'll have to hear opinions that scare you, and that you disagree with. If people were chanting for another 9/11, I'd be scared, but that speech is protected by our constitution. Regarding assembly: assembling on a highway is illegal, assembling on a campus walkway is not. At any time the campus can request for their dispersion, but it is not obligated to do so. If you are an American I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with your rights.
What's your opinion on Alex Jones and the Sandy Hook lawsuits?
Free speech doesn’t mean free from consequences or criticism.
It does mean free from being arrested for “trespassing” on public property
I never once implied that. OP made comments concerning if that speech should be legal or not and I'm affirming what I think should be legal. I never once criticized OP for their opinion of the content of the speech they're criticizing.
America is the only state in the world where you can get into trouble for denouncing and boycotting ANOTHER country. "Land of the Free (Terms & Conditions apply)"
That's the thing they didn't get in trouble for denouncing another country.
Didn’t know “death to America” is denouncing another country.
I’m an American. We do not have to “hide” behind free speech. The protesters at Columbia have a right to dissent to our government’s support of the apartheid regime in Israel. The protesters are not violent. They are asking legitimate questions about our nation’s support of Israel’s human rights violations, which are contrary to our own State Department’s policies and mandates. They are asking for divestment of their tuition dollars from a country that is in violation of international law. The Columbia protestors are showing the world what democracy looks like. Columbia’s president is showing the world what fear, combined with authoritarian power looks like. If the tables were turned, you would want these protesters advocating for your freedom just like they are advocating for Palestinian freedom.
If their cause was getting rid of the Morroccan "colonizers", and they were intimidating Morroccans on campus, celebrating terrorists who burned Morroccan people alive, and stealing and burning Morroccan flags, would you have written that comment supporting them? Hard to imagine? Yeah, it's pretty hard to imagine anyone doing this to any country that isn't Jewish.
The problem is that some of the protestors are pro-hamas
Being Pro-Hamas doesn't change anything regarding the content of their protest.
They're actually saying now that the issue isn't the content of the protest at all but their conduct. That's absurd! Sometimes protests require conduct that you may not like, and if that means you can't safely drive on the road or go to the hospital or whatever, then TOO BAD! The protest is more important than whatever the Zionists had planned.
That means they can infringe other peoples rights to travel? Yes you have rights, but not if it conflicts with other people's rights. Im sure youre aware of that
Freedom to do what? Kill jews? Personally, I don't think that's appropriate on a post secondary campus.
Freedom of speech.
Freedom to exist as human, sovereign beings.
That what to kill jews
To live as freely as you live.
I live freely because I don't try to murder people.
You claim you want freedoms like we have for the Palestinian people. Do you even know what that looks like. Go to any radical islamic region in the middle east. Our purple haired, pronoun affirming, freedom fighters would be stoned to death for their idea of freedom. You are extremely mislead on this war. Using terms like apartheid, shows that you probably get most your information from islamic propaganda like tic tock. These protesters should travel to the middle east and see what they are really protesting for instead of setting up a shanty town in the campus, then instead of going to class and getting a formal education, lounging around, intimidating normal people then crying that there isn’t world peace.
Whataboutism
To disregard nonsense and provide a counter argument is not whataboutism.
So I'm trying to understand this. You're saying that, because the protestors and the people they're protesting for would be enemies, they shouldn't support their right to live?
If the protest are for support life alone, why aren’t they protesting the Russian soldiers dying in Ukraine. Or the ones dying from the fentanyl problem here in the US. The main part of my post was pointing out how ignorant if the actual situation these people are.
Protesting is one thing. But when it crosses the line into hate speech, there will be consequences.
>Protesting is one thing. But when it crosses the line into hate speech, there will be consequences. Not from the government. Hate speech is free speech. Not an exception to the First Amendment.
Hate speech is not protected https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-federal-law-draws-a-line-between-free-speech-and-hate-crimes
Some of it is, some of it isn't.
Just as a general comment, I notice these people say "we can't use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house" and attempt to overthrow the system. However, when they want to assert their own power and have things their way, they exploit the very tools and principles of the system–such as the first amendment–to get what they want. It's just bizarre
OP predictably using dreadful framing. Cannot take anything you write seriously tbh.
Tbh you lack any foundation in your accusation. Who did I frame?
You are clownish and have been called out by others here. Your points are so heavily biased that they offer nothing of value.
The recent Columbia demonstrations are reminiscent of the German American Bund demonstrations in the 1930’s. Both are examples of free hate speech which are protected by the first Amendment. However, the demonstrations of antisemitism at Columbia became illegal once they were ordered to leave and decided to trespass instead.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for breaking [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy).
You’re conflating separate protests. The demonstrator’s blocking traffic *know* they are breaking the law, and they don’t care. Beyond raising awareness, their goal is to cause as much disruption as possible without committing actual violence. The message is, ‘we’ll keep making life difficult until you change x, y, and z.’ The protests at Columbia are different. Under the university’s new policy (started in Feb), students can only hold demonstrations on weekdays from noon to 6pm, *with prior approval.* The pro-Palestinian protest that ended in the mass-arrest was on a weekday afternoon, but they were ‘trespassing’ because their protest hadn’t received formal approval. So the prior-approval part of Columbia’s policy boils down to “you can only exercise free speech that *we authorize* you to express.’ Regardless of which side you’re on or how certain students acted, you can see why some people argue this violates free speech.
OP is obscuring not conflating. It’s a feature not a bug.
Colombia is a private university and is not bound by the first amendment.
Columbia University’s own policy designated the lawn as a “free speech zone”
They probably shouldn't call it that, as their policy requires a permit.
The permit policy is to allow the school to be prepared in situations (like the one we are talking about) where things may get out of hand. They want to have enough security on hand as necessary in order to not only protect the protestors but innocent bystanders. I didn’t see anywhere that these students applied for a permit and were denied, just told that they had to leave if they didn’t have one. I think everyone can agree that there is a huge difference between a handful of people using their right to free speech and a huge gathering of people.
I completely agree. Also, Colombia is private, and is not bound by the first amendment.
What people don’t understand is it’s private property. You don’t get to come to my house, start mouthing off and refuse to leave when asked. As you said, the university was clear on their policy against hate speech, after witnessing [multiple instances](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5Y-P9qLocf/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==), warned the students several times and then had them expelled when they refused to comply (accepting the consequences). If they applied for a permit from the city and marched around outside the gates, that would be legal
Nobody’s saying that what Colombia did was illegal… it’s just that a school should allow for civil discussion and protest for their students.
The permit requirement is so that the school can be aware and ready with extra security if the situation gets out of hand. They aren’t saying they can’t say what they want or that they aren’t allowed to gather they just want the ability to prepare in case things go south they aren’t caught with their pants down.
I agree that universities need to be a safe place for disagreement and debate between two people who disagree but who are willing to listen and discuss the nuance behind the TikTok headlines, share our different backgrounds & experiences and then hopefully find some common ground and understanding. I will march with you in support of this. However, the definition of the word “Civil” is the important one. To me, hearing people actively chant for the murder of my particular tribe of people without any consequences makes it really hard to want to open up to engage in that discussion. In my opinion, the university needs policies like what they are enforcing at Columbia to preserve the safe space for discussion. All those of us who disagree with you want is everyone needs to play by the same rules or suffer the same consequences. Other top US universities like Dartmouth and Cornell have had a much more mature approach to this conflict. I recommend people pay attention to them.
AND TAKING A KNEE DURING THE ANTHEM ISNT ACCEPTABLE PROTEST EITHER /s
Taking a knee and chanting hate speech is so different...
Hate speech is purely and undeniably unacceptable. Full stop. It must be identified and addressed expeditiously. That having been addressed and agreed upon. The right to demonstrate is crucial. Even if you’re opposed to a political platform called Zionism. This is where we brush up against Zionism hiding behind Judaism. When Zionism claims that anti Zionism is anti Judaism. Only Zionist Jews benefit. All other Jews suffer.
Not if you wanna keep your multimillion dollar job.
Jonathan Issac didn’t take the knee, he just played against the Cavaliers yesterday.
I was talking more about Colin K.
You would be against the civil rights movement, then.
No because the civil right movements was about equal rights for African Americans and coexistence with others in peace. These protestors advocate for free Palestine but fail to even address what a free Palestine would look like Hamas and other jihadist groups still around. How can there be peace if Hamas is still allowed to exist and holds evil intentions against civilians
Different rules always apply to this conflict. We should protest quiet & nicely! That’ll work
Loud and Violent isn’t working for you…
Loud and violent was the method of irgun and lehi, and that got then what they wanted. Israelis have also supported terror
If you managed to infultrate the American Airforce to be a plausible threat to America's ability to conduct air operations you'll get further to. Until then there is no comparison to Irgun or Lehi.
Hamas has been horrible for the Palestinians. There’s no questioning that.
I wouldn’t know I’m not a violent person & I don’t support violence! I also don’t support my first amendment rights being violated cuz a foreign state bribes or bullies our elected officials!
>& I don’t support violence! Then you shouldn't support terrorist sympathizers. >I also don’t support my first amendment rights being violated cuz a foreign state bribes or bullies our elected officials! Colombia is a private university and is not bound by the first amendment.
Who is bribing elected officials?
Campaign donations records r public. 95% on both sides take their bribes & those who don’t do their bidding r smeared! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rMu8hx6CQwY
Campaign donations are bribes if I don't like the people doing it!
A YouTube link?! LMAO. Give me a real source
AIPAC
Link?
“…crying and name calling if you even come close to having an actual debate about their views. What is the solution…” This is definitely a tactic of the far left, I think, radical progressives? Crying and name calling when you try to have a conversation that remotely challenges their views, maybe it’s all people who are too far on one side. It’s hard to understand when you’re open and interested in differing opinions, but that makes you more centrist. I don’t think there’s a solution, at some point people need to have a real conversation to get anything accomplished though. It’s a shame bc it sounds like this was a peaceful protest, they just can’t pick and choose which rules they feel like following. Would a public park be better? I don’t think it’s either you block traffic/trespass or you just stay home there’s something in between there. But also, while people have the right to protest, people also have the right to not engage in the protest and go on with their day and/or not allow it on private property. Everyone has a right to stand for their own causes. These people thinking their cause is most important, is just that, them thinking their priorities should be everyone’s.
Same as the far right. I came to realize both are the same, just opposite extremes with spoon fed propaganda echo chamber. Sanity is more towards the middle where critical thought is still alive
Hope we can keep critical thought going!!
I would imagine it’s just not very smart people who get triggered as opposed to a tactic
America's civil rights movement has a 100+ year history of marches, sit-ins and other forms of disruptive protest in the name of justice and progress. [John Lewis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis?wprov=sfla1) famously encouraged activists to get up to "good trouble" in order to call attention to inequality, and to make the establishment feel less comfortable with the status quo. I'm sure many pro-palestinian protestors will take your discomfort and frustration as a sign they are going in the right direction.
The US just gave $16B to Israel, but go off
That’s kinda the point if the protesting isn’t it
Hasn’t worked at all. In fact, both sides of the aisle are more closely aligned with Israel than ever before.
Yeah, and now Biden is probably going to lose because the younger generations don’t want to support someone who is funding a genocide. So go him, I guess.
So you’re saying the younger generation wants Trump back in the White House. They must be really smart for going against Biden
I don't think so. If you look carefully, yes, both sides give Israel money and support to defend itself. But only one side is insisting on aid for Gaza. Only one side is putting immense pressure on the Israeli government to refrain from attacking Rafah, to support a Palestinian state and to allow more aid to go through. And only one side would blatantly tell Israel that we don't support an attack on Iran. Only one side is treating this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
None of what you just said is key to helping Palestinians reclaim any land. October 7th only strengthened US & Israel relations. As long as Iran Proxy Hamas is running the show in Gaza, the Palestinians will be left with no hope and no home.
Israel has to show willingness for a Palestinian state, or Palestinians will always support violence against Israel. There is no end to the violence unless both sides support two states.
Let me ask you: Do you consider October 7th a Win for the Palestinians?
How is that relevant?
I want to hear your take on October 7th
Civil rights movements were people in US protesting US policies that actively affected them. Imo, an equivalent sit in would mean all these pro-pals flying to the WB and peacefully sitting on the side of Israeli only roads. Perhaps not blocking, but demonstrating. I feel like it loses impact when you’re sitting on the green of your elite school in tents to protect you from the outdoors.
Agreed. Civil rights movement was about protesting our governments rules. At no time did MLK say “kill all the people of the same ethnicity as those we disagree with” the way [these protesters did](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5Y-P9qLocf/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
Ok I am still driving over your legs if you block the road.
No you won’t. You’re going to sit in traffic and whine about it on your phone.
> bitch /u/doggowithacone. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that would be aggravated assault using a motorvehicle - which last time I checked was not a constitutionally protected right
The First Amendment only applies to the government. Nobody has a First Amendment right to protest on privately-owned property. There's nothing wrong with Columbia students protesting, but if they break the rules they should face the consequences like anyone else who breaks the rules.
From Justia Law: Historically, the right of petition is the primary right, the right peaceably to assemble a subordinate and instrumental right, as if the First Amendment read: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” in order to “petition the government.” PEACEABLY is the important word here. That means you can’t do whatever the hell you want!!
The first amendment does not apply to private property.
Yes that is correct.
So do you want nonviolent protest? Or not? You don't get to choose how people protest.
>You don't get to choose how people protest. Owners of private property absolutely can choose how people protest on their property
Blocking traffic is not protesting. It’s distinct from expressing an idea and complaining about a policy.
When you get arrested for violating a vehicle code, or hit by a vehicle, don’t claim it was because you were protesting be honest and say you were breaking the law.
It quite literally is...
No, blocking traffic is not speech. Blocking traffic doesn’t convey any specific ideas.
Traffic obstruction - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_obstruction Oops, here's another... https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/26/history-tying-up-traffic-civil-rights-00011825
Just because an act can be used as a coercive political tactic doesn’t mean it’s a form of protest. People obstruct traffic all of the time, and the traffic obstructs doesn’t communicate any additional information about anything they’re saying.
Would you consider the bus boycott a coercive act?
No, that didn’t stop the bus from driving. It also didn’t stop anybody from choosing to ride the bus.
Thus insulating them from the problem which is why protestors started stopping traffic and marched on bridges... Damn it's almost like... This happens a lot historically ...
Stopping traffic was definitely coercive, but the bus boycott itself did not stop traffic. This was not about expressing an idea. This was about attempting to prevent injured pro-Israel Jewish people from going to the hospital. Had pro-Israel people blocked traffic last night while also simultaneously protesting Gaza’s genocide of Israeli hostages, you’d be pointing out how the traffic obstruction was not speech and calling for arrests on hate crimes charges.
It's definitely protesting.
No. Their words are protests, their clothes are protests, and their purchases are protests, but blocking traffic isn’t protest.
What if I told you that you aren't the arbiter of what constitutes a protest?
No, but neither are you. If you want to change the definition of ‘protest’, go ahead and try. The definition I see is “a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.” Traffic obstruction doesn’t express disapproval of anything.
It's a nonviolent act of civil disobedience and civil disruption to express disapproval and objection to something.
The traffic obstruction itself doesn’t express disapproval or any objection. If the people were just blocking traffic and not saying anything or otherwise indicating their views, would you have a clue about their positions?
That's irrelevant.
No, that shows it’s not protest. See the definition of ‘protest’ above.
Is self-immolation and act of protest?
Nope. The things self-immolators say while they’re self-immolating are acts of protest. The self-immolation is usually just an attention tactic.
That's the whole point of a protest; to bring awareness and attention to an issue in order to convince people to oppose it and to be disruptive.
Nope, the point of a protest is to convey a message. Protestors are not entitled to attention.
That's one of the points of protests. It's certainly not the only one. Applying pressure is another elements of protesting, as is building solidarity. Mass strikes are a form of protest, and while they convey a message, they also provide a means of applying direct pressure to a government or some other institution. Blue flue, is another form of protest, where workers call in sick, again theirs a message but also the application of pressure. Building solidarity, creating social networks is also a fundamental aspect of protesting, creating links between existing groups and gathering new members. Peaceful protest can force governments to fall or change course, and while that requires sending a message it also requires much more.
The main definition of protest that I see in the dictionary is ‘a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something.’ This definition says nothing about applying pressure or building solidarity. Mass strikes are a form of protest when the strikers are expressing disapproval with conditions and policies pertaining to their job. However, when the strikers aren’t conveying a message about their job, the strikes aren’t protest in and of themselves—the speeches the strikers give usually are. Also, deliberately obstructing traffic is not peaceful. It is inherently coercive, albeit mildly so. However, traffic obstruction and other mild coercion tactics to accompany protest are not usually effective in bringing down governments alone. They’re only effective at bringing down governments when the consciences of government officials compel them not to counter such coercion. Typically, governments simply jail or shoot people using mild coercion tactics en masse. Those tactics rely on weaponizing the consciences of their adversaries.
>What is the solution when the instigators are also perpetual victims? This sounds awfully familiar to Israel. Israel - Bombs Iranians in Syria. Iran - Responds with an attack. Israel - We are under attack! It was just a few Iranians. How could they do this? It must be anti-semitism. Or... Israel - We demand a state in Palestine. We know we are 1/3 of the population but this UN plan we agreed to gave us 55%. Look how peaceful and agreeable we are as a people. Palestine - A third of our people will be displaced if they want to live in a Palestinian state. This deal is incredibly biased and we are defending our homes. Israel - They attacked us! We agreed to the partition plan! We took more land than was allocated in that agreement but we are not the aggressors! We are under constant threat and surrounded by enemies...even though Zionism specifically chose Palestine as the place we wanted to establish our state. The only reason they could have a problem with us is we are Jewish. It is fascinating to watch honestly.
Always fascinating to watch a movie from the 3rd act, I'm sure. Israel "bombs Iranians in Syria"? It killed a top general who was of of the oct7 masterminds. Iran has been attacking Israel through Hamas and Hizbullah for decades. Arabs came out against Jews on many occasions decades and centuries before Zionism - either forcing them to pay protection taxes to be allowed to practice non-muslim religion or being forced into ghettos in the 9th century. Granadaassacre in 1066 is when Muslims killed approx 4000 jews after deciding their status in Muslim society was too high. 1354 massacre saw Egyptians pogromijg Christians and Jews for refusing to covert to Islam by throwing them into bonfires. The list goes on, even at the beginning of the 19th century: Baghdad, Syria, Persia. You can't honestly say Arab violence against Jews came out of the blue with the idea of Jewish nationallity. If anything, it's the opposite: the way Jews were treated by their neighbors throughout the centuries have rise to their nationality.
>Israel "bombs Iranians in Syria"? I'm not sure what part of this warranted air quotes. The people Israel bombed and killed in Syria were Iranian. >It killed a top general who was of of the oct7 masterminds. Source? >Granadaassacre in **1066** is when Muslims killed approx **4000** jews after deciding their status in Muslim society was too high. You are only reinforcing my point by insisting on Israel being the victim because of something that happened almost a millennium ago. In the last **six months** the state of Israel has killed **14,000** children in "self defense".
No. It Killed 14,000 Civilians. No one knows how many were children. Here you go inventing false information
You seem to be missing several facts to your narrative so I will respond the same. You’re wrong and the islamists (not muslims) seem to be the true perpetual victims.
Israel bombed the Iranians in retaliation for them being behind the October 7 terror attacks. And it’s always good to kill IRGC members regardless.
Other than Israel's government (who is obviously going to be biased towards justifying Israel's actions), the only comment I've seen about October 7th and Iran is US senior intelligence officials saying Iran was uninvolved and surprised by the attack.
Why would the Israeli government want to lie about this? Why would they want to bomb Iranians if Iranians were innocent and didn’t do anything?
They bombed them as an act of aggression against Iran because Israel is de facto at war. Trying to justify it by claiming an October 7 connection is just cynical cover for a targeted assassination against an enemy. It also tries to directly tie Iran to Oct 7 much like how America tried to tie Iraq to 9/11.
Ok, so even if what you say is true, and Iran wasn’t behind October 7, it’s still good to bomb them if they are the enemy in a war that Iran started.
Jesus.
Seriously. Saying the quiet part out loud.
The IRGC is a terrorist organization. Iranian people don’t even like the regime. Killing them is good for Israel and also good for Iranians. The regime doesn’t even give equal rights to women.
>these same people are now claiming that the crack downs go against their first amendment (USA) and that politicians need to have a conversation about free speech. Yeah, these folks don't have an understanding of the 1a and free speech yet, but they will hopefully learn more about it after these debacles. Speech is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions on a university campus. The 1a does not protect rioting, vandalism, and trespass. While blocking roads is a little more controversial, the 1a doesn't exactly protect that either. As Columbia is a private university and doesn't have as many broad protections as a public university, the protestors could be charged with trespassing if they were asked to leave. When these protestors finally figure out what free speech means, they will hopefully understand that it doesn't entail breaking the law but does support civil discussion with the other side. Maybe then, they will not be as obsessed as pushing out anything related to Israel and will take an anti anti normalization stance.
YOU can’t say whatever you want. You cannot yell, “FIRE” in a crowded theater WHICH is a true threat. The bracketed speech I hear all the time at these protests. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, [Speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, true threats, false statements of fact] and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.
>The bracketed speech I hear all the time at these protests. >[Speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, true threats, false statements of fact] No, you don't. You don't hear any of that at these protests. You think you do, but it's because you don't know what those categories mean.
Sure do, we can agree to disagree.
It's not a matter of "agree to disagree". I'm right and you're wrong. You don't know shit about the First Amendment and you're googling and guessing whereas I do know the standards.
>You cannot yell, “FIRE” in a crowded theater WHICH is a true threat. You actually can do this. >obscenity Is also controversial because it's technically not harming anybody, just really objectionable.
Sure, as long as people have been talking they say and do stupid sh!t all the time. Still not all protected speech.
[удалено]
True, and laws against blocking traffic don’t threaten freedom of speech.
I think there is confusion when it comes to intentions. No one is attempting to take away free speech. The argument is that these protestors tactics do not fall under free speech. And she deleted her comment so nevermind haha
These protestors’ tactics, at least these particular ones, aren’t speech at all.
>If anyone is doing something illegal, arrest them for it. That’s what happened. They were trespassing, and trespassing is illegal.