UT gets warning to protect Jews

[utvolpj]

Maybe that’s the policy for “protesting” on someone else’s property.

And on public property?

You're literally arguing against 1st amendment protections

 

[LouderVol]

Because your freedoms end where someone else’s begins.

how does wearing a mask violate someone else's rights?

 

[C-south]

And on public property?

You're literally arguing against 1st amendment protections

Sure as long as you don’t essentially bother anyone else. You can’t block traffic or interfere with people getting to where they want to go.

 

[KB5252]

Maybe that’s the policy for “protesting” on someone else’s property.

Maybe we should require they wear an approved protesting uniform!

 

[C-south]

how does wearing a mask violate someone else's rights?

The mask thing is irrelevant

 

[C-south]

Maybe we should require they wear an approved protesting uniform!

Maybe. Or maybe they should accept nobody gives a s*** and shouldn’t have to deal with their nonsense.

 

[Majors]

No, I don't believe in limiting free speech under the guise of protecting a singular entity

How is big govt defining a protesting dress code not a violation of free speech? You just keep avoiding that

How is it free speech? If a person wants to protest by all means protest, but when the protest leads certain demographics safety it becomes less about the new found use of free speech under the guise of a mask. A mask does not supersede the safety and rights of others to be protected. So again, you’re coming across as antisemitic these last few weeks.

 

[Majors]

"Protecting" them in what way exactly?

Being able to attend class in a safe environment.

 

[McDad]

Sure as long as you don’t essentially bother anyone else. You can’t block traffic or interfere with people getting to where they want to go.

Again, this topic is only argumentative (or should only be) when we have varying definitions of what is / is not a protest.
What you described is not a constitutionally protected protest.

 

[utvolpj]

How is it free speech? If a person wants to protest by all means protest, but when the protest leads certain demographics safety it becomes less about the new found use of free speech under the guise of a mask. A mask does not supersede the safety and rights of others to be protected. So again, you’re coming across as antisemitic these last few weeks.

You should stop using words you don't understand. It really makes you look foolish

There's nothing new about free speech. Masks, red hats, yellow shirts, etc are all covered with plenty of court cases to prove it. A mask (or maga hat if you want another example) absolutely is covered and not dependent on someone's fragile feelings. If you're concerned with something illegal then that's absolutely covered in our law as well.

 

[KB5252]

Maybe. Or maybe they should accept nobody gives a s*** and shouldn’t have to deal with their nonsense.

Since you don't GAS you are free to ignore it...... No one is forcing you to deal with any nonsense.

 

[85SugarVol]

Because your freedoms end where someone else’s begins.

Wut.

My 2A freedons don’t end where your fears begin.

 

[C-south]

Wut.

My 2A freedons don’t end where your fears begin.

Go set up a range at a public park, fire off a couple shots within city limits, brandish your gun driving down the highway…..

 

[StarRaider]

Maybe we should require they wear an approved protesting uniform!

klan rulz

 

[ButchPlz]

My favorite part of all this is when a sitting US governor flew to a foreign country to sign a law restricting Constitutional protections for American citizens.

 

[Smokey123]

I may have lost brain cells reading this thread holy crap

 

[LouderVol]

Sure as long as you don’t essentially bother anyone else. You can’t block traffic or interfere with people getting to where they want to go.

unless they are a trucker in canada

 

[McDad]

Go set up a range at a public park, fire off a couple shots within city limits, brandish your gun driving down the highway…..

I appreciate this effort. But these are safety or threat concerns. I don't think theyre analogous to free speech concerns. Where they could be relatable is free speech when it incites a riot (safety concern).

 

[LouderVol]

My favorite part of all this is when a sitting US governor flew to a foreign country to sign a law restricting Constitutional protections for American citizens.

?

 

[jwells]

Wut.

My 2A freedons don’t end where your fears begin.

huh? #brandishing #prohibitedareas #readuponhowtheconstitutionworks

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

I may have lost brain cells reading this thread holy crap

Those cells were gone long before this thread....

 

[Orange_Crush]

Has the story been verified? I wonder why they took it down?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

What if you attend a protest about requiring wearing masks in public during a pandemic? Can you wear a mask to it?

 

[C-south]

I appreciate this effort. But these are safety or threat concerns. I don't think theyre analogous to free speech concerns. Where they could be relatable is free speech with incites a riot (safety concern).

Not exclusively. You also can’t set up a range in your backyard and shoot at all hours even if you’re outside of city limits and within a certain distance from your neighbors. It’s not about safety or “threat concerns” but more or less annoying everyone around you. Kind of like a noise ordinance. That said would it not be considered a threat concern when terrorist sympathizers intimidate, threaten, and hinder a certain group of people?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Also, who here was all for prosecuting Trump for "Inciting Violence" per his comments before January 6?

Another also: Harassment is not protected speech. If universities are allowing the creation of an environment where any protecterd group feels threatened, then it is not a Free Speech issue, as that has been legally excluded from protection.

When Can Speech Be Punished? A Primer on Unprotected Incitement to Violence

First Amendment exceptions in the wake of the riot on Capitol Hill. Legal protections for “hate speech” exclude incitement to violence.

ncac.org

Harassment is distinct from “hate speech” because it goes beyond mere expression of opinion and targets a particular person for harm. The threshold for speech rising to the level of illegal harassment is generally quite high. Anti-harassment laws often refer to speech directed at a particular person, based on the victim’s race, religion, or other group characteristic, and which has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with, for example, a student’s educational performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.

These exceptions to the protections of the First Amendment are very narrow, but they are well established. Civil libertarians and supporters of free expression–including protest, writing and art–can and should support the right to express hateful opinions, but can draw a clear line that no one has a right to incite a riot or to harass another person.