Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    12855
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

13439 Surly 1%

About Dahobbs

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. Do we really need to go through the freedom of speech basics again? Private individuals can censor speech all they want. The government cannot.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. Except, you know, that is both unconstitutional and illegal under Texas law.
  8. 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.
  9. I note that the reservation isn't a requirement. It gives you priority over a non-reserved person, but that is it. The only disruption was caused by DPS. 13-101 I already covered earlier.
  10. It isn't really anything: Basically, such rules can exist, but they aren't detailed here (or really anywhere).
  11. I have a public information request into the University to try and find this out.
  12. I think we need a thread for this specifically in the cloak room. I'm completely disgusted by his letter and actions. And I've let him know it. Let's compare, Jay's letter: And now an article that provides more specifics about what the students were told: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/nation-world/israel-hamas-conflict/ut-palestine-protest/269-9fa17214-53c1-47e1-965e-629c0d22f1c9 From the protesters: From the University: Tell me how the above is anything but an intentionally deprivation of any ability for these students to exercise their Constitutional rights? Where is the room for "peaceful protests within our rules" as Jay stated? Fuck him. He needs to go.
  13. Find the violation. A) The freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly are fundamental rights of all persons and are central to the mission of the University. In accordance with this Chapter, students, faculty members, staff members, and Members of the Public have the right to assemble, to speak, and to attempt to attract the attention of others, and corresponding rights to hear the speech of others when they choose to listen, and to ignore the speech of others when they choose not to listen. Confirms the right we all know the students had. B) In furtherance of the University’s educational mission, the University buildings including their outside surfaces, surfaces associated with or connected to a University building, and University structures are limited public forums open only to the expressive activities of faculty, staff, and students as set forth in this Chapter. Members of the Public may engage in expressive activities at the University in accordance with the rules contained in this Chapter, including generally applicable or localized "time, place, and manner" rules as described in Subsection 13-304. Student, faculty, and staff organizations may not invite the public at large to events in University buildings or facilities, or locations that are not in a common outdoor area. The students weren't in the buildings. And, students would be allowed to express themselves there anyway. C) Students, faculty, and staff members are free to express their views, individually or in organized groups, orally or in writing or by other symbols, on any topic, in all parts of the campus, subject only to rules necessary to preserve the equal rights of others and the other functions of the University. Teaching, research, and other official functions of the University will have priority in allocating the use of space on campus. Members of the Public may engage in expressive activities only in common outdoor areas of the campus, and subject to the time, place, and manner rules necessary to preserve the functions of the University, as set forth in subsection 13-304. Ok, sounds good so far. I'm not seeing anything violated by the students yet. D) The University will not discriminate on the basis of the political, religious, philosophical, ideological, or academic viewpoint expressed by any person, either in the enforcement and administration of these rules or otherwise. This subsection does not limit the University's ability to enforce provisions involving prohibited categories of expression described in Subchapter 13-200. There may be a violation here, but not by the students. E) The University of Texas at Austin Police Department (UTPD) may immediately enforce these rules if a violation of these rules constitutes a breach of the peace or compromises public safety. Or may enforce non-existent rules apparently. I've looked at the rest of rules. They generally suggest that time and place restrictions exist, but don't provide any specific details. There is some specific regulations on amplified speech and exhibits that don't seem relevant here. Oh, there is this: Sec. 13–901. General Rule on Public Assemblies “Publicly assemble” and “public assembly” include any gathering of persons, including discussions, rallies, and demonstrations. The rules in Subchapter 13–800 apply to any use of amplified sound at a public assembly. Persons and organizations may publicly assemble on campus in any place where, at the time of the assembly, the persons assembling are permitted to be. This right to assemble is subject to the rules in this Chapter and to the rules on use of University property in Chapter 10 of the Institutional Rules. No advance permission is required in the common outdoor areas. Oh... wait... may assemble on campus in any place where the person is permitted to be. Hmm, I don't recall their being a prohibition on students being on the South Mall. So, I guess, you tell me @Frank Drebin, where are students not allowed to be?
  14. Oh look, I found some detail sort of: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/nation-world/israel-hamas-conflict/ut-palestine-protest/269-9fa17214-53c1-47e1-965e-629c0d22f1c9 From the protesters: From the University: So, you tell me @Frank Drebin, where is the reasonable time and place restriction in "you are not permitted" to protest at all? Sounds like, the University was intentionally stamping down on free speech and violating constitutional rights. Sounds like Hartzell was full of shit and had already decided the outcome before the event took place.
×
×
  • Create New...