Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    12937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. One: there is no evidence they were creating a "tent city" or taking any actions that violated school policy Two: and this is a big one, you don't seem to understand what freedom of speech means. Open areas on campus (e.g., the south lawn) are part of the public forum and available to the public for assembly by law. The government (i.e., the police and UT) does not get to prevent speech because they do not like the content. It does not get to restrict the freedom of assembly because it does not like the content of speech. UT isn't a private actor. These aren't private lands. The Constitution gives those students the right to assemble and speak there. The University destroyed those rights. Why you're ok hand waiving the violation of core civil rights is absolutely beyond me. Three: the University should have allowed them to gather and to speak. Only if the gathering starting getting threatening, violent, destructive, or overly disruptive of school (e.g., barring people from class), should the police have been called in. But sure, you just ignore core rights because you don't really care what the speakers have to say.
  2. That, and students most certainly had authorization to be in the six pack.
  3. Isn't that why college exists? It would be unamerican to stop them.
  4. I understand. Don't let perfect become the enemy of good. the problem is that I just don't see any good here. And I'm not going to let fear of what may be prevent me from standing up to what it is. And this was wrong.
  5. That's rough. Even if I don't have co-counsel, I try to have a legal assistant, secretary, or even a tech, anyone, sit by the client.
  6. I understand exactly what they are saying. I'm saying it doesn't fucking matter. He isn't the fucking janitor. He isn't mid-level management. He is the fucking President of the University. He had other options than trample the safety and rights of students.
  7. I've been in many discussions with you. I agree that your understanding of events is vastly different than mine.
  8. You're still not connecting to this to what happened at UT. Yes, if protesters violate the law, become threatening, dangerous, or violent, it is perfectly reasonable to call the cops. But, and this is the important, that didn't happen at UT. The protest was literally shut down before anyone did anything. So, your hypothetical is completely irrelevant to what actually happened. P.S. since you seemed confused on this point, the University of Texas is in fact a government entity. The Tower is a government building. They were in fact out in front of a government building. Not that any of that really matters in regards to whether or not the right to assemble and free speech should be trampled.
  9. Yeah, I think there is room for that sign to be interpreted as a call out regarding hypocrisy. But, it is vague enough and hits a sensitive enough topic that the overall presentation was a poor choice assuming that was the intent. So, it is either a poorly executed version of a good point or a really fucking evil sign. That's a really interesting alternate reality you live you.
  10. To be fair, this is sort of trial 101 stuff. You don't leave the client alone. Nothing about this is unusual, and it has been done at every trial I've participated in.
  11. It isn't like he asked for help the day of because it was getting out of control. He asked for helps days before the event even took place. He asked for the DPS to come and shut it down BEFORE the event took place. He deserves no quarter here.
  12. I'd like you to just acknowledge that what is happening elsewhere in the world isn't what happened at UT. That's all. You've been hostile to me from the beginning of this thread for reasons I don't understand. I don't agree with everything pro-Palestinian protesters want. And if they had engaged in violent, destructive, or threatening behavior, I'm would have been all on board with the cops being called in. But that isn't what happened at UT. And you don't get to punish people before they do something. That's how you get stars. That's how you get ghettos. That's how you get a holocaust.
  13. Please, neg more of my posts while you refuse to actually address what happened at the University of Texas.
  14. Great, if he was worried about that, he could have had the police standing by to respond to actual disruptions. He didn't do that. He ordered them to crack heads before anything wrongful happened. Excusing his actions because felt stress is fucking bullshit. Not only should he resign, he should be in fucking jail for abuse of authority.
  15. Again, Hartzell didn't just fail to tell them to leave. He fucking invited them. He admits it in his letter. And he admits in more informally in his texts.
  16. So, the end of that was telling. He says that this concern is why the framer's had all these structural checks (but apparently not criminal liability) that for the last 200 years have prevented that kind of action from a President. The easy response to that is: until Trump.
  17. And I'll litigate the fuck out of that because I'm not asking for communications with attorneys regarding legal advice.
  18. And it sucks. I get that your concerned about what has happened elsewhere. But it all of that isn't relevant as to whether the first amendment was trampled by the University on Wednesday (it was). Again, if you want to justify the actions of the administration of the University, you're going to have to justify based on what happened on campus, not what happened in other areas of the world.
  19. We'll find out if they release the information I requested. I intend on finding out.
  20. I know you do. And, yes, the law can be complex, but this instance is not. The student organization provided the University a heads up of the proposed protest (which strictly speaking isn't necessary under University rules for open areas). The plan was to "occupy" the South Lawn. They passed out fliers telling folks to bring sandwiches and snacks. After occupying the lawn for the day they were going to march to the capitol. The University, and particularly Hartzell, freaked out about what was happening elsewhere (and I point out that a lot of the problems at other campuses were also administration caused) and gave a blanket no. Technically, under Texas law and University regulations, it had no authority to do that. More importantly, a blanket no to speech isn't a "reasonable, place, and manner" restriction since it amounts to an outright prohibition of the freedom to assemble. Hartzell, apparently understanding the student organization was moving forward despite his blanket no, decided the only course was to call in riot police to bust heads before the event even started. There was no violence, except by DPS. There were no threats, except by DPS. There was no destruction, except by DPS. And of the 50+ people arrested that day, including a cameraman for the news exercising a core civic right and service, all were later released and charges dropped. This was a naked trampling of the First Amendment. This was a naked abuse of authority. And Hartzell wasn't a mere observer or participant, but was rather the architect, as confirmed by his own letter and his own texts. Fuck him. Ultimately, he was afraid of a picnic. Maybe he invited the wolves to dinner not appreciating what would happen. But if that is the case, he is too incompetent and stupid to run the University anyway.
  21. Ye, the police were the clear instigators. There is ample video available. A news cameraman just at the scene was arrested by the police for merely being there and charged with a crime.
  22. He called in riot police that endangered students. It is bullshit. I'm not giving him a pass for this because it was a "difficult position". You don't get to claim to champion free speech and then stamp it down before anything is said or done. Fucking bullshit.
×
×
  • Create New...