UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread

[Grimas 669]

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/crime/2024/05/10/professor-richard-heyman-ut-austin-pro-palestine-protest-arrested-fired-interfering-police/73639778007/
 

UT professor canned from the protest…. 

[BrickHorn 18237]

18 minutes ago, Grimas said:

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/crime/2024/05/10/professor-richard-heyman-ut-austin-pro-palestine-protest-arrested-fired-interfering-police/73639778007/
 

UT professor canned from the protest…. 

That will teach Prof. Heyman to speak freely on the UT campus outside of Free Speech Week!

[Grimas 669]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

That will teach Prof. Heyman to speak freely on the UT campus outside of Free Speech Week!

Or wait until you have tenure…

[Hank_Hill 18870]

10 hours ago, Grimas said:

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/crime/2024/05/10/professor-richard-heyman-ut-austin-pro-palestine-protest-arrested-fired-interfering-police/73639778007/
 

UT professor canned from the protest…. 

“DPS trooper Thomas Goodson states in the charging document that he pushed Heyman back, and the professor responded by yelling. At some point, Heyman put his finger in Goodson's face and grabbed his bike by the handle and "physically started to pull my bike away from me, interfering with my assigned duties," the affidavit says

.The charging document notes that Heyman broke the trooper's "state-issued bike bell," which costs $62.”

 

Cop sounds like a snowflake pussy

 

[Captainant 27680]

6 hours ago, Grimas said:

Or wait until you have tenure…

That's a chicken shit defense of a professor getting fired solely because the Uvalde Defenders are a bunch of gaping pussies

[Anastasis 23475]

He broke his bike bell? lol. What a pussy. 

[Blotto 23540]

13 hours ago, Grimas said:

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/crime/2024/05/10/professor-richard-heyman-ut-austin-pro-palestine-protest-arrested-fired-interfering-police/73639778007/
 

UT professor canned from the protest…. 

Quote

The charging document notes that Heyman broke the trooper's "state-issued bike bell," which costs $62

[Brisketexan 105154]

[car meme] $62 for a bike bell? I should get the State of Texas bike bell contract. [/cat meme]

[YGIFS 19450]

To be fair to the accounts payable to team, the expensive bike bell is able to fire multiple rounds at dogs from across the bike lane.

[JMFP 1120]

[crash_davis 23113]

Happy to report that there seemed to be very little inconsequential protests during the different schools' commencements. I didn't see or hear any protest during the main Saturday night commencement. I'm extremely happy the 2024 class finally got their graduation which they didn't get in 2020 when they were in high school. Now I can fully not give a shit about any of this shit.

[PRONG HORN 3146]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[F250 28777]

29 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very original. I am sure no group of degenerate assholes have ever thought of something like this before.

[Sealtm6 35]

It would be wild if Israel were actually funding Hamas to create the impetus to completely destroy Gaza and then take over all the land.  

[closetohumping 17444]

On 5/10/2024 at 4:17 PM, BrickHorn said:

That will teach Prof. Heyman to speak freely on the UT campus outside of Free Speech Week!

Meh.  Technically every week is free speech week right?   But not free from consequences. Besides does rule and protocol really matter to any protesters?

[BrickHorn 18237]

28 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Technically every week is free speech week right?   But not free from consequences.

I often see this point made, but it reflects a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. In fact, that’s pretty much all it is. The state cannot enforce consequences against someone on the basis of their speech. 

[closetohumping 17444]

16 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

I often see this point made, but it reflects a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. In fact, that’s pretty much all it is. The state cannot enforce consequences against someone on the basis of their speech. 

So if I work for the state and I say the Jews deserved what they got from hitler because they killed Jesus, I get to keep my job?  In the private sector, you can get fired

 

so said professor can say sex with children is totally normal, he can’t be fired?

 

 

 

I don’t believe this is official but found this:

 

The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States.

Because the First Amendment places a limit on government, it protects anyone who might be affected by government actions.

That includes people who are citizens, people who are not citizens, people with popular views, people with views the majority might disagree with, people of all ages and identities, and groups of people like businesses and organizations.

In some cases, people’s circumstances may mean they are subject to slightly increased government oversight of their speech, such as students while in public schools, government employees (especially when they are on the job), and businesses when advertising.

But freedom of speech cannot be limited because of someone’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national identity, disability, genetic information, ancestry, viewpoint or beliefs.

Edited May 15 by closetohumping

[BrickHorn 18237]

18 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

So if I work for the state and I say the Jews deserved what they got from hitler because they killed Jesus, I get to keep my job?  In the private sector, you can get fired

 

so said professor can say sex with children is totally normal, he can’t be fired?

 

 

 

I don’t believe this is official but found this:

 

 

The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States.

Because the First Amendment places a limit on government, it protects anyone who might be affected by government actions.

That includes people who are citizens, people who are not citizens, people with popular views, people with views the majority might disagree with, people of all ages and identities, and groups of people like businesses and organizations.

In some cases, people’s circumstances may mean they are subject to slightly increased government oversight of their speech, such as students while in public schools, government employees (especially when they are on the job), and businesses when advertising.

But freedom of speech cannot be limited because of someone’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national identity, disability, genetic information, ancestry, viewpoint or beliefs.

Yes, in the case of public employees the analysis is a bit complicated. For example, courts have to balance first amendment rights against the government’s interests in functioning efficiently and maintaining legitimacy. My point is more broadly about the nature of freedom of speech - it’s just freedom from (some, but not all) consequences. 

Edited May 15 by BrickHorn

[bolverk 29683]

9 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

So if I work for the state and I say the Jews deserved what they got from hitler because they killed Jesus, I get to keep my job?  In the private sector, you can get fired

 

so said professor can say sex with children is totally normal, he can’t be fired?

 

 

 

I don’t believe this is official but found this:

 

 

The First Amendment protects everyone in the United States.

Because the First Amendment places a limit on government, it protects anyone who might be affected by government actions.

That includes people who are citizens, people who are not citizens, people with popular views, people with views the majority might disagree with, people of all ages and identities, and groups of people like businesses and organizations.

In some cases, people’s circumstances may mean they are subject to slightly increased government oversight of their speech, such as students while in public schools, government employees (especially when they are on the job), and businesses when advertising.

But freedom of speech cannot be limited because of someone’s race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national identity, disability, genetic information, ancestry, viewpoint or beliefs.

 

Get real. He wasn't accused of hate speech against Jewish people, advocating pedophilia, or anything of the like.

Specifically, the following are the three accusations leveled against the former UT prof.

According to Heyman’s arrest affidavit, DPS troopers accused him of 1) yelling expletives at law enforcement during the protest, 2) pulling away a trooper’s bike and 3) making a motion with a water bottle “as if he were going to swing it and hit” a trooper.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/10/texas-ut-lecturer-arrested-fired-palestinian-demonstration/

Let's break this down:

1. In and of itself, cussing out a cop is free speech and not an arrestable offense.
2. The professor's lawyer said the officer initiated physical contact and pushed Heyman, which caused Heyman to grab onto the bike’s handlebar for balance.
3. The cop says the professor made furtive movements with a water bottle, so it must be true.

The professor's lawyer says they have three videos with which they can dispute the above accusations. I haven't seen them. Have you?

Yes, government employees actually have fewer free speech rights than average citizens, but summarily firing an 18-year employee through an email without any hearing/meeting for this stuff is bullshit, IMO.

[closetohumping 17444]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Get real. He wasn't accused of hate speech against Jewish people, advocating pedophilia, or anything of the like.

Specifically, the following are the three accusations leveled against the former UT prof.

According to Heyman’s arrest affidavit, DPS troopers accused him of 1) yelling expletives at law enforcement during the protest, 2) pulling away a trooper’s bike and 3) making a motion with a water bottle “as if he were going to swing it and hit” a trooper.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/05/10/texas-ut-lecturer-arrested-fired-palestinian-demonstration/

Let's break this down:

1. In and of itself, cussing out a cop is free speech and not an arrestable offense.
2. The professor's lawyer said the officer initiated physical contact and pushed Heyman, which caused Heyman to grab onto the bike’s handlebar for balance.
3. The cop says the professor made furtive movements with a water bottle, so it must be true.

The professor's lawyer says they have three videos with which they can dispute the above accusations. I haven't seen them. Have you?

Yes, government employees actually have fewer free speech rights than average citizens, but summarily firing an 18-year employee through an email without any hearing/meeting for this stuff is bullshit, IMO.

Sorry. I’m answering bricks question from a broader perspective.  Free speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence 

I’m not emotionally invested in heyman’s case.  I hope he gets his day in court though I suspect our beloved university has some high powered lawyers. 
 

curious if we have a code of conduct employee handbook that every employee has to sign before they start?

[closetohumping 17444]

28 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Yes, in the case of public employees the analysis is a bit complicated. For example, courts have to balance first amendment rights against the government’s interests in functioning efficiently and maintaining legitimacy. My point is more broadly about the nature of freedom of speech - it’s just freedom from (some, but not all) consequences. 

Noted.  But during Covid quite a few racist jackasses got fired for exercising their rights to free speech.  It was glorious

[bolverk 29683]

4 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Sorry. I’m answering bricks question from a broader perspective.  Free speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequence 

I’m not emotionally invested in heyman’s case.  I hope he gets his day in court though I suspect our beloved university has some high powered lawyers. 
 

curious if we have a code of conduct employee handbook that every employee has to sign before they start?

Got it. It's just that I've seen worse behavior by coaches on the sidelines of a college football game without such extreme punishment than what was described.

[Rex Kramer 1338]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

I often see this point made, but it reflects a misunderstanding of the first amendment. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. In fact, that’s pretty much all it is. The state cannot enforce consequences against someone on the basis of their speech. 

But the university absolutely can. The fuck?

[Rex Kramer 1338]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Yes, in the case of public employees the analysis is a bit complicated. For example, courts have to balance first amendment rights against the government’s interests in functioning efficiently and maintaining legitimacy. My point is more broadly about the nature of freedom of speech - it’s just freedom from (some, but not all) consequences. 

It is not at all complicated. 

[EuroHorn 3265]

15 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It is not at all complicated. 

Exactly 

 

Quote

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-first-amendment/

Edited May 15 by EuroHorn

[jimmyjazz 45971]

Well, it might be helpful to start with defining whether UT is a government or private employer.  To me, it's actually a somewhat nuanced question.

[closetohumping 17444]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it might be helpful to start with defining whether UT is a government or private employer.  To me, it's actually a somewhat nuanced question.

I think every UT employee is a state employee. From Sark to the guy that cleans the Gregory pool after I banged south Austin’s mom in it

[BabaYaga 15301]

3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I think every UT employee is a state employee. From Sark to the guy that cleans the Gregory pool after I banged south Austin’s mom in it

This.  Is this even a question?

[jimmyjazz 45971]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

This.  Is this even a question?

I understand, but does that mean "government" when 1A is considered?

I worked at UT doing research for years.  My lab operated pretty much like a private company.  The funding was interesting -- most of it came from the Federal government, but not all.  I don't recall any free speech issues, but then again, I don't recall anybody pushing it.

[Rex Kramer 1338]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it might be helpful to start with defining whether UT is a government or private employer.  To me, it's actually a somewhat nuanced question.

It’s not at all nuanced. This is the dumbest fucking argument ever. Y’all are some partisan morherfuckers. 

[closetohumping 17444]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This.  Is this even a question?

Right. And I think the fact that you’re a state employee means you have to be a bit more careful with that free speech thing 

[closetohumping 17444]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it might be helpful to start with defining whether UT is a government or private employer.  To me, it's actually a somewhat nuanced question.

Was Heyman paid with state funds or from a private employer?

[Foosters 17858]

35 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It is not at all complicated. 

What is the basis for this statement? How do you read the current case law on the subject and come away with "its not complicated?" Which case gives you that certainty? 

 

[BrickHorn 18237]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Yes, in the case of public employees the analysis is a bit complicated. 

 

43 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It is not at all complicated. 

 

29 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

Exactly 

29 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

The First Amendment protects us against government limits on our freedom of expression, but it doesn’t prevent a private employer from setting its own rules.

Hat tip to Rex and Euro for executing an all-time great moron-to-moron alley-oop.

[Rex Kramer 1338]

1 minute ago, closetohumping said:

Right. And I think the fact that you’re a state employee means you have to be a bit more careful with that free speech thing 

Not at all. This professor can do whatever the fuck he wants and so can I. Your actions are always at the mercy of the whims of your employer. And it does not matter where the funds come from to pay professors; UT functions as a private employer. I can’t believe this is being discussed.*

*@Hank_Hill

[Rex Kramer 1338]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

 

 

Hat tip to Rex and Euro for executing an all-time great moron-to-moron alley-oop.

Thank you Scoops.

Y’all get back to me when this guy receives a dime from UT.  He’s not shielded any more than I am just by virtue of being a state employee. His doesn’t have fucking immunity from 1A consequences. The 1A doesn’t trump his employee code of conduct / handbook to which he fucking agreed. 

[BabaYaga 15301]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I understand, but does that mean "government" when 1A is considered?

I worked at UT doing research for years.  My lab operated pretty much like a private company.  The funding was interesting -- most of it came from the Federal government, but not all.  I don't recall any free speech issues, but then again, I don't recall anybody pushing it.

I think it means what it's always meant.  You can say what you want, but there are consequences.  Even as a state employee, funding sources will always vary, but you are still operating under the umbrella of a state institution.  

[jimmyjazz 45971]

17 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s not at all nuanced. This is the dumbest fucking argument ever. Y’all are some partisan morherfuckers. 

My question has jack shit to do with partisanship, you twit.

[Rex Kramer 1338]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

My question has jack shit to do with partisanship, you twit.

Total. Bullshit. 

[closetohumping 17444]

12 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Not at all. This professor can do whatever the fuck he wants and so can I. Your actions are always at the mercy of the whims of your employer. And it does not matter where the funds come from to pay professors; UT functions as a private employer. I can’t believe this is being discussed.*

*@Hank_Hill

And I haven’t disagreed with this?  Look up a few posts.  My point being that it might be possible that governemnt employees are held to a higher standard than private sector ones?  A judge who is a nazi sympathizer may be more frowned upon than the Chevron clerk

[jimmyjazz 45971]

Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Total. Bullshit. 

Holy shit, I actually lean towards university employees NOT having carte blanche to say whatever the fuck they want.  (Tenured professors might muddy that argument.)

You really are a piece of work.

[Rex Kramer 1338]

Just now, closetohumping said:

And I haven’t disagreed with this?  Look up a few posts.  My point being that it might be possible that governemnt employees are held to a higher standard than private sector ones?  A judge who is a nazi sympathizer may be more frowned upon than the Chevron clerk

Not sure but wouldn’t think held to higher standard. Most state employees are morons, like this professor. 

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Holy shit, I actually lean towards university employees NOT having carte blanche to say whatever the fuck they want.  (Tenured professors might muddy that argument.)

You really are a piece of work.

Lean?  And no, tenure shouldn’t muddy. 

[jimmyjazz 45971]

4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Most state employees are morons, like this professor. 

Yeah, you're not a partisan hack, you fucking donkey.

[Rex Kramer 1338]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, you're not a partisan hack, you fucking donkey.

I am anti-protestor, pro-Israel, and believe precisely what I said. State employees by and large are morons. This is not exclusive to college professors. 

[BrickHorn 18237]

17 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

He’s not shielded any more than I am just by virtue of being a state employee.

You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. See, e.g., Pickering v. Board of Education and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

[Rex Kramer 1338]

Just now, BrickHorn said:

You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about. See, e.g., Pickering v. Board of Education and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Nah. Tell you what fucko - let’s place a wager on it. Put your money where your looney lips are. 

[jimmyjazz 45971]

3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I am anti-protestor, pro-Israel, and believe precisely what I said. State employees by and large are morons. This is not exclusive to college professors. 

Right.  You're a far-right piece of shit.  We already knew that, but at least you're consistent.

The irony of a simp like you wading into a legitimate discussion and flinging poo is not lost on anyone.

[Foosters 17858]

3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Nah. Tell you what fucko - let’s place a wager on it. Put your money where your looney lips are. 

You off your meds or something?

There's a shitload of case law on this issue. 

[wildcat09 29355]

Lol, Rex has lost his damned mind. 

[Rex Kramer 1338]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Right.  You're a far-right piece of shit.  We already knew that, but at least you're consistent.

The irony of a simp like you wading into a legitimate discussion and flinging poo is not lost on anyone.

You can call me far right if you’d like. I’m very anti Trump. The current environment, which includes this Board, is pushing me further and further right at a good pace. 

 

6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

You off your meds or something?

There's a shitload of case law on this issue. 

Happy to wager you too.