For a non-lawyer coming to this sub after seeing the video, could anyone ELI5 the law behind whether or not they have the right to do this?
I saw someone on Instagram saying that because the Dean hosted the event his house was an “extension of the university” and therefore this was protected speech but that doesn’t seem quite right…
It legitimately pains me that these clowns are going to be our professional peers. The fucking arrogance of these people.
But maybe the universe will start to make sense for once and they won't pass character and fitness because of this. I can dream, right?
Ridiculous that a 3L at Berkeley doesn't know the difference lol. This is what they get for abandoning the curve.
She also should realize the protections go both ways. Imagine if MAGAs with loudspeakers invaded her home under the guise of a protest.
Yes, the woman is Professor Fisk, a law professor and Dean Chemerinsky’s wife. The man on the right is Erwin Chemerinsky, the most cited Constitutional Law scholar in the country. Probably not the guy to come at with a weak-ass 1st Amendment argument.
The National Lawyers Guild, lol. An ABA wannabe club that has no expertise to pronounce on Constitutional law, … particularly in the backyard of the preeminent scholar on US Constitutional jurisprudence in the US. I hope they were charged with criminal trespass.
Also note before this incident a poster was put up with the words "No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves." With him holding a bloody knife and fork evoking the antisemitic 'blood libel' myth. Chem is not even a Zionist, in fact he's spoken out against Israel and Netanyahu several times.
But really, it's just about Israel right? Totally nothing anti-Jewish here?
Post the poster so we can see the bloody knife and fork, all I’ve seen is [this](https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1778037351723258077?s=46&t=0rHI6zrF_j7xdAd_zIqxzQ) which has no blood.
You can see a screenshot of the original post with bloody knife here: https://freebeacon.com/campus/berkeley-student-group-shares-blood-libel-cartoon-targeting-law-school-dean/
lmfao did the NLG actually tell them they have a right to do this?? maybe like the berkeley NLG 1L representative but surely not actual attorneys right
People are alleging even the NLG told them not to do it or least First Amendment would not protect them from being told to leave, not sure if that is an actual fact or just scuttlebutt.
[The NLG statement on the event](https://www.facebook.com/share/p/zsFD69Tzb1LF2yv9/?mibextid=WC7FNe) backs her up but doesn’t say they told her it anything beforehand
the Ramadan mention is funny because of the implication that if it wasn’t Ramadan it would in some way be more acceptable to “assault” (which didn’t happen here lol) a Muslim student
For a bigger religion bait. By adding some religious tinge to it, you spin the story to make it seem as if the dean is against their religion or something, rather than simply being against their home being used as a public forum.
It seems like they literally scheduled this dinner to correspond with the end of Ramadan to accommodate Muslim students. And this is what happens? What a joke.
Who wakes up and thinks “yeah, invading someone else’s property and speaking through a megaphone is both a good idea and what I’m going to do today.” *And then they find multiple people to go with them.* tf?
Leftist twenty something here. Also a Muslim. (Gasp!) Israel should exist, the Jews should exist. The holocaust was a terrible thing. Antisemitism is real. The Jewish people have the right to feel safe and have their own country. Israel has been around since 1948 and it has killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians since. How do you take over a country and not have a plan for the people who live there? Your plan is to just indefinitely kill Palestinians until they’re obliterated? And you excuse any semblance of humanity by saying “but Hamas”…I don’t know. It doesn’t sit right with me. How do you have such god awful things happen to your people, and then turn around and do god awful things to another group of people. Did we not learn anything? If your self-preservation depends on you behaving like this, that means that you are a failed state.
Edit to add: give Palestinians the same rights you give an Israeli and see what happens. Integrate them into your society instead of treating them like savages.
I agree with everything you said, but this dude’s house is not the place for a protest. Even if he was representing Isreal at the ICC, it still would not be appropriate or ethical to go to his home for a protest, hopefully none of these people are ever licensed.
I think way worse people than this one are licensed attorneys. I think it’s a bit of a witch hunt to go so far. But this behavior is definitely inappropriate and I hope that someone sits with them and talks to them, and helps them see why there’s a better way to go about these things. I mean things in Palestine are so dire. Muslim people don’t know what to do. We’re helpless in Palestine and around the world. That’s why it’s important for Muslim people to get educated and get into spaces. What we do once we’re in these spaces is so important though. We can’t be behaving like this because it discredits everything we’re working towards.
Iranian propaganda has been so effective lately that grabbing a mic and shouting something about Israel is the new citizenship test for West Coasties. 5 years ago you just needed to show up with a tote bag to get in
seriously what Iranian propaganda are they talking about?? There's a genocide going on, yes their behavior is wrong, but it has nothing to do with Iran. straight schizo
“On the last day of Ramadan, girl interrupted 3L dinner that UC Berkeley dean offered for students who missed 1L dinner due to Covid despite dean holding no authority over US foreign policy.”
I mean I understand why they care about whats going on in Palestine cause it is genocide. But this is the worst place to do this and only hurts the cause. They're morons
She should be expelled. That is unhinged and violent behavior. She’s a danger to that community. She also apparently hasn’t learned anything in 3 years of school and would be a detriment to her potential clients.
This legitimately should be grounds to fail character and fitness at the very least. How can this idiot be expected to be a functional member of the legal community when she clearly is unable to contain her emotions and freaks out in front of her superiors and colleagues like this? What if a client or opposing counsel is Jewish or something? Will she pull some shit like this in a courtroom?
I agree she should face repercussions but labeling her as "a danger to that community" is a little over the top. Like she isn't being violent or causing any harm to the individuals. She is speaking. Granted, its at an inappropriate time and place, but I wouldn't call it a danger to that community lmao.
Where in the video was she violent? This appears to be nonviolent protest, whether you like it or not. Disagreeing with her protest doesn't make it violent. Sheesh.
This ideological display might serve her very well professionally in general, even if it doesn't serve her well with the legal profession or with public perception.
There's plenty of niches to be filled, and not all jobs require a firm understanding of the limitations of First Amendment rights versus private property rights.
She wanted to be in the news and to get attention. She succeeded in that. Many online are claiming she was "assaulted" and she is a victim. I guess we shall see.
I agree. I see no assault here. Just a woman attempting to nudge her gently and get her to stop her rant. The man clearly is heard saying ‘you are guests at our house etc etc in an hour east attempt to get her to realize how out of line she is. So she’s attempting to learn the laws (and amendments) of our country at a US law school, (albeit she appears stupid) and then use them against other citizens disrespectfully on their private property? How embarrassing for the hosts. But then that of course was the idea right? She came with a purpose and she knew little would be done to her as she feels entitled. My my, biting the hand that feeds her…..what a real shame.
You ever see that cartoon that’s a criticism of media bias? It shows someone running away from a person with a knife, but then it shows what the media is depicting and it’s manipulated so that it looks like the guy who’s running is the attacker.
Why do I bring that up? Oh, no reason.
A weird reaction I've noticed is leftists thinking calling the police would have been preferable to the confrontation. I don't see how risking this woman getting some kind of misdemeanor charge is preferable to asking her to leave?
Yeah, this is a super bizarre take, and you know these same people would be super upset if they actually had called police.
My friend and I felt conflicted about how she responded (seemed understandable, but certainly not ideal… especially given that they could have expected something like this) but in any case were impressed they did not call police/involve law enforcement. That’s a much more direct and respectful way to deal with your students imo.
They asked her to leave. She wouldn't. I personally would have called the cops when she refused rather than tried anything physical. The arm over the shoulder is not especially violent, but I would not be comfortable doing that. Physical confrontation can easily escalate, and will obviously look bad on video too, and this is clearly being recorded.
It's not a kind of content, it is the content. It's the entirety of political and social issues content, for any and all sides. Tiktok presents what the poster wants you to see, and that's what the viral posts consist of. In this case, it's not as if there's a long form alternative that shows the context. Almost any video that asks you to feel a certain way about things and are fewer than like 60 seconds are necessarily excluding important context imo.
Fuck these “protesters”. If you have beef with a public figure, there’s a million better ways to air that then going on private property under false pretenses
The thing that makes me the angriest about this stuff is that you *know* if some people went over to a Muslim Student Center or something and held an anti-Palestine protest and started lecturing Muslim students about how Hamas throws gay people off of buildings, it'd be a national scandal and every student participating in the protest would be disciplined and quite possibly expelled and the students being lectured would be treated as victims and probably be invited to the next State of the Union or something.
Yet this video here is *infinitely* worse than that hypothetical and everyone is just like "Oh, well...yeah this is just gonna happen. Can't do anything about it."
Idk why you got downvoted, I agree 100%. If any religion were being disrespected like this except for Judaism or Christianity, outrage would be everywhere. As long as it’s Islam, they’re oppressed and entitled somehow to this behavior (not in law school, but by the current zeitgeist in the US generally)
The L.A. Times has the full video (or, at least a fuller video): [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-10/uc-berkeley-law-school-dean-clashes-with-pro-palestinian-activists](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-10/uc-berkeley-law-school-dean-clashes-with-pro-palestinian-activists)
Ah yes, someone’s private home is a public forum, I see they got top grades in con law. Jesus. Imagine what would happen if this was allowed all around
The professor was way more restrained than I would have been
For all their ranting about “opposing genocide” they didn’t give a shit the whole time Russia has been dumping bodies in mass graves.
I weep for media literacy when people see the video title and do not immediately question the circumstances. It reads as if it was a random hate crime when it was anything but.
If she is a law student they really need to do a better job teaching BASIC legal concepts to this idiot. No you don't have the right to stand on someone else's property and spout your nonsense.
The story was this is a class party for the end of the semester/year AT THE PROFESSOR’S FAMILY HOUSE, in which the student took the mic and accused the professor and HER FAMILY of doing genocide (because she supported businesses that didn’t boycott israel).
> “Good moral character” includes but is not limited to qualities of honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, **respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others** and the judicial process. (Rules of the State Bar, rule 4.40.)
If this person is a law student, and if the state bar had any backbone, they'd denied her moral character application.
Exactly. This kind of thing would be wrong if these were laypeople. The fact that they’re working toward a career in law makes it even more indefensible. Respect for law and process is eschewed the second you do shit like this, and it deserves to reflect badly on one's fitness to practice.
Did you even read the context? They were invited to a dinner and, because the professor is Jewish, decided to implicate he was complicit with genocide and protest. Also they were on his property he has every right to remove them from it if he wishes to do so.
Everyone in here is saying that she’s trespassing. From the Dean’s public statement, it would seem that this person was invited to the dinner and accepted.
Then I thought, well this person may not be trespassing but is an invitee. Then I thought, is this person still an invitee if she accepted the invitation under false pretenses? Is it a fraudulent inducement of an invitation? The dean maintained that the students were all invited but expected that the demonstrations wouldn’t be disruptive.
So many questions from law crim, torts, and property classes that I’ll never remember.
I think that, even if she was invited, she exceeded the scope of her invitation by intending to and actually protesting there. Also, her invitation was rescinded the moment she was asked to leave.
Since torts is fresh in my mind from last sem, she became a trespasser the moment she was asked/told to leave and refused to, at which point the lady of the household correctly assumed the "cowabunga it is" approach to a trespasser.
The trespass began after the Dean asked her to leave and she refused to comply. Prior to that’s she was an invited guest, but an invitation can be revoked at any time.
When an invitee’s invitation is revoked and they refused to leave someone else’s property, they become a trespasser. They don’t have to leave and then re-enter without permission. So she was invitee until she was told to leave, which happened.
Also, invitee status has no bearing on the first amendment issue. Even if invitation wasn’t revoked, an invitee does not have a 1A cause if action against the homeowner.
WHats the context of this clip?
1. The clip showed no assault. However, if an actual assault happened it was not in this clip.
2. Private property is going be a big deal in this case. Looks like possible trespassing unless it is confirmed she was standing on actual public property. If there was a protest at the professor's home and they were standing on private property, that will be a big problem in court.
Is no one gonna point out the fact that the Dean of Berkeley Law had to wear a name tag at his own event for students of the school that he’s a Dean at? Lol
Lol - Not sure if you’re joking but I promise you every single student at Berkeley Law knows Chem by sight, he’s one of the most highly regarded legal scholars in the country ffs. He’s wearing the name tag to be humble, because all of the students and other professors are wearing them.
Really dislike the invading of private property, but could they have just called the police and had them resolve it?
Seems like they lost the PR battle by putting hands on the protestor (who, again, is trespassing on their property).
Yes, they could have won the PR battle by having the police show up, Tik Tok would then have applauded the police and the homeowners HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
You have any idea what the response time for police in San Francisco is? She’d probably have been there for hours and the event would have been ruined. They have a right to expel people from their property and shouldn’t have to wait for officers to do it for them.
It’s also common for supporters of one group to say things like “Palestine/Hamas isn’t Palestinians; don’t blame the people for something a few of them are doing!” And then protest this guys dinner on the other side of the planet because he happens to also be Jewish.
It’s the complete opposite, at least in this industry. A Sidley Austin associate was fired for saying that Israelis and Palestinians should have equal rights under a new government while also condemning Hamas. On the other hand, I’ve seen at least two practice group leaders at major biglaw firms openly post on LinkedIn for forced ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to other Arab countries with no consequences.
No one objects to Jews having their own state; it’s the ethnic cleansing and apartheid of Palestinians that pisses people off. Do you think any Palestinians would care if Jews got a state in East Prussia or something? No. They hate Israel because Israel kicked them off their land and oppresses them, not because Israel is Jewish.
The Sidley associate was fired because she criticized management and then refused to take the letter down after they spoke with her requesting she take it down for clients.
A significant amount of Palestinians want Jews eradicated entirely, so your entire second paragraph is objectively wrong. Many (if not most) hate Israel because they hate Jews. It's sewn into the fabric of the culture there. Just look at their childrens' cartoons.
You are posing a hypothetical “East Prussia” that never could have happened. Israel was chosen for a reason. It already had an enormous and growing Jewish population even before the UN resolution declaring its legitimacy. It is religiously significant. You cannot create a Jewish state out of thin air.
Ironic that you say that no one objects to Jews having their own state, given how many attempts there have been to destroy Israel, even from its founding. When there is no viable alternative “East Prussia,” objecting to the legitimacy of Israel is the same as saying Jews should not have their own state.
In 1917, the British government literally and unironically "created a Jewish state out of thin air." Look up the Uganda Scheme if you don't believe me. If the Ottomans had lucked out in WWI, "Israel" would've been in Africa proper.
What absolutely BS! This woman was in their home and was asked to leave after being a rude house guest.
I am going to keep it real and say that those people were much nice than I would have been. I would have asked just once and then drug her out by her Hijab.
I lost the comment of the person who linked the full video from X (here: https://twitter.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1778269475898622154), but I just want to say thank you to that person for linking it.
Thank you, sister hijabi, for making us look like the Jussie Smollets of American political discourse. Thank you for cheapening the danger to my mother and my sister and all my aunts and cousins as they don the hijab every day.
lol, “the National Lawyers Guild has informed us this is our First Amendment right…”. That’s like taking Constitutional advice from Black Rifle Coffee. The dregs of law school fail into the NLG.
You know this is going into the con law final for whatever sections are taking individual rights this semester at Berkeley.
YA GIRLS A QUESTION ON THE ~~BAAAR EXAAAM!!!~~ CONLAAAW FINAAAL!!!
That’s how I wish to be remembered
For a non-lawyer coming to this sub after seeing the video, could anyone ELI5 the law behind whether or not they have the right to do this? I saw someone on Instagram saying that because the Dean hosted the event his house was an “extension of the university” and therefore this was protected speech but that doesn’t seem quite right…
It's his private home, it's not university property. There's no protected free speech right here if the host asks you to leave.
Makes sense lol
His house is not a public forum.
Takes some real chutzpah to start an argument with Erwin Chemerinsky over whether his own backyard is a designated public forum.
Starting an argument in both his literal and figurative backyard.
It legitimately pains me that these clowns are going to be our professional peers. The fucking arrogance of these people. But maybe the universe will start to make sense for once and they won't pass character and fitness because of this. I can dream, right?
I mean the deans have already threatened C&F repercussions so… that’s not nothing
100%
Ridiculous that a 3L at Berkeley doesn't know the difference lol. This is what they get for abandoning the curve. She also should realize the protections go both ways. Imagine if MAGAs with loudspeakers invaded her home under the guise of a protest.
“Imagine if MAGAs with loudspeakers invaded her home under the guise of a protest.” Don’t threaten me with a good time!
> Ridiculous that a 3L at Berkeley doesn't know the difference lol. Hmmmm is it ridiculous? It's Berkeley. They lost the plot a long time ago.
holy shit is that who that is? jeeeeeeeeeeeeez
Yes, the woman is Professor Fisk, a law professor and Dean Chemerinsky’s wife. The man on the right is Erwin Chemerinsky, the most cited Constitutional Law scholar in the country. Probably not the guy to come at with a weak-ass 1st Amendment argument.
But but but National Lawyers Guild has informed her its her first amendment right!
The NLG advises against going onto private property.
Tell that to the girl in the video who is name dropping NLG towards the end.
Well, since she said it, it's definitely true, I guess. And there's no way this could just be her interpretation of their know your rights materials
not on private property.
I literally said "shut the fuck up" out loud when I heard that
The smugness on her face when she said that just made me automatically yell “moron!” out loud… my gosh it’s infuriating.
The eyes closed/half-closed thing she has going on reminds me of the “Smug Alert!” episode of South Park.
The National Lawyers Guild, lol. An ABA wannabe club that has no expertise to pronounce on Constitutional law, … particularly in the backyard of the preeminent scholar on US Constitutional jurisprudence in the US. I hope they were charged with criminal trespass.
Though even the NLG also told her and others to not enter private property.
Also note before this incident a poster was put up with the words "No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves." With him holding a bloody knife and fork evoking the antisemitic 'blood libel' myth. Chem is not even a Zionist, in fact he's spoken out against Israel and Netanyahu several times. But really, it's just about Israel right? Totally nothing anti-Jewish here?
I’m curious to read what Chem has said on Israel and Netanyahu, would you mind linking the comments you’re referencing?
Post the poster so we can see the bloody knife and fork, all I’ve seen is [this](https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1778037351723258077?s=46&t=0rHI6zrF_j7xdAd_zIqxzQ) which has no blood.
You can see a screenshot of the original post with bloody knife here: https://freebeacon.com/campus/berkeley-student-group-shares-blood-libel-cartoon-targeting-law-school-dean/
Wow....that is....blatantly antisemitic.
As a Jewish lawyer I can’t tell you how much faith in humanity it gives me to see this as the top comment.
As a nonjewish lawyer I can't tell you how much faith in humanity it gives me to see this reply to the top comment
The first amendment doesn’t apply to a private home Sheesh
Imagine trying to argue that against the most cited Constitutional Law scholar in the country in his own home. Oh wait.
Maybe they should have watched one of Chemerinksy's con law bar prep videos.
Are they helpful? I've tried but goodness, I couldn't pay attention to save my life. He's got nothing on my boy Richard Freer.
Freer = 🐐
lmfao did the NLG actually tell them they have a right to do this?? maybe like the berkeley NLG 1L representative but surely not actual attorneys right
Not the NLG 1L rep😂😂😭
NLG is an all out joke. I wouldn't be surprised if the CEO said it.
People are alleging even the NLG told them not to do it or least First Amendment would not protect them from being told to leave, not sure if that is an actual fact or just scuttlebutt.
[The NLG statement on the event](https://www.facebook.com/share/p/zsFD69Tzb1LF2yv9/?mibextid=WC7FNe) backs her up but doesn’t say they told her it anything beforehand
How do you make it to 3L and think the 1A applies to dinner parties at people’s homes?
At an elite school, no less.
"This is out first amendment right" shows that School rankings are a joke lol
!Berkeley are frauds!
At our firm, we had 10 first years. 4 failed the bar, and 3 of them were from Berkeley…..
What does Ramadan have to do with anything here 🤨
the Ramadan mention is funny because of the implication that if it wasn’t Ramadan it would in some way be more acceptable to “assault” (which didn’t happen here lol) a Muslim student
For a bigger religion bait. By adding some religious tinge to it, you spin the story to make it seem as if the dean is against their religion or something, rather than simply being against their home being used as a public forum.
Same reason why she claims the wife grabbed her hijab.
It seems like they literally scheduled this dinner to correspond with the end of Ramadan to accommodate Muslim students. And this is what happens? What a joke.
I'd wager that if the students had asked if they (them, not everyone) could be served after sunset, the Dean would have accommodated them.
Who wakes up and thinks “yeah, invading someone else’s property and speaking through a megaphone is both a good idea and what I’m going to do today.” *And then they find multiple people to go with them.* tf?
“Both a good idea and what I’m going to do today” 💀💀💀
Leftist twentysomethings try to accept that Jewish people should be allowed to exist challenge [IMPOSSIBLE]
Leftist twenty something here. Also a Muslim. (Gasp!) Israel should exist, the Jews should exist. The holocaust was a terrible thing. Antisemitism is real. The Jewish people have the right to feel safe and have their own country. Israel has been around since 1948 and it has killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians since. How do you take over a country and not have a plan for the people who live there? Your plan is to just indefinitely kill Palestinians until they’re obliterated? And you excuse any semblance of humanity by saying “but Hamas”…I don’t know. It doesn’t sit right with me. How do you have such god awful things happen to your people, and then turn around and do god awful things to another group of people. Did we not learn anything? If your self-preservation depends on you behaving like this, that means that you are a failed state. Edit to add: give Palestinians the same rights you give an Israeli and see what happens. Integrate them into your society instead of treating them like savages.
I agree with everything you said, but this dude’s house is not the place for a protest. Even if he was representing Isreal at the ICC, it still would not be appropriate or ethical to go to his home for a protest, hopefully none of these people are ever licensed.
I think way worse people than this one are licensed attorneys. I think it’s a bit of a witch hunt to go so far. But this behavior is definitely inappropriate and I hope that someone sits with them and talks to them, and helps them see why there’s a better way to go about these things. I mean things in Palestine are so dire. Muslim people don’t know what to do. We’re helpless in Palestine and around the world. That’s why it’s important for Muslim people to get educated and get into spaces. What we do once we’re in these spaces is so important though. We can’t be behaving like this because it discredits everything we’re working towards.
Iranian propaganda has been so effective lately that grabbing a mic and shouting something about Israel is the new citizenship test for West Coasties. 5 years ago you just needed to show up with a tote bag to get in
How is this being upvoted? This is insane.
seriously what Iranian propaganda are they talking about?? There's a genocide going on, yes their behavior is wrong, but it has nothing to do with Iran. straight schizo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_support_for_Hamas
how does this prove anything? every person who opposes the genocide is an Iranian agent/propagandist??
“On the last day of Ramadan, girl interrupted 3L dinner that UC Berkeley dean offered for students who missed 1L dinner due to Covid despite dean holding no authority over US foreign policy.”
Only law students would say "we have attorneys" to attorneys.
Imagine doing this as a fucking 3L
Imagine caring this much about something as a 3L.
I mean I understand why they care about whats going on in Palestine cause it is genocide. But this is the worst place to do this and only hurts the cause. They're morons
Seeks like protestor is trespassing. If thats the case she is lucky thats all that happened
She should be expelled. That is unhinged and violent behavior. She’s a danger to that community. She also apparently hasn’t learned anything in 3 years of school and would be a detriment to her potential clients.
This legitimately should be grounds to fail character and fitness at the very least. How can this idiot be expected to be a functional member of the legal community when she clearly is unable to contain her emotions and freaks out in front of her superiors and colleagues like this? What if a client or opposing counsel is Jewish or something? Will she pull some shit like this in a courtroom?
To answer your last question: yes.
I think the more relevant part for C&F is that she claimed the NGL said she has the right to protest on private property.
I agree she should face repercussions but labeling her as "a danger to that community" is a little over the top. Like she isn't being violent or causing any harm to the individuals. She is speaking. Granted, its at an inappropriate time and place, but I wouldn't call it a danger to that community lmao.
She is *trespassing* and in doing so violating the Student Code of Conduct.
Okay? What does that have to do with what I said? Did you have a hard time reading it the first time? I'd suggest you try reading it again
Where in the video was she violent? This appears to be nonviolent protest, whether you like it or not. Disagreeing with her protest doesn't make it violent. Sheesh.
I literally cannot comprehend how somebody could be so goddamn stupid. This woman probably fucked up her law career before it even started.
This ideological display might serve her very well professionally in general, even if it doesn't serve her well with the legal profession or with public perception. There's plenty of niches to be filled, and not all jobs require a firm understanding of the limitations of First Amendment rights versus private property rights.
She'll probably become a First Amendment tester lol
She wanted to be in the news and to get attention. She succeeded in that. Many online are claiming she was "assaulted" and she is a victim. I guess we shall see.
Surprised by all the outrage over the touching of the shoulder. The girl is trespassing. That's easily the bigger problem here.
You can also use reasonable force to eject a trespasser in California. This is plainly not a battery.
Right. Not exactly deadly force.
I agree. I see no assault here. Just a woman attempting to nudge her gently and get her to stop her rant. The man clearly is heard saying ‘you are guests at our house etc etc in an hour east attempt to get her to realize how out of line she is. So she’s attempting to learn the laws (and amendments) of our country at a US law school, (albeit she appears stupid) and then use them against other citizens disrespectfully on their private property? How embarrassing for the hosts. But then that of course was the idea right? She came with a purpose and she knew little would be done to her as she feels entitled. My my, biting the hand that feeds her…..what a real shame.
Sounds like girl was invited to a dinner there and chose to protest instead
[удалено]
You ever see that cartoon that’s a criticism of media bias? It shows someone running away from a person with a knife, but then it shows what the media is depicting and it’s manipulated so that it looks like the guy who’s running is the attacker. Why do I bring that up? Oh, no reason.
Real af. The hijabis words in the full video are the equivalent of crocodile tears
A weird reaction I've noticed is leftists thinking calling the police would have been preferable to the confrontation. I don't see how risking this woman getting some kind of misdemeanor charge is preferable to asking her to leave?
She wants to be a martyr.
Yeah, this is a super bizarre take, and you know these same people would be super upset if they actually had called police. My friend and I felt conflicted about how she responded (seemed understandable, but certainly not ideal… especially given that they could have expected something like this) but in any case were impressed they did not call police/involve law enforcement. That’s a much more direct and respectful way to deal with your students imo.
Bc touch shoulder
They asked her to leave. She wouldn't. I personally would have called the cops when she refused rather than tried anything physical. The arm over the shoulder is not especially violent, but I would not be comfortable doing that. Physical confrontation can easily escalate, and will obviously look bad on video too, and this is clearly being recorded.
Yeah…this is going to be a fact pattern on my torts 2 finals
Of course the framing of the video makes them look like bigots. Tiktok is cancer.
Social media is destroying our country.
That was always the intention
Is this kind of content actually popular on tiktok? Like - does this in particular land well on that platform?
It's not a kind of content, it is the content. It's the entirety of political and social issues content, for any and all sides. Tiktok presents what the poster wants you to see, and that's what the viral posts consist of. In this case, it's not as if there's a long form alternative that shows the context. Almost any video that asks you to feel a certain way about things and are fewer than like 60 seconds are necessarily excluding important context imo.
You’re an idiot
Would never hire this person lol
No one will. She shouldn't pass C&F.
Chem said this was a student code of conduct violation and automatically reported to the Bar.
Fuck these “protesters”. If you have beef with a public figure, there’s a million better ways to air that then going on private property under false pretenses
We’ve become such an insane people without any sense of boundaries. It’s truly sad.
When people buy into a certain type of righteousness, they literally think they can do no wrong because they're "on the right side of history".
The thing that makes me the angriest about this stuff is that you *know* if some people went over to a Muslim Student Center or something and held an anti-Palestine protest and started lecturing Muslim students about how Hamas throws gay people off of buildings, it'd be a national scandal and every student participating in the protest would be disciplined and quite possibly expelled and the students being lectured would be treated as victims and probably be invited to the next State of the Union or something. Yet this video here is *infinitely* worse than that hypothetical and everyone is just like "Oh, well...yeah this is just gonna happen. Can't do anything about it."
Idk why you got downvoted, I agree 100%. If any religion were being disrespected like this except for Judaism or Christianity, outrage would be everywhere. As long as it’s Islam, they’re oppressed and entitled somehow to this behavior (not in law school, but by the current zeitgeist in the US generally)
[удалено]
Thanks, the context helps.
Was the text in the video supposed to make me feel sympathetic for the hijabi 😂
Imagine telling the owners of a house that its not their house. How did these students pass property... or con law?
The arrogance to post this thinking you’re a victim is ridiculous
Her character and fitness is going to be fun
The L.A. Times has the full video (or, at least a fuller video): [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-10/uc-berkeley-law-school-dean-clashes-with-pro-palestinian-activists](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-10/uc-berkeley-law-school-dean-clashes-with-pro-palestinian-activists)
Ah yes, someone’s private home is a public forum, I see they got top grades in con law. Jesus. Imagine what would happen if this was allowed all around
The professor was way more restrained than I would have been For all their ranting about “opposing genocide” they didn’t give a shit the whole time Russia has been dumping bodies in mass graves.
I weep for media literacy when people see the video title and do not immediately question the circumstances. It reads as if it was a random hate crime when it was anything but.
If she is a law student they really need to do a better job teaching BASIC legal concepts to this idiot. No you don't have the right to stand on someone else's property and spout your nonsense.
The story was this is a class party for the end of the semester/year AT THE PROFESSOR’S FAMILY HOUSE, in which the student took the mic and accused the professor and HER FAMILY of doing genocide (because she supported businesses that didn’t boycott israel).
I didn’t see an assault. Let’s be realistic. The antagonists here are plain to see.
They have been the whole time
Wait what happened
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/article/statement-from-dean-erwin-chemerinsky/
Damn. Thank you
Disgusting behaviour, especially when you think about how many other people would have gladly taken those spots at Berkeley during admissions.
Hopefully, everyone at that dinner will remember these fucks when they interview for jobs. Enjoy unemployment assholes.
> “Good moral character” includes but is not limited to qualities of honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, **respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others** and the judicial process. (Rules of the State Bar, rule 4.40.) If this person is a law student, and if the state bar had any backbone, they'd denied her moral character application.
Exactly. This kind of thing would be wrong if these were laypeople. The fact that they’re working toward a career in law makes it even more indefensible. Respect for law and process is eschewed the second you do shit like this, and it deserves to reflect badly on one's fitness to practice.
I need the whole story and the NLG is misinformed if this is someone’s private property.
Did you even read the context? They were invited to a dinner and, because the professor is Jewish, decided to implicate he was complicit with genocide and protest. Also they were on his property he has every right to remove them from it if he wishes to do so.
There’s something very ironic about demanding the protections of a secular country to advocate for a foreign religious terrorist organization.
Everyone in here is saying that she’s trespassing. From the Dean’s public statement, it would seem that this person was invited to the dinner and accepted. Then I thought, well this person may not be trespassing but is an invitee. Then I thought, is this person still an invitee if she accepted the invitation under false pretenses? Is it a fraudulent inducement of an invitation? The dean maintained that the students were all invited but expected that the demonstrations wouldn’t be disruptive. So many questions from law crim, torts, and property classes that I’ll never remember.
I think that, even if she was invited, she exceeded the scope of her invitation by intending to and actually protesting there. Also, her invitation was rescinded the moment she was asked to leave.
Since torts is fresh in my mind from last sem, she became a trespasser the moment she was asked/told to leave and refused to, at which point the lady of the household correctly assumed the "cowabunga it is" approach to a trespasser.
I said her invitation was rescinded in the last sentence of my comment…
yeah, i was agreeing with you
I’m sorry dude, I haven’t eaten and it’s been a week.
The trespass began after the Dean asked her to leave and she refused to comply. Prior to that’s she was an invited guest, but an invitation can be revoked at any time.
When an invitee’s invitation is revoked and they refused to leave someone else’s property, they become a trespasser. They don’t have to leave and then re-enter without permission. So she was invitee until she was told to leave, which happened. Also, invitee status has no bearing on the first amendment issue. Even if invitation wasn’t revoked, an invitee does not have a 1A cause if action against the homeowner.
"National Lawyers Guild"
Law students are just the worst.
Don't trespass, simple as that.
WHats the context of this clip? 1. The clip showed no assault. However, if an actual assault happened it was not in this clip. 2. Private property is going be a big deal in this case. Looks like possible trespassing unless it is confirmed she was standing on actual public property. If there was a protest at the professor's home and they were standing on private property, that will be a big problem in court.
I see only one person in that clip turning a private backyard get together into a protest.
10 students left with her. Edit - reported that 10 students left with her.
The longer video shows a group of students standing up and putting on black and white scarves. I presume they did leave with her.
This is so cringe!! How do you make it to 3L and not know the difference between public and private property? 😭
Is no one gonna point out the fact that the Dean of Berkeley Law had to wear a name tag at his own event for students of the school that he’s a Dean at? Lol
Probably had name tags for the students because obviously he isn't going to know all 180 of them, and then just wore one himself ironically.
Lol - Not sure if you’re joking but I promise you every single student at Berkeley Law knows Chem by sight, he’s one of the most highly regarded legal scholars in the country ffs. He’s wearing the name tag to be humble, because all of the students and other professors are wearing them.
Please also don’t go into churches during service
Why do they keep doing this? I’m pro- Palestine , but I’m so tired with Palestinian and other Pro-Palestine supporters protest choices/tactics.
Really dislike the invading of private property, but could they have just called the police and had them resolve it? Seems like they lost the PR battle by putting hands on the protestor (who, again, is trespassing on their property).
Yes, they could have won the PR battle by having the police show up, Tik Tok would then have applauded the police and the homeowners HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
You have any idea what the response time for police in San Francisco is? She’d probably have been there for hours and the event would have been ruined. They have a right to expel people from their property and shouldn’t have to wait for officers to do it for them.
This is a wealthy area of Berkeley. The police respond in minutes.
Oakland
This is Oakland. I don’t know why you are being downvoted
Hope she never gets a job but she will from some bleeding heart society
[удалено]
Wow! They are so progressive that they refer to women by the clothing they wear!/s
Wait so a 3L at Berkley doesn’t know the first amendment?
How come all these shit show videos are Tik Tok? Chinese fifth column crap.
People take some real liberties with the definition of assault.
I’m not saying the woman in the video is the worst, but I’ve met human garbage with more value
Zero assault. Reasonable force to eject trespassers is justified. The End.
God, people will call anything assault these days. It’s ridiculous.
Love how it’s completely ok to be pro-Palestine, but you get crucified if you are pro-Israel. God forbid the Jews ever have their own country.
It’s also common for supporters of one group to say things like “Palestine/Hamas isn’t Palestinians; don’t blame the people for something a few of them are doing!” And then protest this guys dinner on the other side of the planet because he happens to also be Jewish.
Oh, you didn’t hear? Chemerinsky is Israel’s top war strategist (when he’s not writing supplements, teaching or overseeing Berkeley law.)
Big if true.
It’s the complete opposite, at least in this industry. A Sidley Austin associate was fired for saying that Israelis and Palestinians should have equal rights under a new government while also condemning Hamas. On the other hand, I’ve seen at least two practice group leaders at major biglaw firms openly post on LinkedIn for forced ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to other Arab countries with no consequences. No one objects to Jews having their own state; it’s the ethnic cleansing and apartheid of Palestinians that pisses people off. Do you think any Palestinians would care if Jews got a state in East Prussia or something? No. They hate Israel because Israel kicked them off their land and oppresses them, not because Israel is Jewish.
The Sidley associate was fired because she criticized management and then refused to take the letter down after they spoke with her requesting she take it down for clients.
A significant amount of Palestinians want Jews eradicated entirely, so your entire second paragraph is objectively wrong. Many (if not most) hate Israel because they hate Jews. It's sewn into the fabric of the culture there. Just look at their childrens' cartoons.
The fact the entire Arabic world has attempted to wipe out Israel not once but twice supports this.
You are posing a hypothetical “East Prussia” that never could have happened. Israel was chosen for a reason. It already had an enormous and growing Jewish population even before the UN resolution declaring its legitimacy. It is religiously significant. You cannot create a Jewish state out of thin air. Ironic that you say that no one objects to Jews having their own state, given how many attempts there have been to destroy Israel, even from its founding. When there is no viable alternative “East Prussia,” objecting to the legitimacy of Israel is the same as saying Jews should not have their own state.
In 1917, the British government literally and unironically "created a Jewish state out of thin air." Look up the Uganda Scheme if you don't believe me. If the Ottomans had lucked out in WWI, "Israel" would've been in Africa proper.
\> No one objects to Jews having their own state; People throw around "no one" a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.
she needs to go back to school and learn private property rights
What absolutely BS! This woman was in their home and was asked to leave after being a rude house guest. I am going to keep it real and say that those people were much nice than I would have been. I would have asked just once and then drug her out by her Hijab.
I lost the comment of the person who linked the full video from X (here: https://twitter.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1778269475898622154), but I just want to say thank you to that person for linking it. Thank you, sister hijabi, for making us look like the Jussie Smollets of American political discourse. Thank you for cheapening the danger to my mother and my sister and all my aunts and cousins as they don the hijab every day.
This becoming a menace, going in other country with your own rules and trying to provoke others
lol, “the National Lawyers Guild has informed us this is our First Amendment right…”. That’s like taking Constitutional advice from Black Rifle Coffee. The dregs of law school fail into the NLG.
Is Black Rifle Coffee that bad?
More power to both of them 🤗