MIT suspends student protesters

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

1. san diego, students block cop bus

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oeH61dhjiqE

[elleng]

2. How many other institutions of higher learning are planning to suspend the First Amendment

for their students?

???

How many have given so little thought to this critical American issue? Any others than Brown and Northwestern?

[AZLD4Candidate]

3. private school. private property.

[elleng]

4. Gotcha, however

the principle remains the same.

[AZLD4Candidate]

5. your rights end at the property line.

Last edited Wed May 8, 2024, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)

[Celerity]

10. Would you have told these people that?

[AZLD4Candidate]

14. If they came on to my property and I didn't agree with them yes. I tell trumpers all the time I don't want their

signs on my property. Just like I can't go onto someone else's property and voice my opinions they don't like. They can ask me to leave and I must leave.

You use of the civil rights movement is sophistry. I agree with the sit-ins. My grandmother organized them in the 1950s in Nassau County. She was ARRESTED for trespassing after being asked to leave by either the property owner or the tenant.

Private Property means private property. Just because you agree with the movement doesn't mean people have a right to trespass.

That's one reason anti-maskers were arrested.

[BannonsLiver]

46. It's disgusting how the civil rights movement is compared to these whiny privileged kids with no real skin in the game.

[AZLD4Candidate]

51. I thought it was a terrible comparison too, but when you defend the indefenisble, you need to stretch logic to its

thinnest limits apparently.

[Nixie]

19. "these people". What an utterly distorted reach.

None of the privileged college student "protestors" have ever lived in the civil rights era that "these people" lived through. A sad yet privileged distortion to compare with modern day college students.

[tritsofme]

22. "Those people" weren't whining about getting "humanitarian aid" airdropped from the school cafeteria

“Those people” accepted and embraced the consequences of their actions.

I’m not really sure what comparison you are attempting to make.

[Celerity]

27. it is not hard to see my point

I’m not really sure what comparison you are attempting to make.

[tritsofme]

35. It's like comparing J6ers to Civil Rights marchers, a comparison that makes no sense and is blatantly offensive.

These “protestors” are much closer to the former than the latter.

[Celerity]

39. I was specifically addressing the 'it is private property so their rights are forfeit' argument.

If it was put into legal terms, I was solely focusing on the ratio decidendi and made no comment on the obiter dictum that is being introduced by others on an ex post facto basis.

[LexVegas]

41. ...

[Celerity]

42. there is nothing humorous about it nt

[AnrothElf]

48. ...

[Celerity]

75. snarky (tag-teaming off the previous poster's use) emojis as the entire body of reply are such a profound rebuttal

[AnrothElf]

78. There's no point in engaging with bad faith interlocutors. This is pure unvarnished pointing and laughing.

[Celerity]

80. you accusing me of being a bad faith poster here is risible, with or without my own use of an emoji for emphasis of that

[AnrothElf]

83. What can I say? You might take yourself seriously, but the rest of us are not similarly obliged.

[Celerity]

90. 'the rest of us'? Wow, I did not know I was dealing with THE poster of record, the voice for all DUers. Should I curtsy?

[AnrothElf]

101. Just letting you know that nobody is obliged to take you seriously. Nobody at all. So yes...

The rest of us.

[Celerity]

102. that 'not taking me seriously' and offering nothing but a snarky emoji in terms of any response tells the true tale

ad hominem never wins the day

[AnrothElf]

103. Ridicule is a time-honored way of dealing with people who are impossible to take seriously.

I understand if this is triggering for you. Unserious people who take themselves seriously are often a little ... tender ... about it.

[Celerity]

104. all you have in the tank is personal attacks, sad

[AnrothElf]

105. ...

[Celerity]

107. and back to the emojis, I am left in awe of your rhetorical toolkit

[AnrothElf]

111. Thanks! I really appreciate your awe! Now I'll let you have the last word...

[SoFlaBro]

118. No one has the fucking right to assault anyone regardless of trespassing or private property.

[Celerity]

119. Complete non sequitur. I said nothing about assault. That is your invention.

[SoFlaBro]

120. What do you think dumping chemicals on someone's head and pulling them off of a stool is defined as?

[Celerity]

122. that is not what I was discussing in this thread, and you know it

I will not be dragged off point, sorry

[BannonsLiver]

49. Righhhhht

But hey, way to denigrate the civil rights movement by equating it with a bunch of whiny, over privileged private college students who expect catering during their protests, and who think running over a sign is a war crime.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

63. How long do you think it would take me to find the same shit said

about the Baby Boomers protesting in the 60s? I'm pretty sure under a minute.

It isn't lost on a lot of people that the same people that were told this same thing are now saying it again about generations younger than them rather than supporting people's right to protest.

[BannonsLiver]

66. Who cares how long it would take

It’s not an apples to apples comparison. But hey, nostalgia must be one helluva drug.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

69. Older people have been "those damn kids"ing things for centuries

I am fucking baffled that people on a liberal website are so damned committed to stopping youth from protesting. You don't agree with them. Fine. They still get to have thoughts and protest. And the bullshit of "privileged college kids" is gross. Stop.

[BannonsLiver]

71. They are privileged.

So there’s that. Might be time to close the yearbook. The 60s are long over.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

76. You know them all?

Weird to be able to make that claim.

[BannonsLiver]

86. Going to college is a privilege

Maybe not in your book, but in most people’s books.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

87. It's a business transaction.

And you know full well that that isn't what is meant when people say others are privileged.

But, do go on.

[BannonsLiver]

96. So you don't think going to college is a privilege?

Last edited Wed May 8, 2024, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

What is your point exactly?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

97. No, I don't.

I have a B.S. and an M.A. I paid them money (well, for my M.A. I worked as a TA in lieu of tuition payments) and they gave me an education. It's not a privilege. Are some people kept from that business transaction for a variety of reasons many of which are money? Yes. Does that suck? Yes. But it's just a business transaction. They are selling a commodity.

[BannonsLiver]

85. What on earth makes you think I would give a damn about any of that?

[Celerity]

82. and out comes the broad brush, tossing all of the protesters into the same basket of denigration, framing each and every

one as being

a bunch of whiny, over privileged private college students who expect catering during their protests, and who think running over a sign is a war crime

[BannonsLiver]

88. Where's the lie?

[Celerity]

92. You are the one who made the expansive, potentially universalised, broad brush claim. Prove it.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

89. Apparently whiny privileged private college students are a protected class now?

[Celerity]

93. You must not be too familiar with the backgrounds of many of the students at American universities, including MIT.

whiny privileged private college students

Great way to win hearts and minds to your cause. Bravo!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

95. Almost as good as harassing Jews, kidnapping maintenance workers and trashing buildings

Then whining that your college is denying you "humanitarian aid" because you are too lazy to go down to the dining hall.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

64. Valid point and accurate comparison re: private property.

But people don't want to see the logical application of their argument applied to people they are the same side of.

[Sympthsical]

25. "These people" understood civil disobedience

To protest an unjust law, they understood they would gladly suffer the consequences for breaking it. They did so willingly with full knowledge of what their actions would lead to.

That is far, far, far, far different from the current protest culture of "I can do whatever I want, wherever I want, and I should suffer no consequences for it whatsoever. Also, send food. We take Uber Eats."

One group is brave, uncompromising people who deeply believed in combating injustice.

The other is hyper-privileged and cosplaying at what people in the Civil Rights movement actually did.

Comparing the two betrays a very shallow understanding. And, if I'm being honest, it dishonors the people who fought the Civil Rights movement to compare them to the abject unseriousness of the current campus behaviors.

These students are not the same in kind nor degree.

[Celerity]

28. broad brush lumping of all protesters in 1 basket of negativity, thus stigmatising all protest against Israel's actions

[Sympthsical]

29. They stigmatize themselves

By the people, causes, and ideologies they choose to associate with.

Everyone makes their choices. They've had seven months to think about theirs.

I don't see a lot of learning happening there. But they're young. It happens.

The adults' excuse is more elusive.

Or maybe it isn't. Not really.

[Celerity]

30. again you paint with a broad brush nt

[jimfields33]

32. They'll have their day in court if arrested.

They will go to a different school if expelled.

[Nixie]

53. You are the one lumping all protestors in 1 basket, but you make the shallow and false analogy that

the suffering of the civil rights movement protestors is the same as modern day privileged college students. It is so absurd that it is laughable, and that's what you are seeing in the responses. As one poster said, it is also offensive.

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

31. Especially if the things the protestors are doing

infringe on the rights of other students or university personnel.

[AZLD4Candidate]

38. Exactly.

[Zeitghost]

52. Not really

I have no right to protest or to free speech in your home or private property. Nor should I. Just like we have no free speech rights here at DU where we must follow the ToS or face blocked posts and bans. We are expected to follow the rules of our hosts or be asked to leave.

[AZLD4Candidate]

55. "Congress shall make no law. . ." Private universities, property owners, DU, a grocery store, or your boss

ARE NOT CONGRESS. Christ, I get tired of people making the "abridging free speech" argument.

BTW, I agree with you.

[Oopsie Daisy]

6. It's a private institution. And the 1A doesn't give protesters the right to threaten students, faculty, or *

* take-over buildings and shut-down the operations of the institution.

[Voltaire2]

8. Almost all of the protests were peaceful encampments.

[Oopsie Daisy]

9. On private property? or off?

Which other rights does the 1A allow people to trample?

[Voltaire2]

11. Colleges and universities should support free speech.

[Oopsie Daisy]

13. Are you suggesting that they do not support "free speech"?

>> Colleges and universities should support free speech.
Are you suggesting that they do not support "free speech"?

I think that colleges and universities should teach that the First Amendment protects the right to free speech, but like all rights, it is not absolute. While the First Amendment provides broad protection for speech, there are certain limitations and exceptions recognized by the legal system.

The right to free speech does not grant individuals the right to trespass on private property. Property owners generally have the right to control access to their property, and protesters do not have an inherent right to enter private property without permission.

The First Amendment does not protect harassment, direct threats, blackmail, or incitement to violence. Speech that poses a credible threat to harm someone or encourages imminent lawless action is generally not protected.

The First Amendment does not grant protesters the right to forcibly take over buildings or engage in illegal activities. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are generally protected, but actions that involve trespassing, destruction of property, or other illegal activities are not protected under the First Amendment.

[Voltaire2]

16. The encampments were almost entirely peaceful.

And in almost all cases the areas used were open to the public, with all sorts of political speech occurring regularly, until it was decided that the anti-genocide protests had to be suppressed.

[Nixie]

21. It looks like the hate speech and pro-terrorists and their increasing

violence and harassment of students had to be "suppressed."

[Oopsie Daisy]

43. Almost. And private property that's "open to the public" does not mean that the owners give up any rights *

* otherwise, someone could wrongly argue that the owners of a shopping mall or a theater (which are also "open to the public'') have no rights to remove trespassers and disruptors. Their behavior is what got them evicted, removed, suspended and expelled... not the "cause" they were protesting.

[Voltaire2]

44. Sure, back to my original point, that colleges and universities ought to promote free speech not suppress it.

[Oopsie Daisy]

56. Sorry, you're talking in circles. Back to MY original point... 1A doesn't trump all other rights.

When a university removes, suspends, or expels students who "occupy" or vandalize buildings (or students who are otherwise threatening other students, citizens and staff) the university is exercising their right to control access to their property and maintain order. This right stems from their status as private entities and is essential for ensuring the smooth functioning of the university and the safety of its community.

The universities "ought to promote" obeying the law. Trump is the one who uses "free speech" and 1A rights to cloak his illegal activities, his harassment, his threats. I think we can do better than Trump, don't you agree?

[Happy Hoosier]

15. Without limit?

Do you think colleges and universities should have restrictions on speech that is disruptive or impedes their mission? Is open Antisemitism okay? Cause ya know Antisemitism is protected by the first amendment, right?

[Voltaire2]

18. Opposition to genocide is not antisemitism.

[Happy Hoosier]

20. Predictably, you didn't answer...

I'm not surprised because the answer is you think restrictions of some FA protected spech is okay, but not others. And the standard is, apparently, what causes YOU think are worthy.

And many of us think this "opposition to genocide" angle is bullshit, meant to evoke an emotional reaction, and yes, many of us think the selective use of that word is deliberate, and and at least adjacent to Antisemitism is many cases.

What's happening in Gaza is horrific. We can agree on that. We also probably agree that Netenyahu is a fascist asshole. Maybe we can find common ground to build upon.

[tritsofme]

23. I wouldn't waste your time.

[JustAnotherGen]

34. In agreement with TritsofMe

Don't waste your time. . .

If the Proud Boys were march down the streets of Maplewood NJ or South Orange NJ screaming derogatory and threatening language to African Americans (not an individual) for some folks at DU - that's just 'Free Speech' which must always be protected. Same folks don't believe crosses being burned or swatiskas being painted in public places are a reason to get upset.

I would argue they may have the privilege of being in the Dominant Culture of America (for now) so they don't have a personal or family history of being threatened physically or verbally by the Dominant Culture's worst actors.

[Voltaire2]

45. The proud boys most certainly have the right to express their shitty opinions in public.

That is what that awful first amendment makes pretty clear.

[Happy Hoosier]

72. Would you support the the PB having encampments on campuses?

I think that context matters. just because a category of speech is protected doesn't mean it should be permitted anywhere at any time. Should a PB student be able to freely express their shit in a college classroom? At one point can a professor shut them down?

[Voltaire2]

94. Sure.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

61. The ACLU would defend them.

And I'm fine siding with the ACLU.

Since our inception in 1920, we have defended the speech rights of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, religious fundamentalists, anti-LGBTQ individuals, and more. In the past decade, we have supported the constitutional rights of the NRA, the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity Foundation, antisemitic protesters, conservative and anti-gay student groups, Trump supporters, and Trump himself, to name but a few. We have filed multiple Supreme Court briefs with the Cato Institute, the American Conservative Union, and the Institute for Justice.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

60. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

And for the record, I hate Illinois Nazis.

[Demsrule86]

65. Skokie was not private property.

There can be protests. But there will likely be consequences for participants,

[Cuthbert Allgood]

68. Yeah, except that isn't the point being made that I responded to.

That point was that the speech is gross so it shouldn't be protected. SCOTUS disagrees with that point.

Nice try moving those goal posts, though.

[Happy Hoosier]

74. I'd argue it's not really the content of the speech that's at issue here...

... it's whether the exercise of the right becomes disruptive enough that's interfering with the rights of others. Occupying public spaces, causing disruptions, making others feel unsafe are all legitimate reasons to restrict speech in some cases.

And some speech has been classified as threatening enough to NOT be protected by the FA.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

77. You were arguing content in post 15.

Sure. Some speech has been. Go ahead and explain how what you are against meets those restrictions. I'll wait.

[Happy Hoosier]

81. Thanks for waiting...

Did you see my actual subject line?

I think it's NOT really about content in this case.

I think semi-permanent occupation-style encampments can be disrutptive enough that do not constitute protected speech and assembly.

Setting up camps in public spaces that are disruptive to the mission of the intitution may not be protected speech. It's perfectly reasonable for an insitution, particularly a private institution to declare a camp or occupation in violation of their policies, and therefore requiring their removal.

So thanks for the snark, but let me know when any of these camps win a lawsuit to set up occupation camps.

See: Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 1982

[Happy Hoosier]

17. And if the University rules don't allow unauthorized encampements?

Where are these "campers" putting their biological waste? Food waste? Are they damaging the the lawns they are camping on? Are universities expected to pay for all this? Do universities bear the costs of clean up and resotration of the areas these protestors are damaging? Should students, faculty, and staff be constantly required to reroute to avouid these semi-permanent encampments?

Would you be supporting "peaceful encampments" if they were MAGAts promoting the Big Lie?

[jimfields33]

33. The ones that weren't were either arrested or expelled

or both.

[Demsrule86]

59. It was anti-semitic...there are video's and testimony of Jewish kids being refused enterance in college libraries.

[LeftInTX]

7. Columbia suspended protesters in 1968. But they are not being suspended for protesting.

They're engaged in frequent trespassing after they have been told, vandalism etc. They are free to protest as long as they follow the rules and don't infringe on the rights of others.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

62. I wonder what the Baby Boomers of 1968

would say to this response of yours. I have a pretty good idea because I group up in the 60s and 70s. They wouldn't be kind to you.

[BannonsLiver]

70. Again, who cares.

Most of them became Reagan voters by 1980.

[LeftInTX]

73. I'm a baby boomer myself

[Demsrule86]

58. I don't agree. You can say what you want. But that doesn't mean there won't be consequences. MIT is a private universty.

And I think those protests have gotten out of hand. I truly don't believe they will help anyone. And I do not like vandalism in any form.

[Oopsie Daisy]

109. This is the "find out" phase.

[Ontheboundry]

79. Tell me you don't grasp what 'free speech' is

Without telling me. Free speech on private property ends when the property owner says it does

[oldsoftie]

84. Do you have an understanding of the 1st Amendment & how it applies & doesnt apply?

[elleng]

91. Yes, I am an attorney, and as I said in response, the principle is the same:

reputable institutions of higher learning must respect the rationale for the First Amendment, and find approaches to protests by students and the public which enable public assembly and discourse.

[oldsoftie]

113. They're breaking several rules & disobeying the decree by the University to NOT occupy the quad

Their "free speech" rights dont give them the right to do that.
When they get tossed & dont get their degree & no one will hire them maybe then they'll learn.

[yagotme]

114. Threatening, and not allowing students in, of a certain persuasion,

would negate their claim of 1st amendment rights, would it not? Denying that right to others, voids their own, right? Violation of University rules? Un-permitted public protests are often shut down, right? So where do these students get the right to trample on somebody else's rights just "because"?

[LexVegas]

12. Good. nt

[Mountainguy]

24. 1A isn't a

"Do whatever the fuck I want" card.

[Sympthsical]

26. Especially when they have never cared about the First Amendment until now

Like, seriously. They think there's a blanket amnesia about the past ten years where these vocal hard Left student groups try to shut down anything and anyone they don't like.

Now everyone's pretending to be the Bestest of the First Amendment Warriors because it suits purpose.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology invited the geophysicist Dorian Abbot to give a prestigious public lecture this autumn. He seemed a natural choice, a scientific star who studies climate change and whether planets in distant solar systems might harbor atmospheres conducive to life.

Then a swell of angry resistance arose. Some faculty members and graduate students argued that Dr. Abbot, a professor at the University of Chicago, had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity programs. In videos and opinion pieces, Dr. Abbot, who is white, has asserted that such programs treat “people as members of a group rather than as individuals, repeating the mistake that made possible the atrocities of the 20th century.” He said that he favored a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit.

He said that his planned lecture at M.I.T. would have made no mention of his views on affirmative action. But his opponents in the sciences argued he represented an “infuriating,” “inappropriate” and oppressive choice.

On Sept. 30, M.I.T. reversed course. The head of its earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences department called off Dr. Abbot’s lecture, to be delivered to professors, graduate students and the public, including some top Black and Latino high school students. “Besides freedom of speech, we have the freedom to pick the speaker who best fits our needs,” said Robert van der Hilst, the head of the department at M.I.T. “Words matter and have consequences.”

This man "created harm" and "Words matter and have consequences."

Boy howdy, they made that 180 fast, didn't they? What changed, what changed, what changed . . .

[JustAnotherGen]

37. Good point

I'm old enough to remember that Rittenhouse brat getting booed off stage at a college or two. Did I only imagine that? False memory?

Hmm . . . I think I see a key difference here.

[Sympthsical]

40. I've said it non-stop about the First Amendment principles

Over and over again. "You may like censorship now, but it always comes back. And once it comes for you, you won't like it."

And here comes the dildo of consequences like a shark in the water.

That was sudden, wasn't it.

[Voltaire2]

47. getting booed off a stage is an expression of free speech.

both Rittenhouse and the audience have the right to express themselves.

[tritsofme]

99. Do hecklers get a veto on speech they dislike?

[Voltaire2]

100. No, they get to heckle.

It’s not a veto. The owners of the venue get a veto.

Ever seen a standup comic bomb? The audience is frequently very involved.

[yagotme]

115. How about chase the speaker down a hall, and trap them in a room for a while?

https://www.newsweek.com/moment-swimmer-riley-gaines-abused-trans-activists-viewed-450000-times-1793155

Is this protected free speech?

[Voltaire2]

117. No.

[MineralMan]

116. I've seen a standup comic bomb.

In fact, I was at a front table once during a standup comedy evening. One comic was not doing well with the crowd, which was not responding with laughter. So, the comic decided he'd go for the lowest-hanging fruit, which happened to be me. At the time, I was in my full Gandalf beard and hair phase.

So, said comic thought he'd get a laugh at my expense.

"So, what do we have here," pointing at me, "F-ing Moses? Am I being judged now?"

Not my first circus, so I stood, turned around, faced the rest of the audience and did a florid, Victorian-era deep bow. The audience responded with a collective belly laugh. I turned back around and sat down again.

The comic walked off the stage. Sometimes, you aren't on your best routine, and sometimes you need to leave the Gandalf guy alone. He's a freaking wizard, you know...

[LeftInTX]

121. Berkeley cancelled the Milo Yiannolpoulos event due to safety concerns.

Amid an apparently organized violent attack and destruction of property at UC Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union, the UC Police Department (UCPD) determined it was necessary to evacuate controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos from campus and to cancel his scheduled 8 p.m. event. The Breitbart News editor had been invited by the Berkeley College Republicans.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/01/yiannopoulos-event-canceled

Campuses can cancel protests for the same reason.

[LuvLoogie]

36. "Shut up!"

"Get down with the sickness!"

"Gaza is the next Riviera!"

[BannonsLiver]

50. Looks like these over privileged anti semites found a bit of FAFO

Slow clap

[JustAnotherGen]

54. Agreed

Actions have consequences.

[republianmushroom]

57. Like the action being taken by MIT

[FakeNoose]

67. Oh that's going to piss off the parents who paid humongous amounts of tuition

[ProfessorGAC]

112. 80 Grand A Year...

...tuition, room, & board. I fear a lot of people got trapped in group think & protested because they thought it fashionable.
If they don't have full & absolute commitment to their cause, that's a steep price to pay for fashionable.

[PeaceWave]

98. Forgive my student loans while I'm protesting...And don't forget to deliver me food while you're at it!

These "protestors" in no way resemble those who protested for Civil Rights.

[Oopsie Daisy]

108. You make an excellent point!! And *

* please provide (free of charge) a variety of foods that are: vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, low-calorie, organic, cruelty-free, fair-trade, eco-sensitive, and locally grown.

[lindysalsagal]

110. I don't see that campuses have any other choice.

All of the other students paid for a safe education. Students can apply for protest permits on town/city land.