Thank goodness it was nonviolent. Notice how the police didn’t escalate the issue by acts with undue force? Job well done.
Go figure...a handful of GPD can keep 92,000+ fans at BHGS from EVER storming SOS field... But da po hapless UCLA, Columbia, Emory, and other bully enabling, terrorist cheer leading institutions, can't reign in a hand full of non-Palestinian knuckleheads pretending to actually care about the plight of Hamas, in order to get some cheap shots in against law'r abiding Jewish students.... Yeah...no agenda there...
I’m very well versed in that history. And I absolutely stand by my position. I think there is indeed a fine line between free speech, and hate-inciting speech. “Free Palestine” is free speech. “From the river to the sea” is hate-inciting. “No more war,” is free speech; bricks through windows is not. “Down with Israel” is free speech; tasing a Jewish student is not. I find no place in society where hate-inciting speech is acceptable, morally or legally.
From the river to the see is free speech. Tasing a Jewish student is not. We can at least agree on the latter point. We must tolerate "hate-inciting speech" because the alternative is allowing the government to define and restrict it. American history amply shows the danger in giving the government that sort of power. Hell, Ron DeSantis tried to make racial justice speech inherently "discriminatory" with his Stop WOKE Act. Do you trust him to decide what "hate-inciting speech" is?
Decades of enforcement have cemented G/UPD's position here, combined with the Governor and UPres's support.... The *protestors* know damn well UF/Gainesville mean bidniz. UCLA, Emory, and Columbia are playing from behind, b/c their leadership undermined their own authority in order to undermine Trump. And they're just fine with that--as long as the malevolence is directed at Jews, and not their own ppl. You want to see how damn fast that shit would be reigned into order? Let the protesters take their shit to the U/pres's neighborhood, and protest there.... Lawr-n-order in a New York minute, son!
Good thing Sasse had the benefit of social media to see exactly the pattern of behavior of the “protests” in other areas who has the same organizers. Sasse had the benefit of seeing how student ingress and egress was blocked, saw the violence perpetrated against students, heard and watched the in-your-face assaults. Again, I’m glad he had the vision to take proactive measures to protect his students and university.
so would a bunch of klansmen screaming the N word in minorities faces be OK as long as they didn't block their path? if not society (gubmnt), who gets to draw the line?
No, and you know how I feel about authoritarianism (from prior conversations in DeSantis-related posts). But where we will disagree is that Sasse took reasonable measures to stop what was imminent catastrophe taking place. Sasse didn’t take unreasonable action. Indeed, he would be negligent to turn a blind eye to what has already transpired across the country from the same organizers. He took the steps that were reasonably necessary, and was successful at stopping the problem at its roots before it engulfed itself into a flame that could not be quelled.
No. That’s illegal hate-inciting speech. Just as “from the river to the sea” means that Jews should be literally eradicated. People are not free to knowingly and intentionally incite violence. Even @GATOR-lawyer would acknowledge that point (although his lines are drawn further back than mine).
Having at least a modicum of knowledge of world history, I can tell you that your point is precisely why I am not a free speech absolutist. Providing platforms for hate-inciting speech is perhaps one of the most dangerous things one can do. It gave the Nazis the platform to degrade Jews to third class citizens. It gave the Klan the platform to degrade blacks and immigrants into third class citizens. It gave the Turks the permission to murder millions of Armenians. Hate-inciting speech has no place for any society. Cheering for the eradication of a people is not free speech, it is dangerous hate-inciting rhetoric that ends in tragedy every single time.
Society isn't the government. Society contests what is acceptable public speech (which can be contentious and ugly in practice), the government should not. The first (society) is fluid, informal and never codified, the second becomes formal and codified as the government uses its monopoly on violence to enforce it.
The people you want cleared from campus are literally protesting the eradication of a people by a country that has platformed hate speech against Arabs/Palestinians, including actual people in the government and military, not just citizens. I mean, it could be argued that waving an Israeli flag is hate speech directed to the protestors, especially those of Palestinian and Arabic backgrounds.
Healy v. James makes clear that (guilt by association) is not a valid justification for suppressing speech.
The answer is it depends. If the Klansmen are marching or demonstrating in a traditional public forum and people of color approach them, the Klansmen have a right to free speech, even to use racial slurs. Some people interpret "from the river to the sea" that way. Others don't. I don't personally like that phrase, but it is protected speech. It is not in and of itself inciting imminent lawless action. Certainly, it could be in a speech that incites imminent lawless action. But that's a fact-specific issue. What gave the Klan that power was force with the backing of the government. The Klan still exists today. They still are racist. They still march. But they have almost no power. The Nazis had government force behind their hate speech, as did the Turks. That's why civil liberties are so important.
"Society isn't the Government"???? Helluva a concession from our resident commie, given that commies purport to do everything on behalf of 'the people'--especially shit like keeping 'the people' poor and oppressed...on behalf of 'the people'.... and keeping 'the government'--fat as capitalist pigs, on behalf of 'the people'... ...now here YOU go, and draw a distinction between 'the people'...and 'government'. I think you might want to reel that one back hoss... Or surrender your commie card. That shit don't fly in commie land.
One of the core ideas behind modern free speech jurisprudence is the notion that democracy requires the people to be able to freely discuss ideas without fear of government censorship or punishment if government is to be receptive to the will of the people. Many in the founding generation also had that view of free speech. The liberty of discussion was integral to the people's ability to hold their servants (representatives in Congress) to account and for popular sovereignty to reign. To the extent that political speech was injurious to the government, it could be rebutted by more speech.
