480
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Maryam Alwan figured the worst was over after New York City police in riot gear arrested her and other protesters on the Columbia University campus, loaded them onto buses and held them in custody for hours.

But the next evening, the college junior received an email from the university. Alwan and other students were being suspended after their arrests at the “ Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” a tactic colleges across the country have deployed to calm growing campus protests against the Israel-Hamas war.

The students’ plight has become a central part of protests, with students and a growing number of faculty demanding their amnesty. At issue is whether universities and law enforcement will clear the charges and withhold other consequences, or whether the suspensions and legal records will follow students into their adult lives.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RenegadeTwister@lemmy.dbzer0.com 128 points 6 months ago

Do we not have the right to protest? I fail to understand on what grounds they're being arrested.

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 73 points 6 months ago

That's correct, you do not. Like ALL "rights" in the USA, there is another law waiting in the shadows that completely contradicts it or makes it so that it's not possible without it being illegal.

You can protest. But only with permits on public and private land, without trespassing, obeying all police orders even if those are themselves illegal, blah blah blah.

The sooner Americans realize all their freedoms do not exist in reality the sooner something can be done to fix it.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 28 points 6 months ago

A protest with a permit is just a parade

[-] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago

What happens if the permit request is denied? Does one sue them for infringement on their rights?

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 6 months ago

You protest anyway and embrace civil disobedience.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Too many people worship the law as if it was the word of god. They don’t realize we are actually making this shit up as we go, and the laws can be changed at any moment.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Thomas “I fucked Sally Hemings” Jefferson

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The first amendment has absolutely no references to permits. In fact it explicitly says you absolutely do not need anything, and that protests are legally protected free speech.

You may protest all you want on public or federal land. I know. I routinely tell cops to "fuck off," because I know where I happen to be standing. I have yet to be arrested for a protest that I attended, and I have never even attempted to get a permit.

Privately owned property is the only place they can summarily arrest you, and that's just a trespassing charge.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Technically yes. In reality? Lmao. We've seen our first amendment right be abrogated time and again in the last 8 years.

[-] btaf45@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

You may protest all you want on public or federal land.

Not in restricted areas like a military base or halls of congress.

[-] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Yeah keep reading. You're given one fake right and there are 100 other laws. Just because you're the right shade, telling a cop to F off, is a crime in itself even if they're completely wrong. Most people would be arrested just for that.

And that is the entire point. If "the law" is completely discretionary based on the encounter you have with the enforcers and the punishers (police, DA, judges, etc), then you have no rights. Step out of line and you're in prison.

The US is a shithole.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago

Trespassing. You have the right to assembly, but that doesn't extend to anywhere, any time.

These protestors could protest on the sidewalk, or get a permit and do a planned protest in a public park, or even work with the city to close roads for a planned march. As long as they kept it peaceful, police would have very little justification to arrest anyone.

Instead, they are doing it on college campuses, or public roads without permission. And when they are told to leave, they refuse. At that point, you are trespassing, and the police are justified in arresting you.

Civil disobedience grabs far more attention than protesting legally. We're here talking about their cause because it made headlines due to civil disobedience. But activism has its costs.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 32 points 6 months ago

Most of these protests are being done in zones designated by the university for protest. They are supposed to be allowed to protest there, as long as it doesn't disrupt people getting to class and such.

[-] RenegadeTwister@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 6 months ago

Is it tresspassing, though? Not trying to argue with you, to be clear. They're students paying tuition and housing fees. I guess I could see that arguement if they weren't students. Though I agree, civil disobedience and disrupting the status quo is the only way to get people to take notice and do anything.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Unless it's your place of residence, you are always trespassing if the owner (or employees acting on the owners behalf) tells you to leave.

Paying tuition doesn't give you unfettered access to the school.

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Freedom of assembly and speech apply to public schools since 55 years ago from the Tinker descion.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

Public school rules don’t generally apply to universities. Though there is a constitutional right present due to most schools being government or quasi-government actors and college campuses being traditional public forums (again, very generally), the exercise of some rights are more broadly interpreted while other are more narrowly interpreted.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Afaik, universities are private. Specifically, Columbia University is definitely private.

And the ruling you're talking about has a lot of restrictions which wouldn't apply here anyway.

You can't discriminate against cause. If you allow one protest to give speeches in the Quad, I suppose you would be required to give other causes equal access to the Quad.

These students created an encampment, which goes beyond past permitted protests at that university, afaik. I doubt university admin would allow that under any circumstances, even if they agree with the cause, because it sets a dangerous precedent.

But, again, this is a private university. These rules do not apply.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Even private schools have to allow some form of protesting.

Edit: listen to the lawyers instead of people telling you not to make your voice heard

https://www.thefire.org/news/heres-what-students-need-know-about-protesting-campus-right-now

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/students-rights-speech-walkouts-and-other-protests?redirect=issues/free-speech/student-speech-and-privacy/students-rights-speech-walkouts-and-other-protests

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/civil-rights/protests/2024/04/26/484816/charges-dropped-against-all-57-pro-palestinian-demonstrators-arrested-on-ut-campus/?amp=1

Especially because of the very same rule you cite, that universities can't discriminate based on viewpoint

https://bwog.com/2024/03/new-york-civil-liberties-union-and-palestine-legal-file-a-lawsuit-against-columbia-citing-suspension-of-students-for-justice-in-palestine-and-jewish-voice-for-peace/

"The NYCLU claims that the suspension of SJP and JVP violated Columbia’s own policies regarding student protests. Citing the policies and procedures established after the protests of 1968, the NYCLU asserts that Columbia’s actions violate the established policies. The statement notes that although private universities such as Columbia University and Barnard College are not bound by the First Amendment, they are bound by their own policies when regarding disciplinary actions against student groups. Moreover, the NYCLU raises concerns that the University’s actions were motivated by the student groups’ political stance in support of Palestinian rights."

https://www.nyclu.org/press-release/nyclu-and-palestine-legal-sue-columbia-university-over-student-group-suspension

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Are the colleges these protesters being arrested from public schools, or private universities? As far as I was aware, most colleges/universities are private. Community colleges are public.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 months ago

Both public and private.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/civil-rights/protests/2024/04/26/484816/charges-dropped-against-all-57-pro-palestinian-demonstrators-arrested-on-ut-campus/?amp=1

Some have already been forced to drop all charges against all students that were arrested precisely because the protests are legal and the students were peaceful. No laws were broken

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Most colleges in the US are state universities that receive state and federal funding.

[-] numanair@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 months ago
[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

No, it is not. It is the accurate term describing the legal justification that the police need to legally remove the protestors from the premises.

So many of the replies around this topic live in the clouds. There's a reason protestors are being forcibly removed. People should understand the nuances of free speech and freedom of assembly. Choosing to disobey is taking on risk to your well-being.

These are facts. This is not commentary on whether the protestors are "right" or "wrong". But we should all know the risks they are taking for doing so, and understand when the universities and police are actually overstepping their authority.

[-] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

You’re replying to people who can’t believe the injustice of these laws by explaining that the laws are legal. No consensus will be reached; these are two completely different perspectives. Personally, I think laws, being a made up construct, should generally promote positive behavior like stopping genocide, so I easily side with the protesters and commenters here expressing indignation alongside them.

The legality argument also ignores the police tradition of breaking the law while shutting down protests just because they can get away with it.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

The legality argument also ignores the police tradition of breaking the law while shutting down protests just because they can get away with it.

And that's precisely why it is so important to keep the legality of specific actions in mind while evaluating the actions of both the protestors, and the police, while having the conversation on protests and the responses such as these.

This conversation is the result of a direct reply to yet another comment indicating a lack of understanding of what is legal when protesting in the USA.

The morality of both the protestors and the authorities is far more subjective. But I keep seeing the same basic question "I thought it was legal to protest in the USA, how can they arrest them?", so clarifying the boundaries of your rights is a good starting point, IMO. And frankly, bears repeating due to how frequently this is misunderstood and misrepresented.

[-] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 2 points 6 months ago

public roads without permission

But they are public?

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The first amendment in USA gives them the right to protest even on the school ground and the school can't deny permission if the students are peaceful. And they are.

Everything else you said as irrelevant.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

Saying it doesn't make it so. You grossly misunderstand your rights, but I'm not going to repeat myself.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I only read the aclu one as the only reputable source I recognize. That doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago

You yourself cited the requirement to be expression neutral. And I have provided links showing they weren't and that multiple student groups are suing because of it.

Are the students expected to just sit back and stay silent when the university doesn't allow them to express themselves on equal terms?

That's literally what protests are for, and also literally why charges were withdrawn against a whole bunch of students in at least one case, because it wasn't a "clear case of trespassing" when the students protested peacefully.

At least one police department has already figured it out

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/04/26/dc-police-george-washington-university-protests/

[-] lefixxx@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

If the only legal way to protest is to do it alone in a field then the legality of the protest is a moot point. Protesting is about the public getting heard and the cost is to productivity. The cost shouldn’t be an arrest record and stigma. This isn’t because two or three assholes are disrupting a campus. Students are getting arrested in dozens. Professors are getting arrested too. What the colleges and universities are doing against their own students is unacceptable.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

If the police can just tell you to leave then you don't actually have a right to protest.

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 28 points 6 months ago

There are so many felonies in this country you basically commit a few every day by accident.

[-] Quexotic@infosec.pub 8 points 6 months ago

Not for doubt, but because I can't think of any, can you give examples? Were you just hyperbolizing?

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago

You can look it up, the federal code has over 5,200 crimes and that was over 2 years ago last I could find that someone counted. The average person unwittingly commits over 2 felonies a day.

[-] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 months ago

What are some of the every day felonies? Where are you getting the two a day stat?

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago

Small accounting errors, felony. Putting your pills into a reminder box and traveling accross straight line, felony. Accidentally drive an ATV or dirt bike onto unmarked federal land, felony. Delete CP of a used laptop, felony.

The fact of the matter is any felony that is common to commit, are kind of boring. The federal code is so long and complex that you can find thousands of cases of people being unexpectedly tried for odd felonies. The federal code has become so cumbersome that no one actually knows the law until you're in a court room with a bunch of lawyers paid to research that specific law.

[-] Quexotic@infosec.pub 2 points 6 months ago

Thanks for the suggestion! I looked it up and I feel a little bit more skeptical about your claim however I can see a number of those that could easily be trumped up or falsified especially things like injury to an officer and stuff like that.

https://clarifacts.com/federal-crimes-list/

[-] NickwithaC@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago
[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 6 months ago

Pointing out that we're finding atrocities

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

It’s a tactic to break the protest, scare the protesters into compliance. Arrest them all, haul them off to jail. Ruin their futures. Then drop charges since they do have the right to protest, but now they won’t anymore

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

If you think the police need a reason you haven't been paying attention.

this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
480 points (99.0% liked)

News

23301 readers
1641 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