Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    12861
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

13481 Surly 1%

About Dahobbs

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Chiefs must be excastic. Pretty much the perfect pickup for them.
  2. Preparing for it is fine. You still don't get to act until it happens. Also, what exactly happened at USC that frightens you so? From what I've read, the things you're complaining about are the results of choices by the school, not the protesters.
  3. I don't see the text statement as any different than his emailed letter. If there was evidence of something nefarious, he would have released it. So far, the only evidence is that they intended to occupy the South Lawn. And, if they ended up doing something actually bad, the police could have arrested them. But apparently, we are really afraid of a picnic on the South Lawn.
  4. The more that comes out, the more this looks like a complete self own by Jay.
  5. I ask again, what does any of this have to do with what happened on the UT campus? Don't talk about other events, other places, other times. Talk about UT.
  6. Right, maybe, I don't know, actually read something about what happened before commenting. Or stick to the lake murdering. Whatever.
  7. So you're just trolling? Again?
  8. I don't know, why are we discussing it if you understand these are different things? The PSC never ordered anyone to shut down via threat of legalized violence (i.e., government power). There is only irony here if you don't understand the difference or why the difference exists.
  9. Do we really need to go through the freedom of speech basics again? Private individuals can censor speech all they want. The government cannot.
  10. Ok? So it was private event that they were protesting? Freedom of speech includes protesting the speech of others and shaming other private entities to shun that speech. That's perfectly acceptable. It only becomes a constitutional issue when the government gets involved.
  11. The Summit wasn't mere public speech, but an event sponsored by the University. Those are different things. The University has to allow the KKK to speak and march in the public forum. But that doesn't mean it must or should invite the KKK to a University conference on racial relations. As to particular Summit you identified, I don't know enough to comment either way. It also isn't relevant to the thread.
  12. You clearly don't cherish it all. Anyway, Texas law and University policy clearly establish the south lawn as somewhere the people can assemble. In fact, it happens all the time. I posted some pictures and everything.
  13. I don't understand what is offensive or scary about this. Are we concerned that occupying grass is going to disrupt something? The south lawn is occupied every day class is in session, UT football is playing, or some other event is occurring on campus. It is also occupied around commencement, and a million other times during the year. Here are some pictures of it being "occupied" and somehow riot police weren't needed. Oh the fucking horror!
  14. Except, you know, that is both unconstitutional and illegal under Texas law.
  15. You can't say, no harm, no foul after you've disrupted someone's right to free speech. That moment is lost forever. And, despite your minimizing of the difficulties the protesters suffered, the threat of future action is most certainly designed to have a chilling effect on their desire to participate in free speech later on. If there is any chance that actions like this will make anyone less likely to exercise their rights, then it absolutely is a big deal and must be dealt with and prevented from happening again. And all of the above sets aside any potential physical or mental injuries caused by the actions of the police and concerns of falsely imprisoning someone for any period of time. If we allow the state to trample rights with a "whoopsie", then we really don't have any rights at all.
×
×
  • Create New...