Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Disruption of a pro-Palestine meeting at UT by non-university affiliated gentlemen, one of whom says he's going back to Israel to kill Arabs. Scroll to the end for the video.
 

“OUTSIDE AGITATORS!”

That’s what we’re supposed to say, right? These pro-Israel, anti Palestinian protests have to be driven from our campus with brutal violence because OUTSIDE AGITATORS! I’m just keeping the standard.
Posted
34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


“OUTSIDE AGITATORS!”

That’s what we’re supposed to say, right? These pro-Israel, anti Palestinian protests have to be driven from our campus with brutal violence because OUTSIDE AGITATORS! I’m just keeping the standard.

well, you are right to do so. We should not tolerate hate and lawlessness on campus by anyone, and certainly not by outside forces who are bringing their political agendas onto our campus.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
On 5/2/2024 at 10:48 PM, MissingInAction said:

I dated a jew for a couple of years. I yelled at her dumbass brother a lot.

It is pronounced Dumas. Like the town in the panhandle right?

Posted
2 hours ago, Mikey4 said:

well, you are right to do so. We should not tolerate hate and lawlessness on campus by anyone, and certainly not by outside forces who are bringing their political agendas onto our campus.

Well, except for that detail that the public can legally gather on campus.

Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, except for that detail that the public can legally gather on campus.

They can.  And that’s a good thing.  They just have to follow rules.  If they don’t, they will be removed and arrested.  They can challenge the rules in court if they want to.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, except for that detail that the public can legally gather on campus.

You missed the part where I specifically limited my comment to people exhibiting hate or lawlessness. Unless you are OK with the public assembling on campus to engage in illegal conduct or to say hateful things to or about minority groups.

Posted
1 minute ago, Mikey4 said:

You missed the part where I specifically limited my comment to people exhibiting hate or lawlessness. Unless you are OK with the public assembling on campus to engage in illegal conduct or to say hateful things to or about minority groups.

The "outside group" delineation is what bothers me.  Hate speech and lawlessness should not be tolerated on campus, period.  The affiliated status of those protesting (hateful or not) matters not one fucking whit, but here we go, it's code for "furriners".

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

The "outside group" delineation is what bothers me.  Hate speech and lawlessness should not be tolerated on campus, period.  The affiliated status of those protesting (hateful or not) matters not one fucking whit, but here we go, it's code for "furriners".

Legally, you are right. But practically, I am much more skeptical of someone who has no apparent reason to be on campus in the first place. if you’re not a stakeholder of the university -- not a student, not a professor, not an employee, not an alum, not there to attend some official function, etc. -- then you may be less likely to care about following university policy. But yes, I agree, hate, and lawlessness have no place on campus, regardless of the source.

Posted
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The "outside group" delineation is what bothers me.  Hate speech and lawlessness should not be tolerated on campus, period.  The affiliated status of those protesting (hateful or not) matters not one fucking whit, but here we go, it's code for "furriners".

Hate speech should be tolerated on a public university campus.  We shouldn’t be regulating content we don’t like outside of actual threats of imminent violence so long as the speaker is following the time, place and manner restrictions.  
 

Hate speech isn’t illegal and never should be.  Let the idiots spew their hate. And shun them accordingly.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Mikey4 said:

well, you are right to do so. We should not tolerate hate and lawlessness on campus by anyone, and certainly not by outside forces who are bringing their political agendas onto our campus.

The campus free speech bill was literally passed in response to ATM students refusing to allow a neonazi speak at their campus. It was designed to hold the door open for hateful speech and a political agenda onto campuses. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Hate speech isn’t illegal and never should be.  Let the idiots spew their hate. And shun them accordingly.  

That's not exactly true.  Targeted threats of violence can be prosecuted.  This is what I'm referring to.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The campus free speech bill was literally passed in response to ATM students refusing to allow a neonazi speak at their campus. It was designed to hold the door open for hateful speech and a political agenda onto campuses. 

Great. I oppose Nazis and do not want them on campus.

Posted
15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's not exactly true.  Targeted threats of violence can be prosecuted.  This is what I'm referring to.

What most people think of hate speech is a hell of a lot broader than targeted threats of violence.  I mean I said in my post you partially quoted that much.  
 

Hate speech is legal.  Threatening imminent violence isn’t.  

General hate speech has to be legal.  Because it’s the only type of speech that really needs first amendment protection.  I consider from the river to the sea or death to Israel hate speech.  Doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t have the absolute right to chant that on a college campus.  Even generally chanting death to Jews is protected.
 

 In contrast, “I’m going to kill that Jew over there in the blue hat” or “Let’s go bomb that Jewish fraternity house” would be illegal.  

Posted
26 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

Great. I oppose Nazis and do not want them on campus.

The bill that was passed allows them on campus though. Along with people holding signs saying “women are property” and yell at students walking by going to class, calling female students whores and sluts and male students who do don’t look sufficiently masculine to them homophobic slurs

Posted
16 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

The bill that was passed allows them on campus though. Along with people holding signs saying “women are property” and yell at students walking by going to class, calling female students whores and sluts and male students who do don’t look sufficiently masculine to them homophobic slurs

Thank you for telling me that.

Posted
7 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

i-dont-believe-you-whatever.gif

What a bizarre thing to post. Is that supposed to be funny? Because it sounds like you’re accusing me of sympathizing with Nazis, which is an outrageously offensive, personal insult and is not humorous in the least. 

I haven’t called you, or anyone else on here, an anti-semite for sympathizing with these protesters, and I would appreciate the reciprocal courtesy of people not accusing me of hideous things based on my disagreement with the protesters. Those accusations are not based in reality and are not constructive.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Mikey4 said:

What a bizarre thing to post. Is that supposed to be funny? Because it sounds like you’re accusing me of sympathizing with Nazis, which is an outrageously offensive, personal insult and is not humorous in the least. 

I haven’t called you, or anyone else on here, an anti-semite for sympathizing with these protesters, and I would appreciate the reciprocal courtesy of people not accusing me of hideous things based on my disagreement with the protesters. Those accusations are not based in reality and are not constructive.

 

You’re right. I confused you with some of the fascist dipshits who post here. The implication was unwarranted. My apologies. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Rode through campus around 12:15 or so, and checked out the protest for about 20 minutes, but it was pretty uneventful. There were a fuckton of cops and DPS, but they seemed content to just draw their OT pay. Headed south on San Jac and passed maybe 100 people with Israeli flags headed towards the capital, so I swung by there and again, not much going on. I continued on with my ride and by the time I swung back north through campus at around 2, the whole damn thing was over. I'm not sure why the coppers decided to bust up the last couple of protests, but not this one. I guess nobody wanted to fuck up their cinco de mayo plans for later. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Rode through campus around 12:15 or so, and checked out the protest for about 20 minutes, but it was pretty uneventful. There were a fuckton of cops and DPS, but they seemed content to just draw their OT pay. Headed south on San Jac and passed maybe 100 people with Israeli flags headed towards the capital, so I swung by there and again, not much going on. I continued on with my ride and by the time I swung back north through campus at around 2, the whole damn thing was over. I'm not sure why the coppers decided to bust up the last couple of protests, but not this one. I guess nobody wanted to fuck up their cinco de mayo plans for later. 

Any sex tents?

Posted (edited)
On 5/4/2024 at 1:47 PM, Frank Drebin said:

What most people think of hate speech is a hell of a lot broader than targeted threats of violence.  I mean I said in my post you partially quoted that much.  
 

Hate speech is legal.  Threatening imminent violence isn’t.  

General hate speech has to be legal.  Because it’s the only type of speech that really needs first amendment protection.  I consider from the river to the sea or death to Israel hate speech.  Doesn’t mean someone shouldn’t have the absolute right to chant that on a college campus.  Even generally chanting death to Jews is protected.
 

 In contrast, “I’m going to kill that Jew over there in the blue hat” or “Let’s go bomb that Jewish fraternity house” would be illegal.  

Are we talking just with regard to government prosecution or getting kicked out of school? Because monkey man just got kicked out (rightfully) but I haven't heard of many from the river to the sea people being kicked out (rightfully). Actually, I'm not sure about monkey man if it was just the frat or the frat and the school.

Edited by Bevo
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Are we talking just with regard to government prosecution or getting kicked out of school? Because monkey man just got kicked out (rightfully) but I haven't heard of many from the river to the sea people being kicked out (rightfully). Actually, I'm not sure about monkey man if it was just the frat or the frat and the school.

I don' think either him or the death to Israel types should be kicked out of a public school for protected speech.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I don' think either him or the death to Israel types should be kicked out of a public school for protected speech.

Do you think all participants should have to be identifiable? I know when going through airport security, they make everyone reveal their faces and it doesn't seem like too much of a burden.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Do you think all participants should have to be identifiable? I know when going through airport security, they make everyone reveal their faces and it doesn't seem like too much of a burden.

Yes.  No masks, disguises or face coverings when protesting is a very good policy.  

Posted
15 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Yes.  No masks, disguises or face coverings when protesting is a very good policy.  

No.  That's a terrible take.  If I can wear a mask anywhere in public, I can wear a mask while protesting.  Fucking hell.

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

No.  That's a terrible take.  If I can wear a mask anywhere in public, I can wear a mask while protesting.  Fucking hell.

Do you wear one to the bank, convenience store, or liquor store presently?

CHIEF

Edited by CHIEF
autocorrect
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

The First Amendment doesn't say that the right to free speech requires the speaker to reveal his or her identity, and requiring people to reveal their identity when protesting could chill protected speech. As long as the speaker is obeying the law and campus policy, I don’t see the problem with masks.

If it crosses over into illegal conduct, then the speaker can and should be arrested and identified at that point. The threat of arrest should be real enough to serve as an incentive to keep the protest within the boundaries of the law. You do that, you can remain anonymous. You cross the line into violating the law or campus policy, and your shit goes on blast.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Are we talking just with regard to government prosecution or getting kicked out of school? Because monkey man just got kicked out (rightfully) but I haven't heard of many from the river to the sea people being kicked out (rightfully). Actually, I'm not sure about monkey man if it was just the frat or the frat and the school.

As far as I'm aware, he was only kicked out of his frat, not the school. I don't think a university (government entity) has the right to kick him out based on the content of his speech alone.

Edit: There might be some loophole for racial harassment since he targeted his speech toward a specific individual. I don't know, however, if his speech crossed that threshold because I don't know where that line lies.

Edited by bolverk
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Do you wear one to the bank, convenience store, or liquor store presently?

CHIEF

The correct question is, am I legally allowed to?

I know this is difficult for you, CHIEF

Posted
4 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

The First Amendment doesn't say that the right to free speech requires the speaker to reveal his or her identity, and requiring people to reveal their identity when protesting could chill protected speech. As long as the speaker is obeying the law and campus policy, I don’t see the problem with masks.

If it crosses over into illegal conduct, then the speaker can and should be arrested and identified at that point. The threat of arrest should be real enough to serve as an incentive to keep the protest within the boundaries of the law. You do that, you can remain anonymous. You cross the line into violating the law or campus policy, and your shit goes on blast.

Mask bans are very likely constitutional.  I think they are wise. People protesting behave better when you can see their faces.  Also aids in identifying them.  And then convicting them in front of a jury should they destroy property or commit violence.  Courts have long held bans on disguises are constitutional in KKK cases.  
 

https://casetext.com/case/church-of-the-american-knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-v-kerik

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Mask restrictions were legal and the norm for banks pre covid. 
 

Three years later: Masks in branches, once outlawed, are here to stay. One ironic effect from the COVID-19 pandemic was that banks and credit unions, which historically forbade customers from wearing masks in their branches for security reasons, started requiring them.

https://www.americanbanker.com/creditunions/news/three-years-later-masks-in-branches-once-outlawed-are-here-to-stay#:~:text=Credit unions-,Three years later%3A Masks in branches%2C once,outlawed%2C are here to stay&text=One ironic effect from the,security reasons%2C started requiring them.

Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The correct question is, am I legally allowed to?

I know this is difficult for you, CHIEF

A prohibition on masks while protesting is very likely enforceable and does not violate the first amendment.  Texas and other schools prohibit them.  If challenged in court, I’d predict the 5th circuit will enforce.  As would the SCOTUS.  Based on the second circuit’s reasoning in the 2004 KKK case.  We will see.  You may disagree.  But that’s my prediction. As far as I know, U or Texas’ mask ban for protests hasn’t been challenged yet. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How about mask mandates?

I don’t really see a constitutional issue regarding whether they are enforceable.  Can you identify the constitutional provision someone might argue they violate?

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Mask bans are very likely constitutional.  I think they are wise. People protesting behave better when you can see their faces.  Also aids in identifying them.  And then convicting them in front of a jury should they destroy property or commit violence.  Courts have long held bans on disguises are constitutional in KKK cases.  
 

https://casetext.com/case/church-of-the-american-knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-v-kerik

That surprises me, but the First Amendment is not my practice area, and I haven't studied it closely in nearly 20 years, so I guess I’m out of the loop. Even if the state can prohibit people from wearing masks when they protest, I don’t think it should for the reasons I gave. I completely share your concern about protesters breaking the law. But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is also a difficult set of facts for me, and perhaps for you as well, because I disagree with these protesters and their message, and I would be personally happy to see them identified. But it’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, my kids or grandkids or great grandkids will need to protest government tyranny while remaining anonymous for their own safety, and the law should be set up to allow them to do that. 

Edited by Mikey4
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

That surprises me, but the First Amendment is not my practice area, and I haven't studied it closely in nearly 20 years, so I guess I’m out of the loop. Even if the state can prohibit people from wearing masks when they protest, I don’t think it should for the reasons I gave. I completely share your concern about protesters breaking the law. But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is also a difficult set of facts for me, and perhaps for you as well, because I disagree with these protesters and their message, and I would be personally happy to see them identified. But it’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, my kids or grandkids or great grandkids will need to protest government tyranny while remaining anonymous for their own safety, and the law should be set up to allow them to do that. 

I don’t have a problem with not allowing the KKK to march with hoods.  For the same reason I have no problem with these protesters being prohibited from covering all or parts of their faces.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I don’t have a problem with not allowing the KKK to march with hoods.  For the same reason I have no problem with these protesters being prohibited from covering all or parts of their faces.  

So you have a problem with sunglasses?

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

That surprises me, but the First Amendment is not my practice area, and I haven't studied it closely in nearly 20 years, so I guess I’m out of the loop. Even if the state can prohibit people from wearing masks when they protest, I don’t think it should for the reasons I gave. I completely share your concern about protesters breaking the law. But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is also a difficult set of facts for me, and perhaps for you as well, because I disagree with these protesters and their message, and I would be personally happy to see them identified. But it’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, my kids or grandkids or great grandkids will need to protest government tyranny while remaining anonymous for their own safety, and the law should be set up to allow them to do that. 

Couple of things here.

First, But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is way easier said than done. Protests are typically large groups, and the larger they get the greater the chance for criminal activity. Beyond that, when the start to grow beyond a given area and start to expand (BLM or Occupy) there are people all over the place.

Even IF they are not huge and spread out, they can easily scatter when the police show up, if they are even around by the time the police arrive. They usually aren't.

Going with the angle of let of where masks until a crime is committed glosses over the reality of the situation. It's a nice tidy little idea, but it just doesn't work. 

As far as your children or grand children go, anyone can get on the slippery slope of for the children. I could come up with a complete list of why we should abolish the entire Bill of Rights, "for the children". 

It's quiet possible future generations will face dangers given laws at they sit today, in fact, it's nearly guaranteed. However, we can not govern the country based on those fears alone, be they legitimate or propaganda. It often leads to terrible laws and usurpation of rights. Sometimes, and frankly more time than not, in the extreme.

Want clear proof? War on Drugs and Patriot Act.

 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted

I don’t get what protestors need to be afraid of that they wouldn’t show their faces.

Free speech in and of itself can have consequences.. You like seeing people banned on this site because of their words. You may or may not like potential employers viewing your social media.

If you believe enough in your words and your actions, you should stand by them.

There is a reason that the KKL wore masks. Should masks have been allowed? How about when there were many KKK with important positions in society?

Posted
On 5/4/2024 at 11:04 AM, InkaUtexas said:

It is pronounced Dumas. Like the town in the panhandle right?

image.png.f36ae46117e9883cbce6d2f9cf309d67.png

1 hour ago, Mikey4 said:

The First Amendment doesn't say that the right to free speech requires the speaker to reveal his or her identity,

... it also doesn't say that the right to free speech requires the speaker to conceal his or her identity.

1 hour ago, Mikey4 said:

If it crosses over into illegal conduct, then the speaker can and should be arrested and identified at that point. The threat of arrest should be real enough to serve as an incentive to keep the protest within the boundaries of the law. You do that, you can remain anonymous. You cross the line into violating the law or campus policy, and your shit goes on blast.

and then what? 

It crosses over to illegal conduct ... the speakers shit went blast (sorry about the mess),  ... but its all good, we arrested the speaker. 

35 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

That surprises me, but the First Amendment is not my practice area, and I haven't studied it closely in nearly 20 years, so I guess I’m out of the loop. Even if the state can prohibit people from wearing masks when they protest, I don’t think it should for the reasons I gave. I completely share your concern about protesters breaking the law. But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is also a difficult set of facts for me, and perhaps for you as well, because I disagree with these protesters and their message, and I would be personally happy to see them identified. But it’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, my kids or grandkids or great grandkids will need to protest government tyranny while remaining anonymous for their own safety, and the law should be set up to allow them to do that. 

It’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, someones kids or grandkids or great grandkids will want protection from anonymous tyrants who jeopardize the safety of innocent people, and the law should have been set up to allow the government to do that. 

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s jimmyjazz. He hasn’t taken off his mask since February ‘20

For some it is better that they keep their mask on. I can imagine there were some rude awakenings after some masquerade balls.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

OU guys were kicked out, and this guy has been kicked out. Of course the university can kick him out for any poor behavior. You cannot be serious. 

He has a hell of a case if he was kicked out of school. From the river to the sea and other antisemitic comments are just as offensive. Why single him out from all the other racist shit that is going on?

Posted
8 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

OU guys were kicked out, and this guy has been kicked out. Of course the university can kick him out for any poor behavior. You cannot be serious. 

I am serious, but I didn't realize that a couple of them were expelled from school. A very quick search led me to a wiki entry on it, where their expulsion is called into question on constitutional grounds, and several experts agree with my layman's opinion. I may or may not be right, but my initial thoughts about the Ole Miss frat rat are not as ridiculous as you make it out to be.

University of Oklahoma president David Boren ordered the expulsion of the two students who led the chant, Michael Levi Pettit[12] and Parker Rice.[12] Through two letters addressed to them, Boren justified their expulsions on the grounds that they "played a leadership role" in creating "an extremely hostile learning environment".[13][14][7] The action taken by the university was based on school's Student Rights & Responsibilities Code.[15][16][17] Rice and Pettit, both Dallas natives, enrolled in the Austin and Dallas branches of the University of Texas, respectively.

The LA Times reported that Boren appeared to be alluding to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination at universities receiving federal money.[17] However, the expulsions may have been a violation of the students' first amendment rights.[17] First Amendment law specialist and UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh asserted that President Boren's actions were unconstitutional.[18] Oklahoma State University media law associate professor Joey Senat stated that the chant was offensive but is still protected free speech.[19] Glenn Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee, expressed the opinion that as a former U.S. senator, Boren should have known that the university was breaking the law in expelling the two students.[20] A Washington Post article reported that a Sigma Chi fraternity successfully challenged similar action taken against them by George Mason University in 1992.[21]

 

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Yep. And the majority of regular mask wearers don’t need to wear them, even in congested places like airports and planes. 

 

What is interesting is the exceptions. I have a cousin who is on immunosuppressants and is saying that we can't visit unless we wear masks. So when she goes out in public these days, she has to wear a mask. The easy answer is that she shouldn't be attending rallies. The hard question is whether requiring her to remove the mask violates her constitutional rights. I personally would say the rights of the many takes precedent over the rights of the few.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...