Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    12943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. Oh yeah, I forgot the Secret Service also covers this area.
  9. That was @956 Worldwide's point.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. By that you mean you want to have boinked Karen McDougal.
  13. @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?
  14. If the police force you outside the area your allowed to be protesting, how is that a violation by the protester?
  15. 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.
  16. Absolutely nothing. He is emotionally swinging at strawmen.
  17. 1/10th of our environment may be a small price to pay for a medium rare filet mignon.
  18. 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.
  19. It seems like you're conflating your posts and the replies in the thread titled "Ukraine" with posts about Israel.
  20. 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.
  21. What does any of this have to do with what happened in Austin?
  22. What does this have to do with what happened at UT?
  23. Very fine people that I'm quite sure if we go look at some old posts, we will see folks like @ChickenSandwich and @Sgt Hulk defend their right to speak and complaining about liberal tyrants censoring them. After all, it isn't anti-Semitism that either of them have an issue with.
  24. What evidence is there that this was happening? And, even if it were, how does that justify physical violence against unarmed students? We protect the right of free speech, even distasteful speech. Folks were allowed to march and chant "the Jews will not replace us". Surely, whatever was happening at this protest was far less distasteful.
×
×
  • Create New...