UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread

[Captainant 27656]

7 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

Watching what the "solidarity committees" did at Columbia and Yale, perhaps it was prudent to take them at their word. The fact that 26 of the arrestees weren't student, and were outside agitators, should be a clue.

Nothing of that sort was happening on Texas's campus yesterday. The jackboots came down hard because they wanted to flex and show how tough they were and that their fascist cred is legit. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

It seems the smart move is to limit gathering sizes to below 40 and limit the space for gathering and times of gatherings and require prior approval by the school. Anything beyond the ordinary in scope needs to be done off campus. Let them be the city's problem.

Except, you know, that is both unconstitutional and illegal under Texas law. 

[wildcat09 29350]

It's always weird to see someone basically say how much they love the taste of boot leather. I'm not one for kink shaming but there's still some things people should probably keep to themselves. 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

It's always weird to see someone basically say how much they love the taste of boot leather. I'm not one for kink shaming but there's still some things people should probably keep to themselves. 

Yup, the authoritarians really do get off on this shit.  No CR.  Not really.  Oops.

[Rex Kramer 1335]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, fuck off.  I'm older than you and I think Abbott, Hartzell, Eltife and the gang are wannabe authoritarians that boot-lickers like you jizz over every night.

You think Hartzell and Eltife are wannabe authoritarians?  Really?  Why are you so angry with me?

[Js1 85313]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yup, the authoritarians really do get off on this shit.  No CR.  Not really.  Oops.

Man, what a weird time for Slorch to have ejected himself from this website. He’d be all over this boot licking 

[Brisketexan 105098]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Except, you know, that is both unconstitutional and illegal under Texas law. 

Well, Abbott specifically signed a law MAKING such restrictions illegal under Texas law.

The problem is, yesterday, he made it clear that the applicability of that law depends on whether Abbott agrees with the content of the speech at issue.  Oopsie.

[wood 11225]

nsiap ... Looks like Abbott is taking some heat from both sides of the aisle. Good to see.

Texas Gov. Abbott faces backlash after mass arrest at UT Austin pro-Palestine protest  https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4620838-texas-governor-abbott-backlash-mass-arrest-ut-austin-pro-palestine-protest/

Spoiler

 

Quote

After Texas state troopers arrested more than 50 people at a University of Texas at Austin protest this week, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is facing accusations that the state went too far.

Police in riot gear broke up an unsanctioned but nonviolent demonstration at the state’s flagship university Wednesday.

Among those arrested was a journalist with the local Fox 7 news affiliate, who has been charged with criminal trespassing, according to the news organization.

Demonstrators have scheduled a second day of protest for Thursday.

The students had called on UT to divest from arms manufacturers and U.S. and Israeli companies profiting off Israel’s war in Gaza. The university endowment has an estimated $52.5 million invested with arms manufacturers.

Students and off-campus supporters began to gather before noon in a protest the university forbade them to hold. They chanted slogans such as, “Free, free Palestine. Killing children is a crime,” according to Texas Public Radio.

Jews on campus were divided over whether this constituted an offensive act.

Texas Hillel, the Jewish student union, called the protests “hateful,” noting they took place on the second day of Passover, the Jewish festival of freedom.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, joined by fellow governors during a news conference. (Eric Gay / The Associated Press)

Others disagreed. “They’re not shouting anything antisemitic, they’re not harassing anyone, they’re standing on the green lawn, expressing themselves,” Jeremi Suri, a Jewish UT-Austin history professor, told The Texas Tribune.

“The appropriate response would be to ask them to be contained in an area, let them stay on the grass and let them shout until they have no voices left,” Suri added.

Instead, Abbott called in the state troopers.

In a post Wednesday on the social platform X, Abbott declared the protests antisemitic and called for the university to expel students who participated. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), meanwhile, has made suppressing alleged campus antisemitism a key priority for next year’s legislative session.

“Today, Greg Abbott’s [Department of Public Safety] has more courage to arrest peaceful student protesters than when an active shooter entered an elementary school in Uvalde,” state Democrats wrote in a statement Wednesday evening.

The party called the crackdown an Abbott “campaign ad.”

A Democratic state representative from Austin called the response “out of hand.” 

“In normal times when I was a student I was in a ‘sit in’ [with the Rev. Jesse Jackson] INSIDE the actual UT law school and administration just ignored us,” state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, (D-Austin), wrote on X.

A group of UT professors issued a statement condemning university president Jay Hartzell’s decision to call in the police.

The administrators noted the event “was to have included teach-ins, study sessions, pizza, and an art workshop. There was no threat of violence, no plan to disrupt classes, no intimidation of the campus community.”

In response, they wrote, “we have witnessed police punching a female student, knocking over a legal observer, dragging a student over a chain link fence, and violently arresting students simply for standing at the front of the crowd.”

Local journalists decried the arrest of the Fox photographer.

“If he’s guilty of criminal trespass, then I am too, as are a dozen other credentialed, on-the-clock journalists who were peacefully recording on a public lawn,” Ryan Chandler of KXAN wrote on X.

Top Stories from The Hill
Texas Gov. Abbott faces backlash after mass arrest at UT Austin pro-Palestine protest
DeSantis: Florida ‘will not comply’ with new Biden Title IX rules
DOJ rebuffs GOP’s second demand for Biden-Hur audio recordings
GOP critics vow no more US aid for Ukraine
Similar criticism came from libertarian and right-wing groups that previously supported Abbott’s campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs — which the state government had called anti-free speech.

“Sending in a phalanx of law enforcement threatens protected speech where it should be at its most free: a public university like UT Austin,” Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) legal director Will Creeley wrote after the arrests.

FIRE, a longtime critic of DEI, said Abbott’s use of police to break up the demonstration “makes his disregard for the First Amendment’s protection of political speech clear.”

The crackdown followed Abbott’s controversial March executive order that critics characterized as a reversal of sweeping free-speech protections he signed into law in 2019. 

In March, the governor signed an executive order directing universities to change their free speech policies to properly punish antisemitic speech — a category state Republican leadership applies to criticism of the war in Gaza.

“I am committed to the fight against antisemitism on campus, but I am concerned about the highlighted provisions in Governor Abbott’s executive order,” right-wing activist Chris Rufo of the Manhattan Institute, who has been a longtime critic of DEI, safe spaces and pro-Palestine campus protests, wrote at the time.

“How is such a policy different from DEI programs promising to prohibit ‘anti-black speech’? And why not include ‘anti-white speech,’ which, as I have shown in my reporting, is institutionalized at University of Texas?” Rufo asked.

Writers at the far-right magazine The Federalist called Abbott’s March executive order an endorsement of “the DEI cult” with its “demands for Jewish safe spaces.”

Muslim students told the press the university hasn’t protected them from abuse and assault on campus.

Earlier this month, three men assaulted a Muslim student wearing traditional dress while mocking him in “fake Arabic,” according to a complaint filed by the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

Texas Republican leadership has long combined dogged support for Israel’s right-wing government with a more complicated relationship with antisemitic groups on the state’s far right.

Last year, a leading state PAC aligned with state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) changed its name and fired its director after video surfaced of him meeting with white nationalist Nick Fuentes, a vocal fan of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and a proponent of a “holy war” against Jews.

After the video came to light, Republican recipients of the PAC’s donations in the state Legislature countered criticisms and calls to donate the funds by espousing their support for Israel, as The Hill reported.

Patrick, for example, received $3 million from the PAC in the lead-up to the 2023 impeachment of Paxton, one of his allies.

In the face of criticism over the donation, Patrick announced he would use it to buy Israeli bonds.

In December, the state Republican committee voted 39-32 to continue permitting members to meet with groups “known to espouse or tolerate antisemitism, pro-Nazi sympathies or Holocaust denial,” stripping a clause that would have banned such meetings from a statement of support for Israel, according to The Texas Tribune.

Half the board also voted not to keep any record of that vote. 

In voting down a measure that would have restricted such meetings, members raised concerns about free speech. A ban on such meetings was reminiscent of “Marxist” tactics, members said. 

Banning them “could put you on a slippery slope,” committee member Dan Tully told the Tribune.

In the aftermath of Wednesday’s arrests, a local journalist with the left-wing Texas Observer called out the apparent contradiction between the state’s broader response to antisemitic speech and its crackdown on the college demonstrations.

“I’ve seen no credible reporting of actual antisemitic incidents at the UT Austin protest,” Steven Monacelli wrote on X.

“What I can tell you is that I’ve reported on numerous neo-Nazi events and Greg Abbott never once tried to put any of them in jail.”

 

 

Edited April 26 by wood

[MagicSoccerSpray 1732]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

nothing of that sort was happening on Texas's campus yesterday.

 

Correct. There's a reason that it didn't, why do you think that was?

[bolverk 29671]

6 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Correct. There's a reason that it didn't, why do you think that was?

Because they weren't planning to fucking camp out on the lawn, you goddamned moron.

[Dahobbs 17534]

17 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

They took them at their word, and because of their previous actions at Columbia, USC, etc. Here is the instagram post announcing the "occupation":

"Reclaim our space"

"Class is canceled"

"Occupy the lawn"

"In the footsteps of our comrades at Columbia SJP, Rutgers-New Brunswick, Yale, and countless others across the nation, we will be establishing THE POPULAR UNIVERSITY FOR GAZA and demanding our administration divest from death."

Watching what the "solidarity committees" did at Columbia and Yale, perhaps it was prudent to take them at their word. The fact that 26 of the arrestees weren't student, and were outside agitators, should be a clue.

I don't understand what is offensive or scary about this. Are we concerned that occupying grass is going to disrupt something? The south lawn is occupied every day class is in session, UT football is playing, or some other event is occurring on campus. It is also occupied around commencement, and a million other times during the year. Here are some pictures of it being "occupied" and somehow riot police weren't needed. Oh the fucking horror!

 

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 52489]

57 minutes ago, immamac said:

He should have gone to the organizer in person on campus and talked to them in front of everyone to say what was and wasn’t gonna happen and if they didn’t listen he was going to have to call authorities.

And taken that security guard that he and the students love so much, to mediate. 

[wildcat09 29350]

9 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Correct. There's a reason that it didn't, why do you think that was?

This is some real “the only reason Saddam didn’t nuke us is because we invaded” shit right here.

[Brisketexan 105098]

10 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Correct. There's a reason that it didn't, why do you think that was?

See, the fact that my office in Austin has never been attacked by tigers is PROOF that my use of Brisketexan's Patented Tiger Repellent works!

How fucking breathtakingly stupid.

[wildcat09 29350]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand what is offensive or scary about this. Are we concerned that occupying grass is going to disrupt something? The south lawn is occupied every day class is in session, UT football is playing, or some other event is occurring on campus. It is also occupied around commencement, and a million other times during the year. Here are some pictures of it being "occupied" and somehow riot police weren't needed. Oh the fucking horror!

 

 

 

Some posters are really letting their secret aggy out in more ways than one.

[Hank_Hill 18803]

9 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Correct. There's a reason that it didn't, why do you think that was?

Soooo the cops were justified in assaulting people because of the possibility of tents being set up because of similar protests at universities 1000 miles away???

[Js1 85313]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

See, the fact that my office in Austin has never been attacked by tigers is PROOF that my use of Brisketexan's Patented Tiger Repellent works!

How fucking breathtakingly stupid.

[Biff Tannen 45676]

16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Man, what a weird time for Slorch to have ejected himself from this website. He’d be all over this boot licking 

What?  When did this happen?

[Brisketexan 105098]

2 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

Soooo the cops were justified in assaulting people because of the possibility of tents being set up because of similar protests at universities 1000 miles away???

Now you understand.

Of course, by that logic.....the cops should pepperspray the fuck out of the next gathering of jews, because of what some jews are doing in Gaza right now.  Right?  Is that how this works?  The transitive property of justified prior restraint of speech, and fuck the constitution?

[PTINS 3467]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Insert "they're the same picture" meme here.

You literally just posted a screed advocating for prior restraint of speech based on what MIGHT happen.  I mean, even Walter fucking Sobchak knows that's bullshit.

 

By your argument, we should not allow ANY Trump rallies because the one he held on January 6th turned violent, and he still uses violent rhetoric sometimes.  So, when he shows up around here, we're not gonna allow that lawless shitshow on OUR watch, nosiree!  We'll send an entire division of armored and armed DPS shock troops to break those likely hooligans up!  Right?

Fucking of course not.

The rights of free speech and freedom of assembly are the most misunderstood constitutional rights.

 

I did not mention "speech" in my post. That is the Freedom I cherish the most. You are free to tell my boss he's a fucking idiot, and he is free to fire you.

I merely responded to where you might exercise that freedom.

The freedom to assemble is provided for, but that does not mean you can do it wherever you want. The right to defend and protect your life and property are also provided for.  

But like it or not, agree or not, the City of Austin had/has a well known position of choosing not to enforce the law.  UT called somebody who would.

Will Trump be allowed to have a rally on the steps of the Capitol? Doubtful, but not my decision.

[Pato del Muerto 52489]

34 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

They took them at their word, and because of their previous actions at Columbia, USC, etc. Here is the instagram post announcing the "occupation":

"Reclaim our space"

"Class is canceled"

"Occupy the lawn"

"In the footsteps of our comrades at Columbia SJP, Rutgers-New Brunswick, Yale, and countless others across the nation, we will be establishing THE POPULAR UNIVERSITY FOR GAZA and demanding our administration divest from death."

Watching what the "solidarity committees" did at Columbia and Yale, perhaps it was prudent to take them at their word. The fact that 26 of the arrestees weren't student, and were outside agitators, should be a clue.

So you just ignore the entire last paragraph where they say they plan to be there “all day” which should be fine and within the rules, and to listen to organizers to keep everyone safe?

as to non-student “agitators” it’s a public space so if non students want to attend they should be able to while following the rules and if they don’t then they get dealt with. DPS wasn’t there to take care of bad actors, they were there to break it up and they say as much with the statements put out by the school president, the utpd, and the governor. 

[immamac 42841]

I mean this is straight up because of Columbia and a bunch of shitheads on other campuses and an overreaction to keep that from happening. It’s not a nothingburger and it was completely fucked in its handling and Hartzel lost control of the university and what is important about this kind of thing. He allowed the university to become a political plaything. 

[bolverk 29671]

Surveys indicate that about 25% of Americans are authoritarians, which is 10-15 percentage points higher than most Western democracies.

They also show that among Americans, people living in former Confederate states, Evangelicals, rural dwellers, and the less educated all show higher levels of acceptance for authoritarianism than the average American.

Let's face the fact that a large percentage of Surly posters would be just fine living under an authoritarian government as long as they were in the in-group.

[hayden_horn 11362]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I mean this is straight up because of Columbia and a bunch of shitheads on other campuses and an overreaction to keep that from happening. It’s not a nothingburger and it was completely fucked in its handling and Hartzel lost control of the university and what is important about this kind of thing. He allowed the university to become a political plaything. 

"allowed?" Pshhh

[MagicSoccerSpray 1732]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Because they weren't planning to fucking camp out on the lawn, you goddamned moron.

 

Sure buddy.

 

1 minute ago, Hank_Hill said:

Soooo the cops were justified in assaulting people because of the possibility of tents being set up because of similar protests at universities 1000 miles away???

 

"assaulting". And yes, when the same umbrella organization's called for "occupations" that resulted in lawless and threatening tent cities at other Universities, yes it was justified. Why do you think the majority of the arrested were outside agitators? Why were they there?

[Hank Kingsley 20922]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Surveys indicate that about 25% of Americans are authoritarians, which is 10-15 percentage points higher than most Western democracies.

 

[Brisketexan 105098]

1 minute ago, PTINS said:

I did not mention "speech" in my post. That is the Freedom I cherish the most. You are free to tell my boss he's a fucking idiot, and he is free to fire you.

Jesus.  Tapdancing.  Christ.  Way to make my point.  We are talking about GOVERNMENT action, which actually happened, to restrain speech.  That's what the fucking First Amendment is about.  No shit, your boss can fire you for what you say.  BUT THE STATE CANNOT BEAT YOU UPSIDE THE HEAD FOR WHAT YOU SAY.  THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

 

2 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I merely responded to where you might exercise that freedom.

The freedom to assemble is provided for, but that does not mean you can do it wherever you want.

Then pay the fuck attention to the fucking law.  You know, the one that our governor -- who just openly attacked speech BECAUSE OF ITS CONTENT -- signed:

Quote

The right to protest is protected by the U.S. and Texas constitutions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. Freedom of speech and assembly means people can engage in symbolic actions and can arrange peaceful marches and protests on certain public lands.

But these rights are not without limitations. Government entities and colleges can enact “reasonable time, place, and manner” restrictions or regulations as long as they are applied neutrally and don’t discriminate against particular groups or viewpoints. Some colleges have tried to limit protests to smaller, designated “free speech zones,” but the law has often backed up students peacefully protesting outdoors in open, public areas of campus, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

In 2019, Texas lawmakers passed a free speech law that established all common outdoor areas at public universities as traditional public forums, allowing anyone – not just students and university members – to exercise free speech there, as long as their activities are lawful and don’t disrupt the normal functions of the campus.

That "Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression?"  It ain't some hippie dippie commune.  It's a right-wing group.  How 'bout that?  Some folks - with whom I disagree on many things - get free speech right.  And I will damned well defend their right to gather and speak in ALL COMMON OUTDOOR AREAS OF MY UNIVERSITY.

5 minutes ago, PTINS said:

The right to defend and protect your life and property are also provided for. 

Of course they are.  But that is not a pre-emptive right.  If you shoot a guy walking by your car because "the #1 precursor to someone stealing your car is them walking up to it," you're going to fucking prison (well, probably not in Texas, and certainly not if the dude you shoot is brown or black).  You don't get to crack skulls because someone MIGHT be a threat.

 

7 minutes ago, PTINS said:

Will Trump be allowed to have a rally on the steps of the Capitol? Doubtful, but not my decision.

Read the citation to the law above.  If Trump wanted to give a speech and hold a rally in common areas of the university, so long as he did not use artificial amplification so as to disturb classes, IT WOULD BE 100% LEGAL AND ALLOWED.  And if my university or governor sent in jackboots to crack the skulls of peaceful Trump rally attendees, listening to Trump yell his inanities and lies, I would be just as angry and outraged as I am today.  Because the law and the Constitution apply to all of us, regardless of whether we agree with the content of the speech or not.  And in Texas, every person....every single one....is allowed to speak freely and assemble in common areas of the university, so long as they aren't violent, threatening harm to others, or impeding the rights of others (they can't actually block a roadway on campus, for example....they can march down a pedestrian roadway, they just can't blockade it).

You're a jackboot, and you support fascism.  You don't get to beat up the dirty hippies just because you don't like them, or because they MIGHT do something that breaks the law, and I know that's a possibility because one time I saw another hippie break the law.  By that argument, we get to have the DPS shoot anyone wearing khakis  in the face, right?  Because we once saw a group wearing those do some bad things....

 

[royiv 9293]

Classifying anyone that’s not a student an “agitator” is some serious NewsMax brain addled shit. The general public has every right to be on campus. The presence of the general public on campus does not make those individuals agitators. When people start repeating this shit over and over, you know to ignore them.

[Brisketexan 105098]

12 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Let's face the fact that a large percentage of Surly posters would be just fine living under an authoritarian government as long as they were in the in-group.

This.  All of this.  

10 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

Why do you think the majority of the arrested were outside agitators? Why were they there?

I love the classic "outside agitators."  It's one of the laziest fascist tropes out there, and you trot it out shamelessly.  You know why non-students were there?  Because our right-wing government thought it was so important that non-students be allowed to use the public spaces of this state - expressly including college campuses - to state their views, THAT THEY PASSED A SPECIAL LAW ENSURING THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO.

They were on campus the same reason any other citizen might be on campus: to state their views and peaceably assemble.  What's that you say?  Some of them may have been intended to engage in non-peaceful activities?  Cool.  Then the second that they do something that makes it clear that non-peaceful action is imminent, arrest them.  But you don't ever, never ever ever, get to arrest someone for what they MIGHT MAYBE DO.  The Bureau of Pre-Crime ain't a thing.

Edited April 25 by Brisketexan

[Celery Man 20935]

35 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Correct. There's a reason that it didn't, why do you think that was?

We should do this for more futurecrimes.

[F250 28768]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

By that argument, we get to have the DPS shoot anyone wearing khakis  in the face, right?  Because we once saw a group wearing those do some bad things....

As mentioned by someone earlier, this was different and not dangerous like the student protesters.

[wood 11225]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That "Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression?"  It ain't some hippie dippie commune.  It's a right-wing group.  How 'bout that?  Some folks - with whom I disagree on many things - get free speech right.  And I will damned well defend their right to gather and speak in ALL COMMON OUTDOOR AREAS OF MY UNIVERSITY.

...

 If Trump wanted to give a speech and hold a rally in common areas of the university, so long as he did not use artificial amplification so as to disturb classes, IT WOULD BE 100% LEGAL AND ALLOWED.  And if my university or governor sent in jackboots to crack the skulls of peaceful Trump rally attendees, listening to Trump yell his inanities and lies, I would be just as angry and outraged as I am today.  Because the law and the Constitution apply to all of us, regardless of whether we agree with the content of the speech or not. 

Welp ... this right here. What I'm sayin'.

It's simply mind-blowing how hard it seems to be for some to grasp this mind-numbingly simple concept.

Edited April 25 by wood

[Rex Kramer 1335]

17 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I did not mention "speech" in my post. That is the Freedom I cherish the most. You are free to tell my boss he's a fucking idiot, and he is free to fire you.

I merely responded to where you might exercise that freedom.

The freedom to assemble is provided for, but that does not mean you can do it wherever you want. The right to defend and protect your life and property are also provided for.  

But like it or not, agree or not, the City of Austin had/has a well known position of choosing not to enforce the law.  UT called somebody who would.

Will Trump be allowed to have a rally on the steps of the Capitol? Doubtful, but not my decision.

I’m pretty sure I can call your boss a fucking idiot and I won’t get fired. Give me his number and I’ll roll audiio on some attempts. 

[Brisketexan 105098]

1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m pretty sure I can call your boss a fucking idiot and I won’t get fired. Give me his number and I’ll roll audiio on some attempts. 

PTINS' boss hired PTINS.  His boss's idiocy has already been established.  You'd just be pouring salt in the wound.  Have you no decency?

[Rex Kramer 1335]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

PTINS' boss hired PTINS.  His boss's idiocy has already been established.  You'd just be pouring salt in the wound.  Have you no decency?

I’m not talking to you. You negged me because I suggested this wasn’t that big a deal. It hurt my feelings. 

Go be a loquacious blowhard off my lawn. 

[Brisketexan 105098]

2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I’m not talking to you. You negged me because I suggested this wasn’t that big a deal. It hurt my feelings. 

Go be a loquacious blowhard off my lawn. 

The State of Texas established that I get to be a loquacious blowhards on all public lawns.  All we gotta do is eminent domain yours, and I'm back in business.

[Captainant 27656]

19 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

"assaulting". And yes, when the same umbrella organization's called for "occupations" that resulted in lawless and threatening tent cities at other Universities, yes it was justified. Why do you think the majority of the arrested were outside agitators? Why were they there?

Good fucking lord the false victimhood from y'all is suffocating. Other people saying speech you don't like on the six pack lawn isn't lawlessness and threats

[Covri 6247]

3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

I don’t really know what happened. Neither do you. I know that if a group I supported were arrested and ultimately released without charge because of police being heavy handed or because of campus administration / police being scared of a PR disaster, I’d get over it very quickly. 

I believe more alumni are more perturbed with the messages the naive protestors were sending than anything Abbott or Hartzell or police did.  I don’t think the comparison is close. 

 

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

I understand what you’re saying. We still do not know what happened behind the scenes (though I’ll reiterate it appears police were unnecessarily heavy handed). And my perspective is certainly shaped by age. Despite that all you say above is true, life isn’t fair, and everyone arrested should be able to get over it. 

 

Just get over being falsely detained/arrested/spending a night in jail because the cops realized they couldn’t continue their bullshit anymore. Just an inexplicably stupid take. 

[Dbeasy 15047]

Just out of curiosity, were any of you there yesterday? Is Surly right? Cause I know that’s the popular version of what went on there. A lot of people like to believe that. I wish I could. But I was there. I wasn’t here on Surly hoping I was right, thinking about it. I was up to my knees in Bermuda grass, with bullhorns that didn’t work, going in there, looking for Elon, slugging it out with him, while pussies like you were back here partying, putting on headbands, doing drugs, and listening to the goddam 4th and 5 albums. Oh! Oh! Oh!

[MagicSoccerSpray 1732]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I love the classic "outside agitators."  It's one of the laziest fascist tropes out there, and you trot it out shamelessly.  You know why non-students were there?  Because our right-wing government thought it was so important that non-students be allowed to use the public spaces of this state - expressly including college campuses - to state their views, THAT THEY PASSED A SPECIAL LAW ENSURING THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO.

They were on campus the same reason any other citizen might be on campus: to state their views and peaceably assemble.  What's that you say?  Some of them may have been intended to engage in non-peaceful activities?  Cool.  Then the second that they do something that makes it clear that non-peaceful action is imminent, arrest them.  But you don't ever, never ever ever, get to arrest someone for what they MIGHT MAYBE DO.  The Bureau of Pre-Crime ain't a thing.

 

Just harmless fellow citizens enjoying the sights I see. Just bad luck that as a numerical minority, they were a majority of the arrested. Were they wearing "I'm not a student" vests, making it easier to pick them out, or were they the ones most confrontational begging for arrest? Such a conundrum.

[Celery Man 20935]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Just out of curiosity, were any of you there yesterday? Is Surly right? Cause I know that’s the popular version of what went on there. A lot of people like to believe that. I wish I could. But I was there. I wasn’t here on Surly hoping I was right, thinking about it. I was up to my knees in Bermuda grass, with bullhorns that didn’t work, going in there, looking for Elon, slugging it out with him, while pussies like you were back here partying, putting on headbands, doing drugs, and listening to the goddam 4th and 5 albums. Oh! Oh! Oh!

is this a ygifs 🧦 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1732]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Good fucking lord the false victimhood from y'all is suffocating. Other people saying speech you don't like on the six pack lawn isn't lawlessness and threats

 

I'm sure that's what they thought at Columbia. It was very clearly stated what was intended, to "occupy the lawn", to "cancel classes", and to establish "THE POPULAR UNIVERSITY FOR GAZA". Doesn't sound lawless or threatening at all. It's not like there wasn't already a playbook or anything.

[Fondren & Main 6713]

[Captainant 27656]

1 minute ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

I'm sure that's what they thought at Columbia. It was very clearly stated what was intended, to "occupy the lawn", to "cancel classes", and to establish "THE POPULAR UNIVERSITY FOR GAZA". Doesn't sound lawless or threatening at all. It's not like there wasn't already a playbook or anything.

I don't think there's anything that will ever change your mind that cracking protester heads is the right move. You and yours sure enjoyed it during the 2020 summer of love. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

37 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I did not mention "speech" in my post. That is the Freedom I cherish the most. You are free to tell my boss he's a fucking idiot, and he is free to fire you.

I merely responded to where you might exercise that freedom.

The freedom to assemble is provided for, but that does not mean you can do it wherever you want. The right to defend and protect your life and property are also provided for.  

But like it or not, agree or not, the City of Austin had/has a well known position of choosing not to enforce the law.  UT called somebody who would.

Will Trump be allowed to have a rally on the steps of the Capitol? Doubtful, but not my decision.

You clearly don't cherish it all. Anyway, Texas law and University policy clearly establish the south lawn as somewhere the people can assemble. In fact, it happens all the time. I posted some pictures and everything. 

[Brisketexan 105098]

4 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Just harmless fellow citizens enjoying the sights I see. Just bad luck that as a numerical minority, they were a majority of the arrested. Were they wearing "I'm not a student" vests, making it easier to pick them out, or were they the ones most confrontational begging for arrest? Such a conundrum.

Being that the probable cause affidavits on over 80% of the arrests (so far) look to have been bullshit....I wouldn't hang my hat on "they were bad guys because the cops say they were bad guys."  And who gives a fuck if they were confrontational?  Being an asshole isn't a violation of the law (the fact that most all Surly posters walk free is testament to that).  If they committed an illegal act, then they should be arrested and face valid charges.

See, that's still the whole, entire point.  You don't get to fucking crush an entire protest of thousands of people because, say, 25 shitheels are in there.  Nope.  What do you do?  You arrest the 25 shitheels. And it these guys were indeed shitheels....and they indeed got arrested, groovy.  That STILL doesn't translate to "shut down the whole thing, including the thousands of people who aren't doing anything wrong."  Fuck, by YOUR standards, we should ban people attending UT football games (studies show that at D1 CFB games, there are usually around 60 arrests....MORE THAN WE EVEN SAW HERE, AT THIS LAWLESS MELEE!!!)

That's right.  We KNOW that at these rowdy, wild gatherings, typically 60 people (maybe more -- the cops really can't get to ALL the troublemakers) commit arrestable offenses.  Since the standard of "dozens of people in attendance will break the law" is what we apply to declare gatherings unlawful and shut them down, the only rational choice is to shut down attendance at all D1 football games.  We've established the rule, you celebrate it.  Fine.  Let's apply it.

[Hank_Hill 18803]

35 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

"assaulting". 

You’re actually right, my apologies. Assault and battery*

[Anastasis 23469]

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible....

'T is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world....

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies....

 

Too bad we couldn't listen. So we will rip ourselves apart do the resultant internal divisions. 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1732]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't think there's anything that will ever change your mind that cracking protester heads is the right move. You and yours sure enjoyed it during the 2020 summer of love. 

 

That was the Summer of the CHOP in Seattle, right? Of the antifa riots right? Yeah it was great fun watching the country immolate. We should all do it again.

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Being that the probable cause affidavits on over 80% of the arrests (so far) look to have been bullshit

 

Were the charges dropped because they were weak, or because the Travis County DA is a Cunt? If only there were a trail of past actions with which to discern.

 

3 minutes ago, Hank_Hill said:

You’re actually right, my apologies. Assault and battery*

 

Define that, specifically, as it pertains to these events. Because based on what I've seen, it seems hyperbolic.

[Rex Kramer 1335]

20 minutes ago, Covri said:

 

 

Just get over being falsely detained/arrested/spending a night in jail because the cops realized they couldn’t continue their bullshit anymore. Just an inexplicably stupid take. 

I didn’t say they weren’t wronged. They probably were. What do you do when you’re wronged?