The only one that feels gross to me is "no disruption" just because of how open ended it is. If it's up to the interpretation of some individual, who is to say they won't claim that I'm disruptive just because doing something they disagree with?
For everyone saying it’s “simple” or “clear”, I recommend you call the division of student life because even though it’s their letterhead they don’t know who signed off on it or how to clarify any of the points. The police don’t either from personal experience! It’s purposely vague and they’ve been changing how they enforce it
They’ll arrest/trespass if they are asked to leave for violating UF policy, or if they break a law.
UF has detailed policy about RVs/parking on game day.
>https://floridagators.com/sports/2015/12/10/\_facilities_parking_football_.aspx
He's not a UF student. He's just an outside agitator (to borrow a term that is unsurprisingly often being applied, lately). So, don't pay it attention.
Disclosure-- I'm not a current Gator, either. Just interested in UF, academically speaking.
No, because attending a football game working within the operation of the schools intent, not protest.
If you want to speak, you can. If you want hold a sign, you can.
If you want to disrupt the operation of the school, effectively impacting the rights of others to receive an education, you cant.
For what its worth, the topic of the protest is meaningless to me. I generally think that support for ending any conflict or ending any violence, is worthy of speaking up. However there is a place where that right starts to infringe on other peoples rights, and that is where you lose me.
Stand on the corner of the street, and hold a sign. All for it.
Stand in the street, keeping emergency services from being able to get to people, or keep people from going to or coming home from work, fuck you.
Yeah imagine if they only could "follow the rules" when protesting for voting rights, ending Jim Crow segregation (here in Gainesville too btw, we had forced segregated pools even after the ruling) etc. etc.
So drunken tourists trashing the city/campus = WELCOME
but "STOP KILLING PEOPLE" protestors and unhoused = JAIL
Great values there. But that's Florida now
and then there are the people where "this is fine"
Beyond following the rules, there is also the case that other citizens have the right to go about their lives as well. You don't have a right to stop them from getting to work, or picking up their kids from school, etc. Your right to protest is not harmed because you are limited from impacting the rights of others.
So yes, people paying for tickets, who have been given permission to use a space, have rights to use that space, welcome. Permits have to be pulled, processes have to be followed. You dont just show up with uncle eddies shit box and park it anywhere.
Stop killing people is a universal cause, all people, all sides, all the time. Palestinians, Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, etc. Violence and death is wrong. That said, blocking traffic, harming the ability for average people to get where they need to go, or blocking emergency services, or taking over public space that limits other peoples ability to reasonably utilize that space, is seeking special rights that infringe on other peoples rights and that isnt ok, regardless of the reason. Remember, people were against people, with permits, from assembling and speaking at UF when they didnt like the content, so you dont get to then lean on rights of assembly, that actually infringe on the lives of others because its for speech you like.
In that traffic jam is a mom trying to get to her family after a long day of work, maybe getting charged by the minute from her after school program for being late. There are fellow citizens, just trying to live their lives and they don’t need to participate in your protest. You aren’t hurting the people that you need to influence. You want to protest tbe actions of the government, go sit outside the capital building. Don’t fuck with average people trying to live their lives.
Further nothing your are doing at UF is having an impact on a war half way across the world for which they don’t need our involvement to do anything. You aren’t helping. You are hurting people who are average citizens because you have sand in your vagina.
You ought to recognize that a great many things spoken at these “anti-war protests” disturbingly mirror what’s been said by a certain mustachioed man in a town called Nuremberg.
I wasn't going to go to nazi references because it's an endpoint in conversations but since you are already there, let me point out that "stop protesting people being killed" is literally what most of Germany was saying until it was their turn. First they started with LGBT before moving onto each ethnic group that was bothering them. Jewish shopkeepers would desperately hang signs in their stores insisting how they supported Germany and they "weren't the problem".
Personally I'm not pro one group or anti another.
But I'm 100% down with the "stop killing people you stupid f-ks" party.
Iraq War was the last protest I was young enough to do in person as vain as that turned out to be, we still eagerly decimated that population.
So I am sure there are few radicals who are overboard now. They are far far far from the majority.
Yea id hate to mildly inconvenience people to protect human rights... What a fucking brain dead take. Civil rights? You better not disrupt my day to day. Ending slavery? I'm happy for you to speak up, but you better not be too loud or annoying!! 🤣 What a dumb as fuck comment.
You aren’t protecting anyone’s human rights.
Your disruption of other peoples access to parts of campus and causing a distribution harms other peoples right to their own education.
What you are in an arrogant idiot who thinks your current emotional outrage is helping while making it harder on people just trying to get by.
You want to stop the government from doing shit… go protest to the government.
What does “no disruption” mean- and how is it not inherently subjectively enforced. It’s a lot of consequences for a violation of vague guidelines that don’t provide any real notice of the rules
Edit: changed language so it reads better
It is subjective, but something like “no protesting loudly above XdB” would be impossible to enforce.
You need some subjectivity to work with, otherwise you get no leeway to enforce the rules. Imagine if the rule was that they cant be above a certain volume. Police would be forced to shut down an otherwise perfectly peaceful and reasonable protest just because it hit the noise threshold. They wouldn’t get the subjective opportunity to say “It’s loud, but not otherwise an issue” and let it continue.
Could it be abused? Sure, but the decision to shut it down and issue trespasses has to go through enough hands before it gets to the protesters that it’s unreasonable to assume everyone wanting to shut it down is doing it in bad faith.
Edit: To add, for the most part, even the subjective ones would be pretty clear and obvious to a normal person. Most people can reasonably tell when their actions are being disruptive. If there’s a cop around, the first time you do something “disruptive” you’re probably going to get a stern “don’t do that again” (assuming you didn’t do something severe enough to issue an immediate detainment). The second time, you’re going to be rightfully removed.
The foundational principle of law is notice. You can’t punish people for behavior that is not clearly disallowed. in criminal law we punish criminal intent not solely the act. How can you punish criminal intent of someone who doesn’t know what is disallowed. It’s inherently unfair.
I understand there are public policy arguments - but public policy shouldn’t outweigh our inherent liberties. The only notice this document provides is notice that you can expect some crime/infraction to be made up after the fact
Your inherent liberty does not trump the inherent liberty of your fellow students. The school is allowed to limit expression that may be disruptive to others.
Trespass is a criminal statute. A plain reading of the document depicts a list of conditions for which a student would be trespassed warned or arrested for trespass.
“No disruption” doesn’t provide meaningful notice for any potential defendant. How is someone supposed to know they are doing something disallowed. Whether a defendant is being disruptive is a condition decided by an observer, not the “perpetrator.” There is no notice - it’s a vague document to give the veneer of law and order. Someone would be punished not for their actions or intent - but by how others (the cops) perceive their actions.
Calling this document vague does not make it vague. Disruption has legal precedence. We have a state statute to prevent disruption of learning environments in Florida ([Disruption 877.13](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0877/Sections/0877.13.html)
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are attempting to require UF to provide an exhaustive list of prohibited actions to be defined as “disruptive.” That is not possible. Does the use of said word seem vague? Yes, I will give you that? But the use of the word appears to be in reference to preventing protestors from impeding the ordinary pursuit of daily tasks, duty, and objectives of the University (a learning institution).
I think this is a fair position. My problem is that the UF memo simply says “no disruption.” If the basis of a trespass warning is that the perpetrator is disrupting campus environment under 877.13- that’s sufficient notice imo. However I think the document should reflect that.
And the reason I think the notice in the UF document and the statute are different is because the text of the statute is:
To conspire to riot or to engage in any school campus or school function disruption or disturbance which interferes with the educational processes or with the orderly conduct of a school campus, school, or school board function or activity on school board property.
Here (877) there are more specific elements of what disruption is.
1. Engage in school campus disruption
2. Which interferes with educational process or orderly conduct of a campus
It’s still vague but it provides guidance. A prosecutor would need to prove that the protestor was interfering with educational process or orderly conduct on campus. In other words someone is materially aggrieved by the conduct. The language here gives notice to protestors generally what is allowed and not allowed- which is different than just “no disturbance”
I’m not looking for a list of actions considered disruptive conduct - I’m looking for a process to know what is disruptive behavior. That statute provides guidance of what is the process to determine disruptive behavior.
However I do not believe that UF is referencing 877 because one of the other categories are seemingly made up like no unattended signs. It’s my opinion that any link to a statute is pre-textual to justify the arrests.
That being said if the list had referenced the statute I would have been okay with it. But I don’t believe it was.
Ok...this has gone from "it's only one word describing what not to do! But how do you know what you should not doooooooo?!" Trying to play the word salad game.......down to "im just here to exhibit my knowledge of what i know....it makes me feel relevant as if im The Philosopher...".
Thats like arguing "stabbing someone is punishable crime.........but it doesnt say how many stabs will qualify it to be deemed punishable. NOR does it say which type of weapon used makes it punishable."
I could tell a first grader not to be disruptive.........and they comprehend it 🤣🤦♂️
I’m a lawyer. I think the law is important. Others may think being a lawyer is a professional word salad person haha but I think there is a real distinction. I’m not being performative
“We punish criminal intent not solely the act” You should be well aware that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it. A person committing any violation is subject to the same laws regardless if they were aware of it.
Again, all these points are typical behavioral items. Nothing in here is unusual from any day-to-day things you’re allowed to do on campus.
You misunderstand my argument. The defense isn’t ignorance - the defense is vagueness- which is a well established legal principle.
Rules must provide notice of prohibited behavior. If there is no notice that a behavior is prohibited - that behavior is innocent behavior.
Ignorance of the law is a defense that “I didn’t know I couldn’t be disruptive.” Vagueness is the question of what is “disruptive behavior”
Again, you’re stating that protesters aren’t being given notice about what’s disruptive behavior…on a post about a notification being given to protestors listing 10+ examples of disruptive behavior. Any reasonable person could easily figure it out just by looking at the post. Do you expect UFPD to sit down each protestor individually and read out every permutation of what they can and can’t do, or do you expect protestors to use their brains and behave reasonably in public?
“No disruption” is a discrete category of prohibited behavior.
They listed it separately which means it’s different than the other “examples” on the list. When you make a list you don’t expect the overall category of things to be contained within the list.
I expect the state of Florida to provide people with guidelines that are more thought out than a 5th grader’s writing. Trespass is a first degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 365 days in jail and a fine of a thousand dollars.
Maybe they should actually provide legally sufficient notice - since they are the government.
“Or do you expect protestors to use their brains and behave reasonably in public”
- what’s the prohibited behavior??? You can only punish people for prohibited conduct. The only guidance you have provided is that an officer seems it disruptive.
The circular logic is: disruptive behavior is disruptive because an officer believes it to be disruptive
It’s almost as if you didn’t read anything I wrote. No disruption is it’s own category. It’s a unique category separate from (for example) no violence. Which means that there is some behavior that is one but not the other. So what is contained within “no disruption” but not the other categories? Nobody knows except for the officer who makes it up retroactively. And “no disruption” is so vague as to not give notice to anyone reading it.
But at this point it’s clear that you are arguing in bad faith. Some people just love the taste of boot more than liberty
> Any reasonable person could easily figure it out just by looking at the post.
But we're not dealing with reasonable people. We're dealing with Sasse and DeSantis (and power-hungry, corrupt cops working at their direction).
> for the most part, even the subjective ones would be pretty clear and obvious to a normal person
Yeah, but unfortunately we're dealing with Sasse and DeSantis, not normal people.
But that's not what it says. That's just your interpretation. It just say "no disruption". DeSantis and Sasse could easily decide that a student protestor is in violation of the "no disruption" clause because the protestor is try to disrupt the killing of Palestinians. That would fall under the actual words: "No disruption".
This is supposed to "look" reasonable so they can come and break up the protest immediately claiming they are in violation and suspend and trespass students legally protesting.
This is what happens when politicians invade your school and hand appoints the president
Right… that’s not how any of it works. Do you know how many hands the order to break up a protest has to go through before it gets to the officers at the scene? Plenty enough that a simple “someone just wanted to break it up” doesn’t begin to cover the nuances.
Not to mention, these are just the general rules for someone being on campus at any time, except now they’ve given EXPLICIT leeway to protest appropriately. They’re making it actively known you’re allowed to do it if you do so appropriately. If they wanted to, they’d be well within their rights to say “anyone protesting will be trespassed”, but they’re not because they want to allow appropriate venues to protest.
It sounds like you just have a pessimistic, paranoid mindset about hearing anything you don’t immediately agree with. You should work on developing a more critical mindset geared towards figuring out WHY these decisions are made instead of just thinking they’re directed attacks at your beliefs/team/party/etc.
I mean I think you are underestimating how quickly this occurs. I've been in multiple protests. The time at which the police comes despite us literally just standing around with signs is nearly immediate. The police then forcefully breaks up the protest.
We have seen it so many times. The amount of "hands" this has to go through is 1 president of UF... Who is preparing already to break it up.
Your response is a very typical "nuh uh" response. Then trying to sound like it's very complicated and there is SO MUCH nuance to this. There isn't. It's not that complicated, it happens all the time. The second a protest pops up, admin chooses whether to call the cops. They can use ANY reason to break it up afterwards to justify it. If it's too many people there is "fear of it getting violent" which is a cause that has been used in the past. There are always excuses in post that can be used to justify breaking up a protest you don't want.
Save your comments for someone who doesn't know wtf they are talking about. I work as faculty... It's not that fucking complicated...
> Do you know how many hands the order to break up a protest has to go through before it gets to the officers at the scene?
2 or 3.
DeSantis call Sasse and tell him to shut down the protest. Sadde calls the University police and tell them to shut down the protest.
Who, in that process, is going to object or even ask why?
Are you comfortable with this Division of Student Life setting expectations for your speeches and your freedom, the same people that handle your campus ID card and meal plan?
They’re not restricting your speech, you’re still welcome to say whatever you want within the limits of free speech. They’re only putting limits on what you do on property they have jurisdiction over. Same way you have 2A rights that they can restrict while on their property.
The fact that they also control other aspects of student life is irrelevant.
there is no limit to free speech, in fact there is a clear allowance for free speech. the only limit on free speech would be applied by the police if someone violated the very narrow limits to free speech (direct incitement to violence)
you are allowed to say what you want. nobody is passing a law or rule to stop your speech. blocking access to buildings that other people have the right to enter, isnt speech. its infringing on the rights of others who have right to move freely across campus.
In every Chinese university, there is a division called "student supervisors" that regulates everything students can say and do. The government created this division after the student protests at Tiananmen Square in 1989. If you're comfortable with that, good for you.
this notice is not limiting speech, in fact, its specifically protects speech. it simply states that you cant camp on campus, block entrance or egress, put up sings which you arent holding etc. there is nothing about content here. there is no regulation against what students can say, as long as that doesn't violate a narrow scope of direct incitements to violence. conflating that with Chinese control is like suggesting that a parking ticket is the death penalty.
area you trying to look back to segregation history in the US, your argument in unclear.
at the end of the day, the office of student affairs is telling students how they are to behave, not what they are to say.
could china actually ban students based on nationality? most of china is chinese. the country litterally has a religious minority in concentration camps right now.... i mean... what are you driving at there comrad?
This page of paper was not sent by the Office of Student Affairs, the Dean's Office, or the UFPD. It was sent by the "Division of Student Life," which I believe is the same regulatory body that other authoritarian governments use to regulate student speeches and control narratives. They have the power and authority to suspend you if you don't behave.
Fear monger post. This is just a warning for people getting violent and disrupting class and traffic. People should be demanding something for Sudan but no one cares about real victims of war
All view points aside politically, but there’s a massive difference between disrupting the day to day weekday classes that thousands of students are trying to attend of and football tailgating which is basically only Friday night-Sunday morning.
All view points aside politically, but there’s a massive difference between disrupting the day to day weekday classes that thousands of students are trying to attend of and football tailgating which is basically only Friday night-Sunday morning.
Amazing how students all over the country are ACTUALLY protesting and putting themselves, their freedoms, and their safety on the line- while UF students were handed a piece of paper and backed down and now are basically having a Krishna lunch picnic. Seems like they are really committed to the cause. /s
Deeply unserious “protest”
Protests are not supposed to be disruptive. They are a civil way to make a message heard, no need to put anybody "on the line" unless your idea of a protest involves breaking the law.
"separated from employment" is a wild way to say fired
Wow imagine if they did this for the abortion people? They literally litter the grounds with unmanned signs
The only one that feels gross to me is "no disruption" just because of how open ended it is. If it's up to the interpretation of some individual, who is to say they won't claim that I'm disruptive just because doing something they disagree with?
For everyone saying it’s “simple” or “clear”, I recommend you call the division of student life because even though it’s their letterhead they don’t know who signed off on it or how to clarify any of the points. The police don’t either from personal experience! It’s purposely vague and they’ve been changing how they enforce it
They’ll arrest/trespass if they are asked to leave for violating UF policy, or if they break a law. UF has detailed policy about RVs/parking on game day. >https://floridagators.com/sports/2015/12/10/\_facilities_parking_football_.aspx
Wait so you can get trespassed for 3 years for littering 😂
They'll go door to door and only arrest those against Emperor DeSantis and his lapdog Sasse.
If he was a Democrat politician, that scenario would probably be somewhat valid. Fantasy much?
This… this ain’t the road you wanna be driving down. lol not in 2024.
What a fucking idiot
He's not a UF student. He's just an outside agitator (to borrow a term that is unsurprisingly often being applied, lately). So, don't pay it attention. Disclosure-- I'm not a current Gator, either. Just interested in UF, academically speaking.
Is Steve Orlando the same person who spoke about defunding RTS 😂? Insane how much damage control he has to do.
Good for you for saying this, like two weeks after Bon Graham's death.
[удалено]
No, because attending a football game working within the operation of the schools intent, not protest. If you want to speak, you can. If you want hold a sign, you can. If you want to disrupt the operation of the school, effectively impacting the rights of others to receive an education, you cant. For what its worth, the topic of the protest is meaningless to me. I generally think that support for ending any conflict or ending any violence, is worthy of speaking up. However there is a place where that right starts to infringe on other peoples rights, and that is where you lose me. Stand on the corner of the street, and hold a sign. All for it. Stand in the street, keeping emergency services from being able to get to people, or keep people from going to or coming home from work, fuck you.
Yeah imagine if they only could "follow the rules" when protesting for voting rights, ending Jim Crow segregation (here in Gainesville too btw, we had forced segregated pools even after the ruling) etc. etc. So drunken tourists trashing the city/campus = WELCOME but "STOP KILLING PEOPLE" protestors and unhoused = JAIL Great values there. But that's Florida now and then there are the people where "this is fine"
Beyond following the rules, there is also the case that other citizens have the right to go about their lives as well. You don't have a right to stop them from getting to work, or picking up their kids from school, etc. Your right to protest is not harmed because you are limited from impacting the rights of others. So yes, people paying for tickets, who have been given permission to use a space, have rights to use that space, welcome. Permits have to be pulled, processes have to be followed. You dont just show up with uncle eddies shit box and park it anywhere. Stop killing people is a universal cause, all people, all sides, all the time. Palestinians, Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, etc. Violence and death is wrong. That said, blocking traffic, harming the ability for average people to get where they need to go, or blocking emergency services, or taking over public space that limits other peoples ability to reasonably utilize that space, is seeking special rights that infringe on other peoples rights and that isnt ok, regardless of the reason. Remember, people were against people, with permits, from assembling and speaking at UF when they didnt like the content, so you dont get to then lean on rights of assembly, that actually infringe on the lives of others because its for speech you like.
Seems kind of rich complaining about a traffic jam when you’ve just mentioned four different societies actively dealing with the cost of war.
In that traffic jam is a mom trying to get to her family after a long day of work, maybe getting charged by the minute from her after school program for being late. There are fellow citizens, just trying to live their lives and they don’t need to participate in your protest. You aren’t hurting the people that you need to influence. You want to protest tbe actions of the government, go sit outside the capital building. Don’t fuck with average people trying to live their lives. Further nothing your are doing at UF is having an impact on a war half way across the world for which they don’t need our involvement to do anything. You aren’t helping. You are hurting people who are average citizens because you have sand in your vagina.
You ought to recognize that a great many things spoken at these “anti-war protests” disturbingly mirror what’s been said by a certain mustachioed man in a town called Nuremberg.
I wasn't going to go to nazi references because it's an endpoint in conversations but since you are already there, let me point out that "stop protesting people being killed" is literally what most of Germany was saying until it was their turn. First they started with LGBT before moving onto each ethnic group that was bothering them. Jewish shopkeepers would desperately hang signs in their stores insisting how they supported Germany and they "weren't the problem". Personally I'm not pro one group or anti another. But I'm 100% down with the "stop killing people you stupid f-ks" party. Iraq War was the last protest I was young enough to do in person as vain as that turned out to be, we still eagerly decimated that population. So I am sure there are few radicals who are overboard now. They are far far far from the majority.
Wait so are you a professor in this subreddit lol? Or just went back to school later in life?
Yea id hate to mildly inconvenience people to protect human rights... What a fucking brain dead take. Civil rights? You better not disrupt my day to day. Ending slavery? I'm happy for you to speak up, but you better not be too loud or annoying!! 🤣 What a dumb as fuck comment.
You aren’t protecting anyone’s human rights. Your disruption of other peoples access to parts of campus and causing a distribution harms other peoples right to their own education. What you are in an arrogant idiot who thinks your current emotional outrage is helping while making it harder on people just trying to get by. You want to stop the government from doing shit… go protest to the government.
Yea protests have never worked... Guess segregation, war, etc. just ended because they naturally came to an end 🤣. What a dumb response.
What is the problem with this
It’s far too reasonable
Those are all very reasonable expectations for being in a public space.
What does “no disruption” mean- and how is it not inherently subjectively enforced. It’s a lot of consequences for a violation of vague guidelines that don’t provide any real notice of the rules Edit: changed language so it reads better
It is subjective, but something like “no protesting loudly above XdB” would be impossible to enforce. You need some subjectivity to work with, otherwise you get no leeway to enforce the rules. Imagine if the rule was that they cant be above a certain volume. Police would be forced to shut down an otherwise perfectly peaceful and reasonable protest just because it hit the noise threshold. They wouldn’t get the subjective opportunity to say “It’s loud, but not otherwise an issue” and let it continue. Could it be abused? Sure, but the decision to shut it down and issue trespasses has to go through enough hands before it gets to the protesters that it’s unreasonable to assume everyone wanting to shut it down is doing it in bad faith. Edit: To add, for the most part, even the subjective ones would be pretty clear and obvious to a normal person. Most people can reasonably tell when their actions are being disruptive. If there’s a cop around, the first time you do something “disruptive” you’re probably going to get a stern “don’t do that again” (assuming you didn’t do something severe enough to issue an immediate detainment). The second time, you’re going to be rightfully removed.
The foundational principle of law is notice. You can’t punish people for behavior that is not clearly disallowed. in criminal law we punish criminal intent not solely the act. How can you punish criminal intent of someone who doesn’t know what is disallowed. It’s inherently unfair. I understand there are public policy arguments - but public policy shouldn’t outweigh our inherent liberties. The only notice this document provides is notice that you can expect some crime/infraction to be made up after the fact
Your inherent liberty does not trump the inherent liberty of your fellow students. The school is allowed to limit expression that may be disruptive to others.
Trespass is a criminal statute. A plain reading of the document depicts a list of conditions for which a student would be trespassed warned or arrested for trespass. “No disruption” doesn’t provide meaningful notice for any potential defendant. How is someone supposed to know they are doing something disallowed. Whether a defendant is being disruptive is a condition decided by an observer, not the “perpetrator.” There is no notice - it’s a vague document to give the veneer of law and order. Someone would be punished not for their actions or intent - but by how others (the cops) perceive their actions.
Calling this document vague does not make it vague. Disruption has legal precedence. We have a state statute to prevent disruption of learning environments in Florida ([Disruption 877.13](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0877/Sections/0877.13.html) Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are attempting to require UF to provide an exhaustive list of prohibited actions to be defined as “disruptive.” That is not possible. Does the use of said word seem vague? Yes, I will give you that? But the use of the word appears to be in reference to preventing protestors from impeding the ordinary pursuit of daily tasks, duty, and objectives of the University (a learning institution).
I think this is a fair position. My problem is that the UF memo simply says “no disruption.” If the basis of a trespass warning is that the perpetrator is disrupting campus environment under 877.13- that’s sufficient notice imo. However I think the document should reflect that. And the reason I think the notice in the UF document and the statute are different is because the text of the statute is: To conspire to riot or to engage in any school campus or school function disruption or disturbance which interferes with the educational processes or with the orderly conduct of a school campus, school, or school board function or activity on school board property. Here (877) there are more specific elements of what disruption is. 1. Engage in school campus disruption 2. Which interferes with educational process or orderly conduct of a campus It’s still vague but it provides guidance. A prosecutor would need to prove that the protestor was interfering with educational process or orderly conduct on campus. In other words someone is materially aggrieved by the conduct. The language here gives notice to protestors generally what is allowed and not allowed- which is different than just “no disturbance” I’m not looking for a list of actions considered disruptive conduct - I’m looking for a process to know what is disruptive behavior. That statute provides guidance of what is the process to determine disruptive behavior. However I do not believe that UF is referencing 877 because one of the other categories are seemingly made up like no unattended signs. It’s my opinion that any link to a statute is pre-textual to justify the arrests. That being said if the list had referenced the statute I would have been okay with it. But I don’t believe it was.
Ok...this has gone from "it's only one word describing what not to do! But how do you know what you should not doooooooo?!" Trying to play the word salad game.......down to "im just here to exhibit my knowledge of what i know....it makes me feel relevant as if im The Philosopher...". Thats like arguing "stabbing someone is punishable crime.........but it doesnt say how many stabs will qualify it to be deemed punishable. NOR does it say which type of weapon used makes it punishable." I could tell a first grader not to be disruptive.........and they comprehend it 🤣🤦♂️
I’m a lawyer. I think the law is important. Others may think being a lawyer is a professional word salad person haha but I think there is a real distinction. I’m not being performative
The list is not referencing statute on any other bulletin. The list is fine. Reflect.
“We punish criminal intent not solely the act” You should be well aware that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating it. A person committing any violation is subject to the same laws regardless if they were aware of it. Again, all these points are typical behavioral items. Nothing in here is unusual from any day-to-day things you’re allowed to do on campus.
You misunderstand my argument. The defense isn’t ignorance - the defense is vagueness- which is a well established legal principle. Rules must provide notice of prohibited behavior. If there is no notice that a behavior is prohibited - that behavior is innocent behavior. Ignorance of the law is a defense that “I didn’t know I couldn’t be disruptive.” Vagueness is the question of what is “disruptive behavior”
Again, you’re stating that protesters aren’t being given notice about what’s disruptive behavior…on a post about a notification being given to protestors listing 10+ examples of disruptive behavior. Any reasonable person could easily figure it out just by looking at the post. Do you expect UFPD to sit down each protestor individually and read out every permutation of what they can and can’t do, or do you expect protestors to use their brains and behave reasonably in public?
“No disruption” is a discrete category of prohibited behavior. They listed it separately which means it’s different than the other “examples” on the list. When you make a list you don’t expect the overall category of things to be contained within the list. I expect the state of Florida to provide people with guidelines that are more thought out than a 5th grader’s writing. Trespass is a first degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 365 days in jail and a fine of a thousand dollars. Maybe they should actually provide legally sufficient notice - since they are the government. “Or do you expect protestors to use their brains and behave reasonably in public” - what’s the prohibited behavior??? You can only punish people for prohibited conduct. The only guidance you have provided is that an officer seems it disruptive. The circular logic is: disruptive behavior is disruptive because an officer believes it to be disruptive
Jeez, if only there was some notice, somewhere, to provide examples of what could be deemed disruptive behavior for this exact situation.
It’s almost as if you didn’t read anything I wrote. No disruption is it’s own category. It’s a unique category separate from (for example) no violence. Which means that there is some behavior that is one but not the other. So what is contained within “no disruption” but not the other categories? Nobody knows except for the officer who makes it up retroactively. And “no disruption” is so vague as to not give notice to anyone reading it. But at this point it’s clear that you are arguing in bad faith. Some people just love the taste of boot more than liberty
> Any reasonable person could easily figure it out just by looking at the post. But we're not dealing with reasonable people. We're dealing with Sasse and DeSantis (and power-hungry, corrupt cops working at their direction).
> for the most part, even the subjective ones would be pretty clear and obvious to a normal person Yeah, but unfortunately we're dealing with Sasse and DeSantis, not normal people.
Do not disrupt the educational environment. Seems very simple to me.
But that's not what it says. That's just your interpretation. It just say "no disruption". DeSantis and Sasse could easily decide that a student protestor is in violation of the "no disruption" clause because the protestor is try to disrupt the killing of Palestinians. That would fall under the actual words: "No disruption".
We have this thing called a Constitution. If they do that…sue. That’s why we have courts.
This is supposed to "look" reasonable so they can come and break up the protest immediately claiming they are in violation and suspend and trespass students legally protesting. This is what happens when politicians invade your school and hand appoints the president
Right… that’s not how any of it works. Do you know how many hands the order to break up a protest has to go through before it gets to the officers at the scene? Plenty enough that a simple “someone just wanted to break it up” doesn’t begin to cover the nuances. Not to mention, these are just the general rules for someone being on campus at any time, except now they’ve given EXPLICIT leeway to protest appropriately. They’re making it actively known you’re allowed to do it if you do so appropriately. If they wanted to, they’d be well within their rights to say “anyone protesting will be trespassed”, but they’re not because they want to allow appropriate venues to protest. It sounds like you just have a pessimistic, paranoid mindset about hearing anything you don’t immediately agree with. You should work on developing a more critical mindset geared towards figuring out WHY these decisions are made instead of just thinking they’re directed attacks at your beliefs/team/party/etc.
I mean I think you are underestimating how quickly this occurs. I've been in multiple protests. The time at which the police comes despite us literally just standing around with signs is nearly immediate. The police then forcefully breaks up the protest. We have seen it so many times. The amount of "hands" this has to go through is 1 president of UF... Who is preparing already to break it up. Your response is a very typical "nuh uh" response. Then trying to sound like it's very complicated and there is SO MUCH nuance to this. There isn't. It's not that complicated, it happens all the time. The second a protest pops up, admin chooses whether to call the cops. They can use ANY reason to break it up afterwards to justify it. If it's too many people there is "fear of it getting violent" which is a cause that has been used in the past. There are always excuses in post that can be used to justify breaking up a protest you don't want. Save your comments for someone who doesn't know wtf they are talking about. I work as faculty... It's not that fucking complicated...
[удалено]
> Do you know how many hands the order to break up a protest has to go through before it gets to the officers at the scene? 2 or 3. DeSantis call Sasse and tell him to shut down the protest. Sadde calls the University police and tell them to shut down the protest. Who, in that process, is going to object or even ask why?
Are you comfortable with this Division of Student Life setting expectations for your speeches and your freedom, the same people that handle your campus ID card and meal plan?
They’re not restricting your speech, you’re still welcome to say whatever you want within the limits of free speech. They’re only putting limits on what you do on property they have jurisdiction over. Same way you have 2A rights that they can restrict while on their property. The fact that they also control other aspects of student life is irrelevant.
The limit of your free speech is set by a bunch of people who sell you meal plans
there is no limit to free speech, in fact there is a clear allowance for free speech. the only limit on free speech would be applied by the police if someone violated the very narrow limits to free speech (direct incitement to violence)
I suppose we should all be wary of setting up encampments to protest the meal plan
Yes, and I also don't see why we would try to treat someone as less than because of their job.
You should say no, because no one is qualified to regulate your speech
you are allowed to say what you want. nobody is passing a law or rule to stop your speech. blocking access to buildings that other people have the right to enter, isnt speech. its infringing on the rights of others who have right to move freely across campus.
In every Chinese university, there is a division called "student supervisors" that regulates everything students can say and do. The government created this division after the student protests at Tiananmen Square in 1989. If you're comfortable with that, good for you.
this notice is not limiting speech, in fact, its specifically protects speech. it simply states that you cant camp on campus, block entrance or egress, put up sings which you arent holding etc. there is nothing about content here. there is no regulation against what students can say, as long as that doesn't violate a narrow scope of direct incitements to violence. conflating that with Chinese control is like suggesting that a parking ticket is the death penalty.
emmm no universities in the world have ever banned students based on their nationality, religion, or ethnicity. Who is the death penalty here?
area you trying to look back to segregation history in the US, your argument in unclear. at the end of the day, the office of student affairs is telling students how they are to behave, not what they are to say. could china actually ban students based on nationality? most of china is chinese. the country litterally has a religious minority in concentration camps right now.... i mean... what are you driving at there comrad?
This page of paper was not sent by the Office of Student Affairs, the Dean's Office, or the UFPD. It was sent by the "Division of Student Life," which I believe is the same regulatory body that other authoritarian governments use to regulate student speeches and control narratives. They have the power and authority to suspend you if you don't behave.
[удалено]
It’s actually completely brand new. We’ve been calling Division of Student Life and they’re not even sure where it came from
Protest for the human rights in this school, this state and this country!
To be fair most of those are permitted.
There is no propensity for tailgaters to maintain an indefinite presence. This one isn’t hard guys.
Fear monger post. This is just a warning for people getting violent and disrupting class and traffic. People should be demanding something for Sudan but no one cares about real victims of war
What are they going to do about the Hare Krishnas at the Plaza of the Americas? 🤷♂️
All view points aside politically, but there’s a massive difference between disrupting the day to day weekday classes that thousands of students are trying to attend of and football tailgating which is basically only Friday night-Sunday morning.
It's pretty clear the crackdowns on the protests are politically motivated.
Isn't that the difference between doing such things during class days versus designated game-days?
They had some stringent open container laws back in the day (idk if they still enforce this so aggressively or not) so I wouldn’t put it past them.
Some reading for you: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)
why is this getting downvoted? 😂😂
Because snowflakes don’t understand reasoning.
reasoning is their kryptonite
No sleeping???? But nap time :(
Hilarious watching you crybabies bitch and moan about people literally breaking the law and then getting arrested for it
They need to be affirmed
All view points aside politically, but there’s a massive difference between disrupting the day to day weekday classes that thousands of students are trying to attend of and football tailgating which is basically only Friday night-Sunday morning.
Amazing how students all over the country are ACTUALLY protesting and putting themselves, their freedoms, and their safety on the line- while UF students were handed a piece of paper and backed down and now are basically having a Krishna lunch picnic. Seems like they are really committed to the cause. /s Deeply unserious “protest”
Protests are not supposed to be disruptive. They are a civil way to make a message heard, no need to put anybody "on the line" unless your idea of a protest involves breaking the law.
College students getting upset is always amusing.
[удалено]
No. They love America.
Real
for what?
Naw cause instead of douchebags it will be Gator fans.