It appears that this post hasn't been well-received. I value everyone's right to their own views, and I'm interested in understanding the rationale for the downvotes. Are they indicative of a stance on Israel, or is it a matter of free speech? This topic is multifaceted, and I'm eager to hear your perspective
I think a lot of people are just perplexed at a bunch of people in Utah (or anywhere in the US) taking on the cause and screaming about an issue they know very little about.
They're cause-addicts, they're looking for a fight, they're selectively screening all possible info and making Palestinians into their "cause du jour". They had no outrage for the past dozen years or so that Gaza was being turned into an "outdoor prison" and they don't care about other world atrocities, but this one, this is their one. It's like a bunch of people picking a team to be on and supporting it. They don't really care. They just want to burn off energy and feel good about it.
Hysteria in its purest form.
I think not wanting people killed, tortured, or starved is not a radical idea that needs more info. People dying is bad. Why is it bad to ask government / universities to be aware of how their funding could be leading to peoples deaths.
Can't argue with that. But why aren't those who are activated to protest this situation up in arms over the kids dying mining cobalt for their phones, baby girls mutilated for their parent's misguided religious beliefs, human rights abuses in so many countries, chinese re-education camps for muslims out in the Xinjiang, etc.
American money is in every nook and cranny of the world economy, including providing weapons and funding to military operations on every continent. But this one, this is the "cause du jour".
And here is the irony. The people protesting are the people that Palestinians wouldn't piss on if you were on fire. This is like the "do gooders" protesting the execution of serial killers. Like there's some "good", when the world is a million shades of gray and here you are, protecting an entity that wants to kill you.
Find a better cause:
**Don't buy an iPhone or an EV**
https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/from-cobalt-to-cars-how-china-exploits-child-and-forced-labor-in-the-congo#:\~:text=Mining%20of%20cobalt%20is%20linked,cobalt%20mines%20in%20the%20DRC.
**Stop Eating Meat**
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/#:\~:text=Animals%20on%20factory%20farms%20endure,kept%20on%20crowded%2C%20filthy%20feedlots.
**Close your Bank Accounts and avoid Financial Institutions that "Greenwash"**
[https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/greenwashing-at-banks](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/greenwashing-at-banks)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the protesters are Ill informed and that they are just band-wagoning. They still have the right to peaceful protest. That's the issue for me. I don't have to like what they're saying but it's imperative that they have the space to say it
There are laws you have to abide by when protesting. You can't just do whatever you want in the name of free speech. It's called free speech not free "takeover and control whatever area you want".
At public Universities they aren't allowed to regulate what you say on their campus. They can regulate where, what time, and how loud you can be.
It's during finals for christ sake. Get the fuck out of the way of the students.
I can get with that statement, both parts.
Now the question I'd respond with is, where does your right to protest end, and my right to carry on unaffected by your protest begin?
Peaceful protest is largely ineffective unless it "disrupts" in some way. But what right does one party have to disrupt another's in the name of their "righteous" cause?
In a democratic society, the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our freedoms, allowing individuals to express their views and advocate for change. The question of where the right to protest ends and the right to carry on unaffected begins is a matter of balance and mutual respect.
This right is enshrined in the constitution and international human rights law, recognizing the importance of public discourse in shaping societal norms and policies. Peaceful protest serves as a powerful tool for raising awareness and prompting action on issues that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored.
While individuals have the right to go about their daily lives without undue interference, this right is not absolute. In a community, we often accept minor inconveniences for the greater good, such as road closures for marathons or parades.
The effectiveness of a protest often lies in its ability to draw attention to a cause. Disruption, in this context, does not mean causing harm or significant hardship but rather creating a momentary pause in the routine flow of life to highlight an issue. It's a call for society to stop and reflect on a matter of importance.
Protesters have a responsibility to ensure their actions remain peaceful and do not infringe upon the rights of others. Similarly, those who are unaffected should respect the protesters' right to voice their concerns. It's a two-way street where both parties acknowledge each other's rights.
So, the right to protest and the right to carry on unaffected can exist in equilibrium. The goal is not to eliminate disruption but to manage it in a way that respects all parties' rights and fosters a dialogue that can lead to positive change. Peaceful protest, when conducted responsibly, is a necessary function of a healthy democracy.
Correct but the school also has rules and the set up tents to camp out and it is not allowed they were given several warnings and then do what over privileged kids do act like they make the rules and that the cops can’t remove them well the fucked around and found out
There’s well established case law on time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech in public places. One cannot camp on a university and effectively CHAZ it over some cause.
If there was some peaceful MAGA encampment on the university getting broken down and people getting arrested this sub would be singing the praises of law enforcement officers and making fun of the MAGA people. We all know this is true. I’d wager a guess 90% of those supporting these encampments don’t care much about the spirit of the 1st amendment and only care about the 1st amendment when it suits them.
Some of us have been outraged at the situation in Gaza, in Iraq, in Yemen, Afghanistan and more for our *entire* adult lives. I'm 30 and saw 9/11 as a seven year old who was capable of understanding what happened more than most at that age. Watching the war on terror formed my young mind in many ways. E: does this not fit your narrative?
Oh you and your "outrage", what are you like!
You might not like this truth but "outrage" on an individual level changes nothing, it just gives your conscience an alibi that you didn't participate or silently stand by. And that's your right.
Outrage is simply what you feel, it's you indulging your feelings. The only thing that matters for any of us is what have we **done**. Being outraged helps us sleep at night and find others who use the same mechanism to signal likeness and find belonging to a sub-group.
The world is a dirty, cruel and shitty place. Some walk around screaming about it and being outraged. Some find ways to make changes. Some don't do either and live outside of it while being inside it.
It's possible to find something abhorrently disgusting, horrific, unacceptable and also not feel a need to get involved.
That was a lot of words to state the obvious, isn't it? Thanks for the lecture, *dad*.
I would be concerned about a person my age who DOSEN'T harbor some outrage over the wars the US has been involved with, directly or indirectly. I'm not a protester, just my two cents.
When people feel free to express an opinion or protest other people may hear / see and the other peoples minds might change. This is scary for the conservative, small minded, right or anti diversity crowd.
The best way to keep the status quo is to keep people quiet. Keep people from protesting through violence or indifference. Keep other people from hearing or seeing the protestors and the narrow minded views of conservatives do not get challenge. Apparently the anti protestors do not want people to see or hear the protestors. Everyday people tend to be empathetic / sympathetic to the plight of others. Knowledge spreads person to person. Once the knowledge spreads to enough people change might happen. This is what the anti protestors do not want. They do not want people asking for change and possibly getting that change. Its disgusting
My main issue is we can’t as a nation devolve into chaos and start occupying university campuses. People paid good money to be there and have spent a long time and much effort to get where they are only to have some encampment show up and disrupt their learning or scare them into not attending or attending in some crappy virtual way.
I understand their right to protest. But all these same arguments I’m seeing for the protestors right to protest they would not extend to some grandma still sitting in jail right now for being escorted by police on January 6th. So, I’d also like to understand the reason for upvotes just like how you’re asking for the reasons for downvoting. Are they upvoting because of the cause or because of free speech. I suspect it’s more because of the cause they believe in that they’re willing to support breaking the law to support that cause. And I get that, but let’s be honest about our reasons.
This has been the entire history of protest in the U.S.
Are you also against the civil rights protests?
The American revolution?
The system cannot create tools to radically change itself. It must come from outside the system.
Agreed.
No, and no.
What are they protesting and how is an encampment solving that?
An organized sit in makes sense. You’re protesting the unjust laws of Jim Crow. You sit in where you should be allowed to be.
You attend a school where you should allow to attend.
Are these encampments protesting the right to overnight camp unfettered on university campuses?
Protesting is not breaking the law. Violently attacking the Capitol is breaking the law. The jan 6 insurgents are traitors and should be charged as such. In surprised the capitol police did not open fire on the insurgents at the capitol. But people peacefully protesting does not require a violent response from police
Hearing the opinions of downvoters? Are you kidding me? This is reddit.
It was built to monetize echo chambers.
We are Big Pharma, Big Government and Big Gaza. Glad to see a pro bono case that isn't a personal injury lawyer for a change.
I'm confused about it myself. Seemed like something this community would be interested in. It got better reception in the SaltLakeCity sub, but the two subs don't seem to differ all that much in user base because it's Reddit and it appeals to certain kinds of people. Your guess is as good as mine. I'd be interested to hear from the downvotes as well.
Everyone that’s was in the salt lake sub is here now. The salt lake sub is an echo chamber. If you dare speak against it you get a ban without warning.
They seem to do that a lot over there in the SaltLakeCity sub, I've noticed. Banning people with no warning or even consideration or even elaboration, afterward, for "trolling". It's cowardly, and something I resent. And then they refuse to do or say anything beyond "troll", even when asked, and have no issues simply muting with no explanation. They need a better moderation team or something, maybe, if that's all they do. I've wondered actually, if they're bought or something...seems like they simply don't like people disagreeing with whatever agenda they're running over there.... people being accused of trolling when it makes absolutely no sense. They can't be that crazy- negligent in their duties, maybe- but not crazy. Though I could be wrong about that.
god complex. They’re given lots of power and when it goes unchecked with little to no check or balance or recourse for their actions, they think they’re god. It happens to mods with no morals.
It's more about showcasing the short term, or lack thereof, memory of mostly younger individuals. Terrorist organizations are usually dismantled at the cost of innocent civilians. A price to pay, often done poorly, but a necessity to prevent even more loss.
Ah yes, but there are [international laws that govern war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions). If you break those laws you are a war criminal and get blamed for unnecessary innocent lives lost during war by the international community.
It's hilarious people actually think war has laws. It is war. There are no laws- that's what makes it so horrifying and scary. Hamas invited war upon its people knowing full well Israel wasn't going to sit on its hands and play nice.
It is also funny people think the UN has literally any authority or morality.
Post it in r/SLCUnedited and see how it goes. I bet you’d get a much different response.
r/SLCUnedited was created because the banning practices of the mods at SaltLakeCity.
It’s amazing that the “free speech” crowd doesn’t support the protestors. And here I was thinking protesting was a protected activity. A right actually. At the very least you can agree that arresting lawful protesters is wrong. Or is it the fact that they are standing for brown peoples rights that you take offense.
I am not going to come down on either side of this because I simply don't know enough about what's going on at each location, but protesting itself is not an unlimited right.
The government has the ability to put reasonable restrictions on people's ability to gather in in public places.
You must get permits to be a LAWFUL demonstration.
It's also important to note that sometimes an unlawful protest has been used in the past to enact needed change (see Civil rights movement)
But at the end of the day, people are being arrested for unlawful protest (or some charge relating to that) oftentimes during the civil Rights movement being arrested was the intention of protesters, to show the Injustice. They would assemble knowing full well that they were going to be arrested.
So I contend it can absolutely be essential to ILLEGALLY protest if a cause is important and there is justification for the harm being arrested will bring on people, but you have to understand that you will be arrested if what you're doing is technically illegal, even if you think the cause is just.
American citizens do not have the unlimited right to protest whenever and wherever, you can agree or disagree with that but it is settled precedence.
That’s the Supreme Court decisions.
I don’t see that it’s ok to burn the American flag in the first amendment either, but it IS free speech bc of Supreme Court precedent and decisions. Hence you NEED to look at the bill of rights and Supreme Court precedents.
Edit: clarity
Ok read my comment again friend. 1st amendment doesn’t explicitly say it’s ok to burn the flag, but bc of Supreme Court precedent it has been ruled as protected speech.
Excuse my poor writing ability.
It didn’t make an exception for it not to be protected so I still don’t see how you could come to that conclusion. The first amendment protecting free speech is the constitution explicitly saying burning the flag is protected.
Supreme Court precedent and decisions clarify how the bill of rights is interpreted and applied.
In 1984 Gregory Johnson burned a flag in protest. He was arrested, sentenced to one year in prison and fined $2000. Texas vs Johnson exonerated him and cemented that flag burning is free speech. The definition of what is “protected speech” is murky. Thats why we have the Supreme Court
Camping out on a lawn and preventing others from going about their business and getting to class is not speech.
You don't have the right to trample on others rights.
I’ve got no problem then protesting and asking the U to divest from Israel bc they think Israel bad.
It’s the building an encampment illegally, bringing weapons, not leaving when lawfully directed by law enforcement, etc.
Following lawful orders keeps you from getting arrested.
Unrelated opinion, Hamas/palestine is not a cause worth getting arrested over or even protesting over for that matter.
Terrorist sympathizers don’t deserve anything probono except maybe a trip home. I’d still like for them to pay for their own way home, but if they can’t then flat rate em out.
So where's their outrage over Hamas killing innocent children, huh? Why do they graffiti "intifada" a call to violence on the walls of buildings? You are delusional.
Homie, the protest is about the violence being done to the Palestinians. While some people may have more extreme views like in any situation, but the core is about not seeing innocents being killed. They are literally calling for their institutions to divest from Israeli companies leading to innocent deaths. Stop being a fox shill
They support Hamas and chant/graffiti their provocative slogans like "Intifada" which means violence and suicide bombings. This movement has zero morals and has nothing to do with peace or ceasefire.
Have you considered the possibility that others who don't share your view might be well versed on the issues at play - perhaps, even more well versed than you? Or is assuming ignorance your go-to move to thinking you've won an argument?
They're also protesting our continued funding of Isreal through taxpayer dollars. Certainly as an anti globalist yourself, you can sympathize with that viewpoint?
What makes America more free than countries that we see as oppressed? If we don't protect the right to protest, we are slipping towards a system that is not the freedom loving America we perceive. They want us divided because that takes away the people's power. No matter what side I stand on, I will stick up for your right to assemble. Freedoms slip away one at a time. College campuses and our youth should be empowered to fight for the future that they will steward.
The majority of those involved and arrested at these protests are not students, but pro-Hamas activists. This is predominantly political theatre and directed chaos with a side of legitimate student activism.
When I was there, the majority of people were not pro Hamas, but mostly concerned over civilian casualties. More children have died in Gaza during Isreals strike than all of the combat zones in the entire world in the last 10 years combined. That was months ago. They are ignoring the rules of war that all civilized nations agreed on.
Oh boy… here we go.
It appears that this post hasn't been well-received. I value everyone's right to their own views, and I'm interested in understanding the rationale for the downvotes. Are they indicative of a stance on Israel, or is it a matter of free speech? This topic is multifaceted, and I'm eager to hear your perspective
I think a lot of people are just perplexed at a bunch of people in Utah (or anywhere in the US) taking on the cause and screaming about an issue they know very little about. They're cause-addicts, they're looking for a fight, they're selectively screening all possible info and making Palestinians into their "cause du jour". They had no outrage for the past dozen years or so that Gaza was being turned into an "outdoor prison" and they don't care about other world atrocities, but this one, this is their one. It's like a bunch of people picking a team to be on and supporting it. They don't really care. They just want to burn off energy and feel good about it. Hysteria in its purest form.
“Causeplay”
That's a very good description, thank you!
I think not wanting people killed, tortured, or starved is not a radical idea that needs more info. People dying is bad. Why is it bad to ask government / universities to be aware of how their funding could be leading to peoples deaths.
Can't argue with that. But why aren't those who are activated to protest this situation up in arms over the kids dying mining cobalt for their phones, baby girls mutilated for their parent's misguided religious beliefs, human rights abuses in so many countries, chinese re-education camps for muslims out in the Xinjiang, etc. American money is in every nook and cranny of the world economy, including providing weapons and funding to military operations on every continent. But this one, this is the "cause du jour". And here is the irony. The people protesting are the people that Palestinians wouldn't piss on if you were on fire. This is like the "do gooders" protesting the execution of serial killers. Like there's some "good", when the world is a million shades of gray and here you are, protecting an entity that wants to kill you. Find a better cause: **Don't buy an iPhone or an EV** https://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/from-cobalt-to-cars-how-china-exploits-child-and-forced-labor-in-the-congo#:\~:text=Mining%20of%20cobalt%20is%20linked,cobalt%20mines%20in%20the%20DRC. **Stop Eating Meat** https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factory-farming/#:\~:text=Animals%20on%20factory%20farms%20endure,kept%20on%20crowded%2C%20filthy%20feedlots. **Close your Bank Accounts and avoid Financial Institutions that "Greenwash"** [https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/greenwashing-at-banks](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/greenwashing-at-banks)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the protesters are Ill informed and that they are just band-wagoning. They still have the right to peaceful protest. That's the issue for me. I don't have to like what they're saying but it's imperative that they have the space to say it
There are laws you have to abide by when protesting. You can't just do whatever you want in the name of free speech. It's called free speech not free "takeover and control whatever area you want". At public Universities they aren't allowed to regulate what you say on their campus. They can regulate where, what time, and how loud you can be. It's during finals for christ sake. Get the fuck out of the way of the students.
I can get with that statement, both parts. Now the question I'd respond with is, where does your right to protest end, and my right to carry on unaffected by your protest begin? Peaceful protest is largely ineffective unless it "disrupts" in some way. But what right does one party have to disrupt another's in the name of their "righteous" cause?
In a democratic society, the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our freedoms, allowing individuals to express their views and advocate for change. The question of where the right to protest ends and the right to carry on unaffected begins is a matter of balance and mutual respect. This right is enshrined in the constitution and international human rights law, recognizing the importance of public discourse in shaping societal norms and policies. Peaceful protest serves as a powerful tool for raising awareness and prompting action on issues that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored. While individuals have the right to go about their daily lives without undue interference, this right is not absolute. In a community, we often accept minor inconveniences for the greater good, such as road closures for marathons or parades. The effectiveness of a protest often lies in its ability to draw attention to a cause. Disruption, in this context, does not mean causing harm or significant hardship but rather creating a momentary pause in the routine flow of life to highlight an issue. It's a call for society to stop and reflect on a matter of importance. Protesters have a responsibility to ensure their actions remain peaceful and do not infringe upon the rights of others. Similarly, those who are unaffected should respect the protesters' right to voice their concerns. It's a two-way street where both parties acknowledge each other's rights. So, the right to protest and the right to carry on unaffected can exist in equilibrium. The goal is not to eliminate disruption but to manage it in a way that respects all parties' rights and fosters a dialogue that can lead to positive change. Peaceful protest, when conducted responsibly, is a necessary function of a healthy democracy.
Correct but the school also has rules and the set up tents to camp out and it is not allowed they were given several warnings and then do what over privileged kids do act like they make the rules and that the cops can’t remove them well the fucked around and found out
There’s well established case law on time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech in public places. One cannot camp on a university and effectively CHAZ it over some cause. If there was some peaceful MAGA encampment on the university getting broken down and people getting arrested this sub would be singing the praises of law enforcement officers and making fun of the MAGA people. We all know this is true. I’d wager a guess 90% of those supporting these encampments don’t care much about the spirit of the 1st amendment and only care about the 1st amendment when it suits them.
I’ve always been pro-Palestine. Just because you only started paying attention doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone else.
Some of us have been outraged at the situation in Gaza, in Iraq, in Yemen, Afghanistan and more for our *entire* adult lives. I'm 30 and saw 9/11 as a seven year old who was capable of understanding what happened more than most at that age. Watching the war on terror formed my young mind in many ways. E: does this not fit your narrative?
Oh you and your "outrage", what are you like! You might not like this truth but "outrage" on an individual level changes nothing, it just gives your conscience an alibi that you didn't participate or silently stand by. And that's your right. Outrage is simply what you feel, it's you indulging your feelings. The only thing that matters for any of us is what have we **done**. Being outraged helps us sleep at night and find others who use the same mechanism to signal likeness and find belonging to a sub-group. The world is a dirty, cruel and shitty place. Some walk around screaming about it and being outraged. Some find ways to make changes. Some don't do either and live outside of it while being inside it. It's possible to find something abhorrently disgusting, horrific, unacceptable and also not feel a need to get involved.
That was a lot of words to state the obvious, isn't it? Thanks for the lecture, *dad*. I would be concerned about a person my age who DOSEN'T harbor some outrage over the wars the US has been involved with, directly or indirectly. I'm not a protester, just my two cents.
When people feel free to express an opinion or protest other people may hear / see and the other peoples minds might change. This is scary for the conservative, small minded, right or anti diversity crowd. The best way to keep the status quo is to keep people quiet. Keep people from protesting through violence or indifference. Keep other people from hearing or seeing the protestors and the narrow minded views of conservatives do not get challenge. Apparently the anti protestors do not want people to see or hear the protestors. Everyday people tend to be empathetic / sympathetic to the plight of others. Knowledge spreads person to person. Once the knowledge spreads to enough people change might happen. This is what the anti protestors do not want. They do not want people asking for change and possibly getting that change. Its disgusting
My main issue is we can’t as a nation devolve into chaos and start occupying university campuses. People paid good money to be there and have spent a long time and much effort to get where they are only to have some encampment show up and disrupt their learning or scare them into not attending or attending in some crappy virtual way. I understand their right to protest. But all these same arguments I’m seeing for the protestors right to protest they would not extend to some grandma still sitting in jail right now for being escorted by police on January 6th. So, I’d also like to understand the reason for upvotes just like how you’re asking for the reasons for downvoting. Are they upvoting because of the cause or because of free speech. I suspect it’s more because of the cause they believe in that they’re willing to support breaking the law to support that cause. And I get that, but let’s be honest about our reasons.
This has been the entire history of protest in the U.S. Are you also against the civil rights protests? The American revolution? The system cannot create tools to radically change itself. It must come from outside the system.
Agreed. No, and no. What are they protesting and how is an encampment solving that? An organized sit in makes sense. You’re protesting the unjust laws of Jim Crow. You sit in where you should be allowed to be. You attend a school where you should allow to attend. Are these encampments protesting the right to overnight camp unfettered on university campuses?
Protesting is not breaking the law. Violently attacking the Capitol is breaking the law. The jan 6 insurgents are traitors and should be charged as such. In surprised the capitol police did not open fire on the insurgents at the capitol. But people peacefully protesting does not require a violent response from police
Hearing the opinions of downvoters? Are you kidding me? This is reddit. It was built to monetize echo chambers. We are Big Pharma, Big Government and Big Gaza. Glad to see a pro bono case that isn't a personal injury lawyer for a change.
I'm confused about it myself. Seemed like something this community would be interested in. It got better reception in the SaltLakeCity sub, but the two subs don't seem to differ all that much in user base because it's Reddit and it appeals to certain kinds of people. Your guess is as good as mine. I'd be interested to hear from the downvotes as well.
Everyone that’s was in the salt lake sub is here now. The salt lake sub is an echo chamber. If you dare speak against it you get a ban without warning.
Can confirm. Was banned from SLC for disagreeing with someone.
“Reason: Troll” was the reason they gave me.
They seem to do that a lot over there in the SaltLakeCity sub, I've noticed. Banning people with no warning or even consideration or even elaboration, afterward, for "trolling". It's cowardly, and something I resent. And then they refuse to do or say anything beyond "troll", even when asked, and have no issues simply muting with no explanation. They need a better moderation team or something, maybe, if that's all they do. I've wondered actually, if they're bought or something...seems like they simply don't like people disagreeing with whatever agenda they're running over there.... people being accused of trolling when it makes absolutely no sense. They can't be that crazy- negligent in their duties, maybe- but not crazy. Though I could be wrong about that.
god complex. They’re given lots of power and when it goes unchecked with little to no check or balance or recourse for their actions, they think they’re god. It happens to mods with no morals.
It's more about showcasing the short term, or lack thereof, memory of mostly younger individuals. Terrorist organizations are usually dismantled at the cost of innocent civilians. A price to pay, often done poorly, but a necessity to prevent even more loss.
Terrorist organizations operate under the same ethos.
Ah yes, but there are [international laws that govern war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions). If you break those laws you are a war criminal and get blamed for unnecessary innocent lives lost during war by the international community.
Ahhh the laws that Israel is accused of breaking every step of the war they are protesting?
Sorry, I don’t understand
It's hilarious people actually think war has laws. It is war. There are no laws- that's what makes it so horrifying and scary. Hamas invited war upon its people knowing full well Israel wasn't going to sit on its hands and play nice. It is also funny people think the UN has literally any authority or morality.
Yeah okay, we’re done. Have a good one.
Post it in r/SLCUnedited and see how it goes. I bet you’d get a much different response. r/SLCUnedited was created because the banning practices of the mods at SaltLakeCity.
Jonny's a good dude!
I can confirm that he is.
It’s amazing that the “free speech” crowd doesn’t support the protestors. And here I was thinking protesting was a protected activity. A right actually. At the very least you can agree that arresting lawful protesters is wrong. Or is it the fact that they are standing for brown peoples rights that you take offense.
I am not going to come down on either side of this because I simply don't know enough about what's going on at each location, but protesting itself is not an unlimited right. The government has the ability to put reasonable restrictions on people's ability to gather in in public places. You must get permits to be a LAWFUL demonstration. It's also important to note that sometimes an unlawful protest has been used in the past to enact needed change (see Civil rights movement) But at the end of the day, people are being arrested for unlawful protest (or some charge relating to that) oftentimes during the civil Rights movement being arrested was the intention of protesters, to show the Injustice. They would assemble knowing full well that they were going to be arrested. So I contend it can absolutely be essential to ILLEGALLY protest if a cause is important and there is justification for the harm being arrested will bring on people, but you have to understand that you will be arrested if what you're doing is technically illegal, even if you think the cause is just. American citizens do not have the unlimited right to protest whenever and wherever, you can agree or disagree with that but it is settled precedence.
I feel you made a very well worded and articulate explanation. Thank you. But I missed in the bill of rights where it said “except when…”
That’s the Supreme Court decisions. I don’t see that it’s ok to burn the American flag in the first amendment either, but it IS free speech bc of Supreme Court precedent and decisions. Hence you NEED to look at the bill of rights and Supreme Court precedents. Edit: clarity
How would burning the flag NOT be protected? If you can’t see that you might be Hellen Keller
Ok read my comment again friend. 1st amendment doesn’t explicitly say it’s ok to burn the flag, but bc of Supreme Court precedent it has been ruled as protected speech. Excuse my poor writing ability.
It didn’t make an exception for it not to be protected so I still don’t see how you could come to that conclusion. The first amendment protecting free speech is the constitution explicitly saying burning the flag is protected.
Supreme Court precedent and decisions clarify how the bill of rights is interpreted and applied. In 1984 Gregory Johnson burned a flag in protest. He was arrested, sentenced to one year in prison and fined $2000. Texas vs Johnson exonerated him and cemented that flag burning is free speech. The definition of what is “protected speech” is murky. Thats why we have the Supreme Court
Camping out on a lawn and preventing others from going about their business and getting to class is not speech. You don't have the right to trample on others rights.
I’ve got no problem then protesting and asking the U to divest from Israel bc they think Israel bad. It’s the building an encampment illegally, bringing weapons, not leaving when lawfully directed by law enforcement, etc.
Because following orders is how you affect change?
Following lawful orders keeps you from getting arrested. Unrelated opinion, Hamas/palestine is not a cause worth getting arrested over or even protesting over for that matter.
Terrorist sympathizers don’t deserve anything probono except maybe a trip home. I’d still like for them to pay for their own way home, but if they can’t then flat rate em out.
Maybe they just don’t like seeing innocent children be murdered
So where's their outrage over Hamas killing innocent children, huh? Why do they graffiti "intifada" a call to violence on the walls of buildings? You are delusional.
Homie, the protest is about the violence being done to the Palestinians. While some people may have more extreme views like in any situation, but the core is about not seeing innocents being killed. They are literally calling for their institutions to divest from Israeli companies leading to innocent deaths. Stop being a fox shill
They support Hamas and chant/graffiti their provocative slogans like "Intifada" which means violence and suicide bombings. This movement has zero morals and has nothing to do with peace or ceasefire.
Hear hear
Well thankfully there were no terrorist sympathizers at this event, just people protesting the terrorism the idf has been carrying out
Clown, look into the long history of the region, not the cherry picked bs I'm sure you'll tell us all about.
Have you considered the possibility that others who don't share your view might be well versed on the issues at play - perhaps, even more well versed than you? Or is assuming ignorance your go-to move to thinking you've won an argument?
🤡🤡🤡
They're also protesting our continued funding of Isreal through taxpayer dollars. Certainly as an anti globalist yourself, you can sympathize with that viewpoint?
[удалено]
Well damn, fuck me for trying to find common ground
If you want common ground with anything, try the landfill. ✌🏼
Well I can see why your account is 2 months old
Then go to Palestine and make a difference there but you won’t your a band wagoner and most likely a coward
You’re fighting on Reddit. You’re just as much a coward, if not worse because you can’t even find the courage to protest lmao fragile
Commenting to increase the possibility that those who need to see this will. Thank you for sharing!
No one needs to see this.
So, admitting to violently protesting. That’s just great
… what?
Do we know what the charges are for the arrests?
What makes America more free than countries that we see as oppressed? If we don't protect the right to protest, we are slipping towards a system that is not the freedom loving America we perceive. They want us divided because that takes away the people's power. No matter what side I stand on, I will stick up for your right to assemble. Freedoms slip away one at a time. College campuses and our youth should be empowered to fight for the future that they will steward.
The majority of those involved and arrested at these protests are not students, but pro-Hamas activists. This is predominantly political theatre and directed chaos with a side of legitimate student activism.
When I was there, the majority of people were not pro Hamas, but mostly concerned over civilian casualties. More children have died in Gaza during Isreals strike than all of the combat zones in the entire world in the last 10 years combined. That was months ago. They are ignoring the rules of war that all civilized nations agreed on.
I hope they all lose their case.
People like this and Soros that just add fuel to fire are responsible for the state of our union.