this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024

382 points (97.0% liked)

News

23311 readers

3643 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

382

US colleges revise rules on free speech in hopes of containing anti-war demonstrations (apnews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

(page 2) 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 71 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Revoking the right to question the war, that's awesome. It's cool to violate 1st Amendment rights when the good guys do it!

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 months ago (7 children)

the us isnt looking like a democracy

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They never had free speach to begin with. Insert line about they came for the xyz I did not speak for I was not xyz line. Welp now there is nobody left ur defend ur free speach what a shame.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Maybe try slowing down and proofreading your comment before posting it. This should be in Aneurysm Posting

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I believe it was intentional.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

The only thing that can stop an absolute mess on campuses is a cease fire that allows in food and medicine .

These rules are from hopeful admins this week

[+] [email protected] -25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

Elsewhere on Lemmy I have been pilloried for being a free-speech absolutist, but I don't think that most of these restrictions impede the free exchange of ideas (as opposed to deliberate disruption, which is not speech).

The University of Pennsylvania has outlined new “temporary guidelines” for student protests that include 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.

At Indiana University, protests after 11 p.m. are forbidden under a new “expressive activities policy” that took effect Aug 1. The policy says “camping” and erecting any type of shelter are prohibited on campus, and signs cannot be displayed on university property without prior approval.

This seems reasonable too. 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.

The University of South Florida now requires approval for tents, canopies, banners, signs and amplifiers. The school’s “speech, expression and assembly” rules stipulate that no “activity,” including protests or demonstrations, is allowed after 5 p.m. on weekdays or during weekends and not allowed at all during the last two weeks of a semester.

I do disagree with this one. Allowing protests only on weekdays before 5:00 PM is not reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

Protests are largely only effective if they’re disruptive. That’s kind of the point… a protest you can easily ignore isn’t going to change anything.

And the point isn’t really to gain support, it’s to force change.

Edit: To expand on this, there are much more effective ways to gain support; mainly through community interaction, conversation and education. Which should be seen as separate action vs. protesting.

Edit 2: Upon re-reading my comment I would like to amend my statement that the point is to force “change”. While change is the desired outcome, the point of protests is to force awareness.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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..

[+] [email protected] -15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 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"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

The universities be all

[–] [email protected] 65 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Protests don't really work if they're not disruptive.

[+] [email protected] -19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is a common idea, but its misguided. It requires that you can pressure leadership to change their behaviors by inconveniencing people and/or costing the leadership money, otherwise it has no mechanism for success. This has never really proven to be the case when they have the cheaper alternative of using the law to remove you.

What actually needs to be done is rallying support among the masses themselves for either a paralyzing general strike, or at least a show of voting force that threatens politicians with removal in the next election cycle. Neither of these goals is furthered by simple disruptive protest. A small minority cannot impose their will without first gaining a significant amount of support from the majority, so ultimately, behaviors that are sympathetic to those less politically-engaged will see better success than behaviors that are not.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What actually needs to be done is rallying support among the masses themselves for either a paralyzing general strike, or at least a show of voting force that threatens politicians with removal in the next election cycle. Neither of these goals is furthered by simple disruptive protest.

Protests rally support.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They can, or they can erode it. I've never met a person won over by road blockade. It more like a call to rally people who already agree. If the classes you are going into debt paying for keep getting canceled or your graduation gets delayed because of protests, it's not gonna endear you to protesters. You may agree with the message, but if you didn't it would only further entrench you on the other end.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Wild how these protests erodes support for Palestine while also hurting Kamala because it garners support for Palestine.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago

No, every protest does not rally support. Some do, some do not. Which is which is extremely important.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Protests don’t really work if they’re not disruptive.

At the same time, any legitimate authority has a vested interest in minimizing disruption.

It's one of those things where I think neither side is inherently in the wrong, at least insofar as the question of "Protest vs. Disruption" is concerned. One must protest for what one believes is right, even if that protest must be disruptive to achieve its goals, and one must be prepared for a response from the authorities if that protest is sufficiently disruptive. You have to break rules, and you have to accept that the authorities are not necessarily wrong in trying to enforce the rules.

Short of saying "Only people I like are allowed to protest" or "Republicans can shut down the interstate highway indefinitely because they hate gay marriage", neither of which are particularly appealing, I don't really think that there's another option.

That this is all done by universities in the defense of a genocidal apartheid state, though? Not very morally ambiguous. This isn't a minor policy disagreement, or even a major one. This is support of corruption in US politics, the blatant sabotage of US interests abroad, and apartheid and genocide in Israel. Fuck these places trying to run interference for Israel.

The dynamic still holds as valid. It's just that the universities are shitty fucking authorities for taking the side that many of them have.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (9 children)

I would be very interested in seeing any example of a case where minorly disruptive protest was successful at accomplishing its goal. Large scale disruption that paralyzes the flow of goods or services is one thing, like a strike for instance. But I think back to Occupy Wall St, and it was just absurd how poorly it all worked. Then on top of that, the expectations were so high that the failure set our movement for economic reform back instead of forward, by demoralizing the whole movement for years. It didn't really recover until Bernie started running for President.

That was about as big and disruptive as you can go, too, and fresh off of a major economic fuck up that actually hurt many Americans.

It's literally just a waste of energy, when people should be composing compelling arguments, compiling their evidence, and actually spreading it to new people via newsletters, flyers, pamphlets, conversations, speeches etc etc etc. Grassroots outreach.

Frankly I think that's all too difficult though, and it's easier for people to just pitch a tent somewhere and chant, even if it accomplishes nothing or even harm for your cause. It lets people feel like they're helping, even if no strong evidence for the success of the method can be presented. Just theory.

Then on the flip side, you have BLM, which was able to actually create some change by getting some people elected through mass civic engagement. Some few places actually got some police reform, since the BLM protestors were mostly all peaceful and lawful, and you could sympathize with their cause. And there was a metric shitload of them, that always helps.

load more comments (9 replies)

[+] [email protected] -19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

The right to a free exchange of ideas includes the right to disagree with protestors without being harmed.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how that has any relevance to the argument. Harming people is already illegal and isn't being addressed here.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I am responding to this comment:

Protests don’t really work if they’re not disruptive.

I consider disruption to be a form of harm. It's not as serious as, for example, physical injury, but it's still harm. The main form of disruption that the recent protests have engaged in involved trespassing and so it was illegal, but many colleges preferred to address the problem internally rather than calling the police. These new rules are part of the process of addressing the problem internally, and we're discussing whether or not they do so without infringing on the students' free speech rights. My point is that preventing the protesters from being disruptive is not an infringement.

("Illegal" wouldn't be the end of the discussion even where the police were called to remove trespassers, because a university's policy of having the police remove some trespassers but not others could also infringe on free speech rights.)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Disruption is not a form of harm.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Disruption is impossible without causing harm. If you're not harming me then I can just ignore you and so you have failed to be disruptive.

Edit: The word "disruption" can be used in other contexts to describe acts that aren't harmful. For example, a new discovery might be said to disrupt the existing paradigm. My claim is about "disruption" used to describe protest-associated actions like blocking roads, making a lot of noise, or preventing students from going to class.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Except these restrictions prevent speech, not harm.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You say this but if I saw someone punch a Nazi, I would cheer and forget who it was if asked by the police.

[+] [email protected] -14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I believe that you would, but it would make you an enemy of free speech. Either a society allows the expression of ideas widely perceived as harmful, or it only permits people to express those ideas which the powers that be approve of. Throughout history, the powers that be always claimed that they were suppressing just the harmful ideas, and they were almost always lying. I don't trust them with that authority.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Fuck off, Nazi

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

Promoting the systematic genocide of minorities immediately disqualifies you from meaningful conversation. You deserve a punch in the face for being a Nazi and defending Nazis.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's a false dilemma. There's a middle ground between allowing only approved speech and allowing any speech whatsoever. And we already make that distinction. Fascists don't believe in free speech and threaten the rights of others through threats of violence, which isn't protected speech. Likewise fraud, libel, slander, blackmail, false advertising, and CSAM aren't protected and are considered harmful.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

There's a difference between expressing an idea and making a speech act. Harmful speech acts, including "true threats" in the legal sense (e.g. credible threats of imminent harm, as opposed to expressions of support for policies that would be harmful) and all the other things that you mention* may be regulated without impinging on the free exchange of ideas (although one must watch out for attempts to suppress ideas by claiming that they're speech acts).

I'm not talking about a mob of fascists threatening to attack someone there and then (illegal) or actually attacking (illegal, and cause for justified violence in self-defense). I'm talking about a peaceful march of fascists carrying signs expressing support for national socialism. They get to march.

*I do find it odd that simply possessing images of children being raped is illegal whereas possessing images of, for example, children being murdered is not (even if those images of murder also used for the purpose of sexual gratification).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I do find it odd that simply possessing images of children being raped is illegal

😬

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 165 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Or, hear me out, we could stop selling things that kill people to people who kill people.

[+] [email protected] -25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That means no support for Ukraine either.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago

While the comment that you are replying to does lack nuance, the intent is clear. There is obviously a difference between murder and self defense.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You can support with food, medicine, and infrastructure. If we believe in killing something so dearly, we can send our own people. Harder to be a war monger if your own ass is on the line.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

Some of the biggest supporters of Ukraine are its neighbours in Europe. I think they have a good reason to believe that if Ukraine fell they’d be next.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago

Look. im from europe and even us havent figured that out(even in the not genocidal countries) but at least we dont send them money and weapons for FREE. At least our countries sell the weapons to genocidal countries.

[–] [email protected] 105 points 3 months ago (2 children)

In Texas, it's actually illegal for a government entity to do business with a company that boycotts Israel. Calls for divestment at UT and other schools can't legally be given any consideration because of our fucked-up state government.

Like: when I evaluate bids for the City, one of the sections I have to fill out by law relates to the bidder's stance on the Israeli government. It's insane.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That sounds like a blatant and extreme violation of the First Amendment.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Yes and no.

It's technically a restriction on government, which makes it legally trickier despite being blatantly against the spirit of the first amendment.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago

Also from Texas, this has been driving me crazy for years. At least they are now against international law now. Cold comfort

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 105 points 3 months ago

Keep the kids from speaking out. Definitely a good look...

load more comments