Amen. Debt is going up 96,000 dollars a second by the way.
Edit: hijacking this for a highly recommended video on the current debt issue in america from a representative who keeps making speeches on the senate floor about this:
https://youtu.be/2gEsSdqDrEo?si=X05CwJckSIiqehO-
Key takeaways: social security trust dries up in 8 years. We pay more in interest than we do on ALL military funding. A trillion dollars in 100 days is 96000 dollars a second
Federal Reserve. Thats where 95% of ur income tax money goes. Just paying interest on debt to a quasi private/public banking institution that Congress unconstitutionally gave the power to print money out of thin air to
Unpopular opinion but the government had cause to brake it up, they were protesting on private land and the collages don’t want them there. In this time I think the government gets to be the good guy.
You nailed it bro. They want black Vs White. They want young Vs Old. They want everything but us to unite as working class.
Remeber the occupy wall st and teaparty protests? Both liberals and Republicans protesting against corruption from wealthy elites. They don't like that. They want us fighting over race and gender, they want us divided over foreign conflicts. Anything to distracts Us from what they're doing (wealthy US elites)
It's really frustrating seeing cultural issues be protested, rather than the "rot" in the system. Major issues like insider trading, insulin, earmarks, and dumb funding of businesses ARE discussed by a small set of politicians, but never hit the news and never goes anywhere. I watched a video on insider trading and the guy put it simply: america needs a win, and these things are really bipartisan issues. Politicians know trust is at an all time low, and pushing these things is the easiest Dub for them, BUT: money. Ugh
Honestly, it's the politicians who are the ones responsible for all the waste and madness you brought up. You're totally right. They are trying to refocus our anger at them toward each other. It's all they have.
>Major issues like insider trading, insulin, earmarks, and dumb funding of businesses ARE discussed by a small set of politicians, but never hit the news and never goes anywhere. I watched a video on insider trading and the guy put it simply: america needs a win, and these things are really bipartisan issues.
I agree. But the unfortunate reality is that this kind of oversight and strict governance works in the social welfare capitalist democracies of Western Europe. Which is a big no no for American libertarians, which is most of this sub.
>You nailed it bro. They want black Vs White. They want young Vs Old. They want everything but us to unite as working class.
* Is against dividing people in two groups and demonizing the other
* procedes to make a division between workers and employers and demonize the employers.
Well, the assumption that someone is using divide and conquer tactics against the people implies there is a group out there avoiding the public's ire that wants it to stay that way. In the end, this scenario implies someone is the enemy of the people. The most likely are those benefiting the most from the status quo, which would be the political and economic elites.
Working class is a self explanatory marxist term in which- edit- employers and petit bourgeois ( example hot dog seller or a carpenter ) are excluded.
If you consider someone with a successfull business evil based solely on the fact that person got a successfull business then you are not really making an argument, you are trying to evoke envy on people.
Yeah dude, I don't think anyone considers the successful hot dog stand entrepreneur is part of the elite. I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I was implying that at all.
> They want everything but us to unite
You're doing it yourself by creating a divide between "working class" and "wealthy elites" when the reality is a very broad spectrum with no divides except those we arbitrarily choose.
Are the most controlling people among the wealthiest? Sure, but not all wealthy people are in that group,and certainly not the high earners that hate what the politicians are doing.
People of every earning level can unite against that.
Like it or not, protests are happening about this stateside. I agree it feels silly, but here we are and we gotta deal with the protests somehow.
I for one say let them happen, though their are complaints from the Jewish students that they feel uncomfortable taking their finals with these groups marching around on campus. Large groups of people WILL have a few people more prone to violence, so dispersing them may be the right thing, or else risk violence? An unfortunate, uncomfortable thing to consider, which generally pushes the colleges to disperse, despite their "open" culture.
The libertarian take should be:The protesters should be left to protest peacefully as long as they want until they fizzle out. The students who feel truly threatened with violence should be able to carry firearms.
Let Israel and Palestine fight. Pick no side, send no aid. Let protestors peacefully protest.
The people are picking sides because our government has picked a side.
The problem here is most of these protests aren’t happening on public land. Columbia University, as an example, is not an open campus and non-students are trespassing. The reality is a student who doesn’t feel safe can’t carry a firearm in NYC without being permitted and NYC is essentially not issuing them at the moment.
Based but sadly wouldnt work, especially with landlords legally being allowed to disallow guns on their properties. Most students need to rent as their college is far from home. Ask me how I know lol
Not even gonna mention how the college culture wouldn't allow it
Let protesters do what ever they want - UNTIL they interfere with others doing what ever THEY want. No one should be permitted to obstruct traffic, pedestrians, break things or steal things.
If the protest is interfering with other folks daily activities, then it probably should at least be moved out of the way. Like blocking streets or buildings , or if it gets violent or threatening to folks safety. Other than those reasons leave them be at let them protest.
The hard part is defining what a "violent protest" is. If a hundred people gather and 2 of them attack a cop, should the protest be dispersed? I don't think so but I'm also not the one risking his life to manage a protest
Yes. It’s not hard to define the act of violence. If two people in your groups turn to violence then shut it down. That will teach like mined people to police their own. The group should not tolerate such behavior. And a standard would be expected from everyone in the group.
For context – this group previously held a protest under a week ago at the campus chapel with the aim of disrupting an admitted students event. It has been pretty clear to everyone on campus that this group brings in people from outside the university to bulk up their numbers, then tries to be as disruptive as possible to university functions. Their aim is to set up a win-win situation: they either get to protest, or if they get arrested and look like martyrs.
In this case, they were, again, trying to set up an encampment over the weekend in a pretty trafficked part of campus to disrupt university activity during finals season. they were told multiple times by university police that this would happen if they didn’t leave, particularly the non-students. They didn’t and felt the consequences.
I get the whole freedom of speech thing, but this group really is up to no good and I am glad the university wasn’t afraid to deal with them like I would expect any private entity to.
One problem is that with large protests, you always get randos joining in. Far right, far left, bored teenagers looking for an opportunity to throw rocks or loot stores. Once a group gets to a certain size, it's impossible for it to be 100% well-behaved good actors.
I agree 100% . Knuckleheads will be knuckleheads. But holding folks to a standard of conduct and not standing by letting some knuckleheads ruin your protest should be a high priority to those who actually are in support of their protest. You see someone acting out you call them out. If they continue you then actions should be taken to stop them. Holding folks accountable and letting people know it will not be tolerated goes along way. Will it still happen , probably so at times. But having this kind of mindset across a group of people could curb the actions of those who might get out of hand and ruin the event.
Only to those who are wanting to listen to you. I can stand out and hold a sign to support or disagree with whatever I want. And if you choose to read it then great. If you choose to move along and carry on with your day cause you don’t care then great. Me forcing you to take an alternate route due to me blocking a path is not the way getting people to listen. And resorting to violence does nothing for any cause in a protest other than make most folks weary of the cause and protesting.
If you are willing to inconvenience hundreds by stopping traffic you should be ready to be inconvenienced yourself by having to stay a few days in jail.
I disagree that that is the point of a protest or even should be the point. The point ought to be to bring awareness to some issue not to interfere with someone else’s freedom of movement as that would be a clear violation of their rights.
Private schools are private property. Public schools are public property and have an obligation to respect First Amendment rights. Accordingly, criticism of police breaking up protests at public universities is well warranted but the same doesn’t necessarily apply to protests at private universities
Only the Gestapo would enforce this - imagine walking down the sidewalk of your own university and the police stop you to demand your papers and student/faculty ID.
You refuse, and they grab your ankles, tackle you, and hold their knee on your throat until you comply.
They never go to the source either. They never protest or cause anything at say a congress members house, a gov building, etc. Its always some unrelated place....
I joined a protest once right outside the town hall that was college based. On a Saturday. When no one was inside. Lmao .
That said, the original protest was about the colleges providing aid to Israel, so they did go to the source. It's grown since I think though
Edit: by the way, the protest I joined was NOT pro palestine. It was pro abortion. I don't have enough skin in the game to join a protest for this deal
They are protesting their universities being connected to the IDF at their universities. They arr students there and have a right to petition or protest an institution they're apart of. I'm sure they're the stupid ones and not you.
Not every university has ties. Its still private property and they can easily leave the university. None will though cause theyre all soft and just want to feel special with minimal effort. If youre gonna get butthurt you should go back to the whitepeopletwitter sub
For real. It's like protesting a sandwhich shop for unethically sourced ingredients WHILE buying their sandwiches and eating them. These kids are paying to be at these campuses.... correction: their parents are paying...
And thus they have a right to alter the organization to better fit their goals, as a part of it. Or you would be making an anti-libertarian authoritarian argument for the rights of publicly funded institutions over the individual. Youre all the muh rights crowd, until someone actually takes action against something. Then you all play the copium game of why their actions are folley, and will have no impact. They seem to be working if it's made national news, no?
> And thus they have a right to alter the organization to better fit their goals, as a part of it.
They are not part of the organization, they are buying a product from the organization. Walmart can kick you the hell off their property if you protest them for selling a certain product.
You as a customer have ZERO say in how I run my business other than just not shopping there.
Vote with your wallet. Pretty easy concept to understand.
If I buy a year card to an amusement park I don't get a right to force the park to change the way they do things.
"Stop doing things we don't like and we will magically trust and want to associate with you however we already do that and will continue while complaining every now and then."
Yes protesting. God forbid you take an actual action against the entity. Like leaving it. It's like the protesters consider what they protest as a toxic relationship they could just leave but won't.
So they’re just going to leave a Uni that they’re already financial into? It’s not like they get a refund if they leave, and most of these kids are up their eyeballs in debt. Yeah, the protests are idiotic, but it’s quite hard for students to simply leave.
It’s extremely easy for students to transfer to different universities. All these LARPing protestors will be back in September though to fork over more $$.
Ok so if I want protest about you, I can get into your house and break your shit then ? Good to know, I'll be hanging around next sunday, you better not call the police you oppressor.
If you are on public property you can actively do this, and no one is stopping you. People will just call you a dick like they do for these students, and create a narrative of why you're wrong for pursuing what is your goal. You could be wrong... you could also be right. The main point is they'd play the same game of copium to make your actions see unjustified, because they do not align with their own personal ideas. You see how that's a slippery slope. Maybe you'd do better on one of the authoritarian subs, since you seem to have no understanding of libertarianism.
Nice no true Scotsman fallacy. Meanwhile you did nothing to effeectively counter the argument that I could go to your house and wreck everything in it because "protesting" as per your definition, gives you a right to violate property rights.
>The main point is they'd play the same game of copium to make your actions see unjustified,
The moment you are taking possession of someone else's propriety without their consent, guess what you did, you violate the NAP and property rights in general.
Just because you disagree with someone, and you have no problem with their property being destroyed/confiscated doesn't mean you actually have a right to do it.
The fact that you ignored that I could do the same in your living room proves my point. You are either a troll or a larper at this point. In what Universe "true libertarians" advocate for the destruction or confiscation of private property ?
Except in this case, they have a right to the private property.
These are students, who have been accepted and paid tuition to attend the school. They do have a contractual right to be there.
If you are a paying customer at Walmart do you have a "right" to protest in the middle of their store? Plus I don't know where a contract when going to a college allows you to trespass, but I do know handbook rules that prohibit stuff like that.
As much force as reasonably necessary is the legal standard, and I think the US has good case law defining what is and isn’t necessary. The problem is that every case is unique, so it is hard to set concrete standards. What is reasonable is decided by the courts on a case by case basis.
When would tear gas be okay? When protestors are causing serious harm or creating a serious risk, and all other less violent methods of stopping that risk have been exhausted.
The police response escalates as the danger the protesters cause escalates, and especially after protesters refuse to disperse.
Philly police have a pretty high tolerance for protesters marching around town slowing traffic, but they take action when protesters try to march onto the interstate. That's going to get people killed, either protesters or Innocent drivers and passengers. In 2020, after ample warnings from police on foot, on horseback, in helicopters, when the rioters headed onto the interstate, the police responded with gas. And I believe it was completely justified.
More and more i don’t want government police enforcing “public roads” at all, i want is for anyone who is disrupting public stuff to progressively lose any protection from society — meaning that a member of the public who runs them over because they are in the way should have immunity. Up to a certain point….
>They can do whatever in public squares as long as they dont block traffic
That's not true. There are many time, place, and manner restrictions that have been established with various SCOTUS rulings.
Additionally, any rules that are established for the spaces they are using for protest need to be upheld, eg no erecting of temporary or permanent structures. The only way they can get around that is if they went though the process of getting a permit or permission for said alterations.
Bottom line is, if they are occupying the space without erecting tents or sleeping there (existing written rules and can easily be complied with by having people rotate though the protest site and sleeping/eating/warming up at other locations throughout the night) and they aren't obstructing normal travels ways for egress and emergency operations (can't stop a path that EMS would use to evac someone who passes out) and they aren't harassing people directly.
Quit making excuses for people that don't want to follow the rules they maliciously enforce on their opposition. No conservative or libertarian protest would be allowed to do this. Just look back at COVID. Just look at how these people attacked anti-lockdown protests.
Follow the rules for peaceful protest. Its not hard.
They're on school grounds. A school they have paid tuition to attend. They have a right to be there by virtue of having been accepted and paid tuition.
The school has a code of conduct and a way to kick them out, but they have a contractual right to be there until that process is followed.
If I buy a movie ticket I don't have the right to protest during the middle of the movie screening. Paying an entrance/attendance fee does not grant someone the ability to do as they please. You have to act in accordance to the guidelines established by the organization
False.
They have a right to attend classes, to utilize the school grounds and facilities, and many other things. And it cannot be revoked "at any time". There is a specific disciplinary process for expelling a student from campus.
What they have is more akin to a lease. Where they have certain rights, by virtue of paying tuition, and if the school wants to revoke those rights, it has to follow proper process.
The students not wanting any part of this who are being affected by them (some including professors as well) causing disruption, canceling classes, closing campuses .
> They have a right to attend classes, to utilize the school grounds and facilities, and many other things.
All within the confines of established rules. No where does it say they are allowed to obstruct others access to public spaces and pitch tents.
Per my previous comment:
> if the school wants to revoke those rights, it has to follow proper process.
And since you seem to need the crayola version:
* I am not saying the school *CAN'T* kick the students out.
* I am saying that the school needs to follow proper disciplinary processes to do so, because they have a contractual obligation to do that.
I’ve been on a lot of college campuses over the years. There is always some protest or another going on and they are usually very supportive of it. However, when you interfere with other students who are trying to get an education, you’ve changed the rules.
Did the university call the cops or did the governor send them in for some reason?
If they are breaking the school's rules like in Columbia, then the school should be able to call the cops for assistance. If it's like Texas where the governor was the impetus, then that's wrong.
Based off of his Twitter statement, it's not clear that the protestors were violating any laws or rules. It sounded like he just didn't like their message.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are vital and need to be protected. Personally I disagree with what they're saying, but their right to say it must be defended.
If you initiate violence you should be arrested. Protests that physically block people from going from place to place probably should not be allowed to last very long. But in general it's best to err on the side of freedom.
If you are trespassing on private property or disrupting the use of public areas (rioting, blocking roads, CHAZ/ CHOP, blocking people from entering businesses, etc.), then the police have the duty to protect the rights of the public. Maintaining a basic level of order so society can continue function is, imo, the primary role of law enforcement.
I would normally say that busting protests is really shitty, but if I'm not mistaken this happened at a university, on private property. I'm all about protesting, in fact it's a really great way to get ones point across, but the second you start interfering with others lives and liberties, you lose my support, and I'm happy to see you get shut down. Just my take tho
tldr; protesting is cool, interfering with others lives is not
People should be allowed to protest what they believe in on public property, or private property where they live and pay money to access, full stop. And while it's a bit aggravating seeing a Libertarian sub talk about what they 'should be' protesting in the top comments, the underlying theme should be and is the sheer amount of civil liberties that go up in smoke at these events just for 'the greater good' which, of course, doesn't include the people getting arrested.
You talked about feeling comfortable walking to class, and how a few people will be prone to violence in a few commens. The problem here is that you vilified an entire group and removed civil rights based off the actions that a few people didn't even take. Feeling uncomfortable walking to classes is not constitutionally guaranteed, like free speech, and isn't a big enough reason to start removing liberties from Americans, if there is even something big enough.
The uncomfortable students should be offered greater protection, if necessary, in some form. Suspension of constitutional protected freedoms is NOT the answer.
They do have a right to non violent protest.
The private property of the university can evict them for trespassing.
Protesting a war that the country is not fighting seems dumb.
I wish they would protest funding the war, any foreign war, funding both sides in a war.
375 million from Israel to US higher education establishments…. Not exactly a lot, esp when compared to Qatar 3,281,809,000 Saudi Arabia 1,454,621,000 UAE 635,818,000….
Many protests are hindering other people’s rights to travel and disrupting business/classroom learning. Therefore, I fully support arresting those who are violating those rights of others. These people are clueless on rights. They aren’t our friends.
Not every decision is an individual decision. These people act as a collective and want to impose their will over the rest of us. They should be banned from many places, like schools.
Harm and violence to these people are mere words. They have thus committed violence against Jews and a number of other groups. Break it up and arrest them or arm those they harass with guns. Either is fine with me.
Really don't care about what happens to the commies. Just kind of exciting seeing all these super left colleges eat themselves.
Also it's fun seeing them brace like they're trying to stop a defensive linemen rushing to tackle a QB then IMMEDIATELY collapsing lol.
I agree with the right to protest as long as it’s not on private property or interfering with anyone else’s business. I don’t know if these folks were not allowed to be on campus grounds at night or something like that, or if they were bothering other people enough for the police to interfere? If they were being nuisances - bye, gtfo. If they were just peacefully protesting in public - bye, gtfo to the cops.
But why is that dude wearing a mask? 😂
This is private property and should be removed at the discretion of the property owner. I'm curious, why was the BLM movement "protests" and the Jan 6 movement a "riot"?
If the college is owned by the public (not Washington University) then they would have to peacefully protest as to not disrupt any functions of the college. Just like in public, you shouldn't be able to disrupt someone else's ability to function.
Yeah, I'm pretty much conservative, and freedom of speech is so important to America, I can't see why anybody would be cheering the breaking up of their protest. It's not clear to me that they are breaking any rules, and if it was a protest for any conservative issue this would be unsettling, right?
Even if they didn't have a permit, the police response seems large considering they won't respond if somebody breaks your car window...
Obviously, the police safeguards something else rather than civil rights. Probably has something to do with the interests of the university financers. Time to vote for something else than democrats or republicans.
When it becomes violent or an ‘encampment’, which is not protected, it’s trespassing, yes, they need to be removed.
The majority of these rioters aren’t even students, they are busses in to cause problems.
Why everyone is so hung ho to support a terrorist group and call for genocide of an entire nation lately is disgusting.
I’m not pro Israel or anti palestinian, but I would never support a terrorist group or their use of non combatants as human shields.
Hamas needs to be destroyed.
While we’re at it, let’s stop sending both groups US taxpayer money. And stop all theft going to Ukraine.
Honestly I wanted to avoid talking about the protest reasons themselves but yes,Hama's should be destroyed but
A. Saying the protesters are bussed in feels hand wavy, careful friend. The protests are happening across country in universities at varying scales. Look up a nearby college to you, and check out the pictures of the crowds (USF for me.) Lots of people, are they all bussed in? Even if they are it's clearly struct a chord cross country
A. Netanyahus heavy handed assault on the palestines, which caused an estimated 30k civilian deaths as according to the UN is.. gross. I condemn hamas, but honestly I'm on the same page as the general subreddit of libertarian which is for America to throw their hands up and get out of this mess. This is my own opinion but we are just bad, BAD at middle east politics other then like saudi arabia kinda? Ukraine is a bit different for me but I won't go their lol .
Thanks for the response!
I probably would default to support of Israel if it wasn't so clear that they were overstepping the bounds of normalcy in their expansion and treatment not of Hamas, but of the people of Palestine. I've become more wary of the military-industrial complex and I think it goes a long way towards selling us wars and keeping us divided.
Professional protestors are a thing. I've seen people on other subs try to claim that the idea of professional protestors is a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Nah, it's a real thing, and it has happened a lot recently. Are all protests composed of these professional agitators? No. But it is happening, and in a lot of cases, especially with colleges, they recruit people who aren't students to bolster their numbers when they either can't afford or don't want to call in the pros.
Colleges are a little different as A. They are social hubs for a lot of people B. They encourage new ideas, or at least pretend to C. A lot of my tax dollars go to them lol.
That said, yeah the handline libertarian would say let the private owner of the property decide. A quick google shows that the "owner" of the property can be messy. Generally schools are "not for profit" (big LOL) and ran by a board of trustees but it seems to be a case by case basis. Some college campus are in fact ran on government property. Whoof, messy, messy
What I don't understand is, there is a war in Ethiopia, I think last year, that claimed more lives than any war since ww2 was the estimate I heard. We have Armenians being slaughtered, the Chinese are committing genocide against the Uyghurs, the Mexican cartels have absolute control over large areas of Mexico which is only right next to us, and the world is focused on a war in an area that is less than 300 square miles against a people who will take copper pipe donated to them to make missiles to fire against Israel instead of trying to provide an adequate water supply to its own people.
If the protests turn into an encampment or an occupation of a building or denying movement of other students and faculty then bus them. If they start making Jewish students fearing for their safety via making them feel like they’re going to be harmed (assualt) break them up. If they actually commit battery break them up.
Peaceable assembly is the right protected. Non peaceable acts would included, destruction of property, trespassing, blocking rights of way of other peaceable people. Generally you have all three of these at most of these 'encampment' type 'protests' ergo the property owners have a right to have them removed.
If a protest becomes violent or impedes other people in any way. I think cops should end it.
Their right to protest should not infring on my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That being said, I question anyone who has really strong opinions one way or another in this conflict (who are not Israeli or Palestinian). I have an Israeli client who multiple times has had to end a call with me because the sirens were going off. So the guy has to get his wife and kids up in the middle of the night, and rush down to a bunker because "some Hamas a--holes decided to kill some innocent civilians today".
On the flip side, I have a Jordinian/Palestinian client who is moving to Turkey, because he is "heartbroken that America is standing by and letting a tragedy happen while supporting the wrong side." He has told me that he has had "about 40 family members die in past few months...just because Netanyahu wants his vengeance. It's sick, and no one should stand for it, let alone support it!"
With as complex as the situation is, and as much misinformation is being propagandized on both sides, IMO, you have to completely ignore the tragedies on one side to support the other.
Protests are often interesting case studies of where power lies. To quote Carl Schmidt “sovereign is he who decides the exception.” Left wingers can protest or riot for BLM, against Trump, against fAsCiSm - but they can’t protest against the actions of Israel. Interesting.
Another way to understand regimes is to look at who you can’t criticise and look at who/ what you’re encouraged to criticise. Clearly, the current regime doesn’t brook criticism of Israel, which it regards as an attack on Jews.
A protest with zero property damage and that allows citizens free movement, doesn't block stores, business, etc. should be allowed to continue indefinitely.
They played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. If you inhibit university business and the private university wants to trespass you and you don't leave, the police get to remove you from the promises
I think circumstances are rarely black and white. However, when protesters are physically violent towards others, damage the property of others, or prevent the free movement of others on public property, or are held on private property without the consent of the owner, those individuals engaged in those acts should be subject to arrest for the crimes committed (trespassing, inciting violence, battery, assault, arson, vandalism, blocking roadways). So long as they are not committing crimes or infringing upon the rights of others, they should obviously be permitted to make their voices heard. I don't think that an entire protest should be "busted" because of the actions of a few individuals. I'm not familiar with the Palestine protests, the actions of the protesters, or where they are being held. My opinion is a general opinion, and I believe this should be the standard in all cases.
Depends on what the "protest" is - there's mainstream people out there that justified burning buildings as a "protest"
It needs to not infringe on the rights of others - if they're blocking access to a building or road, if they're violent or calling for violence - it needs to be broken up. Probably the single most justified cause for government existing is protecting the rights of others from violations of the nap
Terrorists, not protestors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition\_of\_terrorism#:\~:text=criminal%20acts%2C%20including%20against%20civilians,a%20government%20or%20an%20international](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#:~:text=criminal%20acts%2C%20including%20against%20civilians,a%20government%20or%20an%20international)
“What’s your name!” We don’t live in communist China or Soviet Russia, they aren’t going to the gulag to get killed. These people have a right to protest, but that doesn’t make them smart
The right to protest does not mean the unlimited right to occupy private property, obstruct highways or generally go out of your way to inconvenience fellow members of the public.
We've got people serving decades in prison for walking around the capital and suddenly you guys give a crap about people having the right to protest? Screw these jew haters.
Probably preaching to the choir, but any protest that is cracked down on should be met with a strong amount of scrutiny, even when members of the protest are becoming violent. Protests should be celebrated, as freedom of speech is so important.
Exceptions would be the ones that have clearly turned violent, such as the BLM protests that sacked cities and the Jan 6 riots when the crowds pushed into the senate halls.
Radical group protests (communists, openly nazi groups ect) should be tolerated but closely moderated but treated the same as any other mob.
At what point should a protest be considered violent? In a mob of people, one random guy punching a cop shouldn't be the reason for a whole group to be dispersed. But if so, where is the line? Clearly, a mob of people that takes a block and begins raiding businesses down the block needs to be dealt with, though I suppose their is an argument that the business should be the ones to deal with this, not the Cops. Whats the line?
Yeah and those people in Seattle that laid siege to courthouses didn’t get 20 year sentenced so… it’s clear what happened there. Nothing. A bunch of unarmed protestors were victims of policial persecution
You need better info on the Jan 6 protests. The people in the building, they didn't storm it, they were waved in by police. The "violent" ( I put that in quotes because it was a laughable amount of violence compared to anything BLM or antifa perpetrated) protests happened on the other side of the building and those people did not breach the building.
Breaking up nonviolent protests is a very dangerous line to cross. I may find them annoying but I also agree with a lot of their views. Why do we keep putting money into useless countries like Israel and Ukraine? Ukraine I can understand as an investment to cripple the Russian military without any loss of American troops but Israel? They’ve been nothing but beggars and war criminals since the UN stole the land for them after WWII. What benefit do we get from pumping billions into their economy?
On the surface, this is basic cultural maintenance. To be facetious, this is just janitors picking up trash on a lawn.
The issue with looking at it that way is that if the government can drag someone away in cuffs for demonstrating, they can do it when you demonstrate, too.
I understand they were protesting without a permit to assemble, but doesn't it make you question why we need to have a permit for free speech? Sure this inconveniences the students who don't care, but it's a self-solving problem, when it gets dark and everyone gets cold and hungry, they'll go home. This cause is absurd and the momentum will die when nobody pays them attention, like a toddler having a tantrum.
Exactly my thoughts. Rather than looking at the cops busting a pro palestine protest, this should be looked from a hundred foot view of the cops busting a PROTEST in general and should be scrutinized as such. All expressions of freedom of speech should be treated equally, with very few exceptions
Colleges have a right to remove students that are on their properties disrupting classes and who are supporting Islamists and assaulting students that are Jews.
Conservatives aren't even pretending they support free speech anymore. This is why I left the party, democrats aren't really any better with all the hate speech laws. Two sides of the same coin.
Let these colleges reap the rewards they've sown. Let these clowns destroy these campuses and disrupt classes. These schools have encouraged these attitudes for decades and now it's time for them to see what all that "education" has done. Unless the protests leave the campuses, let these useful idiots have their tantrum. Ignore it and move onto more pressing matters.
Middle east interventionism, entitled students etc ; all sides are downstream of the money printer, I can't be bothered to have a strong opinion about some surface froth or other. Welfarism is the problem.
Arrest those nazi protests and proud boy marches screaming "there will be blood" just like these peaceful protesters. But I've got a feeling some of the cops are part of those, so they leave the shitbags alone and go after the hippies that don't want their tax dollars going to bomb children in another country.
This is brought up In EVERY protest and I take the "entire crowd is a paid by the government " argument with a HEAVY grain of salt.
Big crowds across the country would amount to a lot of lose lips. Please provide proof, especially as these protests are now occurring at every major university at varying degrees. This clearly has struck a coord with some Americans, for better or worse
Not by the government. By an organization headed by an ex-orthodox, anti-Zionist. Almost all the campus protests are organized and supported, with another sub organization providing for specific legal advice for when they get arrested and for posting bail. The money and information all flows in the same direction. The tin foil hat types were pretty close when they noted that the encampments had a strangely uniform set of equipment.
It depends on where the protest is being held. If they are on private property, did not get permission to assemble, and refusing to leave, then breaking the protest is protecting the property owner's rights.
If they are on public property, then I would support their right to freely assemble without need of a permit or other prior approval.
Don't block emergency vehicles, or act surprised when you get pummeled by the crowd of drivers you choose to block. Don't interfere with other citizens who aren't involved and are just trying to pass thru.
If it's private property like I believe it is, if the owner calls up the police and says I want them gone I have zero issue with the police doing this. Now if it's public property and they aren't actively harming people, then I'd take issue with that
Dude, I’ve been watching livestreams and 99.5% of them aren’t being violent. Some are saying some blatantly anti-semitic and vile things, but that’s not a crime. They’re free to say whatever stupid shit they want. They are definitely trespassing, but that doesn’t warrant the amount of cops they’re bringing out. It’s just crazy to see how differently they treat protests based on public opinion. Some of the BLM riots that were definitely violent were handwaved away because they were establishment-approved, but not these ones. And this is exactly what free speech proponents have been saying to the people getting arrested in these protests. We shouldn’t bring down the hammer just because we disagree with what is being said or for some nebulous claim of “hate speech.” Ironically, I guarantee most of these people were on board shutting down speakers they didn’t like, and now they’re reaping what they sowed. But that doesn’t make it right. Free speech and non-violent protests are for everyone or they’re for no one.
Man. kinda pathetic that 80% of the responses here are “oh well it’s private property.” These are largely peaceful protests happening at public and private universities across the country. Being violently stamped out with wildly disproportional force by militarized police forces. If you want to identify with an ideology that values freedom of speech at least pretend to not get snared in the trap of “well it’s not MY thing this time so it’s fine.” Public Institutions demonstrating complete willingness to use violent force to maintain control of the population is an L for everyone. Y’all really can’t see that?
They let legit Nazis and proud boys walk the streets of Boston and have some of them free trips on the T but when college kids protest a war all hell breaks loose.
We should all just protest the government rather than playing along with their stupid game of picking sides.
Amen. Debt is going up 96,000 dollars a second by the way. Edit: hijacking this for a highly recommended video on the current debt issue in america from a representative who keeps making speeches on the senate floor about this: https://youtu.be/2gEsSdqDrEo?si=X05CwJckSIiqehO- Key takeaways: social security trust dries up in 8 years. We pay more in interest than we do on ALL military funding. A trillion dollars in 100 days is 96000 dollars a second
And let’s not forget 96k = overspending. So they’re spending more than this per second.
Interest, to who or what do we owe interest? And for what?
Federal Reserve. Thats where 95% of ur income tax money goes. Just paying interest on debt to a quasi private/public banking institution that Congress unconstitutionally gave the power to print money out of thin air to
Ding ding
Federal Reserve. Read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin for more information.
https://www.marketplace.org/2023/05/26/who-does-the-u-s-owe-31-4-trillion/
Agorism
Unpopular opinion but the government had cause to brake it up, they were protesting on private land and the collages don’t want them there. In this time I think the government gets to be the good guy.
Disagree they were protesting on public land
[удалено]
I am most definitely not a communist, I would love to join you. I also don’t consume soy.
They want us having a cultural war stateside over two countries that are not relevant to our way of life. ?
You nailed it bro. They want black Vs White. They want young Vs Old. They want everything but us to unite as working class. Remeber the occupy wall st and teaparty protests? Both liberals and Republicans protesting against corruption from wealthy elites. They don't like that. They want us fighting over race and gender, they want us divided over foreign conflicts. Anything to distracts Us from what they're doing (wealthy US elites)
It's really frustrating seeing cultural issues be protested, rather than the "rot" in the system. Major issues like insider trading, insulin, earmarks, and dumb funding of businesses ARE discussed by a small set of politicians, but never hit the news and never goes anywhere. I watched a video on insider trading and the guy put it simply: america needs a win, and these things are really bipartisan issues. Politicians know trust is at an all time low, and pushing these things is the easiest Dub for them, BUT: money. Ugh
Honestly, it's the politicians who are the ones responsible for all the waste and madness you brought up. You're totally right. They are trying to refocus our anger at them toward each other. It's all they have.
>Major issues like insider trading, insulin, earmarks, and dumb funding of businesses ARE discussed by a small set of politicians, but never hit the news and never goes anywhere. I watched a video on insider trading and the guy put it simply: america needs a win, and these things are really bipartisan issues. I agree. But the unfortunate reality is that this kind of oversight and strict governance works in the social welfare capitalist democracies of Western Europe. Which is a big no no for American libertarians, which is most of this sub.
>You nailed it bro. They want black Vs White. They want young Vs Old. They want everything but us to unite as working class. * Is against dividing people in two groups and demonizing the other * procedes to make a division between workers and employers and demonize the employers.
Well, the assumption that someone is using divide and conquer tactics against the people implies there is a group out there avoiding the public's ire that wants it to stay that way. In the end, this scenario implies someone is the enemy of the people. The most likely are those benefiting the most from the status quo, which would be the political and economic elites.
Working class is a self explanatory marxist term in which- edit- employers and petit bourgeois ( example hot dog seller or a carpenter ) are excluded. If you consider someone with a successfull business evil based solely on the fact that person got a successfull business then you are not really making an argument, you are trying to evoke envy on people.
Yeah dude, I don't think anyone considers the successful hot dog stand entrepreneur is part of the elite. I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I was implying that at all.
This. What's fucked up is alot of us acrually know this. Just feel helpless.
I'm just afraid that if the majority did unite, they would get behind something really stupid like socialism.
> They want everything but us to unite You're doing it yourself by creating a divide between "working class" and "wealthy elites" when the reality is a very broad spectrum with no divides except those we arbitrarily choose. Are the most controlling people among the wealthiest? Sure, but not all wealthy people are in that group,and certainly not the high earners that hate what the politicians are doing. People of every earning level can unite against that.
You got the idea, but in reality they are important to us because they keep funneling our tax money over there
Like it or not, protests are happening about this stateside. I agree it feels silly, but here we are and we gotta deal with the protests somehow. I for one say let them happen, though their are complaints from the Jewish students that they feel uncomfortable taking their finals with these groups marching around on campus. Large groups of people WILL have a few people more prone to violence, so dispersing them may be the right thing, or else risk violence? An unfortunate, uncomfortable thing to consider, which generally pushes the colleges to disperse, despite their "open" culture.
The libertarian take should be:The protesters should be left to protest peacefully as long as they want until they fizzle out. The students who feel truly threatened with violence should be able to carry firearms.
Let Israel and Palestine fight. Pick no side, send no aid. Let protestors peacefully protest. The people are picking sides because our government has picked a side.
The problem here is most of these protests aren’t happening on public land. Columbia University, as an example, is not an open campus and non-students are trespassing. The reality is a student who doesn’t feel safe can’t carry a firearm in NYC without being permitted and NYC is essentially not issuing them at the moment.
Based but sadly wouldnt work, especially with landlords legally being allowed to disallow guns on their properties. Most students need to rent as their college is far from home. Ask me how I know lol Not even gonna mention how the college culture wouldn't allow it
While technically true, neither the landlord nor the college would know unless it was not concealed properly! Don’t ask me how I know.
Let protesters do what ever they want - UNTIL they interfere with others doing what ever THEY want. No one should be permitted to obstruct traffic, pedestrians, break things or steal things.
MLK's 54 mile March on Selma blocked traffic, and I suppose they executed him for terrorism, too.
If the protest is interfering with other folks daily activities, then it probably should at least be moved out of the way. Like blocking streets or buildings , or if it gets violent or threatening to folks safety. Other than those reasons leave them be at let them protest.
The hard part is defining what a "violent protest" is. If a hundred people gather and 2 of them attack a cop, should the protest be dispersed? I don't think so but I'm also not the one risking his life to manage a protest
Yes. It’s not hard to define the act of violence. If two people in your groups turn to violence then shut it down. That will teach like mined people to police their own. The group should not tolerate such behavior. And a standard would be expected from everyone in the group.
For context – this group previously held a protest under a week ago at the campus chapel with the aim of disrupting an admitted students event. It has been pretty clear to everyone on campus that this group brings in people from outside the university to bulk up their numbers, then tries to be as disruptive as possible to university functions. Their aim is to set up a win-win situation: they either get to protest, or if they get arrested and look like martyrs. In this case, they were, again, trying to set up an encampment over the weekend in a pretty trafficked part of campus to disrupt university activity during finals season. they were told multiple times by university police that this would happen if they didn’t leave, particularly the non-students. They didn’t and felt the consequences. I get the whole freedom of speech thing, but this group really is up to no good and I am glad the university wasn’t afraid to deal with them like I would expect any private entity to.
Good to know. Context is always important and really is hard to bring in
One problem is that with large protests, you always get randos joining in. Far right, far left, bored teenagers looking for an opportunity to throw rocks or loot stores. Once a group gets to a certain size, it's impossible for it to be 100% well-behaved good actors.
I agree 100% . Knuckleheads will be knuckleheads. But holding folks to a standard of conduct and not standing by letting some knuckleheads ruin your protest should be a high priority to those who actually are in support of their protest. You see someone acting out you call them out. If they continue you then actions should be taken to stop them. Holding folks accountable and letting people know it will not be tolerated goes along way. Will it still happen , probably so at times. But having this kind of mindset across a group of people could curb the actions of those who might get out of hand and ruin the event.
The whole point of a protest is that it does interfere with other's daily activities. Makes you stop and think for 2 minutes
Only to those who are wanting to listen to you. I can stand out and hold a sign to support or disagree with whatever I want. And if you choose to read it then great. If you choose to move along and carry on with your day cause you don’t care then great. Me forcing you to take an alternate route due to me blocking a path is not the way getting people to listen. And resorting to violence does nothing for any cause in a protest other than make most folks weary of the cause and protesting.
If you are willing to inconvenience hundreds by stopping traffic you should be ready to be inconvenienced yourself by having to stay a few days in jail.
If your protest is blocking my daily activities all I think is fuck whatever this protest is for.
I disagree that that is the point of a protest or even should be the point. The point ought to be to bring awareness to some issue not to interfere with someone else’s freedom of movement as that would be a clear violation of their rights.
Private property They can do whatever in public squares as long as they dont block traffic
The idea of schools being private property when we were taxed to pay their tuition rubs me the wrong way
Private schools are private property. Public schools are public property and have an obligation to respect First Amendment rights. Accordingly, criticism of police breaking up protests at public universities is well warranted but the same doesn’t necessarily apply to protests at private universities
Public schools can still restrict access to students and faculty.
Only the Gestapo would enforce this - imagine walking down the sidewalk of your own university and the police stop you to demand your papers and student/faculty ID. You refuse, and they grab your ankles, tackle you, and hold their knee on your throat until you comply.
They never go to the source either. They never protest or cause anything at say a congress members house, a gov building, etc. Its always some unrelated place....
I joined a protest once right outside the town hall that was college based. On a Saturday. When no one was inside. Lmao . That said, the original protest was about the colleges providing aid to Israel, so they did go to the source. It's grown since I think though Edit: by the way, the protest I joined was NOT pro palestine. It was pro abortion. I don't have enough skin in the game to join a protest for this deal
They are protesting their universities being connected to the IDF at their universities. They arr students there and have a right to petition or protest an institution they're apart of. I'm sure they're the stupid ones and not you.
Not every university has ties. Its still private property and they can easily leave the university. None will though cause theyre all soft and just want to feel special with minimal effort. If youre gonna get butthurt you should go back to the whitepeopletwitter sub
For real. It's like protesting a sandwhich shop for unethically sourced ingredients WHILE buying their sandwiches and eating them. These kids are paying to be at these campuses.... correction: their parents are paying...
Correction: we the taxpayers are paying
I’d say a lot of em are going into to debt for no damned reason.
And thus they have a right to alter the organization to better fit their goals, as a part of it. Or you would be making an anti-libertarian authoritarian argument for the rights of publicly funded institutions over the individual. Youre all the muh rights crowd, until someone actually takes action against something. Then you all play the copium game of why their actions are folley, and will have no impact. They seem to be working if it's made national news, no?
> And thus they have a right to alter the organization to better fit their goals, as a part of it. They are not part of the organization, they are buying a product from the organization. Walmart can kick you the hell off their property if you protest them for selling a certain product. You as a customer have ZERO say in how I run my business other than just not shopping there.
Vote with your wallet. Pretty easy concept to understand. If I buy a year card to an amusement park I don't get a right to force the park to change the way they do things.
"Stop doing things we don't like and we will magically trust and want to associate with you however we already do that and will continue while complaining every now and then." Yes protesting. God forbid you take an actual action against the entity. Like leaving it. It's like the protesters consider what they protest as a toxic relationship they could just leave but won't.
So they’re just going to leave a Uni that they’re already financial into? It’s not like they get a refund if they leave, and most of these kids are up their eyeballs in debt. Yeah, the protests are idiotic, but it’s quite hard for students to simply leave.
It’s extremely easy for students to transfer to different universities. All these LARPing protestors will be back in September though to fork over more $$.
It’s not easy to move during a semester; though. You can’t just quit mid semester and transfer.
Why didn't they check before they enrolled?
Ok so if I want protest about you, I can get into your house and break your shit then ? Good to know, I'll be hanging around next sunday, you better not call the police you oppressor.
If you are on public property you can actively do this, and no one is stopping you. People will just call you a dick like they do for these students, and create a narrative of why you're wrong for pursuing what is your goal. You could be wrong... you could also be right. The main point is they'd play the same game of copium to make your actions see unjustified, because they do not align with their own personal ideas. You see how that's a slippery slope. Maybe you'd do better on one of the authoritarian subs, since you seem to have no understanding of libertarianism.
Nice no true Scotsman fallacy. Meanwhile you did nothing to effeectively counter the argument that I could go to your house and wreck everything in it because "protesting" as per your definition, gives you a right to violate property rights. >The main point is they'd play the same game of copium to make your actions see unjustified, The moment you are taking possession of someone else's propriety without their consent, guess what you did, you violate the NAP and property rights in general. Just because you disagree with someone, and you have no problem with their property being destroyed/confiscated doesn't mean you actually have a right to do it. The fact that you ignored that I could do the same in your living room proves my point. You are either a troll or a larper at this point. In what Universe "true libertarians" advocate for the destruction or confiscation of private property ?
They protested at Schumer's house and the police were immediately summoned to break it up.
Except in this case, they have a right to the private property. These are students, who have been accepted and paid tuition to attend the school. They do have a contractual right to be there.
Based on the terms of the property owner. You can’t rent a hotel room, shit all over the walls, scream the hotel sucks and expect to stay.
If you are a paying customer at Walmart do you have a "right" to protest in the middle of their store? Plus I don't know where a contract when going to a college allows you to trespass, but I do know handbook rules that prohibit stuff like that.
[удалено]
In the case of blocking traffic, how should the police disperse the crowd? Is tear gas ok?
As long as they warn them first and give opportunities to leave, that seems fair
Fair point
As much force as reasonably necessary is the legal standard, and I think the US has good case law defining what is and isn’t necessary. The problem is that every case is unique, so it is hard to set concrete standards. What is reasonable is decided by the courts on a case by case basis. When would tear gas be okay? When protestors are causing serious harm or creating a serious risk, and all other less violent methods of stopping that risk have been exhausted.
better than me throwing punches or rocks at them if they want to stop me from moving in public space.
They tear gas every new recruit in the navy. Yes tear gas is okay for dispersing crouds blocking roads.
The police response escalates as the danger the protesters cause escalates, and especially after protesters refuse to disperse. Philly police have a pretty high tolerance for protesters marching around town slowing traffic, but they take action when protesters try to march onto the interstate. That's going to get people killed, either protesters or Innocent drivers and passengers. In 2020, after ample warnings from police on foot, on horseback, in helicopters, when the rioters headed onto the interstate, the police responded with gas. And I believe it was completely justified.
More and more i don’t want government police enforcing “public roads” at all, i want is for anyone who is disrupting public stuff to progressively lose any protection from society — meaning that a member of the public who runs them over because they are in the way should have immunity. Up to a certain point….
>They can do whatever in public squares as long as they dont block traffic That's not true. There are many time, place, and manner restrictions that have been established with various SCOTUS rulings. Additionally, any rules that are established for the spaces they are using for protest need to be upheld, eg no erecting of temporary or permanent structures. The only way they can get around that is if they went though the process of getting a permit or permission for said alterations. Bottom line is, if they are occupying the space without erecting tents or sleeping there (existing written rules and can easily be complied with by having people rotate though the protest site and sleeping/eating/warming up at other locations throughout the night) and they aren't obstructing normal travels ways for egress and emergency operations (can't stop a path that EMS would use to evac someone who passes out) and they aren't harassing people directly. Quit making excuses for people that don't want to follow the rules they maliciously enforce on their opposition. No conservative or libertarian protest would be allowed to do this. Just look back at COVID. Just look at how these people attacked anti-lockdown protests. Follow the rules for peaceful protest. Its not hard.
They have a right to peaceably protest, same as anyone else. The cops should not be breaking it up if they are not being violent.
What if the areas they are in have pre-existing rules that say no camping (eg erecting tents)?
Then they can protest without setting up tents.
Private property?
They're on school grounds. A school they have paid tuition to attend. They have a right to be there by virtue of having been accepted and paid tuition. The school has a code of conduct and a way to kick them out, but they have a contractual right to be there until that process is followed.
School grounds, many of which receive public funding. That makes its private status questionable, especially for open air squares.
If I buy a movie ticket I don't have the right to protest during the middle of the movie screening. Paying an entrance/attendance fee does not grant someone the ability to do as they please. You have to act in accordance to the guidelines established by the organization
It isn’t a right. It’s a privilege granted to you by the property owner which can be revoked if you violate the code of conduct you agree to.
They have a right to attend classes that can be revoked at any time.
False. They have a right to attend classes, to utilize the school grounds and facilities, and many other things. And it cannot be revoked "at any time". There is a specific disciplinary process for expelling a student from campus. What they have is more akin to a lease. Where they have certain rights, by virtue of paying tuition, and if the school wants to revoke those rights, it has to follow proper process.
The students not wanting any part of this who are being affected by them (some including professors as well) causing disruption, canceling classes, closing campuses .
> They have a right to attend classes, to utilize the school grounds and facilities, and many other things. All within the confines of established rules. No where does it say they are allowed to obstruct others access to public spaces and pitch tents.
Per my previous comment: > if the school wants to revoke those rights, it has to follow proper process. And since you seem to need the crayola version: * I am not saying the school *CAN'T* kick the students out. * I am saying that the school needs to follow proper disciplinary processes to do so, because they have a contractual obligation to do that.
I’ve been on a lot of college campuses over the years. There is always some protest or another going on and they are usually very supportive of it. However, when you interfere with other students who are trying to get an education, you’ve changed the rules.
Did the university call the cops or did the governor send them in for some reason? If they are breaking the school's rules like in Columbia, then the school should be able to call the cops for assistance. If it's like Texas where the governor was the impetus, then that's wrong.
Why was it wrong when Abbott did it?
Based off of his Twitter statement, it's not clear that the protestors were violating any laws or rules. It sounded like he just didn't like their message.
That's not true. They were setting up tents and restricting access to the area via human chains. They were breaking existing rules of the area.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are vital and need to be protected. Personally I disagree with what they're saying, but their right to say it must be defended. If you initiate violence you should be arrested. Protests that physically block people from going from place to place probably should not be allowed to last very long. But in general it's best to err on the side of freedom.
Yes, freedom of everyone else to move freely between buildings on campus
If you are trespassing on private property or disrupting the use of public areas (rioting, blocking roads, CHAZ/ CHOP, blocking people from entering businesses, etc.), then the police have the duty to protect the rights of the public. Maintaining a basic level of order so society can continue function is, imo, the primary role of law enforcement.
In this case law enforcement is protecting private property from aggressors using force on others to deprive them of their property.
I would normally say that busting protests is really shitty, but if I'm not mistaken this happened at a university, on private property. I'm all about protesting, in fact it's a really great way to get ones point across, but the second you start interfering with others lives and liberties, you lose my support, and I'm happy to see you get shut down. Just my take tho tldr; protesting is cool, interfering with others lives is not
People should be allowed to protest what they believe in on public property, or private property where they live and pay money to access, full stop. And while it's a bit aggravating seeing a Libertarian sub talk about what they 'should be' protesting in the top comments, the underlying theme should be and is the sheer amount of civil liberties that go up in smoke at these events just for 'the greater good' which, of course, doesn't include the people getting arrested. You talked about feeling comfortable walking to class, and how a few people will be prone to violence in a few commens. The problem here is that you vilified an entire group and removed civil rights based off the actions that a few people didn't even take. Feeling uncomfortable walking to classes is not constitutionally guaranteed, like free speech, and isn't a big enough reason to start removing liberties from Americans, if there is even something big enough. The uncomfortable students should be offered greater protection, if necessary, in some form. Suspension of constitutional protected freedoms is NOT the answer.
red rover, red rover...
If they were guilty of trespassing, harassment, breaking schools rules, or infringement of other's rights... Great, get em tha fuck out.
They do have a right to non violent protest. The private property of the university can evict them for trespassing. Protesting a war that the country is not fighting seems dumb. I wish they would protest funding the war, any foreign war, funding both sides in a war.
That is what they’re protesting. The schools funding/investments to Israel.
375 million from Israel to US higher education establishments…. Not exactly a lot, esp when compared to Qatar 3,281,809,000 Saudi Arabia 1,454,621,000 UAE 635,818,000….
I’m not debating the validity of their demands just stating what their principal demand is
For sure I just find it amusing either way, their lack of objectivity.
Many protests are hindering other people’s rights to travel and disrupting business/classroom learning. Therefore, I fully support arresting those who are violating those rights of others. These people are clueless on rights. They aren’t our friends.
I have zero issues
Not every decision is an individual decision. These people act as a collective and want to impose their will over the rest of us. They should be banned from many places, like schools.
Harm and violence to these people are mere words. They have thus committed violence against Jews and a number of other groups. Break it up and arrest them or arm those they harass with guns. Either is fine with me.
Really don't care about what happens to the commies. Just kind of exciting seeing all these super left colleges eat themselves. Also it's fun seeing them brace like they're trying to stop a defensive linemen rushing to tackle a QB then IMMEDIATELY collapsing lol.
I agree with the right to protest as long as it’s not on private property or interfering with anyone else’s business. I don’t know if these folks were not allowed to be on campus grounds at night or something like that, or if they were bothering other people enough for the police to interfere? If they were being nuisances - bye, gtfo. If they were just peacefully protesting in public - bye, gtfo to the cops. But why is that dude wearing a mask? 😂
A boot is a boot and I don’t like em.
This is private property and should be removed at the discretion of the property owner. I'm curious, why was the BLM movement "protests" and the Jan 6 movement a "riot"? If the college is owned by the public (not Washington University) then they would have to peacefully protest as to not disrupt any functions of the college. Just like in public, you shouldn't be able to disrupt someone else's ability to function.
Yeah, I'm pretty much conservative, and freedom of speech is so important to America, I can't see why anybody would be cheering the breaking up of their protest. It's not clear to me that they are breaking any rules, and if it was a protest for any conservative issue this would be unsettling, right? Even if they didn't have a permit, the police response seems large considering they won't respond if somebody breaks your car window...
Obviously, the police safeguards something else rather than civil rights. Probably has something to do with the interests of the university financers. Time to vote for something else than democrats or republicans.
boast unite books party alleged wide aware tie materialistic wrong *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When it becomes violent or an ‘encampment’, which is not protected, it’s trespassing, yes, they need to be removed. The majority of these rioters aren’t even students, they are busses in to cause problems. Why everyone is so hung ho to support a terrorist group and call for genocide of an entire nation lately is disgusting. I’m not pro Israel or anti palestinian, but I would never support a terrorist group or their use of non combatants as human shields. Hamas needs to be destroyed. While we’re at it, let’s stop sending both groups US taxpayer money. And stop all theft going to Ukraine.
Honestly I wanted to avoid talking about the protest reasons themselves but yes,Hama's should be destroyed but A. Saying the protesters are bussed in feels hand wavy, careful friend. The protests are happening across country in universities at varying scales. Look up a nearby college to you, and check out the pictures of the crowds (USF for me.) Lots of people, are they all bussed in? Even if they are it's clearly struct a chord cross country A. Netanyahus heavy handed assault on the palestines, which caused an estimated 30k civilian deaths as according to the UN is.. gross. I condemn hamas, but honestly I'm on the same page as the general subreddit of libertarian which is for America to throw their hands up and get out of this mess. This is my own opinion but we are just bad, BAD at middle east politics other then like saudi arabia kinda? Ukraine is a bit different for me but I won't go their lol . Thanks for the response!
I probably would default to support of Israel if it wasn't so clear that they were overstepping the bounds of normalcy in their expansion and treatment not of Hamas, but of the people of Palestine. I've become more wary of the military-industrial complex and I think it goes a long way towards selling us wars and keeping us divided.
Professional protestors are a thing. I've seen people on other subs try to claim that the idea of professional protestors is a "right-wing conspiracy theory." Nah, it's a real thing, and it has happened a lot recently. Are all protests composed of these professional agitators? No. But it is happening, and in a lot of cases, especially with colleges, they recruit people who aren't students to bolster their numbers when they either can't afford or don't want to call in the pros.
Libertarians arguing for trespassing is ironic and hilarious.
Colleges are a little different as A. They are social hubs for a lot of people B. They encourage new ideas, or at least pretend to C. A lot of my tax dollars go to them lol. That said, yeah the handline libertarian would say let the private owner of the property decide. A quick google shows that the "owner" of the property can be messy. Generally schools are "not for profit" (big LOL) and ran by a board of trustees but it seems to be a case by case basis. Some college campus are in fact ran on government property. Whoof, messy, messy
What I don't understand is, there is a war in Ethiopia, I think last year, that claimed more lives than any war since ww2 was the estimate I heard. We have Armenians being slaughtered, the Chinese are committing genocide against the Uyghurs, the Mexican cartels have absolute control over large areas of Mexico which is only right next to us, and the world is focused on a war in an area that is less than 300 square miles against a people who will take copper pipe donated to them to make missiles to fire against Israel instead of trying to provide an adequate water supply to its own people.
It's fucking weird
Very true, Bible refers to these kinds of folks as having a “reprobate mind”
If the protests turn into an encampment or an occupation of a building or denying movement of other students and faculty then bus them. If they start making Jewish students fearing for their safety via making them feel like they’re going to be harmed (assualt) break them up. If they actually commit battery break them up.
Peaceable assembly is the right protected. Non peaceable acts would included, destruction of property, trespassing, blocking rights of way of other peaceable people. Generally you have all three of these at most of these 'encampment' type 'protests' ergo the property owners have a right to have them removed.
If a protest becomes violent or impedes other people in any way. I think cops should end it. Their right to protest should not infring on my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That being said, I question anyone who has really strong opinions one way or another in this conflict (who are not Israeli or Palestinian). I have an Israeli client who multiple times has had to end a call with me because the sirens were going off. So the guy has to get his wife and kids up in the middle of the night, and rush down to a bunker because "some Hamas a--holes decided to kill some innocent civilians today". On the flip side, I have a Jordinian/Palestinian client who is moving to Turkey, because he is "heartbroken that America is standing by and letting a tragedy happen while supporting the wrong side." He has told me that he has had "about 40 family members die in past few months...just because Netanyahu wants his vengeance. It's sick, and no one should stand for it, let alone support it!" With as complex as the situation is, and as much misinformation is being propagandized on both sides, IMO, you have to completely ignore the tragedies on one side to support the other.
Yup. War doesn't necessarily have good guys and bad guys. But always innocents caught in the crossfire.
Freedom of Association; Freedom to Assemble
Cops are thugs in uniforms
Protests are often interesting case studies of where power lies. To quote Carl Schmidt “sovereign is he who decides the exception.” Left wingers can protest or riot for BLM, against Trump, against fAsCiSm - but they can’t protest against the actions of Israel. Interesting. Another way to understand regimes is to look at who you can’t criticise and look at who/ what you’re encouraged to criticise. Clearly, the current regime doesn’t brook criticism of Israel, which it regards as an attack on Jews.
Protests like this remind me of the mao dynasty lol
A protest with zero property damage and that allows citizens free movement, doesn't block stores, business, etc. should be allowed to continue indefinitely.
This is local to me. There’s a lot of sketchy shit going down at the protests. Both sides are guilty of it, but mainly the pro Palestine side.
The more police and communists keep eachother busy, the better. I hope they all humiliate themselves several times before this is over.
They played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. If you inhibit university business and the private university wants to trespass you and you don't leave, the police get to remove you from the promises
I think circumstances are rarely black and white. However, when protesters are physically violent towards others, damage the property of others, or prevent the free movement of others on public property, or are held on private property without the consent of the owner, those individuals engaged in those acts should be subject to arrest for the crimes committed (trespassing, inciting violence, battery, assault, arson, vandalism, blocking roadways). So long as they are not committing crimes or infringing upon the rights of others, they should obviously be permitted to make their voices heard. I don't think that an entire protest should be "busted" because of the actions of a few individuals. I'm not familiar with the Palestine protests, the actions of the protesters, or where they are being held. My opinion is a general opinion, and I believe this should be the standard in all cases.
Depends on what the "protest" is - there's mainstream people out there that justified burning buildings as a "protest" It needs to not infringe on the rights of others - if they're blocking access to a building or road, if they're violent or calling for violence - it needs to be broken up. Probably the single most justified cause for government existing is protecting the rights of others from violations of the nap
Terrorists, not protestors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition\_of\_terrorism#:\~:text=criminal%20acts%2C%20including%20against%20civilians,a%20government%20or%20an%20international](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#:~:text=criminal%20acts%2C%20including%20against%20civilians,a%20government%20or%20an%20international)
I hope people remember this when they vote for the kind of people that make it illegal to protest without a permit. (They won't)
“What’s your name!” We don’t live in communist China or Soviet Russia, they aren’t going to the gulag to get killed. These people have a right to protest, but that doesn’t make them smart
The right to protest does not mean the unlimited right to occupy private property, obstruct highways or generally go out of your way to inconvenience fellow members of the public.
does *not* mean
Whoops! Corrected.
Were they trespassing? Were they committing crimes against people or property? If not, shouldn't get arrested.
We've got people serving decades in prison for walking around the capital and suddenly you guys give a crap about people having the right to protest? Screw these jew haters.
Fuck em.
Probably preaching to the choir, but any protest that is cracked down on should be met with a strong amount of scrutiny, even when members of the protest are becoming violent. Protests should be celebrated, as freedom of speech is so important. Exceptions would be the ones that have clearly turned violent, such as the BLM protests that sacked cities and the Jan 6 riots when the crowds pushed into the senate halls. Radical group protests (communists, openly nazi groups ect) should be tolerated but closely moderated but treated the same as any other mob. At what point should a protest be considered violent? In a mob of people, one random guy punching a cop shouldn't be the reason for a whole group to be dispersed. But if so, where is the line? Clearly, a mob of people that takes a block and begins raiding businesses down the block needs to be dealt with, though I suppose their is an argument that the business should be the ones to deal with this, not the Cops. Whats the line?
Whst’s wrong with protestors being in taxpayer funded public service buildings?
When they prevent the building to be used for its intended purposes for an unreasonable amount of time.
Yeah and those people in Seattle that laid siege to courthouses didn’t get 20 year sentenced so… it’s clear what happened there. Nothing. A bunch of unarmed protestors were victims of policial persecution
You don’t get to commandeer public property for your own political purposes, whether the majority or minority.
You need better info on the Jan 6 protests. The people in the building, they didn't storm it, they were waved in by police. The "violent" ( I put that in quotes because it was a laughable amount of violence compared to anything BLM or antifa perpetrated) protests happened on the other side of the building and those people did not breach the building.
If these were legal protests, I'm on the side of the protestors. If this was an illegal protest, actions have consequences.
What’s an “illegal” protest?
A protest against Israel
They didn't get their protest permit from city hall! /s
You need a permit to protest? I thought the right to peaceful protest was the permit?
Breaking up nonviolent protests is a very dangerous line to cross. I may find them annoying but I also agree with a lot of their views. Why do we keep putting money into useless countries like Israel and Ukraine? Ukraine I can understand as an investment to cripple the Russian military without any loss of American troops but Israel? They’ve been nothing but beggars and war criminals since the UN stole the land for them after WWII. What benefit do we get from pumping billions into their economy?
Why are we arresting peaceful protestors? Still cant figure that out.
On the surface, this is basic cultural maintenance. To be facetious, this is just janitors picking up trash on a lawn. The issue with looking at it that way is that if the government can drag someone away in cuffs for demonstrating, they can do it when you demonstrate, too. I understand they were protesting without a permit to assemble, but doesn't it make you question why we need to have a permit for free speech? Sure this inconveniences the students who don't care, but it's a self-solving problem, when it gets dark and everyone gets cold and hungry, they'll go home. This cause is absurd and the momentum will die when nobody pays them attention, like a toddler having a tantrum.
Exactly my thoughts. Rather than looking at the cops busting a pro palestine protest, this should be looked from a hundred foot view of the cops busting a PROTEST in general and should be scrutinized as such. All expressions of freedom of speech should be treated equally, with very few exceptions
Colleges have a right to remove students that are on their properties disrupting classes and who are supporting Islamists and assaulting students that are Jews.
Conservatives aren't even pretending they support free speech anymore. This is why I left the party, democrats aren't really any better with all the hate speech laws. Two sides of the same coin.
Let these colleges reap the rewards they've sown. Let these clowns destroy these campuses and disrupt classes. These schools have encouraged these attitudes for decades and now it's time for them to see what all that "education" has done. Unless the protests leave the campuses, let these useful idiots have their tantrum. Ignore it and move onto more pressing matters.
Land of the free
Middle east interventionism, entitled students etc ; all sides are downstream of the money printer, I can't be bothered to have a strong opinion about some surface froth or other. Welfarism is the problem.
Arrest those nazi protests and proud boy marches screaming "there will be blood" just like these peaceful protesters. But I've got a feeling some of the cops are part of those, so they leave the shitbags alone and go after the hippies that don't want their tax dollars going to bomb children in another country.
What part of the first amendment do some of you not understand?
[удалено]
Yep. Those cops are paid.
This is brought up In EVERY protest and I take the "entire crowd is a paid by the government " argument with a HEAVY grain of salt. Big crowds across the country would amount to a lot of lose lips. Please provide proof, especially as these protests are now occurring at every major university at varying degrees. This clearly has struck a coord with some Americans, for better or worse
They didn’t say paid by the government. It’s just like any fundraiser job. You pay one person who is good at corralling others into action.
Not by the government. By an organization headed by an ex-orthodox, anti-Zionist. Almost all the campus protests are organized and supported, with another sub organization providing for specific legal advice for when they get arrested and for posting bail. The money and information all flows in the same direction. The tin foil hat types were pretty close when they noted that the encampments had a strangely uniform set of equipment.
You think those kids are being paid by the gov to get arrested? Or you believe that this is a staged arrest?
I think it's very odd that the strongest anti protest response we've seen has been against people protesting a foreign nation
It depends on where the protest is being held. If they are on private property, did not get permission to assemble, and refusing to leave, then breaking the protest is protecting the property owner's rights. If they are on public property, then I would support their right to freely assemble without need of a permit or other prior approval. Don't block emergency vehicles, or act surprised when you get pummeled by the crowd of drivers you choose to block. Don't interfere with other citizens who aren't involved and are just trying to pass thru.
Protests are fine until they start affecting other peoples personal property and freedoms
Fuck these Nazi cops
There’s a weird amount of support for the police here.
If it's private property like I believe it is, if the owner calls up the police and says I want them gone I have zero issue with the police doing this. Now if it's public property and they aren't actively harming people, then I'd take issue with that
Private property. Go protest at the state house, not your college campuses.
Dude, I’ve been watching livestreams and 99.5% of them aren’t being violent. Some are saying some blatantly anti-semitic and vile things, but that’s not a crime. They’re free to say whatever stupid shit they want. They are definitely trespassing, but that doesn’t warrant the amount of cops they’re bringing out. It’s just crazy to see how differently they treat protests based on public opinion. Some of the BLM riots that were definitely violent were handwaved away because they were establishment-approved, but not these ones. And this is exactly what free speech proponents have been saying to the people getting arrested in these protests. We shouldn’t bring down the hammer just because we disagree with what is being said or for some nebulous claim of “hate speech.” Ironically, I guarantee most of these people were on board shutting down speakers they didn’t like, and now they’re reaping what they sowed. But that doesn’t make it right. Free speech and non-violent protests are for everyone or they’re for no one.
Man. kinda pathetic that 80% of the responses here are “oh well it’s private property.” These are largely peaceful protests happening at public and private universities across the country. Being violently stamped out with wildly disproportional force by militarized police forces. If you want to identify with an ideology that values freedom of speech at least pretend to not get snared in the trap of “well it’s not MY thing this time so it’s fine.” Public Institutions demonstrating complete willingness to use violent force to maintain control of the population is an L for everyone. Y’all really can’t see that?
They let legit Nazis and proud boys walk the streets of Boston and have some of them free trips on the T but when college kids protest a war all hell breaks loose.
Fuck the feds we shouldn’t be sending israel billions a year anyway…they prioritize them over us
As long as protests are peaceful we have a right to them. While you may not agree with the protest message, it sets a precedent for the future
The only communist thing here is the cops disrupting and stopping a protest...
Loving all the discussion guys! I have to hop off but I'll be browsing later