UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread

[Wally Pryor 5198]

I'm still stuck on Fred Cantu being alive. 

[Captainant 26861]

 

 

[Dahobbs 17089]

15 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

https://catalog.utexas.edu/general-information/appendices/appendix-c/speech-expression-and-assembly/

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? 

 

Edited April 25 by Dahobbs

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11486]

Zing!

 

[Celery Man 20535]

33 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

No matter how much you want to hide your face with a mask and protest Jews right to exist.

 

honestly i think that this across the board characterization of what people are protesting about is insanely anti-semitic

[wildcat09 28387]

If anyone wants to do a fun little experiment, use the search function to search for posts including the word "speech" made by Johnny Sack. 

[jimmyjazz 45055]

When I was a student at UT, I got involved in the protests demanding the school divest from South African holdings (apartheid).  

Never in a million years did I fear cops or arrest or worse.  This is a shameful day in the history of our school.  Fuck Jay Hartzell, fuck Greg Abbott, and fuck any anti-education fucksticks.

[Pato del Muerto 51914]

Hartzell wanted to avoid campus interruptions and maintain student safety, so he called the cops in to create disruptions and threaten student safety. 

[hayden_horn 11311]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Hartzell wanted to avoid campus interruptions and maintain student safety, so he called the cops in to create disruptions and threaten student safety. 

hartzell and eltife both need to go. 

fuck them both. 

i was on campus when jesse jackson came to town after hopwood blew up everything and lino graglia went rogue.

that was an old school civil rights protest and i don't even remember the cops that day. 

 

[hayden_horn 11311]

Just now, BeardIP said:

Completely and pure speculation, but I could see the thinking and reasoning being an overreaction to the Harvard and Penn presidents who were fired--er, resigned-- due to their not stepping in and allowing things to get out of control. So maybe he's thinking about his job, which is kind of ironic, give that this overreaction the other direction is more likely to cost it than inaction (probably) was.

Heavy is the head that wears the crown, I guess.

whatever. dont forget columbia but we aren't them. 

heavy is the hand that wears the crown is more like it

[Captainant 26861]

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/25/ut-austin-palestinian-arrests-criminal-cases/

46 out of 57 cases dropped so far due to lacking probable cause for arrest. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11486]

 

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

Completely and pure speculation, but I could see the thinking and reasoning being an overreaction to the Harvard and Penn presidents who were fired--er, resigned-- due to their not stepping in and allowing things to get out of control. So maybe he's thinking about his job, which is kind of ironic, give that this overreaction the other direction is more likely to cost it than inaction (probably) was.

Heavy is the head that wears the crown, I guess.

yeah, this seemed to me to be a reaction to the ivies.  used by abbott to show that us god fearing red staters don't cotton to the crazies of the coast. hartzell happily went along.

[Brisketexan 103147]

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Hartzell wanted to avoid campus interruptions and maintain student safety, so he called the cops in to create disruptions and threaten student safety. 

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

[Hank Kingsley 19824]

Meanwhile in Atlanta...

 

[jimmyjazz 45055]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

hartzell and eltife both need to go. 

I don't know what the best way is to leverage this point of view, but I'm on board.  I definitely won't give another dime to the university at this point until they are gone.  They need to know that, but my contributions are so meager as to be meaningless.  I don't know how (or if) something could be organized to create a legitimate threat.

[UnivTex34 1762]

 

 

Here is a live stream. That is if DPS doesn't assault and arrest another cameraman.

[Nivek 16643]

52 minutes ago, 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.

delete 

Edited April 25 by Nivek
too mean

[Blotto 23227]

17 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Completely and pure speculation, but I could see the thinking and reasoning being an overreaction to the Harvard and Penn presidents who were fired--er, resigned-- due to their not stepping in and allowing things to get out of control. So maybe he's thinking about his job, which is kind of ironic, give that this overreaction the other direction is more likely to cost it than inaction (probably) was.

Maybe he was probably thinking, "crap, I don't want to get paraded in front of congress and embarrased and what a pain in the butt, and who knows what happens if this thing gets out of control and goes all anti-semitic like it did in the Ivies, ugh. better safe than sorry, and I AM in Texas, after all..."

Heavy is the head that wears the crown, I guess.

Every man has a  price. In Hartzell's case, it appears to $1.25M/yr. Now that Abbot knows he can parade his university fucktoy around at will, Jay's life is only going to get worse. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 9944]

24 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Completely and pure speculation, but I could see the thinking and reasoning being an overreaction to the Harvard and Penn presidents who were fired--er, resigned-- due to their not stepping in and allowing things to get out of control. So maybe he's thinking about his job, which is kind of ironic, give that this overreaction the other direction is more likely to cost it than inaction (probably) was.

Maybe he was probably thinking, "crap, I don't want to get paraded in front of congress and embarrased and what a pain in the butt, and who knows what happens if this thing gets out of control and goes all anti-semitic like it did in the Ivies, ugh. better safe than sorry, and I AM in Texas, after all..."

Heavy is the head that wears the crown, I guess.

Probably, but he's an idiot. Next week starts finals week and then a large chunk of the student population goes home. It wasn't out of control and odds of it spiraling out on it's own in a week were slim to none.

[Skipper 5952]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

hartzell and eltife both need to go. 

 

LOL.  Newsflash.  90%+ of alumni and donors don't give a fuck about the West Mall and whatever flavor of the month protest is in the news even if this was mishandled.  Most of us saw it and rolled our eyes every time we walked past when we were on campus.  Hartzell and Eltife paved the way to the SEC and a competitive football team.  They have kept UT a respectable institution of higher learning for those that want to get educated and get a good job.  They are golden.   

 

[Bolero88 249]

1 hour ago, 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.

 

No one is refuting Jews right to exist. Your ability to use logic is outstanding!

[Frank Drebin 5359]

Did they comply with each of these policies? 

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

 

 

[Bolero88 249]

44 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

 

Since when is it against the law to wear a mask? Jesus Christ, that really is fascistic!

[Brian Fantana 6589]

1 minute ago, Bolero88 said:

No one is refuting Jews right to exist. Your ability to use logic is outstanding!

Every post he makes on this subject has hardcore evangelical underpinnings. He has to dickride Israel and whatever fascist support AIPAC can stir up so his weird ass rapture fantasy can come true. Neg and move on.

[Frank Drebin 5359]

3 minutes ago, Bolero88 said:

Since when is it against the law to wear a mask? Jesus Christ, that really is fascistic!

Regulations of wearing masks or KKK hoods while assembling in public has been a thing for a century.  Here is a more recent example where the Second Circuit rejected the Klan's right to hide their faces while assembling.

https://www.nyclu.org/court-cases/church-american-knights-kkk-v-city-new-york-challenging-restriction-assembling-while-wearing

 

On Jan. 20, 2004, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court. In doing so, the Second Circuit reasoned that the First Amendment right of anonymous speech does not embrace a right to conceal one’s appearance in a public demonstration.

Edited April 25 by Frank Drebin

[Bolero88 249]

6 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Regulations of wearing masks or KKK hoods while assembling in public has been a thing for a century.  Here is a more recent example where the Second Circuit rejected the Klan's right to hide their faces while assembling.

https://www.nyclu.org/court-cases/church-american-knights-kkk-v-city-new-york-challenging-restriction-assembling-while-wearing

 

On Jan. 20, 2004, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court. In doing so, the Second Circuit reasoned that the First Amendment right of anonymous speech does not embrace a right to conceal one’s appearance in a public demonstration.

Well, that's completely fucked up. 

[Captainant 26861]

3 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Regulations of wearing masks or KKK hoods while assembling in public has been a thing for a century.  Here is a more recent example where the Second Circuit rejected the Klan's right to hide their faces while assembling.

https://www.nyclu.org/court-cases/church-american-knights-kkk-v-city-new-york-challenging-restriction-assembling-while-wearing

 

On Jan. 20, 2004, the Second Circuit reversed the District Court. In doing so, the Second Circuit reasoned that the First Amendment right of anonymous speech does not embrace a right to conceal one’s appearance in a public demonstration.

Sack, stop framing this as if the arrests were even about face coverings. None of them have been as far as I know. You are doing your cute trick where you introduce something unrelated to derail a discussion and reframe it in terms favorable to your biases. 

There has been a concerted effort by abbott to punish pro-palestine speech on campus. Either through firing professors

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/08/israel-hamas-war-texas-universities/

Advocating for punishments against students expressing the wrong opinion

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/27/israel-hamas-war-texas-universities/

 

Or just, ya know, using violence and force to silence them. 

[bolverk 28886]

9 minutes ago, Skipper said:

LOL.  Newsflash.  90%+ of alumni and donors don't give a fuck about the West Mall and whatever flavor of the month protest is in the news even if this was mishandled.  Most of us saw it and rolled our eyes every time we walked past when we were on campus.  Hartzell and Eltife paved the way to the SEC and a competitive football team.  They have kept UT a respectable institution of higher learning for those that want to get educated and get a good job.  They are golden.   

 

I'll have to disagree with you there as both a UT-Austin alumnus (M.S. 1999) and the parent of a college kid. I'm fucking pissed about what happened on the 40 acres yesterday and won't give a dime to The University until Hartzell is gone. And, if I heard about riot police assaulting students on the campus of my daughter's college, I'd be livid and call for the head of her university's president.

[Frank Drebin 5359]

Just now, Captainant said:

Sack, stop framing this as if the arrests were even about face coverings. None of them have been as far as I know. You are doing your cute trick where you introduce something unrelated to derail a discussion and reframe it in terms favorable to your biases. 

There has been a concerted effort by abbott to punish pro-palestine speech on campus. Either through firing professors

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/08/israel-hamas-war-texas-universities/

Advocating for punishments against students expressing the wrong opinion

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/27/israel-hamas-war-texas-universities/

 

Or just, ya know, using violence and force to silence them. 

I wasn't framing anything you dumbfuck.  I was responding to a post I quoted.  

[Dbeasy 14733]

56 minutes ago, Dahobbs 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? 

 

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. 

[Frank Drebin 5359]

1 minute ago, Bolero88 said:

Well, that's completely fucked up. 

You disagree with the Second Circuit's opinion?  Why?

[Goredho 17154]

43 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Abbot's going to have to call in some reinforcements

[Captainant 26861]

Just now, Frank Drebin said:

I wasn't framing anything you dumbfuck.  I was responding to a post I quoted.  

You're doing the exact same thing as incredulity and thread shitting by bringing in things that did not happen, but have been insisted DID happen by abbott and his fascist cronies to justify their crackdown. 

You are playing cutesy games to dishonestly hide your support for what abbott's mission and goal is. 

And you're polluting this thread with false notions of why the cops brutalized protesters yesterday. You are doing abbott's dirty work for him. 

[Dahobbs 17089]

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). 

[Brisketexan 103147]

1 minute ago, Frank Drebin said:

You disagree with the Second Circuit's opinion?  Why?

How about "it doesn't matter."  If a protester was arrested for violating the "no-mask" policy, then discuss that protester.  Shutting down an entire protest because some protesters MIGHT don a mask?  That means you can shut down all protests, every time, about everything.  Which is not what the law supports, at all.

And of course, the open statements by State leadership, including the man who issued the orders to the DPS, that the actions of the authorities here were because of the CONTENT of the speech, not the CONDUCT of the protesters, fucking sinks the whole goddamned thing.

[Dahobbs 17089]

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.

 

 

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. 

[HenryJames 64901]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Shutting down an entire protest because some protesters MIGHT don a mask? 

[wildcat09 28387]

Again, y’all just need to search for posts with the word “speech” made by Johnny Sack, and see his complete about face on it here (not so cleverly disguised as simply adhering to first amendment precedent), to realize he’s completely full of shit and simply trolling y'all to get a rise out of you.

[Brisketexan 103147]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Again, y’all just need to search for posts with the word “speech” made by Johnny Sack, and see his complete about face on it here (not so cleverly disguised as simply adhering to first amendment precedent), to realize he’s completely full of shit and simply trolling y'all to get a rise out of you.

His favor/disfavor of speech is just like that of our State leadership: entirely, 100% dependent on the content.

Right wing speech?  Everything must be allowed.  Everything.  No matter how hateful, purposefully intimidating, or violent.

Anything he deems "liberal" speech?  He'll never find a skullcracking crush of a protest that he doesn't support.

That is how fascists work.

[Asithappens 974]

Pro-Palestinian? 

You mean support for the group that cheered in the streets after the 9/11 attack? 

Support for the group that was chanting death to America (iirc up in Michigan)? 

I can see not liking what Israel has done (I don't), but don't kid yourselves. Palestinians would kill lbgtq's (and jews) in a heartbeat if they had their way. Talk about stupid fucking progressive kids. This knee-jerk response to support the underdog needs to be examined. 

But the handling of the campus protests was heavy-handed. 

Edited April 25 by Asithappens

[lucious leftfoot 126]

I'd like to remind everyone upset here and wanting to withhold money that your money spent on football tickets and other things such as merchandise supports the University President and BOR. Be mindful of the dollars and attention you're giving the University. If you feel leadership's values don't align with yours then make the right move and vote with your wallets. 

[Skipper 5952]

17 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I'll have to disagree with you there as both a UT-Austin alumnus (M.S. 1999) and the parent of a college kid. I'm fucking pissed about what happened on the 40 acres yesterday and won't give a dime to The University until Hartzell is gone. And, if I heard about riot police assaulting students on the campus of my daughter's college, I'd be livid and call for the head of her university's president.

I said 90% not 100%.  And I didn't expect most cloak room posters to be in the 90%.  Just stating reality.

[Pato del Muerto 51914]

Hartzell’s letter also appears to ascribe a meaning to the word occupy that is above and beyond the generally accepted meaning of being in the space. And using the term as sometimes to imply “without authority to do so.”  Then acting on the implied meaning prior to any actual rules being violated. 

“Nobody is allowed to occupy campus” is such a red herring.

 

[Blotto 23227]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Again, y’all just need to search for posts with the word “speech” made by Johnny Sack, and see his complete about face on it here (not so cleverly disguised as simply adhering to first amendment precedent), to realize he’s completely full of shit and simply trolling y'all to get a rise out of you.

eh...too CR

Edited April 25 by Blotto

[hayden_horn 11311]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Hartzell’s letter also appears to ascribe a meaning to the word occupy that is above and beyond the generally accepted meaning of being in the space. And using the term as sometimes to imply “without authority to do so.”  Then acting on the implied meaning prior to any actual rules being violated. 

“Nobody is allowed to occupy campus” is such a red herring.

 

and we will have dps occupy campus until the previous occupiers deoccupy. if you don't dps gonna go riot police. in austin, the general rule is riot police = police have arrived to start the riot

[Beau Vine 53625]

18 hours ago, blacklab said:

obviously my moderation is worse crime against humanity than the holocaust.

Do you have any idea how annoying it is to get off a plane and have a dozen reported posts from both sides complaining about the other putting CR in DT?

 

Stolen from the AI aggy thread:

[bolverk 28886]

2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

I said 90% not 100%.  And I didn't expect most cloak room posters to be in the 90%.  Just stating reality.

I strongly disagree with your imagined ratio and would bet that far more than 10% "give a fuck" about how the protest was mishandled yesterday. It's not CR to be concerned with what happened; it's just reality.

[HenryJames 64901]

5 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Stolen from the AI aggy thread:

They nailed @immamac, imo.

[Rex Kramer 1170]

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I strongly disagree with your imagined ratio and would bet that far more than 10% "give a fuck" about how the protest was mishandled yesterday. It's not CR to be concerned with what happened; it's just reality.

I don’t really know what happened. Neither do you. I know that if a group I supported were arrested and ultimately released without charge because of police being heavy handed or because of campus administration / police being scared of a PR disaster, I’d get over it very quickly. 

I believe more alumni are more perturbed with the messages the naive protestors were sending than anything Abbott or Hartzell or police did.  I don’t think the comparison is close. 

[Frank Drebin 5359]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Again, y’all just need to search for posts with the word “speech” made by Johnny Sack, and see his complete about face on it here (not so cleverly disguised as simply adhering to first amendment precedent), to realize he’s completely full of shit and simply trolling y'all to get a rise out of you.

Maybe you could post an example that is hypocritical to what I have posted about first amendment time, place and manner restrictions in this thread?

These folks can say what they want so long as they aren’t making imminent threats of violence or inciting imminent violence.  My understanding is they haven’t been shown to do either here.  But the issue Hartzell took was with time, place and manner.  Which can be enforceable if content neutral.