As students return to college campuses across the United States, administrators are bracing for a resurgence in activism against the war in Gaza.

As students return to college campuses across the United States, administrators are bracing for a resurgence in activism against the war in Gaza.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    22·
    4 months ago

    I have been pilloried for being a free-speech absolutist

    deliberate disruption, which is not speech

    Do you even know what the words “absolute”, and “speech” mean?

    bans on encampments, overnight demonstrations, and the use of bullhorns and speakers until after 5 p.m. on class days. Penn also requires that posters and banners be removed within two weeks of going up. The university says it remains committed to freedom of speech and lawful assembly.

    This seems entirely reasonable.

    No, seriously. What do the words “absolute”, and “speech” mean to you? For that matter, do you even know what “free” means??

    Note that the rule about signs applies only to attaching them to publicly-accessible university property. People are free to carry signs or display them in their dorms and on-campus offices.

    So people are allowed to protest as long as nobody from the outside world sees it? That’s gonna be super effective! 🤦

    For a supposed “free speech absolutist”, you seem to be VERY opposed to people voicing dissent in ways that inconveniences anyone in the slightest.

    Allowing protests only on weekdays before 5:00 PM is not reasonable.

    But allowing them only AFTER that same time is?

    Sounds like you’re exactly as much of a “free speech absolutist” as Elon Musk and everyone else who claim to be one: not at all.

    At least your username is (unintentionally?) accurate about you…

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      317·
      4 months ago

      Your right to free speech is not infringed if people choose not to listen to you, or if they listen but remain unconvinced. On the contrary, you’re infringing on their rights if you force them to listen, and especially if you attempt to extort them. (I consider “extortion” the right word to describe the behavior of protesters who deliberately cause serious disruptions unless their demands are met.)

      Allowing protests only after 5:00 PM is reasonable because protests that take place after courses have ended for the day are less disruptive to the university’s primary goal of educating students. Protesters are still left with plenty of time to express their ideas. Many protesters are going to be upset about this because they want to be disruptive, but that is not their right.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        16·
        4 months ago

        Your right to free speech is not infringed if people choose not to listen to you, or if they listen but remain unconvinced

        Nobody claimed anything even close to that. Can you please TRY to argue in good faith rather than immediately trot out the strawmen?

        On the contrary, you’re infringing on their rights if you force them to listen

        Another strawman, as nobody has said anyone should be forced to listen to anything.

        (I consider “extortion” the right word to describe the behavior of protesters who deliberately cause serious disruptions unless their demands are met.)

        Wow. Just wow. You REALLY don’t have a fucking clue what extortion OR protest is! 🤦

        reasonable because (…) less disruptive

        Protests without disruption accomplish nothing. Which is the ACTUAL reason why people who are against protesting want to minimize disruption.

        primary goal of educating students

        By keeping them and others from hearing anything but the official version about a genocide that they themselves are contributing to economically by refusing to divest?

        To paraphrase Nick Fury: you SAY education, but I think you mean the other thing.

        Protesters are still left with plenty of time to express their ideas.

        As long as they do so at a time and place where aa few people as possible will see or hear them 🙄

        Many protesters are going to be upset about this because they want to be disruptive

        Because they don’t get noticed without being disruptive and a protest that nobody notices is as useful as tits on a tractor.

        but that is not their right.

        Their right to express grievances is explicitly addressed in the first amendment of the US constitution. Nowhere does it say “unless it’s inconvenient to people who claim to be for free speech but are more interested in what Martín Luther King referred to as negative peace and Nazis being treated courteously than the rights of protesters and the lives of Palestinians”