Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    12,941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    I mean, these were publicly announced as an act of solidarity with the other nationwide encampments, all of which were overnight establishments.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this discussion, if I'm being honest.

     

    There is more than one issue here, thus your confusion.

    1. Did these protesters intend to keep the tents up beyond a single day and create a "tent city" as seen in some other campuses? 

    2. Would anyone using a tent in connection with public assembly necessarily intend to leave them up beyond a single day and create a "tent city"?

    3. Is a "no tents ever" policy a reasonable restriction of free speech in the pubic forum?

    You're focused on #1.  Maybe you're right. Maybe that was their intention. But I don't think the potential that someone may intend to violate a reasonable restriction is sufficient to restrict free speech. And, at any rate, there was maybe one tent at the original event last week. It is not reasonable to shut down everyone's speech because of one minor violation. You tell the person they can't have it and remove the tent if that is a violation. You don't remove everyone. 

    As to #2, I think the answer is clearly no. I know this from my own experience.  

    And whether #3 is reasonable or not is going to depend on the purpose of the no tents rule. If it is to make sure no one stays more than one day, it is overly restrictive and could be handled with an additional time frame element. It if is to make sure everyone has access to the space, it seems overly restrictive and could be assigned with the requirement of a permit/registration for use of a tent. If it is to prevent the creation of a "tent city" (which I really don't understand why these matter honestly), then again, overly restrictive as you can just prevent the creation of a tent city rather than all uses of tents. Maybe there are other arguments for a blanket no provision. I'm just not convinced the arguments offered so far are sufficient to call it a reasonable restriction.  

  2. 25 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

    How is "no tents" a restriction on free speech at all? Do your protest. Just don't set up tents.

    A rule that indirectly serves as an impediment to the right to speech and assembly is in many ways more pernicious than a rule that directly inhibits those activities. For instance, imagine if there were a "no umbrellas" rule. The right to assemble and speak in the rain would be significantly hampered. While the most determined would not be deterred, many others would be. We can't let "reasonable" restrictions become a trojan horse for restrictions that would materially reduce the availability of free speech. Here, "no tents" serves to make free speech more difficult in the same way that a "no umbrellas" policy would. A no tent policy serves to make it more difficult to exercise a full day of assembly by preventing the assembled a place to rest out of the sun/elements.

    Again, maybe no tents is a reasonable restriction. But I don't think it is cut and dry, particularly when a location has been specifically protected as a part of the public forum. I need something more than the argument that someone might try and stay past 10:00 pm. 

    25 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    Of all things can we leave COVID nonsense out of this thread.  JFC

    I think our post-Covid reality is pretty dang important context in determining whether older case regarding masks is still relevant law. Not allowing masks in the wake of a pandemic is most certainly going to restrict free speech. I don't think we can call a blanket no mask policy as reasonable in this day and age. 

    11 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    JFC Brisket. This isn't a law school exam.   If "the cops shouldn't have arrested them until 10PM" is the hill you are going to die on, fine.   But we all know damn well their goal was to push past the line in the sand and get arrested yesterday whether that happened at 2PM or 10PM.   There is exactly a zero percent chance they picked up their tent and went home at sundown.

    You don't get to ignore rights based upon what you think someone is going to do. Why is this so hard for you? 

    1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

    I’ll push back gently on that, as aggy with limited knowledge of the South Mall and the purpose it serves. It seems like a meeting point and place for public use and speech, maybe with a lot of similarities to the National Mall. 
     

    Tents aren’t speech and they aren’t critical to assembly and nearly all public spaces have rules and regulations in place to balance out their use as free speech and petition zones with the right of other people to use them as free speech/public use/petition zones.  You need permits and permission to put up tents and other temporary structures on the National Mall and I don’t see that as unreasonable.
     

    Whether you are there for a protest or rally or just enjoying the rare spring weather, other people have the right to be there as well and it’s not really an infringement to draw some bright lines. “No structures or tents without permission” seems as good as any.  Maybe not “send in the riot cops” worthy, but it’s fine to say it’s not allowed because that’s not what the space is for.

    See above. Tents are tools that may assist with the exercise of free speech. A blanket no tent policy in a protected public forum seems overly restrictive if the goal ensuring others have use of the space. It seems like a more reasonable restriction would be to allow tents so long as a permit is acquired in advance (as you described). UT doesn't have that mechanism.  

  3. 21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    ... do you think these kids put up tents with the intention to take them down at the end of each day ?

    I've taken tents to the park and the beach before for use during the day. So yes, I think that is possible.  Whether these particular people intended to do is irrelevant to the question of whether a blanket no tents policy on a public forum is reasonable. It may be, but I'd need a better justification than "someone might try and stay the night."  

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Haha 1
  4. 4 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    Turning the south mall into a tent village is a pretty strong red line for me, regardless of the cause.  Genuinely surprised that so many on here don't seem to care. 

    Why? It is a public forum under Texas law. If the tents aren't disrupting class, I'm failing to see the issue. Now, if you're talking about staying overnight and essentially living on campus, yes, that would be a problem. Tents during the middle of the day? That doesn't seem like a clear cut reasonable restriction to me. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  5. 4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

    That is untrue.  Plenty last week were wearing masks/disguising their faces.  Which is against campus rules that have been posted many times in this thread.

    The protests were shutdown before they were started. There was zero evidence because nothing had happened yet. Riot police because a few people are wearing masks is hardly a reasonable or appropriate response. I'll also add that prior case law on mask restrictions being reasonable I'd argue has questionable relevance in the post-Covid era. 

  6. 2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    If you want to say the University jumped the gun last week, fine, but you all are living in a fantasy world if you don't think an 'encampment' was coming to campus if UT didn't act.  "Protestors" are trying to set them up all over the country this week.  You think this copycat tik tok generation was going to be content holding hands and singing kumbaya?

    UT fucked up last week but I have zero problem with yesterday.

    I don't care if an "encampment was coming." You don't get to shut down free speech based on what you think will happen. Period. 

    As I said last week, once the protesters get violent, threatening, or violate reasonable restrictions, then you can act more forcefully. Not before then. I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. And, the 2019 Texas law makes the protests at UT, and the restrictions the University can reasonably put in place, in a significantly different posture than the protests at other campuses. 

    • Hook 'Em 7
    • Like 1
  7. 12 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    I read the U of Chicago statement many praised.  I think there is a reasonable argument it is the correct approach.  I also think it's 50/50 whether they end up requesting the police take action before this is over.  They took a strong position without drawing any clear lines in the sand.  I know how that works with my kids.  Personally I prefer UF's statement that their campus isn't a daycare.

    For anyone saying what has happened on other campuses is irrelevant to the discussion of what is going on at UT's campus I completely disagree.  Those campuses are real world examples of what has happened when you let "protestors" violate university policies without consequence.  It is absolutely a critical piece of the analysis.  Because that reality100% influenced this universities response.  Like others have said, there have been protests for months without issue.  Only recently have the protestors decided they weren't getting enough attention and ramped things up.   And by the way, UT is absolutely not alone in taking a firm stance this week regarding encampments.  If people want to focus on what happened last week, fine, I'll agree the response was probably over the top.   But Texas made it abundantly clear no encampments were permitted.  Those students yesterday intentionally crossed that line and Texas didn't blink.   

    There are reasonable discussions and debate to be had around first amendment and what the line should be but I don't think it's a coincidence that those most outraged screaming "fascism" over and over are a combination of those that have been the most critical of Israel for months on this forum and those so obsessed with MAGA/Abbot that they look at any excuse to yell at the clouds.  I doubt many have the same energy if police cleared out the KKK after setting up tents on campus.

    There was zero evidence of any substantial violation of campus rules last week when protected activity was violently stifled. I don't get how you just brush past that by saying "well, some stuff happened elsewhere." No shit things are more heated now AFTER what happened last week. 

  8. 2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    The playbook has existed for years.  It's just that this regime doesn't want to follow it.  The playbook is: take incremental steps.  Start with non-uniformed administrators/officials visiting with the protest leaders to discuss the process, and obtain clarity.  Then, have a handful of uniformed campus police do the same.  Issue a direct warning and directive, ideally telling the protesters how they can continue the protest within the rules (e.g., "based on your current intentions as you have stated them, so long as you remove the tents, remove face coverings, and leave by 10:00 pm, being free to return when campus opens at 7:00 am, we will not take any action to disperse the protest.")  You then obtain the response from the protesters.  Then you send out a larger group of police to disperse them.  If/when the protesters respond with violence (throwing rocks, etc.), then you bring in a larger show of force in riot gear.  

    That is a solid evidentiary record to demonstrate that you have attempted to accommodate all reasonable First Amendment protected activity.

    And you should do that with every group.  Yes, including the KKK.

    And, to be really clear on this, last week the administration told the protesters they could not hold their event at all. And, according to Hartzell's own words, he did it on the basis the term "occupy" in a social media post indicated a clear desire to violate campus rules. That reasoning is more than a bit suspect. And obviously the message of "no" provided zero guidance on how the protest could proceed within the rules. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
  9. 2 hours ago, Crapinon said:

    I need some help with Excel functions. I have to update pricing on our website by pulling list price from vendor supplied price list. I can get the website content list sent to me in Excel. I would like to set the website content Excel sheet to find part numbers on Excel sheets supplied by our vendors, then import the list price for each item from that sheet to our website sheet. It seems like it should be easy to do but I've searched all day trying to figure out how to do it. I'm sure I'm not putting the correct terms in the search engine. Any help or direction to help would be appreciated. 

    You'll either use vlookup/xlookup or an index match combination or a sum product combination. It'll all depend on the exact format of the spreadsheet and what you're trying to to accomplish. If you can post a sample, happy to take a look. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 25 minutes ago, hornbri said:

    But we are talking about that happened today right? There were clear tents on campus today and it is clear they did that today to escalate the situation. Maybe now that tent question will get answered in court. 

    We can't talk about today without including the greater context of last week. Given the significant trampling of civil rights, yeah, I think some civil disobedience is in order and justified. Again, I don't think no tents ever is a particularly reasonable restriction. But had this been a first interaction, I would not have had any issue with having the police come and kick out the protesters. In the context of last week, I find attitudes like @Skipper's that shows disdain for those who dare invoke their civil rights greatly disturbing. 

    24 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

    The protesters encircled the tents and chained tables together to protect the encampment. They knew exactly what they were doing. Credit to them as it worked exactly as they hoped it would.

    My issue is the use of the term escalatory. Typically that has a violent connotation to it. And I find that usage ironic when talking about tents, particularly given the events of last week. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  11. 18 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    Look at the picture from today dude.  They made a lame little tent city and encircled it locking arms.   They could have easily protested within the stated parameters and chose not to.  It was a fucking strategy.  At least see it for what it is.

    Obviously, they could not have. They tried that last week. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Rage+1 2
  12. 3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    Well that wasn't actually the rule.  That was Brisket's interpretation of what a reasonable rule would be.  The actual rule (dating back to at least 2012 apparently) is no tents.  So the rule WAS violated.  Intentionally of course.  So they could escalate this shit for media attention.  

    It is pretty questionable whether "no tents" ever on a public forum is a reasonable restriction. More to the point, I've seen a photo of maybe 1 tent from last week. Enforcing the rule is removing the tent and maybe the person who put it up. Not kicking out everyone. I get that you don't like their speech. I get that you don't like these students. I don't get how you don't give a fuck about a pretty blatant and violent violation of civil rights. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
  13. 9 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

    In this case the tents are obviously being used to escalate the situation into more than a peaceful protest knowing they will get the police to show up to remove them.

    Wow. Today I learned that tents = escalatory. Gee, I would have thought the riot police and arrests last week were the escalating factor. But no, turns out, it is Coleman.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  14. 5 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    Right and let's not pretend if the rule was Brisket's "reasonable rule" of 10PM cut-off, then this same thing wouldn't be happening at 10PM.   They got what they wanted. 

    And the point has been that you can't arrest someone for a violation that hasn't actually occurred yet. Destroying a protest on the grounds that someone might violate a rule is fundamentally immoral and unconstitutional. 

  15. 7 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

     

    it's pretty great in traffic on 35, 360, or parmer.  handles those situations marvelously.  not impressed with its ability to handle intersections when turning right on red and stop signs.  why does it need to stop so far back and then slowly inch forward?  i just hit the accelerator.  there are also intersections with right turn only lanes where FSD will try to change me into that lane even though i'm going straight through.

    musk is obviously trying to generate FSD revenue.  the uptake rate was 19% before the trial month.  slashing to $100/mo or $12k one time with transferable rights will get more people to bite. i think they can get to 30% relatively easily.  add in the chinese approval last night of FSD and i wouldn't bet against them.  sure it's not completely autonomous but it's a whole lot better than anything else out there right now.  

     

    i've retested situations-  some of them it learns (slowing down before dips or speed bumps) and some it doesn't (trying to go straight in a right turn lane).  

    the notification system is jarringly inept.  the screen starts flashing and an audible beeping (not unlike a cockpit emergency beeping) notifies you to take over.  i don't know if it'd be sufficient for someone not paying attention to the situation but FSD stops working if 1.) you fail to apply pressure to the steering wheel every 30 seconds or so and 2.)  you look away from the road for more than ~8 seconds at a time.  the third time it shuts down due to one of these conditions FSD is deactivated.  

    The problem is that for highway driving, the thing it is best at is essentially just normal autopilot, traffic aware cruise control with lane keep. But it is still bad with lane merges and construction. It moves over far too late for exits, often waiting until the very last minute. And it it just changes lanes too much in general (even when I select the option to minimize lane changes for the current trip). I actually find it worse than normal autopilot because of all the lane changes. I'd rather it only change lanes when I signal rather than just electing to do it on its own. Since there is no real competition for what it does, it technically does it best. But it just isn't useful and frankly isn't safe. Frankly, the thing I'm impressed most with is the new visualizations that give me a better idea of what the car is seeing. It is a really impressive tech demo with some genuinely interesting capabilities. But it isn't fully baked. And frankly, given Elon's approach, may never be. 

  16. 1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

    Long and frustrating post incoming.  I am starting to really question how broken the minds of the citizens of America really are.  The link below is an article about CNN's recent polling.  Yeah, yeah, I know polling doesn't mean shit anymore and saying Trump has a lead over Biden doesn't really matter unless you are looking at the 5-6 key swing states that really matter but when you look at the way this poll reads it baffles me.  55% of poll responders feel Trumps presidency was a success while 61% say Biden's presidency thus far is a failure.  In general, 58% have an unfavorable view of Biden compared to 55% having an unfavorable view of Trump.  70% say economic conditions in the US are poor.  I mean, is the economy that bad for everyone on this board?  Every indicator shows the economy is doing great.  I would hate to see Biden's polling on the economy if we actually had a recession or shitty stock market or inflation that was still high due to Covid.  Can someone explain these types of numbers logically?  

    On another note, I spent the last few days on a business golf trip with a bunch of my clients who are uber Trumpers (these aren't ignorant people but really intelligent successful guys) and they all kept telling me Biden is the real criminal and he is senile and won't live through the next term anyways, so you are just electing Kamala to be President.  I feel like while they are super smart guys, they have been brain washed by Fox News and the right-wing pundits to point where they can't think correctly when it comes to politics.  The way the media has warped the minds of the public really should be studied as a scientific experiment because it is truly amazing what has happened to the citizens of this country.  Everyone on here saw the Kristi Noem puppy killing story but I can't wait until Fox News spends the next 12 months telling its viewers that killing your dog is really good for America and a year from now you will have half the country killing their dogs and being proud of it.  

     

    CNN Poll: Trump maintains lead over Biden in 2024 matchup as views on their presidencies diverge | CNN Politics

    Being successful and ignorant are not mutually exclusive. 

    • Hook 'Em 4
  17. 54 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

    I hope this works out. But I worry he’s going to still have the dropsies. Which won’t really help the team with the most drops in the league.

    Wasn't an issue last year. Turns out, broken hand makes it hard to catch. 

  18. 30 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    Maybe because they knew the defense would call her and they wanted to control the narrative as best as possible? That’s the only thing I can think of. Steal their thunder maybe 

    She was used to establish foundation for later evidence. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  19. Just now, DixonHur said:

    And I think it's based on weighing the options, reading the room and taking the path of least resistance.  

    Life is too short to be made miserable by every perceived slight.

    I bet all of us can go to the kitchen right now and get fresh drinking water from our taps.  That's better than 99% of the people in the world.  Relax and enjoy your fortune.  

    Maybe take your own advice. I'm sorry we annoyed you by daring to care. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  20. 12 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Ok, I can appreciate that.  Now, name the last time in American history that was true?

    We may not always live up to our ideals, but they are not dead until we stop trying to fight for them. If everyone adopted your mentality, the US and the future would truly be gone. Maybe you'd care if you had kids that you'd want to grow up in it. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  21. I don't understand not caring about civil rights. I don't understand the need to have a strong opinion despite demonstrated and admitted ignorance. I don't understand how any objective view of history, either US or global, could conclude the protests are unimportant and accomplish little.

    I think @DixonHur's worldview is one born of exhaustion, ignorance, and laziness. I suppose I appreciate his efforts to explain it, but ultimately I'm mostly disgusted and disappointed. If you're that tired of living in the world, maybe just let the rest of us that do still care handle it

    This is @Brisketexan and his ledge after he has lost all hope and the fire to at least go down fighting. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
  22. 1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

    Hey pot, have you learned what fascism is yet?

    Why are you being an ass? I haven't even used the term fascism in this thread. If you want to learn about the law, I'm happy to explain things to you. But right now it seems like you're just here to troll. 

  23. Just now, DixonHur said:

    There are also plenty interviews online with Jewish students who say they are living in fear.

    Look at what's happening in NYC.  Jews students have basically gone into hiding.

    That has nothing to do with UT. You can't restrict speech because someone somewhere else did something. That isn't how the law works. Seriously, you need to take some time and actually study this topic. Read the primer I posted. Go read some stuff from the ACLU. You're really out of your depth here. You need to learn before you run in defiantly with hot takes. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  24. 1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

    So you think Jewish students feel safe on campus?  

    Please point to the law the US Congress passed in this case?  This was a University making a decision based on its own guidelines.  If they want to sue, go right ahead.  I have a feeling the courts will be on my side in this one.

    This is like the people who try to claim 1A rights at work.  

    Sigh... You don't understand the law or your rights at all. 

    1) the University is a government institution. For purposes of the First Amendment it is the government. And yes, the first amendment has been incorporated and applied to the states via the 14th amendment. And the Texas Constitution has its own analogous provision. 

    2) the first amendment protections extend beyond mere passage of laws and apply to actions by government agencies and entities. 

    Rather than write out a full primer, I direct you here which covers the topic indepth and provides numerous case citations: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship

    Quote

     

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

    One of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. The First Amendment allows individuals to speak, publish, read and view what they wish, worship (or not worship) as they wish, associate with whomever they choose, and gather together to ask the government to make changes in the law or to correct the wrongs in society.

    The right to speak and the right to publish under the First Amendment has been interpreted widely to protect individuals and society from government attempts to suppress ideas and information, and to forbid government censorship of books, magazines, and newspapers as well as art, film, music and materials on the internet. The Supreme Court and other courts have held conclusively that there is a First Amendment right to receive information as a corollary to the right to speak. Justice William Brennan elaborated on this point in 1965:

    “The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful.I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right.The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.” Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

    The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to receive information is a fundamental right protected under the U.S. Constitution when it considered whether a local school board violated the Constitution by removing books from a school library. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that “the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient’s meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom.” Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

    Public schools and public libraries, as public institutions, have been the setting for legal battles about student access to books, the removal or retention of “offensive” material, regulation of patron behavior, and limitations on public access to the internet. Restrictions and censorship of materials in public institutions are most commonly prompted by public complaints about those materials and implemented by government officials mindful of the importance some of their constituents may place on religious values, moral sensibilities, and the desire to protect children from materials they deem to be offensive or inappropriate. Directly or indirectly, ordinary individuals are the driving force behind the challenges to the freedom to access information and ideas in the library.

    The First Amendment prevents public institutions from compromising individuals' First Amendment freedoms by establishing a framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities regarding free expression and the freedom of belief. The First Amendment protects the right to exercise those freedoms, and it advocates respect for the right of others to do the same. Rather than engaging in censorship and repression to advance one's values and beliefs, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis counsels persons living in the United States to resolve their differences in values and belief by resort to "more speech, not enforced silence." 

    By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech and intellectual freedom also applies to state and local governments. Government agencies and government officials are forbidden from regulating or restricting speech or other expression based on its content or viewpoint. Criticism of the government, political dissatisfaction, and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are nearly always protected by the First Amendment. Only that expression that is shown to belong to a few narrow categories of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law.

    The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities. 

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
    • Drool 1
×
×
  • Create New...