UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread

[F250 28764]

18 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/232/205/2521217/

Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik (2d Cir. 2004)

[Dahobbs 17527]

21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

... do you think these kids put up tents with the intention to take them down at the end of each day ?

I've taken tents to the park and the beach before for use during the day. So yes, I think that is possible.  Whether these particular people intended to do is irrelevant to the question of whether a blanket no tents policy on a public forum is reasonable. It may be, but I'd need a better justification than "someone might try and stay the night."  

[956 Worldwide 34704]

39 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't care if an "encampment was coming." You don't get to shut down free speech based on what you think will happen. Period. 

As I said last week, once the protesters get violent, threatening, or violate reasonable restrictions, then you can act more forcefully. Not before then. I'm still not convinced that "no tents" is a reasonable restriction. And, the 2019 Texas law makes the protests at UT, and the restrictions the University can reasonably put in place, in a significantly different posture than the protests at other campuses. 

I’ll push back gently on that, as aggy with limited knowledge of the South Mall and the purpose it serves. It seems like a meeting point and place for public use and speech, maybe with a lot of similarities to the National Mall. 
 

Tents aren’t speech and they aren’t critical to assembly and nearly all public spaces have rules and regulations in place to balance out their use as free speech and petition zones with the right of other people to use them as free speech/public use/petition zones.  You need permits and permission to put up tents and other temporary structures on the National Mall and I don’t see that as unreasonable.
 

Whether you are there for a protest or rally or just enjoying the rare spring weather, other people have the right to be there as well and it’s not really an infringement to draw some bright lines. “No structures or tents without permission” seems as good as any.  Maybe not “send in the riot cops” worthy, but it’s fine to say it’s not allowed because that’s not what the space is for.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I've taken tents to the park and the beach before for use during the day. So yes, I think that is possible.  Whether these particular people intended to do is irrelevant to the question of whether a blanket no tents policy on a public forum is reasonable. It may be, but I'd need a better justification than "someone might try and stay the night."  

I mean, these were publicly announced as an act of solidarity with the other nationwide encampments, all of which were overnight establishments.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this discussion, if I'm being honest.

 

[BabaYaga 15289]

28 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Aren't tailgate tents permitted and paid for and only in designated spots?

Or do people just throw them up ad hoc on South Mall grass?  Been years since I have been to a game.

They're not "tents", they are almost all canopies like you see at kids soccer games.  Who the fuck would want to crawl in some hot ass tent, bereft of airflow before a game?

[Dahobbs 17527]

25 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

How is "no tents" a restriction on free speech at all? Do your protest. Just don't set up tents.

A rule that indirectly serves as an impediment to the right to speech and assembly is in many ways more pernicious than a rule that directly inhibits those activities. For instance, imagine if there were a "no umbrellas" rule. The right to assemble and speak in the rain would be significantly hampered. While the most determined would not be deterred, many others would be. We can't let "reasonable" restrictions become a trojan horse for restrictions that would materially reduce the availability of free speech. Here, "no tents" serves to make free speech more difficult in the same way that a "no umbrellas" policy would. A no tent policy serves to make it more difficult to exercise a full day of assembly by preventing the assembled a place to rest out of the sun/elements.

Again, maybe no tents is a reasonable restriction. But I don't think it is cut and dry, particularly when a location has been specifically protected as a part of the public forum. I need something more than the argument that someone might try and stay past 10:00 pm. 

25 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Of all things can we leave COVID nonsense out of this thread.  JFC

I think our post-Covid reality is pretty dang important context in determining whether older case regarding masks is still relevant law. Not allowing masks in the wake of a pandemic is most certainly going to restrict free speech. I don't think we can call a blanket no mask policy as reasonable in this day and age. 

11 minutes ago, Skipper said:

JFC Brisket. This isn't a law school exam.   If "the cops shouldn't have arrested them until 10PM" is the hill you are going to die on, fine.   But we all know damn well their goal was to push past the line in the sand and get arrested yesterday whether that happened at 2PM or 10PM.   There is exactly a zero percent chance they picked up their tent and went home at sundown.

You don't get to ignore rights based upon what you think someone is going to do. Why is this so hard for you? 

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ll push back gently on that, as aggy with limited knowledge of the South Mall and the purpose it serves. It seems like a meeting point and place for public use and speech, maybe with a lot of similarities to the National Mall. 
 

Tents aren’t speech and they aren’t critical to assembly and nearly all public spaces have rules and regulations in place to balance out their use as free speech and petition zones with the right of other people to use them as free speech/public use/petition zones.  You need permits and permission to put up tents and other temporary structures on the National Mall and I don’t see that as unreasonable.
 

Whether you are there for a protest or rally or just enjoying the rare spring weather, other people have the right to be there as well and it’s not really an infringement to draw some bright lines. “No structures or tents without permission” seems as good as any.  Maybe not “send in the riot cops” worthy, but it’s fine to say it’s not allowed because that’s not what the space is for.

See above. Tents are tools that may assist with the exercise of free speech. A blanket no tent policy in a protected public forum seems overly restrictive if the goal ensuring others have use of the space. It seems like a more reasonable restriction would be to allow tents so long as a permit is acquired in advance (as you described). UT doesn't have that mechanism.  

[Captainant 27639]

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’ll push back gently on that, as aggy with limited knowledge of the South Mall and the purpose it serves. It seems like a meeting point and place for public use and speech, maybe with a lot of similarities to the National Mall

It's a relatively small field in the "six pack" just south of the tower. On any given school day it's covered with a bunch of students laying down or sitting in the grass reading or eating or just existing. Not really comparable to the national mall

 

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Whether you are there for a protest or rally or just enjoying the rare spring weather, other people have the right to be there as well and it’s not really an infringement to draw some bright lines.

They weren't actively preventing anyone else from being in the grass - they were sitting in a fucking circle holding hands when the cops cleared them out yesterday and last week. That's perfectly legal according to abbott's law, and if you think escalating directly to riot cops and flash bangs and teargas are an appropriate remedy to facemasks and tents, then you just may be a fascist

[Brisketexan 105082]

22 minutes ago, Skipper said:

JFC Brisket. This isn't a law school exam.   If "the cops shouldn't have arrested them until 10PM" is the hill you are going to die on, fine.   But we all know damn well their goal was to push past the line in the sand and get arrested yesterday whether that happened at 2PM or 10PM.   There is exactly a zero percent chance they picked up their tent and went home at sundown.

Cool.  So, we can beat and arrest people for future crime.  Just want to get your position on the record.

Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.  By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries, so I was gonna leave it there past 8:00 am without paying.

Reasonable and proper application of the law often IS a "law school exam question."  You guys wanna put up tents in solidarity?  Cool.  I think it's silly, I think your whole protest is silly, but the mission and needs of the university can be met and protected so long as your act of solidarity doesn't go past 10 pm.  Oh, you say you intend to stay after 10 pm? Well, I'm going to encourage you not to do that, because we will come by and remove all tents at 10:01.  I then have cops out there at 9:50 saying nicely "folks, curfew is at 10:00, so we need y'all and your stuff out in ten minutes.  And you can't return until 8:00 tomorrow."  Then, when they don't move (you know, when they ACTUALLY break the rules), remove them and their tents.

Future crime isn't a thing.

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

They're not "tents", they are almost all canopies like you see at kids soccer games.  Who the fuck would want to crawl in some hot ass tent, bereft of airflow before a game?

It's like you've never even heard of a sex tent.  @Wulaw Horn can educate you.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10230]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  So, we can beat and arrest people for future crime.  Just want to get your position on the record.

Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.  By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries, so I was gonna leave it there past 8:00 am without paying.

Reasonable and proper application of the law often IS a "law school exam question."  You guys wanna put up tents in solidarity?  Cool.  I think it's silly, I think your whole protest is silly, but the mission and needs of the university can be met and protected so long as your act of solidarity doesn't go past 10 pm.  Oh, you say you intend to stay after 10 pm? Well, I'm going to encourage you not to do that, because we will come by and remove all tents at 10:01.  I then have cops out there at 9:50 saying nicely "folks, curfew is at 10:00, so we need y'all and your stuff out in ten minutes.  And you can't return until 8:00 tomorrow."  Then, when they don't move (you know, when they ACTUALLY break the rules), remove them and their tents.

Future crime isn't a thing.

FINALLY you agree with Friday's actions.. phew

[MAUFRAIS 6620]

half the arrested protestors weren't even enrolled at UT?  is this a pro palestine rally or an SAE pledge class?

[sasquatch69 599]

Quote

part of the point of a protest is to make everyone uncomfortable.

This is true, but one thing that seems to be lacking in a lot of young people who get involved in these efforts today is an understanding of how to tailor a message to (1) be heard/absorbed and (2) change hearts and minds.   Screaming at people, scrapping with police and other extreme tactics may be seen by the actors as justified/righteous - but they don't seem to be having a positive effect in terms of the general public (e.g. people who don't already have a strong opinion one way or the other).  It ends up turning the very people they're trying to convince against them.  

[BabaYaga 15289]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's like you've never even heard of a sex tent.  @Wulaw Horn can educate you.

[Skipper 6129]

8 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I mean, these were publicly announced as an act of solidarity with the other nationwide encampments, all of which were overnight establishments.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this discussion, if I'm being honest.

 

It's just fucking lawyers being lawyers.  Getting everyone stuck in minutiae instead of focusing on the big picture or the reality of the situation because it suits their politics.

[BabaYaga 15289]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.  By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries, so I was gonna leave it there past 8:00 am without paying.

Had I been there, I'd have kung-fu, ninja punched you in the taint.  You are fucking lucky.....and I think you know this to be true.....

[North of Walburg 30]

I just hope for the protestors' sake this is all wrapped up by May 10th.  If they interfere with graduation the protestors may need the DPS' protection from my wife and the other 8,000+ moms of graduates.  Those that have spent the last few months booking reservations, ordering cakes, and scheduling photographers will be out for blood if junior doesn't walk across that stage, jump in the fountain, and get drunk.  It's the 8,000+ army of Karens that Hartzell and probably Abbot should fear the most.

[Bateshorn 9927]

WIthout weighing in on the UT protests, there is a precedent for tent protests that turned into a problem: Occupy Wall Street, which started out as a legitimate protest (I worked a block from the McPherson Square encampment) and eventually turned into just a homeless/unhoused community that the NPS had to clear away.

I'm not saying that's a thing here.  But if I was a University administrator, once Spring term was over, I'd clear out any community to prevent it from becoming a public health nuisance. Again, in the case of UT, it sorta feels like they went right to the "clearing out" portion without some of the interim steps that usually occur with a protesting group.  But I haven't followed it super closely.  

[BabaYaga 15289]

6 minutes ago, sasquatch69 said:

(1) be heard/absorbed and (2) change hearts and minds.   Screaming at people, scrapping with police and other extreme tactics may be seen by the actors as justified/righteous - but they don't seem to be having a positive effect in terms of the general public (e.g. people who don't already have a strong opinion one way or the other).  It ends up turning the very people they're trying to convince against them.  

Leave Fox and CNN alone

[bolverk 29656]

6 minutes ago, Skipper said:

It's just fucking lawyers being lawyers.  Getting everyone stuck in minutiae instead of focusing on the big picture or the reality of the situation because it suits their politics.

Like wearing surgical masks?

[Frank Drebin 5661]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A rule that indirectly serves as an impediment to the right to speech and assembly is in many ways more pernicious than a rule that directly inhibits those activities. For instance, imagine if there were a "no umbrellas" rule. The right to assemble and speak in the rain would be significantly hampered. While the most determined would not be deterred, many others would be. We can't let "reasonable" restrictions become a trojan horse for restrictions that would materially reduce the availability of free speech. Here, "no tents" serves to make free speech more difficult in the same way that a "no umbrellas" policy would. A no tent policy serves to make it more difficult to exercise a full day of assembly by preventing the assembled a place to rest out of the sun/elements.

Again, maybe no tents is a reasonable restriction. But I don't think it is cut and dry, particularly when a location has been specifically protected as a part of the public forum. I need something more than the argument that someone might try and stay past 10:00 pm. 

I think our post-Covid reality is pretty dang important context in determining whether older case regarding masks is still relevant law. Not allowing masks in the wake of a pandemic is most certainly going to restrict free speech. I don't think we can call a blanket no mask policy as reasonable in this day and age. 

You don't get to ignore rights based upon what you think someone is going to do. Why is this so hard for you? 

See above. Tents are tools that may assist with the exercise of free speech. A blanket no tent policy in a protected public forum seems overly restrictive if the goal ensuring others have use of the space. It seems like a more reasonable restriction would be to allow tents so long as a permit is acquired in advance (as you described). UT doesn't have that mechanism.  

The argument is that by setting up tents, you are taking a public space and rendering it occupied and unusable to other members of the public.

[Dahobbs 17527]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I mean, these were publicly announced as an act of solidarity with the other nationwide encampments, all of which were overnight establishments.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in this discussion, if I'm being honest.

 

There is more than one issue here, thus your confusion.

1. Did these protesters intend to keep the tents up beyond a single day and create a "tent city" as seen in some other campuses? 

2. Would anyone using a tent in connection with public assembly necessarily intend to leave them up beyond a single day and create a "tent city"?

3. Is a "no tents ever" policy a reasonable restriction of free speech in the pubic forum?

You're focused on #1.  Maybe you're right. Maybe that was their intention. But I don't think the potential that someone may intend to violate a reasonable restriction is sufficient to restrict free speech. And, at any rate, there was maybe one tent at the original event last week. It is not reasonable to shut down everyone's speech because of one minor violation. You tell the person they can't have it and remove the tent if that is a violation. You don't remove everyone. 

As to #2, I think the answer is clearly no. I know this from my own experience.  

And whether #3 is reasonable or not is going to depend on the purpose of the no tents rule. If it is to make sure no one stays more than one day, it is overly restrictive and could be handled with an additional time frame element. It if is to make sure everyone has access to the space, it seems overly restrictive and could be assigned with the requirement of a permit/registration for use of a tent. If it is to prevent the creation of a "tent city" (which I really don't understand why these matter honestly), then again, overly restrictive as you can just prevent the creation of a tent city rather than all uses of tents. Maybe there are other arguments for a blanket no provision. I'm just not convinced the arguments offered so far are sufficient to call it a reasonable restriction.  

[BabaYaga 15289]

3 minutes ago, North of Walburg said:

I just hope for the protestors' sake this is all wrapped up by May 10th.  If they interfere with graduation the protestors may need the DPS' protection from my wife and the other 8,000+ moms of graduates.  Those that have spent the last few months booking reservations, ordering cakes, and scheduling photographers will be out for blood if junior doesn't walk across that stage, jump in the fountain, and get drunk.  It's the 8,000+ army of Karens that Hartzell and probably Abbot should fear the most.

I have a HS sr and soph.  If college graduations are anything like HS, god help anyone who gets in front of that blonde haired, don't feed after midnight, fucking party-planning gremlin.  Losing her shit is a FT job for her, but also is married to me and my progeny...

[Brisketexan 105082]

9 minutes ago, sasquatch69 said:

This is true, but one thing that seems to be lacking in a lot of young people who get involved in these efforts today is an understanding

Young people don't make the best decisions, and are prone to believing their own bullshit at the expense of actually being effective advocates.  Film at 11:00 to cover this shocking expose.

I found most student protests to be stupid and ham-handed even back in my campus days, regardless of the topic.  Because 18-22 year olds are not the wisest bunch.  But they're also figuring shit out.  And what better place to figure shit out/learn than a university campus?

Next thing you're gonna tell me is that young people sometimes ingest more substances than their reasonable limit, and make poor decisions about sexual partners and whatnot.  Don't tell me that, I just can't handle the shock to my system, I may come down with a touch of the vapors.

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Again, in the case of UT, it sorta feels like they went right to the "clearing out" portion without some of the interim steps that usually occur with a protesting group.

This.  Which tells us that the goal was the display of "look at us being tough, fuck those libtards" as opposed to being to actually protect any real campus interests.  I don't think any of us on here would have a problem with clearing all protesters and their gear at 10:00 pm. -- that's a good, clean, content-neutral and reasonable rule to keep the campus safe and clean.  You can show up every day, from here to eternity, to protest.  But you can't take up residence when you do so.

[North of Walburg 30]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I have a HS sr and soph.  If college graduations are anything like HS, god help anyone who gets in front of that blonde haired, don't feed after midnight, fucking party-planning gremlin.  Losing her shit is a FT job for her, but also is married to me and my progeny...

Because of Covid most of this year's graduating class did not have a traditional high school graduation.  So for a lot of folks this one means a lot.

[Dahobbs 17527]

5 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The argument is that by setting up tents, you are taking a public space and rendering it occupied and unusable to other members of the public.

That extends to doing anything, including standing. By definition using a space is going to keep others from using it as the same time. Logically, we shouldn't let anyone use the space at all because any of use of it makes it unavailable to others. But that's obviously self-defeating. As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

[Dahobbs 17527]

18 minutes ago, Skipper said:

It's just fucking lawyers being lawyers.  Getting everyone stuck in minutiae instead of focusing on the big picture or the reality of the situation because it suits their politics.

No, it's just you being dense and being fine violating rights because you disagree with the speech. Precrime isn't a thing. And it shouldn't be a thing. 

[BabaYaga 15289]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

Is that not the case now?  Tents having curfew times of 10pm?

[Don Johnson 4752]

 

[Dahobbs 17527]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Is that not the case now?  Tents having curfew times of 10pm?

Well that is an interesting question. The rule as written as vague. It could either mean no tents at all, ever, or no tents past 10 pm. The administration chose to enforce it as no tents ever. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

That extends to doing anything, including standing. By definition using a space is going to keep others from using it as the same time. Logically, we shouldn't let anyone use the space at all because any of use of it makes it unavailable to others. But that's obviously self-defeating. As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

Yeah, the whole "abusing a public space" thing starts to sound like Aggies and their grass rules. 

To me, if you don't want them actually camping, like @Brisketexan said, I'd pull the leaders aside day 1 and say "You can't sleep here, that's just the rules.  Here's what we can do:  Facilities will set up a floor/grass protecting cover, and we will allow y'all to set up early in the morning and help facilitate tear down at night.  We can even get some porta johns in here and allow groups to donate food and such during the day.  Y'all have to be out of here two days before graduation, period, so we can clean and set up.  That's non-negotiable and we will crack skulls if you try and cross us on it.  Anyone who crosses the two day mark will also be expelled, without recourse. 

[BabaYaga 15289]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

No, it's just you being dense and being fine violating rights because you disagree with the speech. Precrime isn't a thing. And it shouldn't be a thing. 

Meh, sort of.  Entrapment is a thing.  Stating you are going to so some salty shit will get knocks on your door by agencies you do not want knocking on your door

[BabaYaga 15289]

3 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

 

Begs the obvious question who are they and releasing their identities....which I doubt happens as no charges have been filed

[Dahobbs 17527]

2 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

 

Yeah, I'm quite sure that after the publicity last week, that this week's stuff is attended by more folks outside of the student body. Given that it is a public forum, I'm not sure that is relevant. I also always question reporting that tries to blame protests on outsiders. They weren't UT students, but were they graduates? Austinites? Texans? The UT community is much broader than its students. 

[TKthunder2 4985]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

Begs the obvious question who are they and releasing their identities....which I doubt happens as no charges have been filed

Yep, Garza ain’t going to charge any of them with shit (if these are his to charge).

[MonkeyDoughnut 10230]

Here again is the current policy regarding tents/camping: https://secure4.compliancebridge.com/utexas/public/getdoc.php?file=8-1050

The day/night tent rules seem pretty specific and clear - section IV and VII spell it out.

[Skipper 6129]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

No, it's just you being dense and being fine violating rights because you disagree with the speech. Precrime isn't a thing. And it shouldn't be a thing. 

Yesterday was not Precrime.  There was a rule.  It was enforced.   You are writing essays on whether or not that rule was "reasonable" and ignoring the reality which is whatever UT's interpretation of the rule was (including, Brisket's 10PM cut-off) it was getting broken.  You are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point enjoying your first amendment hypothetical and missing your days in ConLaw debating with the other fucking gunners. 

[Mikey4 2476]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A rule that indirectly serves as an impediment to the right to speech and assembly is in many ways more pernicious than a rule that directly inhibits those activities. For instance, imagine if there were a "no umbrellas" rule. The right to assemble and speak in the rain would be significantly hampered. While the most determined would not be deterred, many others would be. We can't let "reasonable" restrictions become a trojan horse for restrictions that would materially reduce the availability of free speech. Here, "no tents" serves to make free speech more difficult in the same way that a "no umbrellas" policy would. A no tent policy serves to make it more difficult to exercise a full day of assembly by preventing the assembled a place to rest out of the sun/elements.

A ban on tents does not infringe free speech even "indirectly," and certainly not "materially." A tent has absolutely nothing to do with conveying a political message. It's either detrimental to the message (if you're *in* the tent, then people are less likely to hear your message) or it's just an irrelevant structure sitting empty while you protest.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3269]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Future crime isn't a thing.

Just you wait, I’m sure this dynamic trio are working on making it a thing as soon as possible (spoiler alert it’s already happening)

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

MAGA gathers on campus intentionally violating policy I would be the first one cheering on the police beating their ass and calling bullshit if they were treated differently.

Jesus, man. Just wow.

Edited April 30 by Judge Roybeanbag

[Bevo 13570]

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, I parked the other night at 7:30 pm, without paying, in a metered space that said the meter was active from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.  By your reasoning, I should have gotten a ticket, because I'm a known anti-authoritarian who likes to push boundaries.

I would of kicked you if you had paid. Hopefully, you have a digital watch.

Edited April 30 by Bevo

[YGIFS 19449]

9 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Just you wait, I’m sure this dynamic trio are working on making it a thing as soon as possible (spoiler alert it’s already happening)

 

The one in the middle is spending $12,000 of our money to take he and some staffers to lower Manhattan today to promote what the guy on the left is doing on our campus to another guy.  I think the guy on the right is busy shopping for big hats for a Kentucky Derby party this weekend.  

[Bevo 13570]

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Jesus, man. Just wow.

 

You just made the fucking list, buddy.

[immamac 42838]

1 hour ago, Mikey4 said:

Exactly why I avoid CR and generally avoid DT as well. 

This isn't true - I think there is confusion on the argument here. Some people are arguing that there is justification in this because they don't like the content of the protest or the way the protest is happening 

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

 

 

 

 

It's becoming increasingly difficult to muddle through all the various hot takes about other places to find information about what's happening on OUR university campus. Anyone who'd like to discuss protests NOT taking place on the UT campus, please feel free to do so in this brand new thread.

Thank you.

I will moderate accordingly thanks for doing this. 

[BabaYaga 15289]

 

 

[Dahobbs 17527]

17 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Yesterday was not Precrime.  There was a rule.  It was enforced.   You are writing essays on whether or not that rule was "reasonable" and ignoring the reality which is whatever UT's interpretation of the rule was (including, Brisket's 10PM cut-off) it was getting broken.  You are just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point enjoying your first amendment hypothetical and missing your days in ConLaw debating with the other fucking gunners. 

I haven't been focused on yesterday. You're spending time dismissing last week and diminishing us pointing out the problem.  That's what I have an issue with. 

[bolverk 29656]

25 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Begs the obvious question who are they and releasing their identities....which I doubt happens as no charges have been filed

Are you unfamiliar with the mugshot thread? I'm sure a lot of them end up with no charges.

[Dahobbs 17527]

18 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

A ban on tents does not infringe free speech even "indirectly," and certainly not "materially." A tent has absolutely nothing to do with conveying a political message. It's either detrimental to the message (if you're *in* the tent, then people are less likely to hear your message) or it's just an irrelevant structure sitting empty while you protest.

If I say you can protest in this field but you cannot wear shoes, and the field volcanic is surrounded with volcanic rock, am I infringing speech? The shoes may not directly contribute to the speech, but they sure as shit make it a lot easier to do. An umbrella and a tent do the same thing to differing degrees. As I said, no tent ever is pretty harsh rule. If a less restrictive measure exists that will serve the same end goal, then that is the measure that should be used. 

[Mikey4 2476]

5 minutes ago, immamac said:

This isn't true - I think there is confusion on the argument here. Some people are arguing that there is justification in this because they don't like the content of the protest or the way the protest is happening. 

I don't follow. I was agreeing with Nicole that people are disuaded from posting in CR and to some extent DT due to tribalism and a rush to neg rather than engage in a debate. There is certainly some good faith debate and discussion, but the extremists make it unpleasant.

[Frank Drebin 5661]

41 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That extends to doing anything, including standing. By definition using a space is going to keep others from using it as the same time. Logically, we shouldn't let anyone use the space at all because any of use of it makes it unavailable to others. But that's obviously self-defeating. As I outlined earlier, the same goal can be met with less restrictive means, e.g., requiring registration for use of tents or limiting how long they can be used. 

You can only take up so much space standing.  But setting up tents you are taking up your space and the footprint of your tent or any number of tents you care to set up.  Standing space is first come first serve.  People eventually will have to use the restroom and vacate the space.  Tents can be there indefinitely.  

Not really a good argument.

The mall is not a fucking campground.  Leave your tent at home and protest all you want.

Edited April 30 by Frank Drebin

[BabaYaga 15289]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

If I say you can protest in this field but you cannot wear shoes, and the field volcanic is surrounded with volcanic rock, am I infringing speech? The shoes may not directly contribute to the speech, but they sure as shit make it a lot easier to do. An umbrella and a tent do the same thing to differing degrees. As I said, no tent ever is pretty harsh rule. If a less restrictive measure exists that will serve the same end goal, then that is the measure that should be used. 

It's hot and humid.  Who is getting in a tent vs a canopy/shade?  It's clear why the rule was implemented.  There have been tent cities all over the city and for a school trying to attract the best & brightest, it's not the best look for visiting students vs a hypothetical about shoes and rocky ground.  

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

I have no sympathy for Hartzell and wouldn’t mind him getting run out of town, but god damn can you imagine the psycho Abbott and the regents would appoint to replace him. Meet your new university president, the Navy Seal who murdered those Iraqi civilians and Trump pardoned.