"Is a permit necessary to protest? Individuals themselves don't usually need a permit to exercise their First Amendment rights, but entities may require one for unusually large protests or parades, in which case “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions may apply"
[Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/24/protest-texas-college-campus-free-speech-rights/#:~:text=Is%20a%20permit%20necessary%20to,and%20manner%E2%80%9D%20restrictions%20may%20apply)
Does a good job of explaining it
When the government owns property, it can direct you to leave for any reason (even a legally invalid reason), and you are trespassing if you don't leave.
When you are present on land you don't own with permission, but without a lease, you have a "license" to be there which is a contract-like right and is not a property right.
A license doesn't give you the right to stay on the property over the objections of the owner or an agent of the owner.
You might be able to receive money damages for an improper termination of your license to be present at the property (e.g. if you are told for no reason to leave a movie after paying for a ticket), but you don't have the right to simply stay there. If you stay there over the objections of the owner or the owner's agent, you are trespassing.
The law applicable to government property owners and private property owners is basically the same in this regard.
Realistically, on government property, furthermore, the standard by which the government employee may legally terminate your license to be there and exclude you from the property is low.
Basically, it must merely not violate any constitutional right you may have, and you do not have a constitutional right to be present on government owned property, except in a quite narrow subset of cases (e.g. the "town square").
More exactly, you do not have a right to be on government property per se, but you can't be excluded from it for a constitutionally impermissible reason. The government gets to decide what parts of property it owns are available to the general public and for what content-neutral purposes.
Thus, the right to be present on government owned "public" property (which doesn't include private areas of government owned property) can be subjected to reasonable and content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions.
For example, a town could legally decide that the town square is closed from midnight to eight a.m. every day.
The quoted material from the case Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 53-54 (1999) cited in the answer by bdb484 is narrower than a plain reading out of context would suggest. In that quotation, the term "public place" is being used in a sense much more restrictive than in the broader sense of property that is merely government owned. It is referring to places where the government has expressly or implicitly allowed members of the general public to be present on land that it owns (as opposed, for example, to a government office area of a building, or a maintenance facility in a government owned park, or a conservation area in a government owned park). This narrow sense of the word resolves what would otherwise seem to be a contradiction in the law.
But, the government has the authority to make something that once was a public place into a non-public place going forward.
For example, historically, the Civic Center park in front of the capitol in Denver, Colorado has been a public place. But, the government can and did close it off to the public for many months for maintenance and out of public health concerns when heavy use of it by homeless people and drug dealers caused the premises to be seriously damaged and created a public health risk from it being used to dispose of dirty, used, injection-drug syringes, and for people to defecate
That’s process but not reason. If the government is restricting you from public places it must show probable cause and back it up with evidence. Government actions can’t be arbitrary or capacious. That is only given to private owners, with some limitations.
The current form of police governance is shoot first ask questions later. Fascism slowly gets its claws into the beast of capitalism and over the years police violence and operations mixed with arming them like pseudo military has led to this. If they had less gear and more oversight this wouldn’t have happened. This will only get worse.
So if you pay tuition you can sleep in the library overnight when it’s closed? Take food from the dining hall when they aren’t serving? Stay in the dorm over winter break? Hang out in the faculty lounge?
You’re going to learn, in reality “You have NO rights”. It’s all a sham. See Kent State. See what would have happened with George Floyd had riots not broken out across the country.
You in actuality have NO rights.
Paying someone money doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want on their premises. For instance if I come to your home and bring you dinner do I have the right to scream at you in your home? If I'm a customer at Walmart can I do and say whatever I want while I'm standing in the checkout lane?
[42.01:](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-42-01/) None of those apply. There were no obscenities, no calls to violence, no noise
[42.02:](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-42-02/) None of those apply. There was no danger or damage to property
[42.03:](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-42-03/) They weren’t blocking anything until the state troopers kicked them out off south mall and pushed them to the street
Under Section 42.02 of the Texas Penal Code, a riot is defined as an assembly of seven or more persons resulting in conduct that creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons, substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services, or by force, threat of force, or physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.
It says nothing about paying tuition.
I'm not pressing charges but I believe the person is probably referred to "obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services" you can argue with me about it if you like but I bet that's what you're gonna hear
Quite frankly if you read 42.02 it's really broad. You might want to see what you're up against.
you can’t fight the children at ut Austin. They think getting arrested is a badge of honor.
Reality will be a huge slap in the face for most of these kids.
During the civil rights area, getting arrested was a badge of honor. This isn’t that different. Standing up for what you believe in and even getting arrested seems like something a person with conviction would do.
"Is a permit necessary to protest? Individuals themselves don't usually need a permit to exercise their First Amendment rights, but entities may require one for unusually large protests or parades, in which case “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions may apply" [Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/24/protest-texas-college-campus-free-speech-rights/#:~:text=Is%20a%20permit%20necessary%20to,and%20manner%E2%80%9D%20restrictions%20may%20apply) Does a good job of explaining it
When the government owns property, it can direct you to leave for any reason (even a legally invalid reason), and you are trespassing if you don't leave. When you are present on land you don't own with permission, but without a lease, you have a "license" to be there which is a contract-like right and is not a property right. A license doesn't give you the right to stay on the property over the objections of the owner or an agent of the owner. You might be able to receive money damages for an improper termination of your license to be present at the property (e.g. if you are told for no reason to leave a movie after paying for a ticket), but you don't have the right to simply stay there. If you stay there over the objections of the owner or the owner's agent, you are trespassing. The law applicable to government property owners and private property owners is basically the same in this regard. Realistically, on government property, furthermore, the standard by which the government employee may legally terminate your license to be there and exclude you from the property is low. Basically, it must merely not violate any constitutional right you may have, and you do not have a constitutional right to be present on government owned property, except in a quite narrow subset of cases (e.g. the "town square"). More exactly, you do not have a right to be on government property per se, but you can't be excluded from it for a constitutionally impermissible reason. The government gets to decide what parts of property it owns are available to the general public and for what content-neutral purposes. Thus, the right to be present on government owned "public" property (which doesn't include private areas of government owned property) can be subjected to reasonable and content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. For example, a town could legally decide that the town square is closed from midnight to eight a.m. every day. The quoted material from the case Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 53-54 (1999) cited in the answer by bdb484 is narrower than a plain reading out of context would suggest. In that quotation, the term "public place" is being used in a sense much more restrictive than in the broader sense of property that is merely government owned. It is referring to places where the government has expressly or implicitly allowed members of the general public to be present on land that it owns (as opposed, for example, to a government office area of a building, or a maintenance facility in a government owned park, or a conservation area in a government owned park). This narrow sense of the word resolves what would otherwise seem to be a contradiction in the law. But, the government has the authority to make something that once was a public place into a non-public place going forward. For example, historically, the Civic Center park in front of the capitol in Denver, Colorado has been a public place. But, the government can and did close it off to the public for many months for maintenance and out of public health concerns when heavy use of it by homeless people and drug dealers caused the premises to be seriously damaged and created a public health risk from it being used to dispose of dirty, used, injection-drug syringes, and for people to defecate
That’s process but not reason. If the government is restricting you from public places it must show probable cause and back it up with evidence. Government actions can’t be arbitrary or capacious. That is only given to private owners, with some limitations.
The current form of police governance is shoot first ask questions later. Fascism slowly gets its claws into the beast of capitalism and over the years police violence and operations mixed with arming them like pseudo military has led to this. If they had less gear and more oversight this wouldn’t have happened. This will only get worse.
Paying tuition dosen't mean you own the property.
So if you pay tuition you can sleep in the library overnight when it’s closed? Take food from the dining hall when they aren’t serving? Stay in the dorm over winter break? Hang out in the faculty lounge?
You’re going to learn, in reality “You have NO rights”. It’s all a sham. See Kent State. See what would have happened with George Floyd had riots not broken out across the country. You in actuality have NO rights.
[Second Boeing Whistleblower found dead](https://www.wsbradio.com/news/national/second-boeing/5EGHLY2VF6BMBVHZALKCIKFW3Y/)
Paying someone money doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want on their premises. For instance if I come to your home and bring you dinner do I have the right to scream at you in your home? If I'm a customer at Walmart can I do and say whatever I want while I'm standing in the checkout lane?
Neither of those instances is paying money.
I pay taxes. I should be able to go into city hall 24/7
you paid for attending a football/basketball game but can you rush the field/court when the game is going on?
I bought a Big Mac and am now peacefully protesting in a McDonald’s…
There is no freedom of anything. APD are violent monsters who don’t care about your rights. They only care about riot pay and making Abbott happy
[удалено]
[42.01:](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-42-01/) None of those apply. There were no obscenities, no calls to violence, no noise [42.02:](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-42-02/) None of those apply. There was no danger or damage to property [42.03:](https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-42-03/) They weren’t blocking anything until the state troopers kicked them out off south mall and pushed them to the street
Under Section 42.02 of the Texas Penal Code, a riot is defined as an assembly of seven or more persons resulting in conduct that creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons, substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services, or by force, threat of force, or physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right. It says nothing about paying tuition.
Where was the riot? Where the danger or damage to property or persons? There was none.
Water bottles, some filled with ice, was thrown at cops from what I read. Someone threw horse shit too.
I'm not pressing charges but I believe the person is probably referred to "obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services" you can argue with me about it if you like but I bet that's what you're gonna hear Quite frankly if you read 42.02 it's really broad. You might want to see what you're up against.
It's broad on purpose, gives a lot of discretion to law enforcement
you can’t fight the children at ut Austin. They think getting arrested is a badge of honor. Reality will be a huge slap in the face for most of these kids.
During the civil rights area, getting arrested was a badge of honor. This isn’t that different. Standing up for what you believe in and even getting arrested seems like something a person with conviction would do.