Jump to content

UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread


Captainant

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Captainant said:

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.

Flown in?  I haven’t seen anyone say this. There were outside agitators, and as a result you’re making up stuff / moving the goalposts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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. 

But the university absolutely can. The fuck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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. 

It is not at all complicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It is not at all complicated. 

Exactly 

 

Quote

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-first-amendment/

Edited by EuroHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it might be helpful to start with defining whether UT is a government or private employer.  To me, it's actually a somewhat nuanced question.

I think every UT employee is a state employee. From Sark to the guy that cleans the Gregory pool after I banged south Austin’s mom in it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I think every UT employee is a state employee. From Sark to the guy that cleans the Gregory pool after I banged south Austin’s mom in it

This.  Is this even a question?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sealtm6 said:

It would be wild if Israel were actually funding Hamas to create the impetus to completely destroy Gaza and then take over all the land.  

::overheard in Jester West after smoking a bowl through a toilet paper roll with dryer lint in the bathroom::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

This.  Is this even a question?

I understand, but does that mean "government" when 1A is considered?

I worked at UT doing research for years.  My lab operated pretty much like a private company.  The funding was interesting -- most of it came from the Federal government, but not all.  I don't recall any free speech issues, but then again, I don't recall anybody pushing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it might be helpful to start with defining whether UT is a government or private employer.  To me, it's actually a somewhat nuanced question.

It’s not at all nuanced. This is the dumbest fucking argument ever. Y’all are some partisan morherfuckers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It is not at all complicated. 

What is the basis for this statement? How do you read the current case law on the subject and come away with "its not complicated?" Which case gives you that certainty? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Yes, in the case of public employees the analysis is a bit complicated. 

 

43 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It is not at all complicated. 

 

29 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Exactly 

29 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

Hat tip to Rex and Euro for executing an all-time great moron-to-moron alley-oop.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

Right. And I think the fact that you’re a state employee means you have to be a bit more careful with that free speech thing 

Not at all. This professor can do whatever the fuck he wants and so can I. Your actions are always at the mercy of the whims of your employer. And it does not matter where the funds come from to pay professors; UT functions as a private employer. I can’t believe this is being discussed.*

*@Hank_Hillimage.gif.0a0777ef7e22e01a7281e91aa4d886c3.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

 

 

Hat tip to Rex and Euro for executing an all-time great moron-to-moron alley-oop.

Thank you Scoops.

Y’all get back to me when this guy receives a dime from UT.  He’s not shielded any more than I am just by virtue of being a state employee. His doesn’t have fucking immunity from 1A consequences. The 1A doesn’t trump his employee code of conduct / handbook to which he fucking agreed. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I understand, but does that mean "government" when 1A is considered?

I worked at UT doing research for years.  My lab operated pretty much like a private company.  The funding was interesting -- most of it came from the Federal government, but not all.  I don't recall any free speech issues, but then again, I don't recall anybody pushing it.

I think it means what it's always meant.  You can say what you want, but there are consequences.  Even as a state employee, funding sources will always vary, but you are still operating under the umbrella of a state institution.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s not at all nuanced. This is the dumbest fucking argument ever. Y’all are some partisan morherfuckers. 

My question has jack shit to do with partisanship, you twit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Not at all. This professor can do whatever the fuck he wants and so can I. Your actions are always at the mercy of the whims of your employer. And it does not matter where the funds come from to pay professors; UT functions as a private employer. I can’t believe this is being discussed.*

*@Hank_Hillimage.gif.0a0777ef7e22e01a7281e91aa4d886c3.gif


And I haven’t disagreed with this?  Look up a few posts.  My point being that it might be possible that governemnt employees are held to a higher standard than private sector ones?  A judge who is a nazi sympathizer may be more frowned upon than the Chevron clerk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Total. Bullshit. 

Holy shit, I actually lean towards university employees NOT having carte blanche to say whatever the fuck they want.  (Tenured professors might muddy that argument.)

You really are a piece of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, closetohumping said:


And I haven’t disagreed with this?  Look up a few posts.  My point being that it might be possible that governemnt employees are held to a higher standard than private sector ones?  A judge who is a nazi sympathizer may be more frowned upon than the Chevron clerk

Not sure but wouldn’t think held to higher standard. Most state employees are morons, like this professor. 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Holy shit, I actually lean towards university employees NOT having carte blanche to say whatever the fuck they want.  (Tenured professors might muddy that argument.)

You really are a piece of work.

Lean?  And no, tenure shouldn’t muddy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, you're not a partisan hack, you fucking donkey.

I am anti-protestor, pro-Israel, and believe precisely what I said. State employees by and large are morons. This is not exclusive to college professors. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

He’s not shielded any more than I am just by virtue of being a state employee.

You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. See, e.g., Pickering v. Board of Education and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BrickHorn said:

You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. See, e.g., Pickering v. Board of Education and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Nah. Tell you what fucko - let’s place a wager on it. Put your money where your looney lips are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...