Proud of my university!

That's correct. It's not exactly the line UF drew, but it is correct. What's interesting to me is when the Ivy League presidents offered the same line at the Congressional hearings on antisemitism, people lost their minds.

This is what Claudine Gay said back then: “We are deeply committed to free expression. But when speech crosses over into conduct that violates our policies—policies against bullying, harassment, intimidation—we do take action.”

 

Yep. The distinction is purely content related - the well-documented Palestine exception to gree speech

 

Peter Shamshiri

 

A whole lot of folks are mocking this disingenuousness. They're not suspending other people for three years for littering or setting up and sitting in a folding chair. (Not to mention the other vague rules.) It also violates the First Amendment to selectively enforce rules and selectively impose punishments based on viewpoint.

Some folks have made it clear that they support what Sasse is doing because they value avoiding what happened at Columbia over free speech. That's their prerogative. But I'll pass on Sasse's bullshit posturing.

 

Rare point of disagreement. I don't think people that like the Sasse approach generally are wanting to avoid the disruption of what happened at Columbia. I think they're wanting to suppress the particular message before it gets too widespread

 

I'm taking the people on this forum at their word.

 

Nothing screams protests more than … literature teaching “how to” engage in terrorist activities, as found as encampments …

 

Now I understand. As a general rule, I'm never referring to people on the forum when I make such statements. I'm referring to my perception of public opinion generally. Impossible to know anyone's personal motivation but far easier to determine the motivation of a majority of a population

 

1. I don't trust the characterizations of that account. I don't trust any of these biased Twitter accounts on either side of the issue, as they've all been spreading misinformation. Show me some reporting from a reputable source that explains this.
2. I read what that account described as the "most egregious document in the Drive." Surprise, it's available on Google. It was written by an American and distributed by an American company. Their screenshots lack context and are intended to mislead (shocker!), which goes back to my point about these accounts not being trustworthy. The document itself includes some statements I find objectionable and disagree with. But it is discussing the execution of the SYSTEM of settler colonialism. It is political advocacy and protected speech under the Constitution.
3. It's not 2002. You're not going to get me to turn on free speech by engaging in this sort of demagoguery and trying to paint political advocacy from a group you disagree with and dislike as "terrorist activities." You know what screams "protests"? The fact that they're out there protesting! You can try to coopt the tactics of the right-wing from 2020, but you're not getting a sale here.

 

I think, speaking to the emphasized text in point 3, and back to the original topic (whether Sasse acted appropriately), there have been substantial “sales.” Sasse is rightfully being heralded as taking the appropriate steps in quelling violent encampments. You certainly have not been convinced, but he’s the man of the moment for taking the right stance.

And, as to the balance of the post, these encampments have been the training grounds to radicalize youth to engage in terror across the globe. That speech is not “free” and is not tolerable, here or anywhere.

 

First Amendment values in action.

 

If these protests have proven anything, it's this country's lack of commitment to the principle of free speech. Some folks call it the "Palestinian exception." There's truth to that. But it's a bit too narrow. Most people speak approvingly of free speech in the abstract and then turn on it once you get to the particulars and speech they dislike. Tell yourself whatever lies you need to in order to justify the repression.

 

Don't disagree, but just to clarify that the phrase is not mine alone

https://sessions.studentlife.umich.edu/track/event/session/76070

The Palestine Exception to Free Speech | ACS

The Palestine Exception to Free Speech: A Movement Under Attack in the US

The Palestine Exception — Palestine Legal

 

Not saying there isn't a valid basis. My point is that while Palestinians are an obvious example because most Americans don't sympathize with their cause, it's a much bigger phenomenon. People look for excuses not to uphold free speech when they don't like a cause.

 

Absolutely. Agree 100%

 

Good thread

 

I see them as essentially "time, place, and manner" restrictions.

If you want to express the viewpoint that Israel is engaging in genocide in Gaza and the US is sponsoring them, I think that's both an abhorrent and stupid thing to say. However, that remains protected speech in the US and at the University of Florida, and it should be.

But they're not given free reign to disrupt university activities, which is completely reasonable.

If you want to make the pure legal argument that UF should have been more clear in its rules, sure. Why not. I have that complaint all the time. But that's far from the story here. The story is that these "protestors" largely spurred by professional agitators have been holding universities throughout the country hostage, prompting these same universities into more severe action. So the University of Florida is nipping the problem in the bud before they're forced to resort to a much worse public spectacle involving a worse confrontation with police.

The 1st Amendment does not entitle protestors to say whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. It's as simple as that.

 

The purpose of *these* protests is to extort, harass, and intimidate.

 

The First Amendment also doesn't allow you to "nip the problem the bud" because of what happened elsewhere.