Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    12847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 18 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

    a) I don’t know what the group was told, what the authorities knew, etc.  I still don’t think they were treated appropriately. 18 hours later, they were released. This simply is not that big a deal. Worthy of discussion, sure. 

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  2. 16 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

    Did they comply with each of these policies? 

    If not Hartzell is safe.  If so, he should be in trouble.

     

    spacer.png

     

    spacer.png

    spacer.png

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

    Can you post 13-304? In the news the University said it rejected the protest request because it violated the rules, I assume as per described in this subsection. 

    It isn't really anything:

    Quote

     

    Sec. 13–304. Other Rules with Incidental Effects on Speech

    a. Other generally applicable or narrowly localized rules, written and unwritten, incidentally limit the time, place, and manner of speech, but are too numerous to compile or cross-reference here. For example, libraries typically have highly restrictive rules concerning noise; laboratories and rooms containing the electrical and mechanical infrastructure of the University typically have safety rules and rules excluding persons without specific business there; fire and safety codes prohibit the obstruction of exits and limit the constriction of hallways. Speech within classrooms is generally confined to the subject matter of the class; the right to attend a class at all is subject to registration and payment of tuition; individual professors may have rules of decorum in their classrooms. These "time, place, and manner" rules limit the rights of persons to enter and speak in the places to which these rules apply.

    b. Reasonable and nondiscriminatory "time, place, and manner" rules generally control over the rights of free speech guaranteed in this Chapter. But even "time, place, and manner" rules are subject to the constitutional right of free speech. Accordingly, such rules must be viewpoint neutral and cannot regulate speech more restrictively than they regulate other activities that cause the problems to be avoided by the rule, or speech more than is reasonably necessary to serve their purpose. Such rules cannot ban unobtrusive forms of communication with no potential for disruption even in the specialized environment subject to the localized rule. Thus, for example, means of silent expression or protest confined to the speaker’s immediate person, such as armbands, buttons, and T-shirts, are nearly always protected because they are rarely disruptive in any environment.

     

    Basically, such rules can exist, but they aren't detailed here (or really anywhere). 

  4. 26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Ding ding ding.

    DPS was not dispatched like a fucking military force to KEEP the peace.  They were dispatched for the express purpose of "cracking skulls."  So...like....the exact opposite of "keeping the peace."

    If you show up somewhere geared up to fight, and hollering "you fuckers wanna fight me?  You want some?  LET'S GO!".....then the chances of there being a fight are 1000X times higher than if you don't show up at all, or show up and are chill.

    I remember when UT advanced to the Elite Eight in 1990.  Students spontaneously gathered on the drag and the W. Mall, cheering and celebrating.  We even crowded the street, blocking traffic on Guadalupe.  APD dispatched some cops, pretty much in regular uniform.  They gently cleared us to the sidewalks, opening up the street.  I think they arrested a coupla dudes who were jumping up and down on a bus.  But once the crowd got in order, they functionally withdrew, sending a solid unspoken message of "have your fun, but behave."  And that's exactly what happened.  Instead of showing up and spoiling for a fight, they showed up, made sure that shit didn't get out of hand, and then backed off.  It was a perfect exercise in how to keep the peace.

    Our current State leadership isn't interested in that.  Not in the least.  They are too busy enjoying their "Johnny's First Fascist Regime" playset.

    I have a public information request into the University to try and find this out. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  5. 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:

     
    Quote

     

    Dear UT community,
    This has been a challenging day for many. We have witnessed much activity we normally do not experience on our campus, and there is understandably a lot of emotion surrounding these events.

    Today, our University held firm, enforcing our rules while protecting the Constitutional right to free speech. Peaceful protests within our rules are acceptable. Breaking our rules and policies and disrupting others’ ability to learn are not allowed. The group that led this protest stated it was going to violate Institutional Rules. Our rules matter, and they will be enforced. Our University will not be occupied.
     
    The protesters tried to deliver on their stated intent to occupy campus. People not affiliated with UT joined them, and many ignored University officials’ continual pleas for restraint and to immediately disperse. The University did as we said we would do in the face of prohibited actions. We were prepared, with the necessary support to maintain campus operations and ensure the safety, well-being and learning environment for our more than 50,000 students.
     
    We are grateful for the countless staff members and state and University law enforcement officers, as well as support personnel who exercised extraordinary restraint in the face of a difficult situation that is playing out at universities across the country. There is a way to exercise freedom of speech and civil discourse, and our Office of the Dean of Students has continued to offer ways to ensure protests can happen within the rules. The University of Texas will continue to take necessary steps so that all our University functions proceed without interruption.
    Sincerely yours, 
     
    Jay Hartzell signature
    Jay Hartzell
    President

     

     

     

    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:

    Quote

     

    At UT, the Palestine Solidarity Committee said it was following in the footsteps of those students, calling for justice in Palestine. On Wednesday morning, UT students walked out of class and met near Gregory Gym. They planned to march and occupy the university's South Mall.

    "Our plan was to be as peaceful as possible from the beginning. We weren't planning on destructing. We were planning on chanting solely during passing periods, which is the university rules, and we were complying with every single directive the university had given us from the dean of students. And yet we were escalated into this situation by the police," a member of the Palestine Solidarity Committee at UT said. 

    The group's initial plans for the walkout protest included a study break, pizza break and art workshop.

     

    From the University:

    Quote

     

    However, UT said the protest was not authorized. A letter sent to the Palestine Solidarity Committee on Tuesday by the Office of the Dean of Students said the event would not be allowed to "proceed as planned."

    "Simply put, The University of Texas at Austin will not allow this campus to be 'taken' and protesters to derail our mission in ways that groups affiliated with your national organization have accomplished elsewhere," the letter reads in part. "Please be advised that you are not permitted to hold your event on the University campus. Any attempt to do so will subject your organization and its attending members to discipline including suspension under the Institutional Rules."

     

    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. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  6. 15 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

    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? 

     

    • Hook 'Em 4

  7. 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:

    Quote

     

    At UT, the Palestine Solidarity Committee said it was following in the footsteps of those students, calling for justice in Palestine. On Wednesday morning, UT students walked out of class and met near Gregory Gym. They planned to march and occupy the university's South Mall.

    "Our plan was to be as peaceful as possible from the beginning. We weren't planning on destructing. We were planning on chanting solely during passing periods, which is the university rules, and we were complying with every single directive the university had given us from the dean of students. And yet we were escalated into this situation by the police," a member of the Palestine Solidarity Committee at UT said. 

    The group's initial plans for the walkout protest included a study break, pizza break and art workshop.

    From the University:

    Quote

    However, UT said the protest was not authorized. A letter sent to the Palestine Solidarity Committee on Tuesday by the Office of the Dean of Students said the event would not be allowed to "proceed as planned."

    "Simply put, The University of Texas at Austin will not allow this campus to be 'taken' and protesters to derail our mission in ways that groups affiliated with your national organization have accomplished elsewhere," the letter reads in part. "Please be advised that you are not permitted to hold your event on the University campus. Any attempt to do so will subject your organization and its attending members to discipline including suspension under the Institutional Rules."

    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. 

    • Rage+1 2
  8. Just now, Frank Drebin said:

    I would ask Hartzell.  I don't know the current restrictions.  If he is lying that they were violating them, then he should be held accountable.  When I was at Texas, there were designated places for protests.  You did not get to choose the areas to have a mass protest.  They were subject to time, place, and manner restrictions -- which have been repeatedly affirmed by courts. 

    I would assume Texas has written policies.  If you are so sure they have been violated, go read them and let us know.  I am trusting Hartzell right now.  

    I did ask Hartzell. He hasn't responded. You're the one telling me that these things must exist. So I'm asking you. Support your opinion.  

  9. 1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    I take issue with the lack of specificity of what rules were being violated, by whom, when, and what was done about it.  
    I also wonder why, at a public university, he feels the need to mention non-students participating or why it’s important. 

    This is especially concerning given that under Texas law, common outdoor areas of public universities are public forums, available to students and non-students alike. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  10. Just now, Frank Drebin said:

    I read the letter from Texas.  It pretty clearly states the manner in which the protests were being conducted violated UT's free speech policies.  UT thus called in authorities.  They were not going to let them take over the university.

    It does state that. So, I'm asking for specifics. Where were they allowed to protest? Where was that set out? What specific violations occurred? A general statement is hardly proof. The statement suggests protesters were being destructive/violent/threatening. I have seen zero evidence of that. If there were some, I'm sure you would point me to it. Since you can't, I have to conclude that portion of the statement was false. If that portion was false, I am skeptical about the rest of it. Provide some evidence that 1) actual restrictions were announced and in place, 2) that the students violated those restrictions, and 3) that they weren't forced into those violations by the police. I can't find any detail regarding any such restrictions or even specific allegations how the students violated them. Surely, given your firm opinion on the matter, you can at least tell me where the students allegedly were allowed to protest and what area they were arrested in? 

  11. Just now, Frank Drebin said:

    I don't know.  I graduated 20+ years ago.  But there were designated spaces for protests.  Schools have time, place and manner restrictions for first amendment activities.  These restrictions, if viewpoint neutral and compliant with court precedent, are enforceable.  No matter how much you want to hide your face with a mask and protest Jews right to exist.

    Great, so you don't know that anyone violated anything (and judging by the charges being dropped, they didn't). Also, I haven't seen anything from this specific protest that suggested it was about Israel's or Jews' generally right to exist. I think Israel has a right to exist and defend itself. I don't think it has a right to commit genocide. These aren't contradictory beliefs. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. 18 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

    Postal Inspectors and (remarkably) Secret Service are very responsive to matters involving bank fraud.  Way more interested than local District Attorneys.

    Oh yeah, I forgot the Secret Service also covers this area. 

  13. 5 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

    I suspect they can protest all they want in the appropriate areas.  But the masked protesters don’t want to do that.  

    President Hartzell has explained that he isn’t going to allow them to take over areas that aren’t for protests.  Nor should he.  

    What were the allowed areas? 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 46 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

    The urge to defend the Post Office so deeply is weird.

    Your urge to write bullshit is also weird. 

    Anyway, I'd contact the police, the FBI, and the US postal inspection service. Those are the entities I can think that potentially have jurisdiction over this. Definitely don't let your bank get away without compensating you the money. As I said, the UCC is pretty clear on this. You weren't negligent in allowing this to happen (as far as I can tell) and you notified your bank promptly after discovering the fraudulent check. The bank really shouldn't hassle you about payment. 

  15. 3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    You are really incapable of tracking the beat. Par for the course. Kinda amazing you grabbed that post, and not the ones that preceded it. Brisket don't need you white knighting for him. If he objects to me welcoming his evolution in tone on this topic over the last few months, or any aspect of my characterization otherwise, he is certainly capable of registering it. 

    That post doesn't say or imply what you think it does. Brisket expressly called you out on that during the exchange. Again, you're happy to misrepresent past events, happy to conflate issues, and happy to imply or suggest things, but rarely outright state them. 

    • Like 1
  16. 8 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

    Has anyone else other than me had the passing thought "Gosh, as I look back on my life, it might have been fun to engage in at least one or two shenanigans/deviltry/monkey business that required a Pecker to "catch and kill"?"

    By that you mean you want to have boinked Karen McDougal. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Drool 4
  17. @Bevo I see your negs, but don't understand them. Again, the stuff you're posting about is bad. But I don't see the connection between it and what happened on campus. The protesters weren't violent. They weren't destructive. They weren't threatening. At least, I have not see any evidence of that. Have you? 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  18. 12 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

    I think the school is basically just enforcing its time, place, and manner restrictions.  You can say what you want so long as you do not cross the threatening or inciting imminent violence line.  But that does not mean you get to do it wherever you want on campus.  Time, place, and manner restrictions that are reasonable are perfectly lawful.  If a group violates lawful time, place, and manner restrictions, they should be arrested/dispersed.  No matter who the group is.

    If the police force you outside the area your allowed to be protesting, how is that a violation by the protester? 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  19. 8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    Go to the search bar, type in "N per 100" or maybe "c130" and see where it takes you. Warning: you are going to have to read multiple posts and follow the thread of discussion. 

    Done. At no point does Brisket call you a terrorist for not supporting military aid to Israel. You made up that strawman all on your own. Par for the course for you. 

    On 12/13/2023 at 7:32 PM, Anastasis said:

    That's not how this works. If you point out the absolute absurdity and inconsistency in American foreign policy you are basically a terrorist. If you ask for an assessment based on long-run outcomes, you are called aggy with no hint of self reflection. If you consider historical context behind any of this, it is [boogeymen of your choosing] talking point. There are no objective rules. There is no order. And there is only Pax if you squint your eyes. Just punch the fucking ticket. 

     

  20. 7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

    Let’s stop beating around the bush and have some people admit that they either don’t understand or don’t give a shit that the continued cultivation of cows (especially), pigs, chickens, and other livestock is decimating our environment. DECIMATING.  
     

    Yeah, I love steak too man. Burgers are good. Chicken wings are a staple!  I get it. BUT. Just take it down a notch. No one has a knife to your throat saying you have to eat tempeh 6 days a week and you have to go to Whole Foods to buy kale to shove in your wife’s pussy before you can fuck it. Though I am open minded. 
     

    My point is “eh, I don’t really want to go to plant based or lab grown meat because it’s weird” is a stupid and fucked up argument. It’s a moral imperative to stop eating that shit all the time. And the alternatives already taste good and are only going to get better. 
     

    Eat up buttercups!  The next step if you don’t is fucking Soylent green. 

    1/10th of our environment may be a small price to pay for a medium rare filet mignon. 

  21. 6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    I am not conflating anything. I am able to track separate threads and keep the exchanges straight. I know that keeping the beat is something you continually struggle with though, so your post is unsurprising. 

    I can find the exact post where Brisket excused of all sorts of things for not supporting funding Ukraine, which seems to match the post I quoted save for Israel/Ukraine mix up. But I don't recall Brisket ever advocating that we absolutely need to fund Israel militarily. To be clear, he has expressed views both supportive of Israelis when they were attacked and condemning Israel for its current military campaign. But I've never seen him say that we need to fund Israel and not doing so is supporting terrorism. If you have that post, please point to it. But my belief is that you're conflating these events because in your mind they are all related to the US MIC that you oppose. 

  22. 7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    OK, cool, hookem. You accused me of wanting terrorists to win, and seeking the extermination and slaughter of jews, as I recall it for suggesting that maybe we not fund and arm an apartheid state. But maybe I misremember. Bullshit the posters that don't pay attention, but don't bullshit me, and certainly don't bullshit yourself brisket.

    Again, I am glad that you are coming to your senses. 

    It seems like you're conflating your posts and the replies in the thread titled "Ukraine" with posts about Israel. 

  23. 5 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

    The only time I had an opportunity to really test the reliability of the USPS was when we mailed 100+ wedding invitations.   Failure rate was around 8%.  We had the correct addresses, confirmed with follow up phone calls, and 8% of our invitations didn’t get to their destination.  This was about 10 years ago.  I no longer use the USPS for anything I consider important.

    I think more likely explanation is that people don't look at their mail that closely anymore. Most of it is junk/spam, so good often gets thrown out with the bad. 

×
×
  • Create New...