Proud of my university!

it should be noticeable. And once you read the lawsuit, and the sources, and see the connection, it’s a firmly grounded lawsuit.

 

Actually, you’re wrong. There has been posters that have no issue with the Hamas slaughter. In fact, the protestors cheer Hamas as their noble defenders.

 

On this board?

 

Done plenty of regrettable things....none involve deciding to spit on another person, much less LEO trying to do their job. None involve getting arrested. None involve decisions as an adult that are behavior that would be unacceptable for even a child.
Again, not the worst offense one can committ....but using "nice" as a descriptor is simply strange in this circumstance.

 

I read over enough of it to see it for what it is. Another in a line of civil lawsuits aimed at using the legal system to suppress speech. As I said, it's no bueno.

 

Yeah, I don't like cops, so appealing to cops doing their jobs (of arresting peaceful protesters) is definitely not going to make me feel differently. Nothing strange about it. Good people make bad decisions. Some of us get away with it. Others don't. I don't find your argument compelling.

 

I’m glad you’re not in the jury pool.

 

While we're discussing our emotions, I'm sad that these law firms are using their vast resources to try and silence people they disagree with. Although, considering Holtzman Vogel's fondness for defending Ron DeSantis's awful laws, I shouldn't be surprised. They're not too big on liberalism.

 

Hope he’s not contributing to the genetic pool.
Too much?

 

Police acting like police. 5:00 a.m. this morning. Taking down the camp when they have not been the ones instigating violence but have been the victims

 

And for the sake of consistency, I am sure you frown on these same law firms that pour millions of dollars of time, every year, into pro bono initiatives that overwhelming support “liberal agendas.” And I know this first hand.

Your sadness that lawyers (including the former head of GT) provide their free service to causes that they believe are vital — like stopping terrorist regimes — falls on deaf ears. Lawyers and people need not cater to your political proclivities for them to do justice. And thank goodness.

 

Too much, indeed. The guy spends his career fighting for the rights of others to express themselves. I find his career admirable. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with him, even while I really do admire his work.

 

From the article (as I said, worth a read):
University leaders are in a bind. “These protests are really dynamic situations that can change from minute to minute,” Stephen Solomon, who teaches First Amendment law and is the director of NYU’s First Amendment Watch—an organization devoted to free speech—told me. “But the obligation of universities is to make the distinction between speech protected by the First Amendment and speech that is not.” Some of the speech and tactics protesters are employing may not be protected under the First Amendment, while much of it plainly is. The challenge universities are confronting is not just the law but also their own rhetoric. Many universities at the center of the ongoing police crackdowns have long sought to portray themselves as bastions of activism and free thought. Cornell is one of many universities that champion their legacy of student activism when convenient, only to bring the hammer down on present-day activists when it’s not. The same colleges that appeal to students such as Wilson by promoting opportunities for engagement and activism are now suspending them. And they’re calling the cops.

The police activity we are seeing universities level against their own students does not just scuff the carefully cultivated progressive reputations of elite private universities such as Columbia, Emory University, and NYU, or the equally manicured free-speech bona fides of red-state public schools such as Indiana University and the University of Texas at Austin. It also exposes what these universities have become in the 21st century. Administrators have spent much of the recent past recruiting social-justice-minded students and faculty to their campuses under the implicit, and often explicit, promise that activism is not just welcome but encouraged. Now the leaders of those universities are shocked to find that their charges and employees believed them. And rather than try to understand their role in cultivating this morass, the Ivory Tower’s bigwigs have decided to apply their boot heels to the throats of those under their care.

 

Has there ever been a just war where there were no innocent casualties? Please name some? Obviously, you missed my point regarding the Vietnam war, nice shift, but the point is any war has innocent people killed. It's not justifying murder which is nonsense. You seem to justify it in WWII when it suits you.

Unless one is hiding under a rock, what is happening among our colleges now is on all news networks. To hear the reports of what is being said in support of Hamas and how innocent Jewish students are being treated, I hear crickets.

So you understand there are nations and terrorist groups wanting to wipe out Israel, who want no peace whatsoever, and who will continue to shell and terrorize this nation. So what is your solution? Tell them no? Tell Israel just to take it?

Give support to war crimes how rich. A terrorist group who seeks the destruction of Israel, who rapes, tortures and slaughters innocent civilians, who hide behind the people of Gaza for protection, who are totally evil in what they do, yet you have the audacity to call Israel the war criminals.
You say Hamas and those who perpetuated these acts against innocent Israel people should not live. On that we agree. But when they hide themselves among hospitals and schools and citizens as a tactic, then they live to kill some more. You can't have it both ways.

I also notice you didn't answer what if we were attacked by Mexico and Canada scenario, I guess we could only fight back where no bystanders could get hurt, right? I guess those countries then would not place armaments near civilians then would they? What a great idea for winning a war thus allowing evil to succeed.

 

I don't think you're quite grasping the "consistency" here. I strongly disagree with NSJP's speech, particularly about what happened on October 7. Their statements were appalling. But this is America, and they have the right to make appalling political statements.

So to answer your question, no, I don't frown on large law firms pouring millions of dollars of time into pro bono initiatives as long as they're not working towards suppressing speech in a way that advances "liberal agendas." The mistake you make here is in assuming that it is my "political proclivities" that are governing, rather than personal principles. Free speech shouldn't be a partisan issue.

 

Free speech is not unlimited speech. And when the speech is puppeteered by a terrorist organization propagating hate and violence, it is not lawful speech. The lawsuit explains exactly that.

 

You can do all the mental gymnastics you want. The issue here isn't that there is some collateral damage. The issue is that Israel is intentionally inflicting collateral damage as a form of retribution. Their own government officials have spoken of ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

How many dead women and children is too many to kill a member of Hamas? If you knew a member of Hamas was hiding out in a preschool surrounded by 100 children, would it be okay to call an airstrike to kill him even if it killed all the kids? I don't want it both ways. What I hope for is justice, not vengeance and monstrosity.

 

Using the word "puppeteer" is a clever way to mask what the real argument is here.

 

Sorry, yours was a stupid question. My countries actions are what trouble me the most because I am an American and I live here, the people I vote for and pay taxes to can do something about them. We give aid and comfort to Israel in committing their war crimes, not Hamas'. Invoking self-defense is a fools game too, because literally everyone can say they are 'defending' themselves when they commit acts of aggression, whether its Hamas or Israel.

 

Well good. Anyone who is dumb enough to do that doesn't need to be procreating.