Saw this interview this morning and I think he makes some very valid points. Quite thoughtful and pushes against the lazy binary thinking that we see sometimes.
Yeah, there isn't a binary here of violate protesters rights or send in cops to brutalize protesters. If the admin are thinking only in those terms, no wonder these people keep botching protest responses. Again, "intent to disrupt" is a meaningless phrase. Disrupt what? I'm sure there's "intent to disrupt." They want to disrupt the day of people who are walking by to get them to pay attention to the protesters' message. The university can legally put rules in place to prevent them from disrupting classes. They can't legally put rules in place to prevent them from disrupting period. As for what rules I find problematic, go to the first page.
I’m confused did the protestors not get to protest? I saw them there for a few days. They seemed to be protesting just fine. I imagine they’ll be back Monday unless I missed something in the news.
Are you being serious with this response? Is this the sort of thing you say when Ron DeSantis pushes laws aimed at chilling speech?
Too Hot is really a nasty place and I am glad I stay away from here most of the time. I thought I would peak in on the thread. I am Sorry.
I re-read the rules. Nothing is preventing those kids from being there and protesting. It lays out some rules, which is totally fine to do, I wish a couple rules were more specific but when you see violence erupting all over the country because universities have set weak boundaries and then police overreacted after I can forgive this kind of aggressive response - if used sparingly. There are other things to consider too… like the size of the Uf Jewish population - those students have a right to feel safe also. It’s a tough line to walk he may have gone a step too far with some language (not being disruptive, the bullhorn) but overall I think it was probably a wise move. Again, you can’t whip this out for every student group that’s upset every single time but I think this one, given what we’ve seen other places, it’s smart to set boundaries and be up front about consequences.
That isn't the point! You don't have to have a prior restraint to deter people from showing up. Issuing a vague list of rules and threatening draconian consequences can chill people from exercising their free speech rights. When Ron DeSantis pushed his anti-protest (in his telling, anti-riot) law, he had the legislature redefine "riot" in a vague and extraordinarily broad manner that potentially included people who merely showed up to protests that later included some violence or property damage (carried out by other people). It threatened severe consequences. Do you think the law's lack of clarity could discourage people from showing up to protests and risking arrests? The federal judiciary sure did when it enjoined the law! I'm beyond bothered by this response, Slayer. I don't believe for a second that you'd defend Tallahassee pulling this sort of shit. Violating people's rights is never a "wise move," regardless of your good intentions. If you want to set boundaries and threaten consequences, set clear boundaries. UF did not do that. It easily could have. It is not "totally fine" to issue vague rules that reach protected speech. Jewish students do not have a "right to feel safe" that trumps other students' free speech rights. Free speech sometimes will make people uncomfortable. That's the price we pay for liberty.
I wouldn’t defend this if Tallahassee did this you’re right about that. I hated the anti-riot law. But things aren’t always black and white - and I’m giving Uf a pass on this one. And believe me - I don’t always. A few years ago the president of the gau was arrested on a bogus charge of assaulting an officer during a protest and it took them like a year to clear her. I also thought Uf looked kind of hypocritical about how they handled Richard Spencer in 2017 based on how they’d responded to other large protests in the past. So I mean they don’t always get it right and maybe they’re wrong in this case but I understand where they’re coming from and I’m giving them a pass as long as this doesn’t become the way they handle all speech they don’t like.
Totally fair. My old gau buddies are all mad at me about it lol. But I just keep reminding them that the faster we can move on from this one the sooner they can get back to fighting for more relevant student issues. And there are many worth fighting for.
Good to know. I guess you're good with universities banning right-wing speakers who are anti-LGBTQ+? Don't need any hate on college campuses, right? And free speech is cool and all, but that no hate thing is more important.
It seems our gov and state legislature use any current event to curtail freedom a little at a time. Grandpa and Dad both served our great country. We've always understood that while we have fought generations for America, we might always see eye to eye with what some people say. Grandpa would always make sure we understood why. But grandpa they are saying mean things. He would yes, but that is what I fought for. So you can have a voice and they can have a voice free from communists and older...the Nazis.
I’m sorry. I so much wanted to laugh. But the right wing publications just fail out loud in the humor and wit department. I agree with the message that CFP here is trying to convey (although please don’t repeat that anywhere because I generally loath the likes of CFP and Gateway), but it just wasn’t … funny. It tried hard, but it was so, well … forced. Same with Babylon Bee. There’s so much material to translate into comedy, but they’re just not good at it. The left just does wit and humor better than the right.
Who was banned here? As I understand it, Sasse simply corked unruly behavior, making it explicitly known the ramifications for crossing the line. Not only that, given that the students are approaching finals, such measures are particularly important now. I not feel that there is any unlawful cap on free speech by mandating the speech is civil, non-violent and non-disruptive.
I just completely disagree with the concept of unbridled, unchecked “right” to cause mayhem, violence and chaos under the flag of “free speech.” Even at a University, and particularly during Finals. My daughter has a right to be safe on campus and a right to be able to have the peace in order to prepare for her finals, and a right to be able to walk to her class without fear or disruption on the way to take her finals. The dipwads have to exercise their free speech — peacefully, without violence, without intimidation. And if they cross that line, there are consequences— consequences that are explicit, published, and well-known, so that everyone is fully informed of what they can and cannot do, and equally informed of the what happens when that exercise of free speech are abused.
What binary? What I see is a bunch of people who don't spend much time on campus complaining about how the UNIVERSITY is handling things. Maybe point out specific things that they are doing that is obviously wrong and different than how they've handled similar situations in the past. Disruption is subjective, but let's not pretend that people are just looking for a safe space to convey their message. That's what the JWs do, they just politely occupy some space, and if you're interested, they'll share their views with you. That's not what's going on here. Sure, disrupting is subjective; ultimately, people are allowed to be spoken to or even yelled at when walking through campus. That's not what the UNIVERSITY is obstructing here. Let's look at it from the other perspective, what's the objective of the "protest?" What are these people being denied that others are allowed to do? Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
