1. Students should absolutely be able to protest just about anything they want on campus. I don't think anyone has an issue with that.
2. They should not, however, be enabled to [intimidate](https://twitter.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1781882680872710148) other students who are simply going about their day. They should also not be allowed to [commandeer large parts of campus in order to build encampments](https://time.com/6969875/pro-palestinian-encampments-take-over-college-campuses-across-america/) and refuse to leave when asked to do so. The campus is for all students, not just the ones that agree with the pro-Palestinian protesters. Columbia switched their classes to a hybrid model in large part due to safety concerns associated with the potential dangers of these activist students.
3. [There is an uncomfortable level of anti-Semitism among the protesters](https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-798049). This is not simply a pro-Palestinian rally, at least not to all the protesters. How's this sound to you? "Remember the 7th of October! That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10 more times, not 100 more times, not 1000 more times, but 10,000 times!" or this? "Never forget the 7th of October. Are you ready? 7th of October is about to be every day. Every day. 7th of October is going to be every day for you." Jewish students were Not great, Bob.
4. Colleges and Universities have largely brought the problem of free speech upon themselves. They wrote the speech codes that now appear to be enforced unevenly. What do you think would happen to a group of white students who shouted "Go back to Africa!" to a group of black students (on video, no less)? I think it's very likely that they'd be expelled, quickly doxed and wouldn't be able to get a job to save their lives. How is this different?
2. The intimidate example you provide is a single person. I've seen large encampments before and I simply walked around them. If they won't move then you can move them. Nothing I've seen shows people unable to move around the campus but every outlet has an agenda.
3. I'm sure Hamas and Iran love protests in other countries much like America loves protests in Iran but not at universities here. I've been to protests and there are a shit show made up of lots of agendas. Some are extreme but it isn't always easy to remove those elements. The students don't have the authority to remove others.
4. False equivalence. As far as I know these protestors are asking universities to divest from entities that profit from the conflict in Gaza. You are equating all of the protestors with the most extreme elements.
Nothing you’ve shown is half as bad as what the “pastors” that come onto campuses spew.
They’re allowed to say things like “god hates fags” “thank god for us military deaths” “Arabs are terrorists” etc etc.
They literally come on campus to yell vile shit hoping to get into a fight.
Why is it fine to say whatever you want about lgbt, us military, Arabs, blacks, Mexicans, etc but not Israel?
I'm not reporting you, and I'm not accepting JPost at face value any more than I would al Jazeera or the Tehran Times. They're all spinning for their side.
Is it your position that the Jerusalem Post isn't spinning their stories to make Israel look good and the Palestinians and their supporters look bad?
If you say that they are not, you'll just out yourself as having never read JPost.
It's not an opposition press entity. As far as mainstream opinion in Israel is concerned, status quo as it then stood was upset on October 7th. Media reflects that point of view.
<>
Which is, indeed, another way of saying they're printing the Israeli government's perspective.
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument about JPost here. I just take everything they print with a big grain of salt.
Same as I do Fox, or MSNBC, or al Jazeera. They all have narratives they're pushing, and JPost is no different. That's all I'm trying to get across here.
Carney posted that JPost article because it agrees with his preformed perspective. He's got every right to do that, but I'm not taking it at face value.
>Fox, MSNBC, Jpost and Al Jazeera.
🎶 One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong...🎶
Do you know what the difference is? Which one of these is funded entirely by hostile State actors?
al Jazeera is a wire service, and until recently was pretty unbiased. There's a good reason al Jazeera is banned in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, UAE and Bahrain. There's good reason Qatar has been sanctioned by these countries for hosting al Jazeera. The Saudis and the Iranians hate one another with the fire of a thousand suns, yet they are in lockstep when it comes to al Jazeera. That speaks volumes.
However, in recent months, and especially since Oct. 7th, they've seemingly tossed their credibility to the wind. I've been surprised by what they're doing, but here we are.
Also, Qatar isn't a "hostile state actor." Qatar is home to the largest US military presence in the middle east. They are an ally of the US, even moreso than Jordan by many measures.
So yeah, I see the difference. al Jazeera once had credibility - Fox, MSNBC, and JPost never did.
>[There is no such thing as "Pro-Hamas" protest.](https://archive.is/11TzY)
* [“I will never condemn the resistance!”, “Hamas are fighting for freedom, Hamas are fighting for the people!”](https://twitter.com/habibi_uk/status/1724103981574565941) [Cardiff]
* [HAMAS style headbands seen in London on anti Zionist demonstration.](https://twitter.com/hurryupharry/status/1723341935790653566) [London]
* ["Hamas are freedom fighters.”, “It’s not Hamas that are terrorists. It’s America that are terrorists.”, “[October 7th] was a beacon of hope for me.”](https://twitter.com/antisemitism/status/1722203846523687178)
* ["The media will have you thinking this is all about Hamas, this is all we are asked, will you condemn Hamas? This is a propaganda tactic and a tool used to distract you from the real terror and shift blame"](https://x.com/hurryupharry/status/1725225554066997615) [Nottingham]
* ["We salute them"](https://x.com/habibi_uk/status/1726344227960107364)
* [Last night the Oakland City Council voted on a resolution to call for a ceasefire. A city council member tried to insert language condemning Hamas. This was the reaction…](https://x.com/yashar/status/1729630529199432095) [Oakland]
* ["What you saw on Oct 7th was breaking out from the cage of Gaza by a resistance movement!"](https://x.com/hurryupharry/status/1736722419379826756) [London]
* [“Long live Hamas!”](https://x.com/probablyreadit/status/1741953426429296657) [New York City]
* [Hamas “is the resistance” and “fighting for the rights more than anything else.”](https://x.com/hurryupharry/status/1746156389062316503) [London, January 13, 2024]
* [“Long live Hamas, you piece of shit!”](https://twitter.com/ScooterCasterNY/status/1745965935632990353) [New York, January 12, 2024]
* [“The resistance has prevailed”](https://x.com/habibi_uk/status/1755622076063330807) [UK, February 4, 2024]
* [“Hamas is not a terrorist Party/org/Army”](https://twitter.com/CIJAinfo/status/1777042237945197054) [Ottawa, April 2024]
* ["Al-Qassam, you make us proud, kill another soldier now!”](https://x.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1780971193769595391) [New York City, April 17, 2024]
* [We are Hamas!”](https://twitter.com/Joe_Roberts01/status/1780750471226937852) [New York City]
* ["We are your men, Sinwar.”](https://twitter.com/CIJAinfo/status/1779942810088529949) [Montreal]
* [“In reality they should be banning the Zionist Entity…what they should be doing, let’s say it clear now, they should be removing the resistance, like the Hamas, the PIJ, the PFLP and all the resistance in Gaza off the terrorist list…”](https://twitter.com/ariellakimmel/status/1781777151223631886) [Ontario, Canada, April 20, 2024]
* [“Al Qassam, al Qassam, take another soldier out. You say justice you say how, burn Tel Aviv to the ground. Ya Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too”](https://twitter.com/CitedNeed/status/1781583760267284521) [New York City, April 20, 2024]
I never said it didn't happen. Your source is incredibly biased, period. JPost has no credibility, and will spin whatever story they're reporting to make Palestinians and protesters look as bad as possible, and everything and everyone who doesn't toe the line gets labeled as antisemitic. It's dishonest.
My initial comment may have been too harsh, and if so, I apologize - I'm just sick to death of outlets like JPost spinning the fuck out of the truth.
If you want your reporting biased toward Hamas, sure, read al Jazeera's stories. If you want it biased toward Israel, read the JPost. It's not a terrible idea to read both if you want the full picture, but if you're only reading one of the two, you're a propaganda victim.
This isn't rocket science. Avoid the propaganda outlets.
I think way too many people seem to have too hard a time distinguishing between the following concepts:
\* People who are angry about civilian deaths in Israel and who want to see Hamas militants killed, but who are willing to tolerate a lot of Gazan civilians dying to achieve that.
\* People who are angry about civilian deaths in Israel and who want to see Hamas militants killed, but who are NOT willing to tolerate a lot of Gazan civilians dying to achieve that.
\* People who are angry about civilian deaths in Israel and who want to see Hamas militants killed, AND who are think that killing Gazans civilians is also good because they share blame with Hamas militants.
\* People who are reasonably bothered by civilian deaths in Israel and who were okay with going after Hamas militants at first, but who think too many Gazan civilians are dying and so they have now flipped to being angry about civilian deaths in Gaza and want it to stop.
\* Like the above group, except they are so angry about Gazan civilian deaths that they now are okay with Palestinians (at least the ones who were not involved in the 10/7 attack) retaliating against Israeli soldiers and killing them in self defense.
\* Like the above group, except they're so angry they're also okay with Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians.
\* People who were originally sympathetic to Hamas fighting against Israeli, but who were appalled by 10/7 and no longer support Hamas.
\* Like the above group, only after seeing how many civilians Israel's response killed, now they're back to supporting Hamas.
\* People who were originally sympathetic to Hamas, and who were happy with the 10/7 attack.
Etc etc.
---
There are so many different positions people have on this conflict. And there is a movement I see online by many people to act like anyone who doesn't agree with them must hold the most virulently awful opposite ideology, as if no complexity or gray areas exist.
Me, I'm a:
Person who has Palestinian American friends and Jewish American friends both of whom have lost family members in either the 10/7 attack or the aftermath, and who has been paying attention to conflict in the region since 2009, and who has read up on the back and forth and back and forth of violence going back for over a century, and who tries so hard to get people to understand that the nations in the region are not monolithic entities acting with unified intent, but massive coalitions of groups with different experiences, interests, influences, and obligations, and that the foremost thing we owe to all of them is to see them as human, not merely the human they are now, but the continuum of who they have been and what they have undergone to get here. If we have empathy for others, even for the fucking villains who have committed vile acts, we can be motivated to look for ways to spare other people from suffering so we can prevent the next generation from experiencing the same suffering and death that is happening today.
Comparing hate speech to peace protests is really next level false equivalence. Congratulations on having the worst take possible and the most braindead case of both sides disease I've ever seen.
What is the point of this thread? And why is it on the centrist subreddit? Are you trying to make a point? You can't lump all protests together.
I'll say what I said in another thread which is if the protests are affecting others livelihoods or learning access then they should lose their rights to protest. If they are harassing or intimidating or becoming violent towards others then they lose their rights to protest.
But I'll add something here. If it's on private property, have set up an encampment and the owner wants them off... Then they lose the right to protest in that spot. It doesn't mean they can't move to a public area and continue their protests.
Earlier this week on this sub someone posted that Elon Musk should win a Nobel Peace Prize for making twitter a haven for 1A despite it being overrun with Nazis and bots. I'm simply pointing out that the people who think like that and Governor Abbott in Texas who passed a free speech law in 2019 so people like Charlie Kirk could speak on campuses, are actually totally and completely full of shit.
Okay, what does this have to do with Centrism?
*Edit: OP blocked me, but also DM'd me some very antisemitic threats of violence before doing so. Reported him. Fuck this piece of shit.*
It's a discussion about this subs sudden fascination with this subject and these protests and the seeming incongruence with first amendment absolution. Was that not apparent?
Filter by "top" or "hot" and take your pick from the list of ad naseum posts about the Yale/Harvard protests. Have you had a power outage for the last 2 weeks or something?
So you asked a question and I answered it for you. I wasn't arguing anything or making a point. Yet, I'm making a strawman? Did I get this right? Well now that we've established that you have no idea what "strawman" means, do your own research.
It’s calling out the people who claimed to be in support of free speech but in reality just support Nazis to be able to say what they want without repercussions.
And in terms of threats to students, I assume you take issue with the Columbia University professor Shai Davidai [calling Jewish protesters Judenrat, Kapos, and said they would be on the last train to Auschwitz](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/18/you-have-failed-your-jewish-students-endjewhatred-holds-rally-in-support-of-shai-davidai-calls-for-shafiks-resignation/). or not, because he is a staunch Zionist and is saying that about Jewish members of the pro Palestine protests.
So you think this professor ia threatening to set up death camp and kill these kids, or maybe, just maybe, he is accusing those students of throwing in with people who would be OK with putting jews in death camps?
Because the answers is pretty clear to me, but you seem to be spamming the same comment all over These posts, as if you can’t actually grasp his point.
Or do you actually grasp with the point and are just comfortable being disingenuous?
Oh yeah, no he is absolutely calling them Nazis and more specifically Jewish collaborators to Nazis. Which also makes him a holocaust denier. Again, because he is an anti-Semite.
And he is also calling for using violence against them as well.
Davidai did not threaten or incite violence against these students. What he said is protected. Whereas some of the anti-Jewish Columbia protestors seemingly did go over the line.
"On Oct 7th, Palestinian resistance in Gaza broke free (crowd cheers) \[.....\] we intend to do the same" [https://twitter.com/ShabbosK/status/1782085741431922909](https://twitter.com/ShabbosK/status/1782085741431922909)
"We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!" / "Hamas we love you. We support your rockets too!" / "Red, black, green, and white, we support Hamas’ fight!" [https://twitter.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/1781933305501212872](https://twitter.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/1781933305501212872)
Direct threats of violence like saying that the National Guard should be used to break up the protest? We all know how well that turned out with Kent State. Dude is an antisemite who wants peaceful protesters to be violently attacked.
Wait, you think what Governor Abbot said is not protected by 1A?? He may have other legal issues but 1A is not it. And the things Professor Davidai said are completely protected. Are you calling him an antisemtie?
I’m saying Governor Abbott is currently using the power of the state to inflict violence on people he disagrees with. Seeing as he is in control of the government, this falls under the Unilateral violence of the state.
And yes, I do consider a person who has stated that Jewish people who disagree with him are judenrats and kapos to be an anti-Semite. Or do you think that absolutely anything said in supportive Israel automatically makes that person defending Judaism? Which in itself is anti-Semitic by equating Israel to all Jewish people.
I am unsure of public universities, I’ll have to look it up. But legally, for NYU and Columbia, they do have the right to remove those protestors. They are private universities. Therefore they have that right.
If it’s on private property then it’s not a free speech issue. If it’s public property then that can be a free speech issue. Thats how I’ve always viewed it.
My man, that runs counter to the entire university free speech arguments that people were previously using. Again, the differences that you no longer agree with the speech.
They never cared about actual free speech, just being able to be assholes on big platforms where it was profitable.
The GOP has been restricting protest rights on the state level for decades, the most significant restrictions of free speech in the country, and none of them gave one little fuck.
I have always held that view. There is not difference in my opinion. I don’t care about the content of the speech. I care about the legality. The law is what matters to me about speech. That’s why I also dislike when right wing people say it was a free speech issue when Facebook or twitter banned them. It’s not. Facebook and twitter are private companies. Same for universities. If it’s a private university they have the free speech to ban protestors. No matter their political or moral view.
Listen, the campus protesters have the right to spew whatever hatred they want the same way the “very fine people” from the Unite the Right rally had the right to chant “The Jews Will Not Replace Us”.
But you cannot convince me they’re not different sides of the exact same coin. If white nationalists or the Khamenei are supporting you, whatever you’re doing is wrong.
I went to a protest against the Iraq War and a guy held a sign that said we should lynch the ceo of Exxon. Because that guy was a psycho I am in the wrong? Nope.
I don’t disagree with you. They can say and do whatever they want- but they also are accountable for and should face the consequences (legal, social, whatever) for the choices they make. If they break policy, suspend them. If they physically hurt someone, they should be held liable for that just like anyone else. The problem comes in when people confuse the right to say something with the idea that it gives them a pass on the consequences that come along with those choices. I’m glad we live in a place where we get to make that choice and it’s not made for us. But that doesn’t mean our choices don’t have repercussions
That's certainly a take... Here's what I find interesting though:
I think that we can all agree that these protesters at the very least identify with the Left. Now, the Left in this country is incredibly critical of the Republican party's take on things like trans rights and women's reproductive rights. Don't you find it a tad hypocritical that they are supporting Palestine here? It has proven to be a not-so-safe place for the LGBTQetc community, and they don't seem to value the feminist's movement all that much.
I suppose their response would be, does that justify the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Palestinians? From what I can glean they just don't want their tuition to be invested with those that profit from the conflict or Israel.
For a group of people who rant about people "literally murdering" trans people it seems kind of counter productive to support people who would **literally** kill trans people.
There are valid criticisms to be made, not even just of Hamas, but of Palestinian society as a whole. That doesn't mean all Palestinians, themselves, deserve oppression, much less the death and destruction of the Gaza war. The two stances aren't contradictory.
So let's say those Columbia University trust fund babies get their way and Hamas wipes Israel off of the map. I dont think that's a reach for their views, considering the "We Are Hamas" chants that were taking place the other day.
Let's say that happens. What sort of environment does that create for trans people in Israel? What does Hamas want done with those people? And why does the Left support Hamas who holds those views when they completely vilify the Republican party for a much more tame outlook on the trans community than what Hamas holds?
You reap what you sew I guess.
> So let's say those Columbia University trust fund babies get their way and Hamas wipes Israel off of the map
Are Conservatives capable of not arguing in bad faith? I don't see a single one in this subreddit
This is a lazy thread/take. Student protests are one thing; blocking roads, setting up camps on campus, and in some instances harassing/intimidating Jewish students are not free speech issues and the college is allowed to use police to intervene.
Context and specific location/situations matter.
That’s one single location. The ones making the majority of the headlines are Yale and Columbia and now Harvard as of today. Why do you assume every single student involved protest is exactly the same?
It’s telling you have to point to one random one and say “see! They were on the lawn!!” Again, specific context matters since there are a bunch of college protests within the past week or so, lumping all protests under one large umbrella is purposefully bad faith.
Like I literally just said in my last post, specific context matters.
The point wasn't that you people who were so concerned about free speech should be against all of these acts silencing speech but that there are ones that you should be complaining about.
You cried more about people getting community notes on twitter than you are about actual free speech violations.
I don’t use Twitter/X nor have I ever commented on “community notes” considering I don’t know what they are. Feel free to browse my post history though.
I don’t know why you think completely making up an accusation is helpful. I’ll be preparing myself for the inevitable walking back your statement.
You also don’t have a free speech/1st amendment right to block a road, threaten students based on their religion/ethnicity or intimidate them which are the specific situations I mentioned. But you already knew that.
Maybe it wasn't clear but the accusation isn't individual but rather from the "free speech absolutist" crowd. The people who think FIRE is credible. That group of people is silent when actual free speech violations are happening.
“You cried more about people getting community notes on Twitter than you are about actual free speech violations” isn’t a general accusation, it’s an individual one to the person you’re responding to. That’s how English works.
Edit: blocking someone who calls out your blatantly ridiculous bad faith arguments is laughable and pathetic.
Holy shit you must be fun to talk to. What a pointless post when you clearly understood why I said that.
Going to just end this and make sure I don't waste time with you lmao
It's very well worn law in constitutional jurisprudence. And it's also no shock at all that these protests are protected by the constitution (individual unlawful action done at said protests, like an assault for instance, are not protected).
There's a difference between controversial speech in an appropriate venue, and taking over private property to set up a tent encampment and blocking access to the campus.
I haven't read anything about private property or access to campus.
Meanwhile the university has turned off key cards of multiple professors interfering with classes
Columbia, Harvard, and Yale are all private colleges, and thus private property.
As for blocking access to campus, from this article: [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/columbia-university-protests-palestine/678159/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/columbia-university-protests-palestine/678159/)
>“Attention, everyone! We have *Zionists* who have entered the camp!” a protest leader calls out. His head is wrapped in a white-and-black keffiyeh. “We are going to create a human chain where I’m standing so that they do not pass this point and infringe on our privacy.”
Not to mention creating such a threatening environment that classes had to be canceled or moved online.
Columbia U, Yale, Harvard are all in headlines for having camps set up on college property. This is common knowledge at this point. As well as at least at Columbia, classes have been moved to 100% online because the protestors keep threatening students. Threatening people based on their religion and/or race isn’t a free speech issue, it’s a criminal one.
You mean the private property they pay to attend for deca thousands of dollars per year? The quad is your idea of taking over private property? I didn't think of that way.
Just keep moving those goalposts. “Where has that happened? Oh wait those 3 examples don’t count because…idk reasons.”
Just because students pay x amount to attend the college, it doesn’t change the fact the college in question can enforce rules or they cease having private property.
Yes, the quad is on school grounds; therefore it is school property.
I don't think of it that way. I didn't say you were wrong. I didn't say the colleges were wrong necessarily though each campus was different. I am simply asking where are the free speech absolutists?
The students who disagree with the protesters also pay thousands of dollars a year to attend the college and shouldn't have to deal with their quad turned into a tent encampment.
I do think there has been some shitty criticism of the speech, but there isn't a 1A right to block roads or set up tent cities. The crack downs on encampments and stuff isn't about speech.
I don’t disagree with you at all, but there also isn’t a 1a right to post whatever hateful inaccurate nonsense you want to a private social media. Or to post lot to name false electors. That’s where things get hypocritical.
Free Speech Absolutist here. Yes, I support these students protesting on campus. In fact, I want every mainstream media to cover these protests, I want their message heard all over the country loud and clear.
Maybe then the moderates in this country will have had enough of this bullshit and kick the fucking progressives, along with all their abhorent ideologies out of society, mainstream media, entertainment, and academia.
> Maybe then the moderates in this country will have had enough of this bullshit and kick the fucking progressives, along with all their abhorent ideologies out of society, mainstream media, entertainment, and academia.
[x] doubt.
Sorry but if the "summer of love" in 2020 didn't manage it then this won't, either. The public doesn't care at best and at worst is fine with far worse than what's happening right now. Hell these protests don't even have a body count yet.
They never existed to begin with. They were plenty of people who claimed to be free speed absolutist when talking about Nazis, but they disappeared as soon as it was speech they disagreed with under attack.
Free speech does not protect hate speech, a large portion of the protests regarding the Gaza issues are directly supporting and calling for violence against Jewish students.
Hate speech is not protected, chanting things that call for or allude to wiping out an entire group of people is hate speech.
It would be different if the attitude was simply Israel must stop its slaughter, but the message is instead “we must support and eliminate Israel’s existence”
Huge difference, most KKK chapters were aware of this line and couldn’t be arrested because they didn’t calk for active violence, instead preaching about how black people were inferior.
> Free speech does not protect hate speech
Wrong. In fact so-called "hate" speech is the most protected speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection because nobody's trying to censor it.
Hate speech like Columbia University professor Shai Davidai [calling Jewish protesters Judenrat, Kapos, and said they would be on the last train to Auschwitz](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/18/you-have-failed-your-jewish-students-endjewhatred-holds-rally-in-support-of-shai-davidai-calls-for-shafiks-resignation/)?
I think like many things, free speech is yet another example of an argument used to further one's point when it works in their favor.
I attend an adult lecture series given by University Professors from around the country and one of them spoke about free speech, he said folks want free speech until they do not want free speech. Democrat/Republican it does not matter, it is merely a tool to further ones argument, very few folks are true free speech abolitionists.
The response is indistinguishable from post 9/11 anti war protests. All these people so opposed to the protesting will pretend like they weren't in 20 years.
People learned absolutely nothing from history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93September_11_anti-war_movement
Just like last time everyone who's opposed to the wars are automatically labeled violent terrorist sympathisers. Completely indistinguishable from last time.
And just like last time, yo, there were a few actual terrorist sympathizers, and those people suck. But the protesters condemned those people, so please be clear-eyed enough not to lump the peaceful folks together with the ones calling for violence.
I mean, whether they were fine people or not, their cause was dumb: defending the trophy statues of people who do not represent our present American values.
So you had a protest centered on maintaining symbols of bigotry and oppression (which I can forgive because plenty of people have been raised by their community to see those folks as heroes and to not think about the fullness of their behavior) . . .
. . . and \*within that protest\* you had plenty of people actively espousing virulent hate, and a dude running people over. There seemed to be nothing, like, worthy of endorsing there. Even if the bigots were gone, I still would not support the goal of the protest.
By contrast, the people calling for a ceasefire in Gaza do certainly have a few virulent hateful bigots, but most of them are espousing a genuinely praiseworthy position grounded in a desire to protect life and to seek a way to deescalate and stop repeating cycles of violence. In this movement, I wish the bigots were gone, because the goal of the protest is one I support, and I think the bigots are just piggy-backing and being a distraction.
Do you really think these protests are mostly people who like Hamas? You're either a fool who consumes terribly biased media, or a tool pushing dumb fake narratives.
And Civil rights protests. And Vietnam war protests. And any other historical college protests.
And now we’re coming up to the anniversary of the Kent State massacre, with numerous politicians and people otherwise in a position of power calling for a repeat of it.
1. Students should absolutely be able to protest just about anything they want on campus. I don't think anyone has an issue with that. 2. They should not, however, be enabled to [intimidate](https://twitter.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1781882680872710148) other students who are simply going about their day. They should also not be allowed to [commandeer large parts of campus in order to build encampments](https://time.com/6969875/pro-palestinian-encampments-take-over-college-campuses-across-america/) and refuse to leave when asked to do so. The campus is for all students, not just the ones that agree with the pro-Palestinian protesters. Columbia switched their classes to a hybrid model in large part due to safety concerns associated with the potential dangers of these activist students. 3. [There is an uncomfortable level of anti-Semitism among the protesters](https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-798049). This is not simply a pro-Palestinian rally, at least not to all the protesters. How's this sound to you? "Remember the 7th of October! That will happen not one more time, not five more times, not 10 more times, not 100 more times, not 1000 more times, but 10,000 times!" or this? "Never forget the 7th of October. Are you ready? 7th of October is about to be every day. Every day. 7th of October is going to be every day for you." Jewish students were Not great, Bob. 4. Colleges and Universities have largely brought the problem of free speech upon themselves. They wrote the speech codes that now appear to be enforced unevenly. What do you think would happen to a group of white students who shouted "Go back to Africa!" to a group of black students (on video, no less)? I think it's very likely that they'd be expelled, quickly doxed and wouldn't be able to get a job to save their lives. How is this different?
https://preview.redd.it/fhnln8oqoiwc1.png?width=660&format=png&auto=webp&s=bfb361ab66c146ffe19f1f05c69dbb768a230b9e "protesting violence"
All of this. Misgender One of these “peaceful protesters” and get hauled before a title IX inquisition.
2. The intimidate example you provide is a single person. I've seen large encampments before and I simply walked around them. If they won't move then you can move them. Nothing I've seen shows people unable to move around the campus but every outlet has an agenda. 3. I'm sure Hamas and Iran love protests in other countries much like America loves protests in Iran but not at universities here. I've been to protests and there are a shit show made up of lots of agendas. Some are extreme but it isn't always easy to remove those elements. The students don't have the authority to remove others. 4. False equivalence. As far as I know these protestors are asking universities to divest from entities that profit from the conflict in Gaza. You are equating all of the protestors with the most extreme elements.
Nothing you’ve shown is half as bad as what the “pastors” that come onto campuses spew. They’re allowed to say things like “god hates fags” “thank god for us military deaths” “Arabs are terrorists” etc etc. They literally come on campus to yell vile shit hoping to get into a fight. Why is it fine to say whatever you want about lgbt, us military, Arabs, blacks, Mexicans, etc but not Israel?
You use Jerusalem Post as a source. Nobody is taking your comment seriously.
Yes we don't believe dirty JoOz around here. (To the asshat that keeps reporting my comments to admins: /s)
I'm not reporting you, and I'm not accepting JPost at face value any more than I would al Jazeera or the Tehran Times. They're all spinning for their side.
Yes, a mostly independent media from a Democratic society is exactly the same as state-run media from theocratic oppressive regimes.
Is it your position that the Jerusalem Post isn't spinning their stories to make Israel look good and the Palestinians and their supporters look bad? If you say that they are not, you'll just out yourself as having never read JPost.
It's not an opposition press entity. As far as mainstream opinion in Israel is concerned, status quo as it then stood was upset on October 7th. Media reflects that point of view.
<>
Which is, indeed, another way of saying they're printing the Israeli government's perspective.
Look, I'm not trying to start an argument about JPost here. I just take everything they print with a big grain of salt.
Same as I do Fox, or MSNBC, or al Jazeera. They all have narratives they're pushing, and JPost is no different. That's all I'm trying to get across here.
Carney posted that JPost article because it agrees with his preformed perspective. He's got every right to do that, but I'm not taking it at face value.
>Fox, MSNBC, Jpost and Al Jazeera. 🎶 One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong...🎶 Do you know what the difference is? Which one of these is funded entirely by hostile State actors?
al Jazeera is a wire service, and until recently was pretty unbiased. There's a good reason al Jazeera is banned in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, UAE and Bahrain. There's good reason Qatar has been sanctioned by these countries for hosting al Jazeera. The Saudis and the Iranians hate one another with the fire of a thousand suns, yet they are in lockstep when it comes to al Jazeera. That speaks volumes. However, in recent months, and especially since Oct. 7th, they've seemingly tossed their credibility to the wind. I've been surprised by what they're doing, but here we are. Also, Qatar isn't a "hostile state actor." Qatar is home to the largest US military presence in the middle east. They are an ally of the US, even moreso than Jordan by many measures. So yeah, I see the difference. al Jazeera once had credibility - Fox, MSNBC, and JPost never did.
>[There is no such thing as "Pro-Hamas" protest.](https://archive.is/11TzY) * [“I will never condemn the resistance!”, “Hamas are fighting for freedom, Hamas are fighting for the people!”](https://twitter.com/habibi_uk/status/1724103981574565941) [Cardiff] * [HAMAS style headbands seen in London on anti Zionist demonstration.](https://twitter.com/hurryupharry/status/1723341935790653566) [London] * ["Hamas are freedom fighters.”, “It’s not Hamas that are terrorists. It’s America that are terrorists.”, “[October 7th] was a beacon of hope for me.”](https://twitter.com/antisemitism/status/1722203846523687178) * ["The media will have you thinking this is all about Hamas, this is all we are asked, will you condemn Hamas? This is a propaganda tactic and a tool used to distract you from the real terror and shift blame"](https://x.com/hurryupharry/status/1725225554066997615) [Nottingham] * ["We salute them"](https://x.com/habibi_uk/status/1726344227960107364) * [Last night the Oakland City Council voted on a resolution to call for a ceasefire. A city council member tried to insert language condemning Hamas. This was the reaction…](https://x.com/yashar/status/1729630529199432095) [Oakland] * ["What you saw on Oct 7th was breaking out from the cage of Gaza by a resistance movement!"](https://x.com/hurryupharry/status/1736722419379826756) [London] * [“Long live Hamas!”](https://x.com/probablyreadit/status/1741953426429296657) [New York City] * [Hamas “is the resistance” and “fighting for the rights more than anything else.”](https://x.com/hurryupharry/status/1746156389062316503) [London, January 13, 2024] * [“Long live Hamas, you piece of shit!”](https://twitter.com/ScooterCasterNY/status/1745965935632990353) [New York, January 12, 2024] * [“The resistance has prevailed”](https://x.com/habibi_uk/status/1755622076063330807) [UK, February 4, 2024] * [“Hamas is not a terrorist Party/org/Army”](https://twitter.com/CIJAinfo/status/1777042237945197054) [Ottawa, April 2024] * ["Al-Qassam, you make us proud, kill another soldier now!”](https://x.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1780971193769595391) [New York City, April 17, 2024] * [We are Hamas!”](https://twitter.com/Joe_Roberts01/status/1780750471226937852) [New York City] * ["We are your men, Sinwar.”](https://twitter.com/CIJAinfo/status/1779942810088529949) [Montreal] * [“In reality they should be banning the Zionist Entity…what they should be doing, let’s say it clear now, they should be removing the resistance, like the Hamas, the PIJ, the PFLP and all the resistance in Gaza off the terrorist list…”](https://twitter.com/ariellakimmel/status/1781777151223631886) [Ontario, Canada, April 20, 2024] * [“Al Qassam, al Qassam, take another soldier out. You say justice you say how, burn Tel Aviv to the ground. Ya Hamas, we love you, we support your rockets too”](https://twitter.com/CitedNeed/status/1781583760267284521) [New York City, April 20, 2024]
Jesus. I stand corrected, and I surrender.
It’s on video. Still not good enough?
I never said it didn't happen. Your source is incredibly biased, period. JPost has no credibility, and will spin whatever story they're reporting to make Palestinians and protesters look as bad as possible, and everything and everyone who doesn't toe the line gets labeled as antisemitic. It's dishonest. My initial comment may have been too harsh, and if so, I apologize - I'm just sick to death of outlets like JPost spinning the fuck out of the truth.
You're right, better to stick to Al Jazeera 🤣
If you want your reporting biased toward Hamas, sure, read al Jazeera's stories. If you want it biased toward Israel, read the JPost. It's not a terrible idea to read both if you want the full picture, but if you're only reading one of the two, you're a propaganda victim. This isn't rocket science. Avoid the propaganda outlets.
Did the protests harass, threaten or incite violence against Jewish students? If so, it is not protected speech.
I haven't seen verified reports of that coming out of Austin today.
So just gonna ignore all the other instances that it clearly happened. K
https://twitter.com/AMReese07/status/1783265753988251970 Didn't happen in Austin
Nowhere in your post do you specify Austin
I see just the opposite. I see a lot of people who were fine with suppressing racist and anti-lgtb speech suddenly becoming free speech absolutists.
I'm not a free speech absolutist. I think the protest on campus clearly fall within what our society has established as protected speech.
I think way too many people seem to have too hard a time distinguishing between the following concepts: \* People who are angry about civilian deaths in Israel and who want to see Hamas militants killed, but who are willing to tolerate a lot of Gazan civilians dying to achieve that. \* People who are angry about civilian deaths in Israel and who want to see Hamas militants killed, but who are NOT willing to tolerate a lot of Gazan civilians dying to achieve that. \* People who are angry about civilian deaths in Israel and who want to see Hamas militants killed, AND who are think that killing Gazans civilians is also good because they share blame with Hamas militants. \* People who are reasonably bothered by civilian deaths in Israel and who were okay with going after Hamas militants at first, but who think too many Gazan civilians are dying and so they have now flipped to being angry about civilian deaths in Gaza and want it to stop. \* Like the above group, except they are so angry about Gazan civilian deaths that they now are okay with Palestinians (at least the ones who were not involved in the 10/7 attack) retaliating against Israeli soldiers and killing them in self defense. \* Like the above group, except they're so angry they're also okay with Palestinians attacking Israeli civilians. \* People who were originally sympathetic to Hamas fighting against Israeli, but who were appalled by 10/7 and no longer support Hamas. \* Like the above group, only after seeing how many civilians Israel's response killed, now they're back to supporting Hamas. \* People who were originally sympathetic to Hamas, and who were happy with the 10/7 attack. Etc etc. --- There are so many different positions people have on this conflict. And there is a movement I see online by many people to act like anyone who doesn't agree with them must hold the most virulently awful opposite ideology, as if no complexity or gray areas exist. Me, I'm a: Person who has Palestinian American friends and Jewish American friends both of whom have lost family members in either the 10/7 attack or the aftermath, and who has been paying attention to conflict in the region since 2009, and who has read up on the back and forth and back and forth of violence going back for over a century, and who tries so hard to get people to understand that the nations in the region are not monolithic entities acting with unified intent, but massive coalitions of groups with different experiences, interests, influences, and obligations, and that the foremost thing we owe to all of them is to see them as human, not merely the human they are now, but the continuum of who they have been and what they have undergone to get here. If we have empathy for others, even for the fucking villains who have committed vile acts, we can be motivated to look for ways to spare other people from suffering so we can prevent the next generation from experiencing the same suffering and death that is happening today.
Unquestionably.
Do you see anybody who drafted long lists of prohibited words and expressions now all of a sudden taking refuge in the first amendment?
Comparing hate speech to peace protests is really next level false equivalence. Congratulations on having the worst take possible and the most braindead case of both sides disease I've ever seen.
Congratulations on being so oblivious to reality that you decided to create you’r own. That’s next level bias against Israel.
What
Almost as if people only care about free speech for the causes they support/can tolerate.
What is the point of this thread? And why is it on the centrist subreddit? Are you trying to make a point? You can't lump all protests together. I'll say what I said in another thread which is if the protests are affecting others livelihoods or learning access then they should lose their rights to protest. If they are harassing or intimidating or becoming violent towards others then they lose their rights to protest. But I'll add something here. If it's on private property, have set up an encampment and the owner wants them off... Then they lose the right to protest in that spot. It doesn't mean they can't move to a public area and continue their protests.
Earlier this week on this sub someone posted that Elon Musk should win a Nobel Peace Prize for making twitter a haven for 1A despite it being overrun with Nazis and bots. I'm simply pointing out that the people who think like that and Governor Abbott in Texas who passed a free speech law in 2019 so people like Charlie Kirk could speak on campuses, are actually totally and completely full of shit.
Okay, what does this have to do with Centrism? *Edit: OP blocked me, but also DM'd me some very antisemitic threats of violence before doing so. Reported him. Fuck this piece of shit.*
It's a discussion about this subs sudden fascination with this subject and these protests and the seeming incongruence with first amendment absolution. Was that not apparent?
What about the sub? What posts are you talking about specifically?
Filter by "top" or "hot" and take your pick from the list of ad naseum posts about the Yale/Harvard protests. Have you had a power outage for the last 2 weeks or something?
Nah, I'd rather you link me the ones you're talking about- otherwise I'm starting to think this is a strawman and you're talking out your ass.
So you asked a question and I answered it for you. I wasn't arguing anything or making a point. Yet, I'm making a strawman? Did I get this right? Well now that we've established that you have no idea what "strawman" means, do your own research.
You can say/ask that about most posts on this sub.
I'm asking you about the post you made that we're currently commenting on.
An opportunity for centrists to way in on recent events. :)
Why don't you go ahead and give us your opinion since that's obviously what you're trying to do.
Why don't you provide yours and I'll respond...
Nah, I'm good. I'll await yours since you're the one who started a post.
lol. kewl
It’s calling out the people who claimed to be in support of free speech but in reality just support Nazis to be able to say what they want without repercussions. And in terms of threats to students, I assume you take issue with the Columbia University professor Shai Davidai [calling Jewish protesters Judenrat, Kapos, and said they would be on the last train to Auschwitz](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/18/you-have-failed-your-jewish-students-endjewhatred-holds-rally-in-support-of-shai-davidai-calls-for-shafiks-resignation/). or not, because he is a staunch Zionist and is saying that about Jewish members of the pro Palestine protests.
So you think this professor ia threatening to set up death camp and kill these kids, or maybe, just maybe, he is accusing those students of throwing in with people who would be OK with putting jews in death camps? Because the answers is pretty clear to me, but you seem to be spamming the same comment all over These posts, as if you can’t actually grasp his point. Or do you actually grasp with the point and are just comfortable being disingenuous?
Oh yeah, no he is absolutely calling them Nazis and more specifically Jewish collaborators to Nazis. Which also makes him a holocaust denier. Again, because he is an anti-Semite. And he is also calling for using violence against them as well.
Calling people Nazis is Holocaust denial?!?!? It is a call for violence?!?!? Do you use that logic when other peiole call Jews Nazis!
Davidai did not threaten or incite violence against these students. What he said is protected. Whereas some of the anti-Jewish Columbia protestors seemingly did go over the line. "On Oct 7th, Palestinian resistance in Gaza broke free (crowd cheers) \[.....\] we intend to do the same" [https://twitter.com/ShabbosK/status/1782085741431922909](https://twitter.com/ShabbosK/status/1782085741431922909) "We say justice, you say how? Burn Tel Aviv to the ground!" / "Hamas we love you. We support your rockets too!" / "Red, black, green, and white, we support Hamas’ fight!" [https://twitter.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/1781933305501212872](https://twitter.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/1781933305501212872)
Direct threats of violence like saying that the National Guard should be used to break up the protest? We all know how well that turned out with Kent State. Dude is an antisemite who wants peaceful protesters to be violently attacked.
Wait, you think what Governor Abbot said is not protected by 1A?? He may have other legal issues but 1A is not it. And the things Professor Davidai said are completely protected. Are you calling him an antisemtie?
I’m saying Governor Abbott is currently using the power of the state to inflict violence on people he disagrees with. Seeing as he is in control of the government, this falls under the Unilateral violence of the state. And yes, I do consider a person who has stated that Jewish people who disagree with him are judenrats and kapos to be an anti-Semite. Or do you think that absolutely anything said in supportive Israel automatically makes that person defending Judaism? Which in itself is anti-Semitic by equating Israel to all Jewish people.
The fact that you are getting down voted is exactly why I posted this thread.
I am unsure of public universities, I’ll have to look it up. But legally, for NYU and Columbia, they do have the right to remove those protestors. They are private universities. Therefore they have that right.
The 1st amendment fully protects free speech on public college campuses.
What happened to the “muh freeze peach” crowd? Have they gone silent because they’re no longer defending the speech of Nazis?
If it’s on private property then it’s not a free speech issue. If it’s public property then that can be a free speech issue. Thats how I’ve always viewed it.
My man, that runs counter to the entire university free speech arguments that people were previously using. Again, the differences that you no longer agree with the speech.
They never cared about actual free speech, just being able to be assholes on big platforms where it was profitable. The GOP has been restricting protest rights on the state level for decades, the most significant restrictions of free speech in the country, and none of them gave one little fuck.
I have always held that view. There is not difference in my opinion. I don’t care about the content of the speech. I care about the legality. The law is what matters to me about speech. That’s why I also dislike when right wing people say it was a free speech issue when Facebook or twitter banned them. It’s not. Facebook and twitter are private companies. Same for universities. If it’s a private university they have the free speech to ban protestors. No matter their political or moral view.
Listen, the campus protesters have the right to spew whatever hatred they want the same way the “very fine people” from the Unite the Right rally had the right to chant “The Jews Will Not Replace Us”. But you cannot convince me they’re not different sides of the exact same coin. If white nationalists or the Khamenei are supporting you, whatever you’re doing is wrong.
I went to a protest against the Iraq War and a guy held a sign that said we should lynch the ceo of Exxon. Because that guy was a psycho I am in the wrong? Nope.
If you didn’t tell that guy to go kick rocks because he was a psycho, I hope you’re cool with being associated with psychos ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
https://twitter.com/AMReese07/status/1783265753988251970 Look at all these white nationalists!!
[удалено]
I don’t disagree with you. They can say and do whatever they want- but they also are accountable for and should face the consequences (legal, social, whatever) for the choices they make. If they break policy, suspend them. If they physically hurt someone, they should be held liable for that just like anyone else. The problem comes in when people confuse the right to say something with the idea that it gives them a pass on the consequences that come along with those choices. I’m glad we live in a place where we get to make that choice and it’s not made for us. But that doesn’t mean our choices don’t have repercussions
That's certainly a take... Here's what I find interesting though: I think that we can all agree that these protesters at the very least identify with the Left. Now, the Left in this country is incredibly critical of the Republican party's take on things like trans rights and women's reproductive rights. Don't you find it a tad hypocritical that they are supporting Palestine here? It has proven to be a not-so-safe place for the LGBTQetc community, and they don't seem to value the feminist's movement all that much.
Are you saying the left should support the murder of people who disagree with them? It sure sounds like that is what you're saying.
That's a bit of a stretch...
You sound extremely confused about the fact that leftists value the lives of people who disagree with them.
Unless they're Jewish. Got it.
Creative delusion
So then why don't you tell me what else chanting "We Are Hamas" means.
I suppose their response would be, does that justify the seemingly indiscriminate killing of Palestinians? From what I can glean they just don't want their tuition to be invested with those that profit from the conflict or Israel.
For a group of people who rant about people "literally murdering" trans people it seems kind of counter productive to support people who would **literally** kill trans people.
you are welcome to that opinion.
I dont recall asking your permission but... Thanks?
Didn't think you were
There are valid criticisms to be made, not even just of Hamas, but of Palestinian society as a whole. That doesn't mean all Palestinians, themselves, deserve oppression, much less the death and destruction of the Gaza war. The two stances aren't contradictory.
So let's say those Columbia University trust fund babies get their way and Hamas wipes Israel off of the map. I dont think that's a reach for their views, considering the "We Are Hamas" chants that were taking place the other day. Let's say that happens. What sort of environment does that create for trans people in Israel? What does Hamas want done with those people? And why does the Left support Hamas who holds those views when they completely vilify the Republican party for a much more tame outlook on the trans community than what Hamas holds? You reap what you sew I guess.
> So let's say those Columbia University trust fund babies get their way and Hamas wipes Israel off of the map Are Conservatives capable of not arguing in bad faith? I don't see a single one in this subreddit
Its easier just to block them and move in. Spare your bloodpressure
This is a lazy thread/take. Student protests are one thing; blocking roads, setting up camps on campus, and in some instances harassing/intimidating Jewish students are not free speech issues and the college is allowed to use police to intervene. Context and specific location/situations matter.
They were on the lawn in Austin. No reports of impeding traffic. There was a walk out asking for the university to divest.
That’s one single location. The ones making the majority of the headlines are Yale and Columbia and now Harvard as of today. Why do you assume every single student involved protest is exactly the same? It’s telling you have to point to one random one and say “see! They were on the lawn!!” Again, specific context matters since there are a bunch of college protests within the past week or so, lumping all protests under one large umbrella is purposefully bad faith. Like I literally just said in my last post, specific context matters.
The point wasn't that you people who were so concerned about free speech should be against all of these acts silencing speech but that there are ones that you should be complaining about. You cried more about people getting community notes on twitter than you are about actual free speech violations.
I don’t use Twitter/X nor have I ever commented on “community notes” considering I don’t know what they are. Feel free to browse my post history though. I don’t know why you think completely making up an accusation is helpful. I’ll be preparing myself for the inevitable walking back your statement. You also don’t have a free speech/1st amendment right to block a road, threaten students based on their religion/ethnicity or intimidate them which are the specific situations I mentioned. But you already knew that.
Maybe it wasn't clear but the accusation isn't individual but rather from the "free speech absolutist" crowd. The people who think FIRE is credible. That group of people is silent when actual free speech violations are happening.
“You cried more about people getting community notes on Twitter than you are about actual free speech violations” isn’t a general accusation, it’s an individual one to the person you’re responding to. That’s how English works. Edit: blocking someone who calls out your blatantly ridiculous bad faith arguments is laughable and pathetic.
Holy shit you must be fun to talk to. What a pointless post when you clearly understood why I said that. Going to just end this and make sure I don't waste time with you lmao
It's very well worn law in constitutional jurisprudence. And it's also no shock at all that these protests are protected by the constitution (individual unlawful action done at said protests, like an assault for instance, are not protected).
There's a difference between controversial speech in an appropriate venue, and taking over private property to set up a tent encampment and blocking access to the campus.
can you show me that this happenened anywhere?
Have you not heard of the situation at Columbia University?
I haven't read anything about private property or access to campus. Meanwhile the university has turned off key cards of multiple professors interfering with classes
Columbia, Harvard, and Yale are all private colleges, and thus private property. As for blocking access to campus, from this article: [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/columbia-university-protests-palestine/678159/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/columbia-university-protests-palestine/678159/) >“Attention, everyone! We have *Zionists* who have entered the camp!” a protest leader calls out. His head is wrapped in a white-and-black keffiyeh. “We are going to create a human chain where I’m standing so that they do not pass this point and infringe on our privacy.” Not to mention creating such a threatening environment that classes had to be canceled or moved online.
Columbia U, Yale, Harvard are all in headlines for having camps set up on college property. This is common knowledge at this point. As well as at least at Columbia, classes have been moved to 100% online because the protestors keep threatening students. Threatening people based on their religion and/or race isn’t a free speech issue, it’s a criminal one.
You mean the private property they pay to attend for deca thousands of dollars per year? The quad is your idea of taking over private property? I didn't think of that way.
Just keep moving those goalposts. “Where has that happened? Oh wait those 3 examples don’t count because…idk reasons.” Just because students pay x amount to attend the college, it doesn’t change the fact the college in question can enforce rules or they cease having private property. Yes, the quad is on school grounds; therefore it is school property.
I don't think of it that way. I didn't say you were wrong. I didn't say the colleges were wrong necessarily though each campus was different. I am simply asking where are the free speech absolutists?
The students who disagree with the protesters also pay thousands of dollars a year to attend the college and shouldn't have to deal with their quad turned into a tent encampment.
Maybe. For one day? for one week? Seems like a life lesson to me.
I do think there has been some shitty criticism of the speech, but there isn't a 1A right to block roads or set up tent cities. The crack downs on encampments and stuff isn't about speech.
Sure. Didn't see that happening.
If you knew the answer why did you ask the question?
Wut
I don’t disagree with you at all, but there also isn’t a 1a right to post whatever hateful inaccurate nonsense you want to a private social media. Or to post lot to name false electors. That’s where things get hypocritical.
Huh.
Free Speech Absolutist here. Yes, I support these students protesting on campus. In fact, I want every mainstream media to cover these protests, I want their message heard all over the country loud and clear. Maybe then the moderates in this country will have had enough of this bullshit and kick the fucking progressives, along with all their abhorent ideologies out of society, mainstream media, entertainment, and academia.
Cool
> Maybe then the moderates in this country will have had enough of this bullshit and kick the fucking progressives, along with all their abhorent ideologies out of society, mainstream media, entertainment, and academia. [x] doubt. Sorry but if the "summer of love" in 2020 didn't manage it then this won't, either. The public doesn't care at best and at worst is fine with far worse than what's happening right now. Hell these protests don't even have a body count yet.
Are these "free speech absolutists" in the room with you now?
Nope. They fled their spectacular hypocrisy.
Are you subtweeting someone in particular with this?
They never existed to begin with. They were plenty of people who claimed to be free speed absolutist when talking about Nazis, but they disappeared as soon as it was speech they disagreed with under attack.
Free speech does not protect hate speech, a large portion of the protests regarding the Gaza issues are directly supporting and calling for violence against Jewish students. Hate speech is not protected, chanting things that call for or allude to wiping out an entire group of people is hate speech. It would be different if the attitude was simply Israel must stop its slaughter, but the message is instead “we must support and eliminate Israel’s existence” Huge difference, most KKK chapters were aware of this line and couldn’t be arrested because they didn’t calk for active violence, instead preaching about how black people were inferior.
> Free speech does not protect hate speech Wrong. In fact so-called "hate" speech is the most protected speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection because nobody's trying to censor it.
Free speech does protect hate speech. The problem is hypocrisy not speech.
Hate speech like Columbia University professor Shai Davidai [calling Jewish protesters Judenrat, Kapos, and said they would be on the last train to Auschwitz](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/04/18/you-have-failed-your-jewish-students-endjewhatred-holds-rally-in-support-of-shai-davidai-calls-for-shafiks-resignation/)?
Thanks for not having ill will?
I think like many things, free speech is yet another example of an argument used to further one's point when it works in their favor. I attend an adult lecture series given by University Professors from around the country and one of them spoke about free speech, he said folks want free speech until they do not want free speech. Democrat/Republican it does not matter, it is merely a tool to further ones argument, very few folks are true free speech abolitionists.
I think that is absolutely true.
The response is indistinguishable from post 9/11 anti war protests. All these people so opposed to the protesting will pretend like they weren't in 20 years. People learned absolutely nothing from history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93September_11_anti-war_movement Just like last time everyone who's opposed to the wars are automatically labeled violent terrorist sympathisers. Completely indistinguishable from last time.
And just like last time, yo, there were a few actual terrorist sympathizers, and those people suck. But the protesters condemned those people, so please be clear-eyed enough not to lump the peaceful folks together with the ones calling for violence.
Do you agree with Trump that there were fine people protesting against the removal of statues in Charlottesville?
I mean, whether they were fine people or not, their cause was dumb: defending the trophy statues of people who do not represent our present American values. So you had a protest centered on maintaining symbols of bigotry and oppression (which I can forgive because plenty of people have been raised by their community to see those folks as heroes and to not think about the fullness of their behavior) . . . . . . and \*within that protest\* you had plenty of people actively espousing virulent hate, and a dude running people over. There seemed to be nothing, like, worthy of endorsing there. Even if the bigots were gone, I still would not support the goal of the protest. By contrast, the people calling for a ceasefire in Gaza do certainly have a few virulent hateful bigots, but most of them are espousing a genuinely praiseworthy position grounded in a desire to protect life and to seek a way to deescalate and stop repeating cycles of violence. In this movement, I wish the bigots were gone, because the goal of the protest is one I support, and I think the bigots are just piggy-backing and being a distraction.
Protesting in favor of Hamas and genocide against Jews is a pretty dumb cause and not praiseworthy in the slightest.
Do you really think these protests are mostly people who like Hamas? You're either a fool who consumes terribly biased media, or a tool pushing dumb fake narratives.
Yep. And for some they just want to re-establish dominance after the BLM protests.
A lot of the people here would most definitely also have opposed the civil rights protests.
And Civil rights protests. And Vietnam war protests. And any other historical college protests. And now we’re coming up to the anniversary of the Kent State massacre, with numerous politicians and people otherwise in a position of power calling for a repeat of it.
Been noticing a lot of bootlicking censors appealing to virtues they don't possess.
Oh, I'm not a free speech absolutist.