Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    12941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. Just now, troph said:

    I don't agree with his decisions on the face of it. I'm simply saying it was a tough spot under current political dynamics not the least of which is the likely intense pressure from the office of the governor and as someone very interested in the truth, I don't know the whole story regarding how the shitty decision was made.  that's all.

    We'll find out if they release the information I requested. I intend on finding out. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  2. 1 minute ago, Hermanator said:

    I know it hasn't gone fully Aggy maga stupidity yet but it's still the university of Texas. The flagship university in one of the most backwards ass maga states in the country. It's going to be influenced by those shitheads until and if maga can be run out of Texas politics. 

    Are there numerous videos of the protests? Were the police the clear instigators attacking people who were not being violent or aggressive? This right now is the first I've read or heard about this so I don't know any of the details. 

    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. 

  3. 14 minutes ago, troph said:

    Calling for help is part of the difficult position. Of course campus police can’t handle it. DPS is under Abbott’s control though, that’s the impossible position. 
     

    Hartzell may be a POS fuck if I know, I’m not willing to go with a black and white / right and wrong / the buck stops with him / he’s a political hack position just yet.

    am I worried about UT and current politics … fuck yeah I am. 

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 7
  4. 1 minute ago, Skipper said:

    He was speaking from a place of watching a bunch of losers take over campuses across the country.  USC just cancelled commencement because of these assholes.   Imagine just being a normal student or parent of said student and getting commencement cancelled because of this bullshit.  I don't give a damn about what side you are on.   Palestine, MAGA, BLM, whatever, protest all you want until you start interfering with everyone else just living their lives thinking your cause is more important.   I'm not opining on what actually happened.  I'm pushing back on the thought that it was a mistake to prepare for the possibility the same thing could happen at Texas that has happened elsewhere.

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 6 minutes ago, Skipper said:

    I agree.  It certainly appears mistakes were made.  But this board started going apeshit over the text message chain, and if what Hartzell stated was accurate in the chain, I personally have no issue with him requesting backup. 

    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. 

    • Like 1
  6. 27 minutes ago, Bevo said:

     

    Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment?

    I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT  have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated:

    Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable.
    I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well.

    Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless?

    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. 

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
  7. 8 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

    I don’t know. I guess maybe don’t suck off on Hamas and cry fowl when the chickens come home to roost? Like this is a very organized protest across college campuses for what purpose? educate all of us on how sad it is? This 1000 year old war. Make us stop what exactly? Protesting the strikes on Gaza for what end? Why now? Especially after an unprecedented attack by Hamas. These fucks protesting need to go the fuck home. Go home. 
     

    You have to pick a side in this war. Sitting and cover your faces and crying about a thousand plus year old war. I have sympathy  for the innocent people in harms way. But this is bullshit and these hired fucks should go the fuck home. 
     

    if you do what you’ve always done you will get what you’ve always gotten. The Middle East and Russia remind me of this. Still trying to do the same shit and get different results. Maybe I don’t know try new leadership. Find better leadership. I have about as much sympathy overall for the Middle East as I do the Russian people. Time and again they choose poorly. Boo the fuck hoo. 
     

    if I seem pissed the fuck off I am. I rarely wade into this shit. I’m Lebanese, Jewish and German/english. I studied history. What the fuck do I know? Not much. Go home protesting dumb fucks. Go home. And who paid them to organize like this? And fuck them too. 

    Right, maybe, I don't know, actually read something about what happened before commenting. Or stick to the lake murdering. Whatever. 

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  8. 5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

    If you wish other people get shutdown, and you end up getting shut down, thats karmically related. Has nothing to do with the legal aspect.

    Thats why the first post that brought it up mentioned only irony.

    Why are you pretending ive said anything else. Or is your comprehension truly that poor? given ive been explicit, 5x by now, i neither agree with the police action nor believe it has legal standing. 

    So you're just trolling? Again? 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

    Which post number suggested that the PSC has no right to protest other parties speech, or that that invalidates their own future right to speech, or that their suppression this week was legal/constitutional?

    Why are we litigating a non argument? 

    Just dont feign as if theres zero moral/logical/karmic (but not legal) relevance to these incidences though. 

    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. 

  10. 2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

    The summit they wanted to shut down was a private event merely hosted in the city of Austin. 

    The single speaker (Yaron Brooks) whose UT lecture they wanted to cancel was a separate event. 

    I dont know Yaron Brooks. But the relevance to this thread is obvious: a major matter of speech (and funny minor matter of hypocrisy)

     

    well…ditto. 

    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. 12 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

    What is offensive or scary or about the 2023 Israeli-American Council Summit in Austin that this same PSC group demanded to be shut down, on grounds of danger?

    https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-715248

    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.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. 37 minutes ago, PTINS said:

    I did not mention "speech" in my post. That is the Freedom I cherish the most. You are free to tell my boss he's a fucking idiot, and he is free to fire you.

    I merely responded to where you might exercise that freedom.

    The freedom to assemble is provided for, but that does not mean you can do it wherever you want. The right to defend and protect your life and property are also provided for.  

    But like it or not, agree or not, the City of Austin had/has a well known position of choosing not to enforce the law.  UT called somebody who would.

    Will Trump be allowed to have a rally on the steps of the Capitol? Doubtful, but not my decision.

    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. 17 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

     

    They took them at their word, and because of their previous actions at Columbia, USC, etc. Here is the instagram post announcing the "occupation":

    "Reclaim our space"

    "Class is canceled"

    "Occupy the lawn"

    "In the footsteps of our comrades at Columbia SJP, Rutgers-New Brunswick, Yale, and countless others across the nation, we will be establishing THE POPULAR UNIVERSITY FOR GAZA and demanding our administration divest from death."

    Watching what the "solidarity committees" did at Columbia and Yale, perhaps it was prudent to take them at their word. The fact that 26 of the arrestees weren't student, and were outside agitators, should be a clue.

    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!

    image.thumb.png.6797e6a7b2b938a81bb383d6fe86377d.png

     

    image.thumb.png.28402dc233e832e3760ca2aff5b7b163.png

     

    image.png.71cb4644a2443a76425efeead819b905.png

     

    image.thumb.png.f6bc0fa4622dbadb3be7fca381fc7578.png

    • Hook 'Em 3
  14. 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 2
  15. 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). 

  16. 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 3
  17. 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 6
×
×
  • Create New...