Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Whatever. Their lives at OU were over.  Boren probably knew they weren’t going to litigate his ruling, which surely violated handbook policy and as stated Title VI of the CRA. Boren had a reasonable, successful approach. 

As I said in my first post on this topic:

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.

There may have been a discrimination loophole for free speech in the OU frat case, too, since it was a fraternity-sponsored event where an African American student could reasonably assume they'd be discriminated against on racial grounds from joining that fraternity. Maybe that would be sufficient grounds for getting around First Amendment concerns. I don't know.

What I do know is that I'm generally against government curtailment of constitutionally guaranteed free speech. There's a line you've got to cross first, and I'm not sure the Ole Miss fuckhead crossed it. I would, however, like to see him face non-governmental consequences.

Posted

Statement from Hartzell:

https://view.texasexesemail.com/?qs=2c235ad9a51b947a9ef69b7ad2cfbab6d308e668f78b43aa2c6c013ca525ad61cc74fff91b6ea10656257ff8d70725dad4d5fc34cffb85c2112b6186e4222306e04e91ac25048b01706d544aae413c7bd128fcd976dad2e9

 

UT president: It wasn't a protest. It was criminal trespassing.

There is a long, proud history of protest at The University of Texas at Austin. I am grateful to work at a university where students, faculty and staff care deeply enough about community, national and world events to rally around those causes.

Demonstrations play a role on campuses such as ours. A university, after all, encourages students to discover and develop points of view, and to express them. These activities challenge the ways we think and feed a campus’ dynamic atmosphere. UT students have held dozens of peaceful protests, largely without incident, throughout this academic year.

We also have a responsibility to keep the campus and its people safe, and to allow our teaching and research to continue. Our rules provide structure for this responsibility and set up conditions for the co-existence of protests, safety and education. We are constantly reviewing those rules, improving on them, and making sure they protect everyone—those who are protesting and those who are learning, working or visiting campus. These rules also protect free speech, and enforcing them uniformly and consistently keeps us from discriminating against any particular point of view.

For decades, groups with an incredible array of differing views have shared a respect for our rules. These students, though energized by a conflict or cause, have nevertheless worked with us and found permissible ways to express themselves without putting others at risk.

Regrettably, protesters, including many not affiliated with UT, have refused in recent weeks to accept these rules and processes. It pains me deeply that even though the organizers declared their intent to break our rules, they rebuffed numerous attempts by our Office of the Dean of Students to meet beforehand. The on-campus encampments they said they would establish, and then did, were clearly prohibited by our rules, including a prohibition against camping that became effective in 2012. They also threatened to effectively disrupt the education of more than 52,000 students and to set an alarming precedent for anyone seeking to establish encampments in the future. Demonstrators were repeatedly urged, then ordered, to take down the encampments and disperse.

At every step, they refused. At that point, regardless of anyone’s opinion, this was no longer a traditional assembly or protest. By the plain language of our rules, it was criminal trespassing.

Some have asked why Texas Department of Public Safety officers were on our campus during the protests. This is a fair question with a clear answer: They were protecting the safety of our campus community by assisting the University of Texas Police Department. Our police department is outstanding, but its size is limited. We knew—as did the demonstrators—that it was unlikely to be adequately staffed for what was coming.

We have watched with concern as disruptive and illegal encampments have sprung up on other university campuses, and we took seriously the pre-protest threats—voiced by organizers and others with no affiliation with UT—to “occupy” our own. As university leaders, we recognized that at other schools, encampments have preceded further and more serious disruptions, safety risks, injuries, and ultimately, more severe and dangerous police intervention. Also, if we allowed encampments in this instance, it would be nearly impossible to stop encampments from other groups in the future without facing challenges of chilling speech or viewpoint discrimination.

It is difficult—for all of us—to see serious police presence and arrests on our campus. It is worse, though, to see a handful of people flout rules meant to protect everyone. It is worse still to see that disorder escalate from encampments to occupations, as has happened at Columbia University and UCLA. And it is terrifying to contemplate where such occupations might end—and who might get hurt.

We share the sincere and deep concerns of many Longhorns about the lives lost in Gaza and Israel. Their human reactions—and their need to express them in hope of a better world—show the importance of our traditions of protest and assembly.

Still, UT is a community. Our foremost responsibility has always been to keep that community safe.

We want to work with protesters—within our rules and laws—so they can express themselves. We need them to work with us to fulfill the responsibility we share.

Jay C. Hartzell is president of The University of Texas at Austin. Read more

The University has also published an FAQ about the recent protests, which can be found here.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
https://news.utexas.edu/2024/05/03/frequently-asked-questions-about-recent-protests/

Please see below for questions and answers regarding recent campus protest activity and the University’s response.

Statements from the University since April 24:

Wednesday, April 24
UT Division of Student Affairs Statement
President Hartzell Message: Today’s Events

Thursday, April 25
President Hartzell Message: Balancing Speech, Safety and Our Mission

Monday, April 29
University Statement Regarding Today’s Ongoing Events on Campus (afternoon)
University Statement Regarding Today’s Protest Events (evening)

Tuesday, April 30
University Statement Regarding Arrests from Monday’s Protests and Confiscation of Weapons

Is peaceful protest allowed at UT Austin?
Is peaceful protest allowed at UT Austin?

UT Austin actively supports free speech and peaceful protests, which happen regularly on campus surrounding various issues. Since October 2023, community members have hosted more than a dozen pro-Palestinian free speech events and protests that have been largely without incident. Protests, however, must comply with Institutional Rules and policies about time, place and manner, one of which is that no one may create or attempt to create an encampment. When a protest violates Institutional Rules, protesters are told to disperse.

What makes the recent protests on April 24 and April 29 different from others held throughout the year?

Most protests on the UT Austin campus, including those held since October related to events in the Middle East, have complied with Institutional Rules that exist to keep the entire campus community safe and protect our operational integrity. On April 24, those planning the event expressly stated their event was intended to disrupt our operations and to “follow in the footsteps” of protesters at other universities where those protesters successfully accomplished that same goal. Their promotion of their intended event included planned activities and conduct in violation of our policies and rules. Also, on both April 24 and April 29, as they indicated they intended to do, protestors violated numerous Institutional Rules and policies — most notably, setting up encampments on the South Lawn. In addition, protesters deliberately provoked officers, stated their intent to not comply, and physically and verbally harassed our staff. Officers were headbutted, spit on, and verbally assaulted by protesters. Some protesters attempted to startle a DPS horse, and others threw horse excrement at officers. Police car tires were slashed.

Which Institutional Rules have been violated?

The following violations of Institutional Rules and policies were associated with the April 24 and April 29 protests:

  • Erecting tents (HOP 8-1050)
  • Attempting to establish an encampment (HOP 8-1050)
  • Unauthorized use of amplified sound (Sec. 13–801)
  • Unauthorized use of tables on the South Lawn (Sec. 13-600)
  • Use of face coverings to conceal identity (Sec. 13-105)
  • Failure to identify (Sec. 11-402)
  • Failure to comply with directives related to the above referenced (Sec. 11-402)
  • Shoving staff (HOP 8-1010)
  • Items brought that could be used as weapons (e.g., guns, shields, objects intended for throwing, mallets) (Sec. 11-402)
  • Failure to follow city, state and federal laws (e.g., criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, destruction of government property, assault on public servant, obstructing a roadway)
Why were people arrested?

Arrests can be made when protesters repeatedly violate Institutional Rules and refuse to comply with University directives. When an individual refuses to comply, they are criminally trespassing.
During the protests on April 24 and April 29, protesters were arrested for trespassing after they were told several times by UT staff and law enforcement to disperse from the protest site. UT has consistently said that encampments are not allowed, and the City of Austin also prohibits public camping. When protesters set up encampments in violation of policy and then refuse to take those encampments down and disperse, law enforcement can make arrests for criminal trespassing.

Why was the Texas Department of Public Safety brought onto campus to support UTPD?

The University requested assistance from DPS because, prior to the April 24 protest, the protesters indicated that they wanted to mimic what has happened at Columbia University and other universities. Based on the size of the groups that have protested elsewhere, the University expected a group too large for the UT Police Department to respond to on its own, if that were to become necessary.

Were there any warnings to protestors before they began to act?

Leading up to the April 24 protest, organizers expressed an intent to “follow in the footsteps” of demonstrations occurring at Columbia University, Rutgers-New Brunswick, Yale and elsewhere. The event called for actions that violated our Institutional Rules and policies and was part of a national campaign by a group not affiliated with UT Austin. That group, Students for Justice in Palestine, is explicitly seeking to disrupt university operations nationwide and create campus encampments. A UT-affiliated student group, the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC), was also involved in planning the protest. The Dean of Students’ Office (DoS) reached out to the PSC several times in the weeks leading up to the April 24 protest, and, after agreeing to a meeting, PSC members chose to no-show. DoS also sent a letter informing PSC that the event could not proceed as planned because of its stated intent to disrupt and therefore break Institutional Rules. The DoS offered support for an event within University rules.

On April 23, University staff provided a notice to the student group that their event could not proceed as planned. The group did not respond to indicate that they would adjust their plans to be within the rules. Instead, they showed up on campus on April 24 and immediately began to proceed with conduct (e.g., amplified sound) that demonstrated their intent to ignore Institutional Rules. At that point, University staff directed the group multiple times that they needed to disperse. Instead of complying, several in attendance ignored the directive and some stated they would not comply. At that point, University staff sought assistance from UTPD and other law enforcement.

On April 29, protesters set up encampments, and University staff told them several times that they had to disperse because their encampments violated Institutional Rules. Law enforcement became involved when protesters refused to remove encampment materials and leave the premises.

Why was the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) suspended?

The Dean of Students (DoS) suspended PSC for violating and openly advocating for others to violate Institutional Rules and policies, as well as failing to comply with the DoS attempts to intervene and adhere to direction from law enforcement.

Are all the protesters affiliated with UT Austin?

Of the 79 people arrested on April 29, 45 had no affiliation with UT Austin. Of the 55 people arrested on April 24, 26 had no affiliation with UT Austin.

At what point did officers decide to make an arrest?

Protesters participating in demonstrations that violate Institutional Rules and policies — such as demonstrations that include encampments — have been given numerous chances to comply with our Institutional Rules to disperse without arrest. Those who refused those numerous chances have been subject to arrest for trespassing. Officers have made every attempt to arrest protesters peacefully. If protesters followed the University’s time, place and manner provisions for protest, then they would not be directed to disperse and would be able to engage in their expressive activities on campus.

Were any weapons found during the protests?

To date, from protesters, weapons have been confiscated in the form of guns, buckets of large rocks, bricks, steel-enforced wood planks, mallets, and chains. Guns, specifically, were confiscated by Austin Police Department officers, and these weapons were not in a holster. UTPD is currently reviewing the evidence to determine if additional arrests should be made or further charges filed for individuals bringing guns on campus without a license (Texas Penal Code, Section 46.03).

Why did some officers use pepper spray and flash bangs?

During the protest on April 29, protestors prevented law enforcement from doing their jobs. The protesters repeatedly encroached on and attempted to push back barriers formed by police officers to protect public safety, refused to move out of the street, and were blocking official law enforcement vehicles that were attempting to leave campus with protestors who were arrested, which is a violation of the Texas Penal Code, Section 42.03.

What consequences do arrested students face from UT Austin?

It is first important to distinguish the campus conduct process from the legal process. Separate from any discipline a student might face from the criminal justice system, a student arrested for criminal trespassing or other rules violations is also subject to student conduct action based on University rules. The administrative process is designed as an educational intervention, supporting due process and evidence-based sanctions/activities, and providing accountability. The criminal justice system process can run parallel with any student conduct action.

Further explanation about our student conduct process can be found here.

The University historically does not initiate the student conduct process with students just before or during final exams, to avoid having an impact on academic performance. We want to be proportionate in our response, and it takes time to gather facts and conduct investigations. Based on both factors, no conduct actions have been issued related to events of the past week.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Items that could be used as a weapon?  So any student with a pencil should be arrested.  All geology students should be arrested for having rock hammers.....

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Items that could be used as a weapon?  So any student with a pencil should be arrested.  All geology students should be arrested for having rock hammers.....

 

 

I suspect it's mainly about guns.  You cannot carry a firearm on campus unless you have a permit and you keep it concealed. If you have a gun on campus and it is either (i) not concealed (regardless of permit) or (ii) concealed with no permit, it's a felony.

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

I suspect it's mainly about guns.  You cannot carry a firearm on campus unless you have a permit and you keep it concealed. If you have a gun on campus and it is either (i) not concealed (regardless of permit) or (ii) concealed with no permit, it's a felony.

Quote

Items brought that could be used as weapons (e.g., guns, shields, objects intended for throwing, mallets)

This is both explicit in the inclusion of mallets, a far less lethal alternative to a rock hammer, and rocks (which could be intended for throwing).   Clearly those geologists and their students are a menace and need to be arrested.  They are well armed with both and keep an inordinate number of rocks around.   Heck, I bet if you search their homes, those fuckfaces have rocks in their homes too maybe even boxes of them.    

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Nivek said:

This is both explicit in the inclusion of mallets, a far less lethal alternative to a rock hammer, and rocks (which could be intended for throwing).   Clearly those geologists and their students are a menace and need to be arrested.  They are well armed with both and keep an inordinate number of rocks around.   Heck, I bet if you search their homes, those fuckfaces have rocks in their homes too maybe even boxes of them.    

 

If someone is arrested for that, they can make a strong argument they had the mallet for impromptu wood working.

Posted

Just saw that Greg Fenves needs support as well. He is at Emory and dealing with the same stuff from a faction of faculty that Hartzell faces.

Posted
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Heck, I bet if you search their homes, those fuckfaces have rocks in their homes too maybe even boxes of them.    

Kam Patterson need steer clear of all future protests not that he's a regular at the Mother Ship in Austin

BjqkM3.gif

Posted
On 5/5/2024 at 9:24 PM, Frank Drebin said:

Only cowards need to hide their faces.  The KKK were cowards.  So are these pussies who hide their faces while protesting.  

He says while posting from behind his second pseudonymous internet handle, because he got a little too spicy too often under his first one. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Just saw that Greg Fenves needs support as well. He is at Emory and dealing with the same stuff from a faction of faculty that Hartzell faces.

Has to be even more challenging for Fenves in that it's a private school and his dad was minutes away from being exterminated in a holocaust prison camp.  

Saw Jay yesterday.  I was on no sleep having a shit-tastic day and he looked 50x rougher than I did.  And that's saying something.  They don't know the fuck is going to happen at commencement nor how to handle it.  I'm sure there's a committee looking into forming a committee to assemble a task-force.  But fucking-a.  

Posted
On 5/5/2024 at 9:36 PM, Rex Kramer said:

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

Zing!  To be honest, I'm pretty sure the last time I wore a mask was on the plane flying from NYC in summer 2022.

I got covid on that trip, anyway.

Posted

So, the booking photos have been released from that day.  27 people booked under Criminal Trespass that look to be with the protest.  19 of them seem to be current students, and I've removed from the list.  The rest: 

 

1.APD.11300329.001.jpg
11300329    CASSIDY    CAMERON    2409269    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - 2022 TxState grad working at Tokyo Electron

1.APD.11300317.001.jpg
11300317    GOTT    GREGORY    2409256    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS
This is the dude that got machetted at Zilker early this year!?!

1.APD.11300357.001.jpg
11300357    HAMOUDAH    OMAR    2409289    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - ACC student, no UT affiliation

1.APD.11300341.001.jpg
11300341    HOSSAIN    NABIHA    2409257    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS
Arrive Logistics - Has since deleted her LinkedIn, and has no history at UT.

1.APD.11300328.001.jpg
11300328    REYES    JULIAN    2409277    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - "Cop Watcher" 
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2017/10/04/cop-watcher-files-lawsuit-against-austin-police-officer/10388801007/

1.APD.11300331.001.jpg
11300331    RODRIGUEZ    JAMES    2409275    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS

1.APD.11300343.001.jpg
11300343    YOSHIMOTO    HANA    2409298    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - UC Davis Grad, no UT affiliation 

 

All this point out that most of the arrests that made it to the APD booking photo database are indeed UT students.  I can't tell if any of the others are staff or faculty if they aren't notated.

Posted

Well, they look like they they’re all people who are within their rights to be on campus expressing their free speech thanks to the hard work of 1A loving Greg Abbott.

Posted
5 hours ago, PvilleStang said:

All this point out that most of the arrests that made it to the APD booking photo database are indeed UT students.  I can't tell if any of the others are staff or faculty if they aren't notated.

It seems a little disingenuous to call an ACC student "non UT affiliated" as a means to paint them as outside agitators, considering UT is a major cultural focal point for Austin as a city. Its one hell of a weasel statement to hang your hat on by Hartzell

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
35 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It seems a little disingenuous to call an ACC student "non UT affiliated" as a means to paint them as outside agitators, considering UT is a major cultural focal point for Austin as a city. Its one hell of a weasel statement to hang your hat on by Hartzell

ACC, Anderson High School, St. Edwards, and the Challenger School are not UT affiliated.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Stupid question time....

https://www.utexas.edu/campus-carry

Quote

General Information on Campus Carry

On June 1, 2015, Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 11 (S.B. 11), also known as the "campus carry" law. S.B. 11, which is codified in section 411.2031 of the Texas Government Code, provides that persons licensed to carry a handgun in Texas may carry a concealed handgun on university campuses. The law gives public universities some discretion to regulate campus carry.

The University of Texas at Austin takes issues surrounding guns on campus very seriously and has adopted rules and regulations governing campus carry that conform to Texas law, protect the rights of citizens and ensure the safety and security of the entire campus.

 

Quote

Beginning September 1, 2021, HB1927 made it legal in Texas for most people 21 or over to carry a handgun in a holster without a permit both openly and/or concealed. 

This law modified the previous open carry law from 2016 by eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry. 

This means that most people 21 or over may carry a handgun without a license to carry. 

If HB1927 eliminated the requirement to hold a  permit to carry a handgun in Texas (assuming you're 21, not a felon etc....), how does that effect the language of the earlier 2015 legislation permitting concealed carry on college campuses? Even though the state no longer requires a permit, do you still have to apply for a state permit if you wish to carry on campus? Do they even issue permits now that they are not needed? I don't own guns, so I don't keep up with the associated legalities.

 

Posted
41 minutes ago, Bevo said:

ACC, Anderson High School, St. Edwards, and the Challenger School are not UT affiliated.

Strictly speaking, as a member of UIL, Anderson HS is """UT affiliated"""

 

That said, Hartzell and the Johnny Sacks of the world are using rhetoric that would lead one to believe that some flown in protesters are getting arrested at UT. Austin residents going to a protest in a State-designated free speech area in Austin seems like a normal thing to me.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank_Hill said:

We should ban anyone who didn’t graduate from UT from this board. They’re outside agitators.

Just wait until football season begins and SECers find this board...

Posted
Just wait until football season begins and SECers find this board...

Well we use multisyllabic words so it shouldn’t be a problem.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 hours ago, Grimas said:

“DPS trooper Thomas Goodson states in the charging document that he pushed Heyman back, and the professor responded by yelling. At some point, Heyman put his finger in Goodson's face and grabbed his bike by the handle and "physically started to pull my bike away from me, interfering with my assigned duties," the affidavit says

.The charging document notes that Heyman broke the trooper's "state-issued bike bell," which costs $62.”


 

Cop sounds like a snowflake pussy

 
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Grimas said:

Or wait until you have tenure…

That's a chicken shit defense of a professor getting fired solely because the Uvalde Defenders are a bunch of gaping pussies

Posted

Happy to report that there seemed to be very little inconsequential protests during the different schools' commencements. I didn't see or hear any protest during the main Saturday night commencement. I'm extremely happy the 2024 class finally got their graduation which they didn't get in 2020 when they were in high school. Now I can fully not give a shit about any of this shit.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
29 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very original. I am sure no group of degenerate assholes have ever thought of something like this before.

  • Haha 5
Posted
28 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Technically every week is free speech week right?   But not free from consequences.

I often see this point made, but it reflects a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. In fact, that’s pretty much all it is. The state cannot enforce consequences against someone on the basis of their speech. 

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I often see this point made, but it reflects a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. In fact, that’s pretty much all it is. The state cannot enforce consequences against someone on the basis of their speech. 

So if I work for the state and I say the Jews deserved what they got from hitler because they killed Jesus, I get to keep my job?  In the private sector, you can get fired

 

so said professor can say sex with children is totally normal, he can’t be fired?

 

 

 

I don’t believe this is official but found this:

 

The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States.

Because the First Amendment places a limit on government, it protects anyone who might be affected by government actions.

That includes people who are citizens, people who are not citizens, people with popular views, people with views the majority might disagree with, people of all ages and identities, and groups of people like businesses and organizations.

In some cases, people’s circumstances may mean they are subject to slightly increased government oversight of their speech, such as students while in public schools, government employees (especially when they are on the job), and businesses when advertising.

But freedom of speech cannot be limited because of someone’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national identity, disability, genetic information, ancestry, viewpoint or beliefs.

Edited by closetohumping
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

So if I work for the state and I say the Jews deserved what they got from hitler because they killed Jesus, I get to keep my job?  In the private sector, you can get fired

 

so said professor can say sex with children is totally normal, he can’t be fired?

 

 

 

I don’t believe this is official but found this:

 

 

The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States.

Because the First Amendment places a limit on government, it protects anyone who might be affected by government actions.

That includes people who are citizens, people who are not citizens, people with popular views, people with views the majority might disagree with, people of all ages and identities, and groups of people like businesses and organizations.

In some cases, people’s circumstances may mean they are subject to slightly increased government oversight of their speech, such as students while in public schools, government employees (especially when they are on the job), and businesses when advertising.

But freedom of speech cannot be limited because of someone’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national identity, disability, genetic information, ancestry, viewpoint or beliefs.

Yes, in the case of public employees the analysis is a bit complicated. For example, courts have to balance first amendment rights against the government’s interests in functioning efficiently and maintaining legitimacy. My point is more broadly about the nature of freedom of speech - it’s just freedom from (some, but not all) consequences. 

Edited by BrickHorn
Posted
9 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

So if I work for the state and I say the Jews deserved what they got from hitler because they killed Jesus, I get to keep my job?  In the private sector, you can get fired

 

so said professor can say sex with children is totally normal, he can’t be fired?

 

 

 

I don’t believe this is official but found this:

 

 

The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States.

Because the First Amendment places a limit on government, it protects anyone who might be affected by government actions.

That includes people who are citizens, people who are not citizens, people with popular views, people with views the majority might disagree with, people of all ages and identities, and groups of people like businesses and organizations.

In some cases, people’s circumstances may mean they are subject to slightly increased government oversight of their speech, such as students while in public schools, government employees (especially when they are on the job), and businesses when advertising.

But freedom of speech cannot be limited because of someone’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national identity, disability, genetic information, ancestry, viewpoint or beliefs.

 

Get real. He wasn't accused of hate speech against Jewish people, advocating pedophilia, or anything of the like.

Specifically, the following are the three accusations leveled against the former UT prof.

According to Heyman’s arrest affidavit, DPS troopers accused him of 1) yelling expletives at law enforcement during the protest, 2) pulling away a trooper’s bike and 3) making a motion with a water bottle “as if he were going to swing it and hit” a trooper.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/10/texas-ut-lecturer-arrested-fired-palestinian-demonstration/

Let's break this down:

  1. In and of itself, cussing out a cop is free speech and not an arrestable offense.
  2. The professor's lawyer said the officer initiated physical contact and pushed Heyman, which caused Heyman to grab onto the bike’s handlebar for balance.
  3. The cop says the professor made furtive movements with a water bottle, so it must be true.

The professor's lawyer says they have three videos with which they can dispute the above accusations. I haven't seen them. Have you?

Yes, government employees actually have fewer free speech rights than average citizens, but summarily firing an 18-year employee through an email without any hearing/meeting for this stuff is bullshit, IMO.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Get real. He wasn't accused of hate speech against Jewish people, advocating pedophilia, or anything of the like.

Specifically, the following are the three accusations leveled against the former UT prof.

According to Heyman’s arrest affidavit, DPS troopers accused him of 1) yelling expletives at law enforcement during the protest, 2) pulling away a trooper’s bike and 3) making a motion with a water bottle “as if he were going to swing it and hit” a trooper.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/10/texas-ut-lecturer-arrested-fired-palestinian-demonstration/

Let's break this down:

  1. In and of itself, cussing out a cop is free speech and not an arrestable offense.
  2. The professor's lawyer said the officer initiated physical contact and pushed Heyman, which caused Heyman to grab onto the bike’s handlebar for balance.
  3. The cop says the professor made furtive movements with a water bottle, so it must be true.

The professor's lawyer says they have three videos with which they can dispute the above accusations. I haven't seen them. Have you?

Yes, government employees actually have fewer free speech rights than average citizens, but summarily firing an 18-year employee through an email without any hearing/meeting for this stuff is bullshit, IMO.

Sorry. I’m answering bricks question from a broader perspective.  Free speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence 

I’m not emotionally invested in heyman’s case.  I hope he gets his day in court though I suspect our beloved university has some high powered lawyers. 
 

curious if we have a code of conduct employee handbook that every employee has to sign before they start?

Posted
28 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Yes, in the case of public employees the analysis is a bit complicated. For example, courts have to balance first amendment rights against the government’s interests in functioning efficiently and maintaining legitimacy. My point is more broadly about the nature of freedom of speech - it’s just freedom from (some, but not all) consequences. 

Noted.  But during Covid quite a few racist jackasses got fired for exercising their rights to free speech.  It was glorious

Posted
4 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Sorry. I’m answering bricks question from a broader perspective.  Free speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence 

I’m not emotionally invested in heyman’s case.  I hope he gets his day in court though I suspect our beloved university has some high powered lawyers. 
 

curious if we have a code of conduct employee handbook that every employee has to sign before they start?

Got it. It's just that I've seen worse behavior by coaches on the sidelines of a college football game without such extreme punishment than what was described.

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...