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.
Holy shit the faculty against this need to strike immediately in solidarity. What the fuck sort of dystopia are we in that students are arrested and suspended for protesting? For protesting genocide? What the actual fuck.
Google called the police on and fired anyone remotely involved with the quiet sit-in in protest of Project Nimbus. No investigation, no finesse, nothing. Just straight up intimidation.
Do we not have the right to protest? I fail to understand on what grounds they’re being arrested.
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.
A protest with a permit is just a parade
What happens if the permit request is denied? Does one sue them for infringement on their rights?
You protest anyway and embrace civil disobedience.
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.
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.
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
There are so many felonies in this country you basically commit a few every day by accident.
Not for doubt, but because I can’t think of any, can you give examples? Were you just hyperbolizing?
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.
What are some of the every day felonies? Where are you getting the two a day stat?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Freedom of assembly and speech apply to public schools since 55 years ago from the Tinker descion.
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.
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.
Both public and private.
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
Most colleges in the US are state universities that receive state and federal funding.
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.
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
Especially because of the very same rule you cite, that universities can’t discriminate based on viewpoint
“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.”
They’re students paying tuition and housing fees.
Are they? When I was in college, I don’t think I ever saw somebody from college demonstrate, it always was someone from the outside who relied on the fact that universities allowed it.
Justified is the wrong word.
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.
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.
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.
public roads without permission
But they are public?
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.
Saying it doesn’t make it so. You grossly misunderstand your rights, but I’m not going to repeat myself.
Being right.
Pointing out that we’re finding atrocities
Do we not have the right to protest?
No. Be sure to vote for Democrats to keep the fascism
awayin power.When people were protesting unarmed black people getting murdered in 2020; Donald publicly told police to rough them up during arrests, sent out DHS in unmarked vans to snatch people off the streets, tear gassed a group of protesters so he could hold his little Bible upside down. There’s probably a bunch I am forgetting, it was a long fucking year.
That was the same year his dimwitted response to the pandemic caused tens or hundreds of thousands more deaths than otherwise.
He committed an insurrection. You want Repubs in power forever telling cops to beat the shit out of not only protestors, but voters? Go ahead with it.
When the Republicans are in power you are not allowed to criticize the Republicans.
When the Democrats are in power you are not allowed to criticize israel.
Genocide Joe should be rounded up in The Hague for violating international law to support Genocide
Republicans also says you can’t criticize Israel. (they will happily let you attack jews, but not the state Israel, because of their Christian extremist cults)
who should I vote for, then?
If they’re unable to get a sealed record at trial, they will be required to disclose all charges leading to conviction on any employment or housing application they complete. It’s horribly prejudicial of our system to allow the assumption that those with convictions are unworthy of employment or housing.
System working as intended. All of this was intended to keep minorities (most black ppl) in a perpetual state of incarceration. Only now the groups deemed undesirable have expanded. We could’ve fixed it decades ago but the majority of this country (white ppl) were fine with it because it didn’t affect them.
The epitome of its not my problem until it is
Step 1: keep slavery as punishment for crime.
Step 2: criminalize everything, overpolice black people.
Land of the free.
“Land of the free”
Whoever told you that is your enemy!
Now something must be done?
Bernie Sanders was arrested at protests in his youth, iirc. If there is any glimmer of hope in this shit storm, maybe in forty years a few of these students will be leading s political movement together as senators and representatives.
It’s restrictive to working in the private sector and renting an apartment. There is no disqualification for criminal background for a member of government. Trump can be elected if he’s convicted of any or all of the charges he’s facing. He’d just be barred from voting in the election.
Awesome, all of these arrested young folk should run for congress
Disliking genocide puts them far above many congressmen already. Disliking it enough to be arrested is a great reason to vote for them.
Unfortunately criminal arrests are only going to fuck up their lives. It takes a fuckload of money and backing to get into Congress.
Not entirely true. If he were convicted of treason, that’s a disqualifier based on the constitution.
If you simply gift Clarence an RV the Constitution is no obstacle to committing crimes against America.
That’s true, but he’s not being charged with treason in any of the cases.
Actually no. The supreme court’s decision explicitly said that clause was not self executing, meaning even someone convicted of treason cannot be disqualified without an act of Congress. It was one of the dumber decisions to come out of the court and that’s saying something.
I thought being a convicted felon prevented him from being on the ballot. Or maybe that was for primaries?
Nope. It just stops him from voting. Treason would exclude him from holding office according to the Constitution, but he’s not charged with treason.
Not exactly a bad idea for the people doing something like hiring a pharmaceutical delivery driver to be able to check who they’re hiring.
What does protesting got to do with one’s risk of running a pharma heist?
It’s horribly prejudicial of our system to allow the assumption that those with convictions are unworthy of employment or housing.
So listen, I’m not pro Hamas. Killing non settlers at a music festival is just terroristic murder and even killing random settlers is both counterproductive and terroristic even though most of them are very bad people. That said, this framing is ridiculous:
Some demonstrations have included hate speech, antisemitic threats or support for Hamas, the group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, sparking a war in Gaza that has left more than 34,000 dead.
Blaming Hamas for Israel’s slaughter is exactly the same as justifying Hamas’s actions. That’s very much a pro-genocide statement.
Spot on! Fuck Hamas and all the terroristic acts against Jews and innocent lives. But one should also be able to recognise the ongoing crimes and genocide of the right wing Israeli government. Do they really think this war will lead to the destruction of Hamas or antisemitism in the region? I bet we will se double the amount of antisemites/terrorists in the future and nothing will have changed. The west is losing its face and the region was never further away from peace. Hamas trapped the Israeli government into a war and the Israeli extremists were more than happy to use the opportunity for this genocide. Seems like nobody is honestly interested in peace and the victims will be the Palistinian people and some festival goers.
Wow, talk about trying to scare people into not protesting. However, it could have the opposite effect. Take away from the protestors and they have less to lose. They may start to shine a light on injustices at home, too.
I imagine they’re going to get sued in civil for refund of tuition.
people who protested vietnam, sexism, occupy wall street, etc and weren’t rich or well connected enough had to live with whatever actions their universities and local law enforcement institutions did to them for the rest of their lives and without this country changing its course; so i suspect that only the people paying attention will take note and be branded a tankie if they take any action.
Yes, but most didn’t have consequences and managed to effect change. Even if it wasn’t as much change as they wanted.
It looks like they are trying to use heavy handed tactics and fear, as well as self interest to quell the action. Its unlikely to work well as most are doing so selflessly.
In fact it may embolden others rather than scare them off, or increase from a peaceful protest to having masks for anonymity etc.
Yes, many suffered repercussions for Vietnam era protests bit they wear it with a badge of pride now and conscription is done politically. Mental health of personnel. Is also considered more, RHA is to protests and sympathy.
Weird. I protested on my campus in college and I wasn’t arrested or suspended.
It’s almost like there’s a constitutional right to do so?
So if the snipers don’t kill them today, they won’t be able to get a job in 20 years.
(I know exactly where that sniper at IU is standing and exactly where the protesters are and it is direct line-of-sight.)
Wow this is fuckkkkkked up
a tactic colleges across the country have deployed to quash growing campus protests against the genocide in Gaza.
FTFY
i’m not really sure how this is unfair. protesting can mean running up against laws and breaking them. the question is whether the cause you’re protesting for means enough to you to accept that.
Because it is unrelated to their studies/work at the university and they shouldnt be attacked for it by their institution/employer for their political views.
It’s not illegal to protest.
