The Legality of Israel/Palestine Protests on Campus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 май 2024
- I thought we'd do a nice, uncontroversial video today. 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖️⚖️⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
Were protesters' rights violated? 📰 Get 40% off of Ground News: legaleagle.link/groundnews ⚖ Get a great lawyer with EagleTeam! legaleagle.link/eagleteam
Loving all the different videos!! It would be interesting if you did a video on the ICC and ICJ and their important role in International Law! A lot of people don't understand, or misunderstand the importance of these IL bodies
Man this is disturbing you clearly have a political agenda that you want to push
Your add settings interupt your video about every 1-1/2 to 2 minutes. You've become almost unwatchable.
@@Jordan-c4200 It's a very one sided take on the situation. He even includes 'video evidence' from Eli Tsives, who is a very well known agitator and far right influencer. Eli has been called out on multiple occasions for deceptive framing and straight up lying, he shouldn't be taken seriously.
The analysis of the Texas governor's order seems to be off. Antisemitic conduct targeting and harassing Jewish students definitely falls under the category of disruption to the educational functions of the institution, and also under Civil Rights Act prohibitions if the university turns a blind eye to it.
At UCLA students were being attacked while the police WATCHED for hours
In Canada some started trolling those protests by showing up bright and early and singing our National Anthem to them while proudly flying out Nation's flag ...
And yes, she does mean attacked. Fireworks were shot into the crowd of protestors and protestors were ripped from the crowd to be physically beaten on camera. Anyone counter-protestors got their hands on had their identities exposed to the public for Anti-Palestinian personnel to account, endangering them outside the protest and harming their career opportunities down the line.
@@NostalgiaHDOSCry about it. People being beaten for peacefully protesting is something that should never happen, as it's our right by the first amendment
@@robertsmith4681 How is that trolling? Being anti or pro the genocide in gaza has nothing to do with being pro/anti Canada. Given that protest was in Canada, I'd wager 99.9% of the people are pro Canada.
@@cancerino666 Supporting a terror group very much is anti Canada, also very much illegal.
Remember the Kent State Massacre when police shot and killed 4 students and wounded 9 others in 1970? Well, a lot of people nowadays don't know this, but at the time in the weeks afterwards the majority of the nation BLAMED the students as ungrateful radicals and defended the guards' actions as justified. Yeah, that's insane, I know! Only as time went by did it come to be widely regarded as a travesty.
"A Gallup Poll taken the day after the shootings reportedly showed that 58 percent of respondents blamed the students, 11 percent blamed the National Guard, and 31 percent expressed no opinion." -Wikipedia
So, keep that in mind as you watch MSNBC and FOX and mainstream media trash the protestors and thank police. Years in the future these pundits will probably be pretending they were on the side of the protestors from the beginning.
Edit: also, for people who don't know, those protestors also occupied a building and even burned a campus building to the ground! Vietnam war protests were also very disruptive. So, any claim that "these modern 2024 protests are worse" is a complete fiction.
I wish people understood that. The media attacked and slandered Vietnam protesters just like it has done this time, and all these FrEe ThInKeRs are gobbling it right up :/
People love to pretend they were always on the right side of history. The internet is exposing how many people are not
Hah? Only 4.
(Not disparaging the protesters. Context below.)
@@JoshSweetvale Ha, exactly, just like that. I watched some news reports from the time. Many people said they wished it was more. Yikes. 😬
That event's public evaluation is because people died. Not because all student protests are awesome
all i took from this was "as long as we can find a good excuse to skirt the idea of neutrality, we can stop any protest we don't agree with".
The law is meant to serve the people, not the other way around. The question here should be the sane as Dr king’s civil rights movement; not whether it is legal to stop them, but if it is moral.
@@Quirkyhndl by no means am i disagreeing with you, but do you think for one second that laws are only applied from a moral standpoint? of course they aren't. and that's my point, to rephase.
"all i took from this is that they will use the letter of the law to get what they want, regardless of whether they are assuming any morality in how they apply the law"
@@Iggybart05yeah but that wasquirkyhandl'd point too. In other words, who cares about this analysis? It's not a relevant dimension of these protests anyway.
Then you didn't pay enough attention, and heard only what you wanted to.
@@mousermind my options are, take the same thing from the video you took, or i'm unobservant or intentionally naive?
i guess if you see the world in an "everyone who's not with me is an idiot" that is certainly a valid opinion
or people have diverse ways of looking at things, but i guess if you don't acknowledge that no one can really help you
Doesn't the fact police and campus security at UCLA completely failed to protect the protesters from violent counter-protesters falsify the legal justification for removing the protesters that it was to ensure student safety? There was no violence until the counter-protesters showed up, authorities permitted the counter-protesters to assault the encampment, and then authorities used the violence as a legal pretext to remove protesters and counter-protesters alike. If that's allowed to stand, it becomes a simple matter for authorities and opponents to work around 1st amendment protection of protests - simply hire some thugs to attack the protesters and then have police remove protesters and thugs alike under the pretext of public safety, which is exactly what happened at UCLA.
This has been a longstanding practice by the police, using "agents provocateur", either people who go in committing violence or going in and being so obnoxious and using fighting words to provoke a fight from younger, inexperienced members of the initial set of protestors
For example, at the protest outside SCOTUS the day of the Dobbs decision, there was one man with a loudspeaker setup blasting music to drown out the women speakers on the stage, and he seemed fairly out-of-place. I then noticed that police were lining up on either side of the street around him, ready to pounce on people who took the bait. Thankfully nobody did
I also saw an agent provocateur at rally at the Lincoln Memorial for George Floyd back in 2020 where Rev Al Sharpton spoke. Said agent provocateur was a shirtless white guy wearing some really terrible blackface body paint. Nobody attacked him, but they did shout for him to leave and the police did escort him away from the rally
It would not surprise me at all if someone did actually hire the counter-protestors. Or, if it were just plain clothes LEO instigators acting to justify a forceful removal order. It would be FAR from the first time this tactic has been used in the last decade alone (see: Occupy Wall Street, BLM, DAPL, etc.).
The system is built with the assumption that the police chief is unbiased, even though they obviously are not. You would need to have someone else review the situation, and that second person would need the authority to veto the police chief's decisions. That would probably mean a judge, or a police official with even higher rank, but what sort of bias do judges have? The problem is that everyone with a modicum of power seems to be pro-Israel. The USA has a long history of siding with Israel, and it is often only young people (who have yet to enter positions of power) who acknowledge Palestinian death is bad.
I don't think the police are going to start coordinating with thugs, but I don't think they need to most of the time. There is inevitably going to be some counter-protestors. Really it is Israel v Palestine is miniature. Violence by one side is deemed acceptable and violence from the other side is not.
The Pinkerton Playbook
What a twist in the narrative. They dispersed both protests because of the violence.
Once your imaginary conspiracy theory becomes true then you can complain.
Civil disobedience is inherently disruptive. Anyone claiming the student protests would be acceptable if only they didn’t challenge the status quo has no idea what it means to protests.
Private property private rules. If they are too disruptive the campuses are allowed to tell them to cease or be removed.
@@alphamaccao5224And that is why we are focused on the public colleges, and only discussing them.
@@alphamaccao5224buddy I go the the PUBLIC university of California Los Angeles. Even if you were legally correct you have entirely missed my point about civil *disobedience*
I thought civil disobedience meant intentionally breaking the law, often to protest the specific law being broken. Like, isn't the point to provoke a response from law enforcement? I can see the argument of, "the public should morally support this instance of civil disobedience because it's morally justified," but I don't get the people acting like the law shouldn't be enforced because they agree with the message of the protest. (Separate from the issue of how the law should be enforced).
Civil disobedience being inherently disruptive does nothing to justify specific acts. It would certainly be disruptive if a protestor set off a bomb, but justifying it by saying "errrrm civil disobedience is SUPPOSED to be disruptive!!!1" is not only meaningless rhetoric but also justifies such dangerous actions.
Look at the violent reaction to protests across Virginia, hundreds of police both campus, state, and city, in riot gear and armed with assault rifles tear gassed both protestors and random passerby's with little warning. I know students who were entirely unaware of the protest who were caught up in the gassing. The "disruption" argument becomes moot when the police intervention is many times more disruptive and dangerous to students than a peaceful protest.
That's standard police procedure: claim someone is being disruptive because their otherwise non-disruptive actions are "causing" police to do disruptive things. It's like a government version of "you made me hit you."
yes. the police need to back off. this is way too much of a reaction from them. AS ALWAYS
That's true, but I think that's more of a statement as to how police overstep their means.
It is pretty sensible for the police to show up with heavy gears when the protesters are waving the flags of radical organisations. If they are waving those flags, who knows what they'll do?
Police disruption happens temporarily to get rid of the disruptions that have been going for months
Hello student of UCSD here. We had a similar protest to that of UCLA however rather than the protest taking place in a location that blocks students, it took place in a field. Even though it was centrally located, I never saw them block any students access to anywhere, and even if someone felt uncomfortable you could access every building on campus without coming within 500 feet of the protests. The protesters were arrested and signs were put up after the fact stating "landscape area under renovation" putting aside the fact no renovations have been performed. Does the school have a legal right to remove the protesters for these spontaneous renovations? Because I think the presence of the signs implies that the school doesn't believe that the protests materially inhibited the functioning of the school.
And this is another fact that Devin is ommitting to keep a narrative of these removals being "content-neutral" when common sense showcases that they are anything but.
@@mothrahlurker788 What kind of a country is it if a former president keeps getting away with the biggest crime spree in history while your average person can't express concerns for the wellbeing of others, especially during wartime (likely one said former president caused)?
@@Gaia_BentosZX5 not even war but a full-on genocide, it's insane
I think this would probably require a lawsuit. Someone would need to sue the school's administration, so that the records of conversations leading up to the decision can be scrutinized. If there's some paper trail that doesn't just start immediately before the evictions happened, there may be a case it was legal - but the school would probably have to explain why they didn't try to move the protest to another location.
If on the other hand you get a bunch of incriminating e-mails from school officials asking how they can just get rid of the protest, well then they'd be in some hot water.
ucsd student here too! the encampment never blocked access to library walk and was extremely peaceful. the arrests were honestly shameful
My uni in Canada responded to the protest by saying no one is allowed on campus after 9pm. Undergrad courses run until 9:30pm though, so that'll be fun to watch them try and enforce XD
I'm sure they were talking about those who aren't students or staff
@@jeremymott i sure hope so
@@nickjc1999 how did it go?
Remember when right wingers were throwing tantrums over Milo Yiannapoulos getting disinvited from speaking at colleges? Good times.
Is that what you call far left "protesters" trying to burn tthe campuses down to prevent someone they dislike from coming over and making a speech ?
Can't remember them clogging walkways... Weird, that.
Simple solution: No one gets to speak!
(This post is sponsored by the Tabora Deaf-Mute institute.)
You can’t afford to be this naive.
@@NostalgiaHDOSwhat group of people? There are many Jewish people (mostly Jewish voices for peace members) who are out there protesting the genocide in gaza
"I'm a lawyer, not an idiot" should be standard introductory boilerplate for all legal commentary RUclips channels.
What about the ones that are lawyers and idiots?
I am not a lawyer and consider myself at least an enthusiastic idiot. Maybe i should have a RUclips channel
@@rbourne35 That usually indicates that it's one of Trumps lawyers about to testify.
Considering he forgot the freedom of religion part in the first amendment....he scored as well as judge Amy Coney Barrette. History has a funny sense of irony, and terrible sense of consequences for one's action.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
@@rbourne35 as someone who has worked with many attorneys as a paralegal, there's actually quite a few that prove being a lawyer and being an idiot are not mutually-exclusive.
I am a UCLA student and currently have a class in Royce Hall, the exact building the encampment was right in front of. I literally took GRAD PHOTOS in front of Royce, while the encampment was up. I can confidently say that at no point during the encampment were school buildings blocked by the encampment. Certain ENTRANCES were blocked - but every building had at least one entrance totally accessible, and UCLA knew this. They had campus security stationed to tell students exactly that. The idea that the encampment blocked students from going to classes is completely made up, and stems from videos of students arguing about their inability to get into SPECIFIC doors of buildings. Just to add that to the conversation
(edit: wording issues)
just so long as you're the "right" kind of student
That's still illegal. No student can restrict access to any entrance of a building without some kind of unique exception on a limited basis. You also ignore that they vandalized the property. They did so with anti Jewish symbols - there was a Jewish star drawn on the ground in the encampment with instructions to step on it. They also graffiti wrote and chanted "intifada" which is a call to violence against Jews. Additionally, you can't camp out on public property. So, nothing about the encampment was legal or moral it turns out.
@@anomaliesanonymous This is all incorrect, You realize anyone can look up what intifada means. It means "shaking off" It is in no way anti-Semitic.
Specific doors for "bad" Jewish students? Sounds like apartheid!
@@YourArmsGone The intifada was a violent process in the 2000s which saw thousands of violent attacks against Israelis. It is violence. And Jihad is not "self betterment".
The guy “being blocked” intentionally came every single day to force his way into the encampment. He was part of a group that came and shoved students inside the encampment, it has nothing to do with his characteristics, rather his actions
yeah! I can't believe he didn't research this
Source?
@@andrewjgrimmask the students that were there bro there are many
LegalEagle also used ADL's statistics lmao 😂😂
Even a well-respected lawyer can fall for misinformation lol. Glad I had someone to point it out to me (Hasan), but that stuff fools so many people
To quote another RUclips lawyer, “remember, just because it’s illegal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong”.
Nor does it mean that it's right.
@@maudlife asinine comment
@@maudlifestudent protests have historically been proven to be right and moral, it’s always those who go against students that are proven by time to be wrong
@@CaptainPikeachuThere have been exceptions... but yeah, this is not one of them.
Ahahahahahah, nice joke. Many student protests were historically wrong, especially in times of war, such as the american students protests in support of the nazis. Get real @@CaptainPikeachu
I was slightly shook when Devin actually touched the phone on the desk at 8:40 and it moved. I honestly thought it was a digital prop.
gotta find the video where he actually goes and pulls a book off the shelf, that will rock your world
@@Gyurg00 That would be "How to use ChatGPT to Ruin Your Legal Career", where he pulls out a copy of part of the Federal Reporter
@@Gyurg00 I saw that one!!! It confused me so much.
lmao, I'm glad there are people who actually notice these things.
@@thebatonmaster ADHD powers activate.
Would have appreciated some discussion of the concept of a “Heckler’s Veto.”
Basically those creating a safety situation with the intent of creating a justification of silencing a protest are intentionally singled out as not a valid reason to shut down a protest.
never heard of this term, but I definitely just saw it in practice…
I'd like to hear more about that, too.
@@JayeEllis It's been covered on this channel before in a few videos (though I can't remember which off the top of my head) which is why it's also surprising it wasn't covered in this one
I never realized "Fighting Words" was actually a legal term in America.
I'm a Canadian, I thought "fighting words" were just some hick term for escalating an opinion into a fight.
haha me too. Apparently those hillbillies have a better understanding of constitutional law than i do.
Canadians are not beating the allegations
The actions of the government are unsurprising.
We saw this same thing with protests against the war in Iraq, we saw the same thing with protests against the war in Vietnam. It's the same old same old.
Anti-war activism in the past usually didn't carry an air of antisemitism and sympathy towards terrorism.
@@jlev1028 Christian Zionism is antisemitism actually.
@@jlev1028 Most of these protest have been organized in part by Jewish people. Also, the same argument of "sympathy towards terrorism" has been used against anti war protests for Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and more.
@@jlev1028 LOL oh the naivety. Neither does this, in all reality. I'm sure there are some crazies who really do feel that way, but they are few and far between. For the most part, you're just parroting lies designed to paint the whole group as bad.
Funnily enough, you're wrong on both counts: they *DID* smear the Vietnam protestors back in the day in the same kind of way. They tried to say they were traitors, or sympathizing with the enemy (again, a few really were, but whatever), despite that not being true. They were just sick of the death and killing. The same is true of the kids protesting now. It's alarming that you can't see what side of history you're on. I hope you figure it out eventually though!
Edit: the kids were right back then, and they're right this time too.
@@jlev1028 Neither did this one.
Remember we're watching LegalEagle and not Moral... Goral? Legality and Morality are not one and the same, and this channel is just approaching it from the legal perspective as is their expertise. Calling something potentially illegal does not necessarily mean one believes it is wrong
Thanks for the video
“Moral Squirrel” has a nice ring to it
@@temp_name_change_laterDAMMIT IT WAS SO OBVIOUS
@@Alwayz114I'm partial to Moral owl
It's still worth addressing the morality, reasonableness, and sustainability of the underlying issue briefly given that the legal system is our best attempt at approximating these values.
For example, one might note that a particular protest may potentially be illegal, but also note its similarity to previous civil disobedience movements which also violated the law but were crucial in establishing the protections we have today.
@@yessum15True, and I think that would make a fantastic followup video for the channel, particularly if the team would bring in an expert to comment. We tend to whitewash the history of protests, which were subject to much of thr *exact same* scrutiny we see in protests today, despite hindsight-support of said historic protests being very high
That first video of the guy at UCLA claiming he was being blocked from going to class was a pro-Israeli agitator, who repeatedly showed up to the protest and did stunts like this. He wasn't actually being blocked from class.
Source?
Irrespective of his motivation for choosing that route, it is a literal, demonstrable fact that the "pro-Palestinian" protestors were, in actual fact, blocking his movement.
Yeah the agitators are assholes, though it doesn't excuse them from blocking people. So both sides are assholes.
@@Shabuyabuyabuya he was the agitator. No one was being blocked
@@giovannamautone
The video literally shows him being blocked by them, it doesn't matter where he wanted to go or do - they still blocked him. And the stupidest response for someone wishing you to block him for the media is to actually block him.....
Legal eagle: "I'm a lawyer, I'm not an idiot"
Rudy Giuliani: "Those two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive"
Loved his squirming in Borat 2
1:20 - Chapter 1 - UCLA's response after the protests
3:15 - Chapter 2 - Which protest does the 1st amendment protect ?
4:25 - Chapter 3 - What speech is free, anyway ?
10:05 - Chapter 4 - The right to free speech in public schools
11:05 - Chapter 5 - Did UCLA violate the protestors 1st amendment ?
12:45 - Chapter 6 - What about columbia ?
13:50 - Chapter 7 - Free speech in the dean's backyard
14:35 - Chapter 8 - 1st amendment violatons in texas
21:35 - Chapter 9 - Police brutality
23:10 - Conclusion
Good shit, handyman over here 🫡
23:10 - Advertisements :P not conclusion
9:28 - promotion of services from law firm
Man Americans got soft over college protestors. Literally in Vietnam war protestors rocked up to their deans armed with AR-15s and said he couldn’t leave 😂 that’s a VIOLENT protest even tho they never shot him or anyone else. These were pale in comparison
What do people think a sit-in is? Protests against injustice are targeted disruptions, the last resort before people resort to violence.
Did civil rights activists ever prevent white students from entering schools or block traffic?
They've always been criminal trespass. The cause may be justified, but you're getting arrested for it anyway. Heck, back in the day getting arrested for it was the goal.
Sit ins aren't legal, it's trespassing once the owner of the private property tells you to leave. The question wasn't "What protests are effective?" The question was "Is it LEGAL"? And no, sit ins aren't.
sitt in protests did not exist prior to Marxist organizations moving into the states
I think they interfere with other students, that's what. I think people have the idea that they will effect change by removing the freedom for other students to continue their education. And in fact, I become more against their cause when I see these things. Those environmentalists who the threw paint on museum artifacts...I cared less about helping the environment after those actions. People should have a right to protest but no citizen should have the right to interfere with the free movement and activities of other people.
When I was protesting war on campus in 1990, we planned to be arrested, and trained to go limp while police handled us.
Not sure that going limp would be safe today... but bogging down the legal system was part of the strategy. (And making sure the press was present was also important. Arrests make great dramatic news footage.)
Occupation of a building or intrusion on private events are specific actions that we would expect to end in arrest--though a march or sit-in always had that possibility.
Disruption can be an effective technique, but those using it should expect consequences.
Ah yes you holding up the legal system that is attempting to try criminals is really stopping the war!
Student protestors are advised not to go limp because that can get you hit with a resisting arrest charge.
How on earth does going limp means "resisting arrest"
Intentionally breaking laws for voicing an opinion seems foolish, but you do you. There are more practical ways to protest, ones which allow you to do it more than *once.*
ANYBODY WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH GOVERNMENT GETS SHUT DOWN LOOK AT THE PROTEST THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING DID FOR THE RIGHTS OF BLACK AMERICANS LOOK AT WOMAN RIGHT LOOK AT UNION RIGHT LOOK AT TEACHER SALARY PROTEST THERE SO MANY anything that benefits the people get arrested how many protest is it gonna get until we realize THAT AMERICA WAS NEVER FOR THE LIBERTY OF THE PEOPLE
Israeli here. I'm impressed. You actually managed to adress the situation while staying completely neutral of the conflict. I have no idea what your political view is regarding this war, and I imagine that that was your intention. Great video! Love from the Jewish state! ❤️🇮🇱
I was at the Indiana University protests, which was the one where encampments had been allowed since 1969 protests, until a private committee (i think the news reported it was a four person committee but i could be wrong) changed the rule the night before the protests. The website wasn’t even updated with the new rule banning tents until the day of the protest, and they proceeded to call riot police to remove tents that were completely legal 48 hours ago. (Edited to add, while I couldn’t find the number of committee members, I did find out that the university claims the policy change was approved by “the Ad Hoc Committee”, but reporters interviewed several faculty members, including a law professor, who claim that they didn’t even know the committee existed, and it hasn’t existed since the rule was invented in 1969. Additionally, in another email the university president confirmed she changed the rule specifically because of the protest planned).
But they’ve backed off and the encampments are back up and have been up for awhile.
That does make me curious though, is there any sort of legal precedent that would give the protestors leniency because of how recent the rule changes were? Or might that affect the severity of the punishment (i.e., if it went to court, would the circumstances of the rule change lead to a judge being more lenient?). Of course I’m sure it all depends on the judge, and a lot of these cases are being dropped with the only permanent charges being bans from campus. Being able to change rules then turn around and violate rule breakers with an incredibly short grace period, especially considering a lot of legislations and laws have some sort of a grace period, in many cases long ones (around 90 days is pretty common). But I’m also not entirely sure how the grace period is decided for laws, either.
it's so obvious they did it just for the pro Palestinian one, disgusting
UCSD did something similar.
Don't forget how they literally had snipers on rooftops at IU.
"We are worried about violence on our campus, so we called the police to enact violence on our campus."
Literally
I bet if the protesters left when the police came, started packing up when the police arrived there'd be less chance of violence.
@@TheRealCoryKent If protestors packed up & left when they were asked nicely, it wouldn't be much of a protest. Something tells me you'd agree if the matter of protest was different. lol. Would you say the same if peaceful protestors refused to go home when confronted by counter-protestors who are there to incite violence, like at UCLA?
@@en0n126 exactly - going home when given resistance completely defeats the purpose of the protest! It’s about being an unyielding presence and putting consistent pressure and spotlight on the relevant issue at hand. If everyone just went home, we’d see even MORE police intimidation to ensure that protesters could never even gather in the first place
yes very smart right?...
the Texas executive order is just baffling. How can anyone so minutely restrict free speech and still believe they aren't a villain?
Greg Abbott stopped caring that he's a villain a long time ago. The fact that people like him can be such soulless sociopaths is terrifying.
How can anyone claim that calling for genocide should be protected speech and still believe they aren't a villain?
Well isn't that just everyone in government?
@@nathaniellindner313 Oh, wise one! Remind me again why there's a steady flow of Californians and people from other "progressive" states towards "soul-less sociopath" Abbott's state?
@@willythemailboy2 can't really claim from the river to the sea is a call for genocide, when the party that has a majority control in the knesset has in their charter the very same words of from the jordan river to the Mediterranean sea, unless you want to admit that that phrase in the likud charter is a call for the genocide of the palestinian people.
“Can’t you protest in a polite way that I can completely ignore?”
Yes. As Protests should be by law.
@redr6107
No, they shouldn't. Mlk jr knew that, and he went to jail over 20 times to defend it.
Yes. Your wanting to protest doesn't give you the right to disrupt me.
@NoName-mi8js
Martin Luther king Jr would strongly disagree.
@@NoName-mi8jsprotests are MEANT to be disruptive. I’m sorry if people are blocking the Starbucks so you can’t get your morning coffee from underpaid teenagers, but children are being brutally tortured and murdered, neighborhoods bombed to the ground, and millions are currently starving because farms and hospitals keep getting intentionally destroyed. I don’t think your right to be slightly more comfortable as you benefit from atrocities supercedes the right of an entire group of people to exist
Abbott is a real piece of _work._ He truly represents the gullible bottom of the barrel; logic is beyond them
he actually stands up against discrimination that central america does against usa population.
@@henlohenlo689 No, he does not. Undocumented immigration could easily be halted by holding those who employ undocumented workers criminally and civilly liable. There are already laws to do just that.
Instead, he deliberately turns a blind eye to businesses and individuals who break the law to save a few dimes, and who cost American workers those jobs.
Wake up and do some research.
@@henlohenlo689 What.
@@henlohenlo689 Hotwheels isn't capable of standing up for anything other than hatred and bigotry, metaphorically and literally.
He actually doesn't stand up for anything. He's in a wheelchair. @@henlohenlo689
"I'm a lawyer, I'm not an idiot" - that's a very bold statement!
Bet you it wouldn't stand up in court.
Trumps lawyers enter the room😂
After people like Giuliani, you just can't rely on that.
Trump's Legal Team: Hold my beer. Now you owe me $5 for that beer btw.
He knows where the rest of the lawyers are from.
Slavery was legal, legality means nothing but obedience to the powers that be, not morality. Hopefully our species can at least apply their legalities on everyone equally and not just in favor of the rich and powerful at the detriment to the poor and powerless.
True, but people must be willing to accept the consequences of changing the wrong. Back in the 60s and 70s many of us were arrested, tried, and sometimes went to jail to cause change. You seem to want the freedom to do these things with no consequences.
The fundamental problem is that we do not agree on what is or is not moral. I think that these "pro-Palestinian" protestors are deeply, deeply immoral.
Ah yes, harming someone else, disrupting private schools, and acting violently is equivalent to slavery.
Weird how there are some laws specifically designed to somehow make your right to assemble automatically illegal.
No right is completely unlimited. There are always scenarios where assembly will be harmful and the state has a legitimate interest in controlling it.
@@paulbutkovich6103please read the comment again. You misunderstood it.
@@DerAptrgangr I meant that there are circumstances under which an assembly is going to be illegal so it makes sense that there would be laws that kick in under those circumstances. Am I still missing something?
@@paulbutkovich6103 jbear was addressing the way in which unconstitutional laws were being implemented to make certain political assemblies "unlawful" no matter what.
Sure, some circumstances can make an assembly automatically illegal. An assembly of people for the purpose of committing imminent, unlawful violence? Well yeah, that assembly would be illegal. But jbear was talking about assemblies that could otherwise be legal, except for unconstitutional laws pre-empting them.
@@DerAptrgangr Can you give me an example?
Every time you see protests doing what they're materially, functionally, supposed to do, everyone that disagrees, including the powerful people being protested against, go, "but are they allowed to do that?" and doing "protest right" means "do them so I can ignore them." And it can't be helped but for the law to be interpreted in favor of the status quo that is being challenged in the first place, this is why I'm not really concern with the specifics of the law regarding protests, I care more about the protest itself. Protests ought to be disruptive! I don't know what people think protest are, you can't expect them to be an orderly beautiful inspirational thing that makes you feel good inside, genocide is not pretty, war is not pretty, police brutality is not pretty... why should the response be civil and orderly 100% with accordance to the law?
I would have much less of a problem with these protests if they were taking place outside of various embassies or government buildings, but these are happening on college f****** campuses, The f*** do you expect the college to do? Especially in the US where colleges as far as I can tell are entirely privately owned So the government likely does not care in the slightest about these protests because they can just look at it as people being on private property
Agreed. I think it's good to be informed on what is or isn't legal, so you know the risks you're taking, but eventually any effective form of protest is one which challenges and disrupts the existing system of power, and therefore that system will only ever legalize forms of protests which don't significantly challenge or disrupt it, aka ones which are ultimately ineffective or controllable. The most powerful forms of resistance will always be illegal, which is not a bug but a feature of all systems of governance.
Cause they don't care and have made their minds about the issue already
@@neurotyper couldn't have said it better myself. It's good to know what risks you're taking (and mitigate those risks where possible - secure your phones, folks.)
If by disruptive you mean attacking bystanders and people that don't want to take part, looting and destruction of people's businesses, blocking emergency vehicles or people from seeking safety. Then you're not what people want to see in a protest
"This has all happened before and will happen again" to quote Battlestar Galactica. Remember the Occupy Wall Street Rallies and break away 99% protests almost 13 years back where some places where calling in the National Guard and Military to clear out the encampments with force, and others didn't touch it with a 10 foot pole and said until they actually are visibly caught breaking a law they where not to be touched. I remember at the time I was actually surprised as all hell with the mayor of the city I was living; since he was a "Sales Bro" that acted like a spoiled child, fought with unions, had our city in one of the longest strikes ever for all city services over the course of a whole summer, and known for his very Conservative policies. Even he saw the career suicide it would have been to take down the encampments popping up all over the city at the time because it was such a touchy issue and forcing the encampments and protestors away would only prove their point; he actually placed a standing order with the police to keep to basic patrol of the parks as if it was just a normal business as usual park patrol and leave the protestors alone if they aren't breaking any bylaws (like smoking, having dogs off leash, or going to the bathroom in public).
This mayor sounds like a wise man; a lot of protests fail to make any real change because many people who want change don't realize how long it can take for change to happen.
For example, the Montgomery bus boycott in the 50's lasted a year before any change happened and many people who participated in the boycott lost their jobs because they relied on the bus to get to work.
Just let the fire burn itself out.
This is what I saw in DC. At various parks people mostly left them alone and their numbers eventually dwindled. Yes, that's anecdotal to the time and place from my perspective. My gf at the time worked for a nonprofit on K street and we would see them sometimes on her lunch break.
Of course it has happened before and will happen again. The entire point of a protest is to be so disruptive that you can't be ignored. If you _don't_ provoke a response, your protest has failed. The ideal response of course is just getting everything you ask for.
That is obviously not a realistic goal in most cases - if it was that easy we'd have protests constantly demanding every dumb thing you can imagine and getting it. Yet despite that goal being obviously unrealistic, you will find people (generally people opposed to the protest) asserting that anything less than complete acquiescence is equivalent to failure and that the protest is therefore should never have been allowed. That is both prescriptive (you can't know if you'll succeed prior to trying) and reductive (complete acquiescence is very rarely expected no matter how much it's desired). It is an argument made either in bad faith by those who are trying to undermine the protest, or in ignorance by those who don't understand how protesting works.
"Luckily" this is known. Not necessarily by police (as we've seen recently) but by people who specialize in counter-protest operations. I put "luckily" in scare quotes because often the things being protested for are genuinely good (like you know, not having an entire people getting wiped out) yet the counter-protest tactics still work if police and other officials are patient enough to let them do their thing (it mostly amounts to waiting until the protesters make a mistake that can be widely publicized - then when the cops move in they will be the ones with the public's support rather than looking like a bunch of thugs beating up kids and the elderly. Obviously there's more nuance involved, but that's the high level premise. Sometimes the waiting can take a while though and humans tend to be pretty impatient with things that mildly annoy us).
There is, as usual, no easy answers. By the time an issue reaches the stage of mass protest it's usually well entrenched in the status quo and trying to change it will be both difficult and met with great resistance from those who want to avoid change at any cost, no matter how positive the change being demanded might be.
@@altrag Fair point. While reading your reply all I could think about was the "Peace Now" protests that shut down major Bridges and Roadways just after the USA deployed to the Middle East. Huge display, basically rendered the police powerless, but also put the protestors in a position they couldn't hold for too long. It was powerful, made all its points clearly, causes major delays in day to day operations so it couldn't be overlooked... but we still ended up with a 20+ year conflict despite the protests "working" according to organisers. But what "working" meant was making sure speaking about America in the Middle East as an invasion force, war of attrition, or false flag political move for partisan support from swing voters; wasn't considered "traitor talk" or "anti-American" by the majority of the general public.
@@CartoonHero1986 > wasn't considered "traitor talk" or "anti-American" by the majority of the general public.
That's not nothing. You can look at it as solely being abused for "partisan support", but on the other hand you can also look at it as staving off another McCarthy style crackdown on free speech.
Plus, you have no idea what other effects the protests may have had. Certainly not enough to stop the war (see previous post regarding unrealistic goals) but it may have convinced military leadership to pursue a less drastic option or otherwise tone down the response. We'll probably never know of course - those kind of decisions are generally considered highly classified and there's rarely much interest in getting things the military _didn't_ do declassified decades after the fact.
For comparison, it's been theorized by people who understand these things that at least part of the reason Biden suddenly started putting so much pressure on Netanyahu after slow-walking it for all that time is because of the protests. Sure he _says_ that they had no effect on policy, but he's a politician talking about matters of high diplomacy. Him lying about something like that wouldn't exactly be a massive surprise to anyone with any interest in foreign policy.
And if nothing else, the protests may simply allow us to talk about the issue without every single statement against Netanyahu's leadership getting called anti-Semitic (usually by the same people who were chanting "blood and soil" and related slogans only a few years ago in North Carolina... because of course).
2:05 As a UCLA student I cannot imagine how ANY, much less MANY students were prevented from getting to class. The encampment wasn't locking down any buildings at all and it was trivial to walk around it at the quad.
Ah yes, I guess a giant shanty town in the middle of campus doesn't block anything.
Because students are scared of being attacked for who they are?
Generally I think this was a fair legal assessment, not that I would know anything, but there's a few extra details I can give. I can't speak much about the other incidents, but I am from UCLA and so I know a bit more context. 1, campus activities were disrupted, thats not in question. However when the encampment was first established they were mostly occupying the grassy area. I walked right past them in the morning, and later in the after noon (or maybe the next day?), security was preventing students from entering the area and making us walk around. I don't think they were affiliated with anyone from the protest? From what I understand the initial barriers keeping students out were not erected and enforced by the protesters at first. I think they did use the established boundary to then further enforce it, but they weren't generally selectively keeping out certain students, and security was still there essentially doing the same. I can't speak for the clips shown here, and it does seem like one of those clips was taken before security had started preventing students from entering, but I've seen other videos which were taken after security started enforcing it, which to me seems like an incorrect and deliberate misrepresentation of what was going on. Again, I can't speak on the intentions behind protesters in all of these clips, but it would be incorrect to make a blanket statement about selectively barring jewish students from going to class.
Furthermore, there were alternative ways inside the buildings. While the main entrance/the open area was blocked off, access to classes themselves wasn't prevented, it just took you maybe a minute longer. It took me maybe 5 the first day things were blocked off because I wasn't sure where to go, but it wasn't an issue at all the following days. Additionally the clips where the student was surrounded by the protesters asking if they were zionist was essentially inside the encampment. I myself exited from that route the first day that things were blocked off, but it went through the encampment area. I think it was blocked off more securely later so you couldn't exit that way. I just started using the alternative entrance/exit that had been officially established by UCLA, they were having us swipe our ID cards as we entered. Most of the people in the videos claiming they were kept out because they were jewish are either idiots or misrepresenting what was going on.
Until the counterprotestors showed up, there really wasn't any problem besides having to walk a little bit around. Additionally, I've heard that counterprotestors were showing up to the encampment, interacting with the protesters, and making threats. Like mentioned in the video, it's hard to pin down what kind of speech would be not protected as free speech, but from what I understand there were actual threats made by the counter protesters.
The violence itself was an attack initiated by counterprotestors, and there really wasn't too much off a basis to declare the encampment illegal. Most of the big issues that arose from the protests were conflicts initiated by counterprotestors, so it seems a bit backwards to arrest the protesters after failing to intervene when counterprotestors caused problems.
Also, the following incidents at UCLA that had arrests were pretty big overreactions. I'm really not sure if anything major happened at all. Campus was completely shut down for a week as soon as one group formed. I think they just waked into a building and chanted a bit and left and were outside. There were also people arrested independently earlier that day, which I'm still not entirely sure about why they were arrested. There was no need for classes to be shut down for another week.
thank you for showing the truth because I was sure those clips and statements were wrong and the protests were completely safe and legal!
One of the clips of the "jewish students" wasnt even a student. It was a social media influencer who goes around as a professional aggitator and the students werent even blocking him. The video was blantantly staged. He even went up to cops to shake their hands later.
Also from UCLA, and I can vouch for all of this 100%. I had classes in Royce while the encampment was up, I studied in Powell, and I literally took grad photos at Royce Hall as well.
Lol, generated cc wrote "government official" as "government offal" and I think that's accurate.
So often. So, so offal.
Without a doubt.
UCLA student here, the encampment didn’t block people from getting to class. The doors to royce facing the encampment were shutdown by the school from day one of our encampment and alternative paths were established - we had to leave the encampment to get to class same as everyone else. Calling it blocking is disingenuous
It was blocked. You're being disingenuous.
Source?
It absolutely is not. The protestors were 100% blocking.
Thanks for telling the world you should be on a watchlist 👍
“Im a lawyer, not an idiot” we all try to be, but Chinese have a saying “sometimes you get shot even laying down”
Blows my mind how many people look back fondly on the College Campus Vietnam War protests, and now College protests are just blasphemous and unexpected for some reason.
To be fair, back in the day most of the general public viewed the college campus Vietnam War protests as blasphemous and unexpected as well.
These protests are more similar to the ones in 1960s, the racists blocked Black students from entering their campuses.
@@SomeoneFromBeijing exactly, and it's worse than that, these Nazis today are literally calling for genocide
@@eazydee5757At the time, you're right. There are "counterculture" staples like Neil Young's "Ohio" talking about the national guard shooting and killing four protesters on a protest at Kent State.
It's just kind of farcical how it's remembered as this large event in American history for the better and similar protests today are treated as they're the first or worst time this has ever happened.
@@eazydee5757 I think that's part of what's mind blowing about it, the blatant historical revisionism.
If you could, I’d like to see a legal analysis of H.R.815 (the supplemental defense appropriations bill) and 22 USC chapter 93 (“United States-Israel Cooperation”) with an emphasis on how much leeway the President has or doesn’t have in providing financial and military assistance to Israel.
Yes please!
I don't think there's any leeway other than political delaying once an independent body has confirmed it. I actually imagine that if Trump wins, he might use this against Biden, maybe even criminally. It depends on which wing of his supporters get the mic.
@@DrVictorVasconcelos which wing of his reich*
Not gonna happen I'm sure.
@@Asylar343 *which wing of the reich
Objection. How can the shutting down of the protest be claimed as content neutral when the Dean, in his release on why the action was taken, listed as his second issue "antisemitic sentiments will not be tolerated on campus" and later repeated in his public address that he deemed the protests to be inherently antisemitic?
because hate speech of any kind is not allowed on campus. if a protest with hate speech targeting another group were happening it would also be banned.
@@eitancodish301 Explain to me how "stop ethnic cleansing" is hate speech. Explain it like I'm five years old.
@@AndrewJohnson-oy8ojhe can't because it isn't.
That's why republicans are trying to change the legal boundaries of antisemitic speech to include any criticism of Israel.
Because they did more than just saying "stop ethnic cleansing".@@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj
@@AndrewJohnson-oy8oj
Easy. It's not the only thing that was going on there. There's plenty of proof for antisemitic and violence calling signs there.
You are welcome
A Genuine Question: Have the police ever actually acted rationally during any protest ever?
they act extremely rationally and extremely immorally
Basically only time was the Women's march at the beginning of Trump's presidency in 2016. It was mostly women and several were married to cops. I was there as a kid and we had zero issues, very different when I protested as a teen years later for BLM and Anti-Gun-Violence.
When the Capitol got stormed on January 6 the police did not escalate with force.
For whatever reason, protestors with a right leaning are usually given more leeway than protestors with a left leaning.
They refused to clear the UofT encampment without a court order recently. Rare Police W.
They are paid not to. Several police departments all over the country have recieved combat and riot training, and funding from Israel and the IDF. Its in their collective "paid" interest to follow orders from colonialists.
It's fine to protest with the mainstream but not against the mainstream.
You're allowed to protest, just don't break any laws such as trespassing
@@12Metatron protest is meant to be disruptive. those 40,000 palestinians were murdered by the forces of Law.
@@sydssolanumsamsys sure, just don't be surprised when doing illegal things results in arrests or fines
@@12Metatron i dont think anybody was ever surprised
@@sydssolanumsamsys If you're not surprised, then what are you doing here?
You protested, you went beyond the limits of your constitutionally-protected right to protest and caused a lot trouble/did a lot of law breaking, and the law came down hard on you. All this massive whining about "there's no free speech anymore" is just whining by leftist mama's boys who don't understand how the world works.
Legal analysis question. Institutions like Columbia receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding in many capacities through student loans, scientific research grants, etc. I know that NIH/NSF funding is contingent on all research labs, even those who don't receive this funding, following NIH/NSF guidelines. Does this level of government financial support override certain private institution protections?
those types of transactions are incredibly complex and come by way of incredibly strict regulations and contracts, which includes requirements that the institution abides by federal policies such as non-discrimination and where possible other goals such as small-business requirements and whatnot. what they will not do--except in Texas ffs--is demand that the school endorse expressing particular political beliefs
As a junior at UCLA, the students did not block Jewish students purposely; the first individual who recorded it framed the video as anti-semitism when in reality, they blocked every student from entering because of the occupied space. I was blocked as well as many, and I reiterate, many other students who were not Jewish around me; to clarify again, I am not Jewish nor do I have any affiliation to either side of the protests. To address the second video, that more or less does not apply because the person is already in the enclosed space of the encampment (they are literally in front of Powell a part of the occupied space so I have no idea how they got in there), but in general as a whole, most students were blocked from going into the occupied space including myself not based on religion but on them making sure that the protest can continue.
But that's still quite illegal isn't it?
Imagine paying all that tuition money and some a**hats don't let you go into your courses...
@@jtadevich never mentioned any sort of legal or illegal part to my statement. Just wanted to add the comment for clarification and facts. I am not a lawyer, and the whole purpose of the video that LegalEagle just posted was about analyzing the legality of it, so you should not ask me for my opinion, but just watch the video for the purposes of answering the question. I will not speak about my opinion because mine honestly does not matter; the facts matter more.
I am not from the US, is there a right to Education there?
@@skii77777 I ask for purpose of discussion. I myself do think opinions matter somewhat because sometimes courts work in a grey area of law, and make interpretations (what I would call opinions). So asking another's opinion is good... um... practice?
if the law is immoral, break it
I want that on a shirt
Immoral is subjective while the law must always be objective. If you don't follow the law, get punished.
If it was a pro-Israeli protest you would most likely say the law is moral. Be honest, would you?
@@jamesrgamesoffical does it involve the beating of a pro palestine supporter? If yes then it is immoral 🤷♂️
People don't agree on what is immoral. That's literally the fundamental problem.
It's wild to think that they ruled it was safety concerns to prevent the protest because people that weren't part of the protests were violent.
IU Bloomington 2022 Alumni here. Had a friend who was arrested for peaceful protesting on campus. It’s very sad to see the lengths colleges will now go to to suppress speech they don’t agree with.
Current IU Bloomington student here too, glad to encounter someone else in the wild :) one of my friends got arrested to, and another messed up his hand pretty bad when he got thrown by riot cops (luckily it’s his non-dominant). It makes me sad, since I toured campus as a high school student during the 2022 grad student protests, and one of the reasons I liked IU was because our tour guide explained the issue to us and didn’t try to hide or minimize anything. It really seemed like IU cared about free speech and student activism. One of the hats they gave me even says “Intellectual Rebel”. Shouldn’t be surprising to me that institutions love the idea of rebellion, until they don’t and they bring out the riot cops
4:44 I love that "fighting words" is the term used, I guess that means "them's fightin' words" is now a legal arguement
Pretty sure you've got it the wrong way around. The colloquial "them's fighting words" derives from what is originally (and still) a legal term.
19:21 was from a selectively edited ragebate video designed to make it look like protesters were singling out and blocking people. What's missing, but in the full video, is him harassing protesters and trying to pick fights. He wasn't actually blocked from going anywhere.
proof?
@@johanalejandrocazadordepin7225I don't have any physical proof, but I can corroborate this as a UCLA student. every single building had at least one entrance that remained accessible the entire time. Videos I saw, although I wasn't there when they were taken, were of students arguing to get into the entrances blocked sometimes by the encampment, and often by actual campus security who rerouted me once to a different entrance that was open. I had class in Royce Hall, the building mentioned in the video, and I was able to attend it the whole time
@@janeh9962 source: trust me bro.
@@janeh9962 So no proof at all? You don't even claim to have seen this guy.
And he was clearly being blocked. The very fact you had to be rerouted by definition means you were blocked.
Somehow the encampment on the university of oregon lawn has been up for weeks now without any violent incidents on the part of counter protests or police. I’m sure it won’t last forever but it’s been nice so far
They haven’t committed any crimes like harassing other students, intimidation, block entries n passways or prevent others peoples rights.
@@nicolascardillo7615 the majority of protests have been non-criminal. if you watch the video he mentions that a on several of the campuses a single illegal act from one of the protesting groups got all protests on the entire campus shut down, despite the protests being unconnected in all ways but the issue of the Isreal Palistine conflict. regardless, "rights" is a real tricky word here mate.
@@calebgibbons-eyre8602 that’s literally how it works n has been for ever, if u part of a group n 1 commits a crime all in the group is arrested. The one is criminally charged n the other get a lesser Charger for been part just like the get away driver of a crime didn’t commit the crime n may not even know the others would commit a crime they are part of the groups. Also Rights is really tricky stuff because the criminals are uniform of the laws n believe they are entitled but a quick google search n they could find out. Also there are many other protesters around USA campuses n cities n many have not been shut down even right now n that’s because they are not harassing people or students, blocking people passage n entrance to places, intimidation (if u believe surrounding some in a group n impeding their way is peaceful just because u guys did touch them u are miss informed n committing a crime not civil disobedience) or out right taking over buildings (in some cases kidnapping people inside like janitors). If u wish to peacefully protest n commit civil disobedience by braking regulations n been loudly with microphones to express ur grievances as he say u free in areas u allow, with a group of people u trust n respect that u know will not escalate the situation n infringe on others peoples rights (also make sure to do not burn any flags that’s a crime n learn the meaning of that action or to do any chant been scream regardless the language u know the meaning n how n when had been used because screaming death to Israel or their people in other languages or “from the river to the sea” n u don’t know what u says don’t make u ore anyone in the group innocent). Here learn the difference of this similar but totally different actions:
If u confused of what kind of Protest u participating:
PEACEFUL PROTESTERS:
Peaceful protests involve a large group of people engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience to enact political change. Acts of civil disobedience can take a variety of forms, including sit-ins, marches, boycotts, and public speeches. It is important to keep in mind that just because a protest is peaceful does not mean that it does not break any laws.
HARASSMENT:
It refers to words or behavior that threatens, intimidates, or demeans a person. Harassment is unwanted, uninvited, and unwelcome and causes nuisance, alarm, or substantial emotional distress without any legitimate purpose.
RIOTING:
the violent disturbances of the peace by a crowd or take part in a violent public disturbance.
DOMESTIC TERRORIST:
is generally defined by law as involving criminal acts dangerous to human life on U.S. soil that appear intended to coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct of government.
PS: I have organized protests n we alway inform the police n requested them to be present we know n talk to everyone n we reputably everything we can do n to stay vigilant for anyone that is not in the group, just like little children make grounds of 2-3 n always remain together n report to the police any person not part of the original group (u can talk n tell them they can join u but to only do as u guys regulation because if the commit a crime u all will pay for it) during the women’s match n protest there were Antifa people that joined the groups because they support the same cause but they didn’t care about crimes because they are extremest n only showed to get everyone arrested) In Boston We peacefully marched the streets with out block traffic or pedestrians from 9am to 4pm when radical protest joined n started to riot even blocking n surrounding police vehicles even lighting on fire n everything broke losses. Have guidelines so when someone commits a crime in the group everyone stops n separates to a safe location n inform the police)
@@nicolascardillo7615 According to prosecutors protestors at other universities haven't committed crimes either and that is why they aren't being charged with any.
@@calebgibbons-eyre8602 Ah yes, majority. Only 30% of the people have created a shanty town, blocked and attacked students, acted against other's rights, and outright gassed the police.
If the protest at Charlottesville (before the riots and murder) several years was legal, pro Palestinian protests should also be legal
They are legal, or they wouldn't keep happening and the people doing them would be disappeared. I'm not saying the police aren't using excessive force in many cases, because they most likely are. But the students aren't being arrested and thrown into gulags. They're being told to get off the lawn and go home. Very, very different treatment.
Imagine being a Legal Eagle fan and not understanding that nuance is a thing. 🤦
@@csales76 everything happening here happened during the anti apartheid protests
@HyperDragon01
You didn't watch the video, did you?
@@csales76 If the protestors were not breaking the law, as you argue, police departments will have hundreds of wrongful imprisonment lawsuits on their hands by the end of the year for arresting innocent citizens. If they were breaking the law, we would expect them to be charged and tried, rather than arrested and released as we are seeing happen most of the time. In neither case will they be “disappeared”. Idk if you are from China or what, but here in the US we have something called “due process” for those who are accused by the government of breaking the law.
@@milesmartig5603idk beating an elderly Jewish professor on the ground doesn't sound like due process to me, and if you look just a little deeper into the US police force you'll probably agree with me that they don't care about due process if it benefits their explicit biases.
Hearing you talk about Constitutional Law just gave me flashbacks of law school. 😐
I like how they weasel in "doesn't disrupt daily activities" to suppress the right to protest/peaceful assembly. No laws were ever passed or changed in history without disruptions. 😂😂😂
Ah, a fellow student of not history or even basic social studies, I see. Can you imagine that a disruptive protest occur every time a law changes?
@@NoName-mi8jsThe Civil Rights movement? Or did you not study history either?
popcorn at the ready. and now for the "it depends" show.
how dare you call out Attorney Tom...
I'm joking and tipsy but that is his tag line
free Palestine 🇵🇸
To be fair, it depends.
as it should.
@noumenonification
Free Palestine…
From Hamas
@@justarandomguy5993Just hate both like a normal person
If protest is legal but isn't allowed to disrupt, then protest inherently isnt really protected since protests are meant to disrupt the status quo to draw attention, that's literally the entire point
you can draw attention without stopping people from going about their day or making a dangerous situation for bystanders. that's the difference.
I think it depends on what the disruption is. Do you want nazis protesting in your house? Its meant to disrupt right?
@@olympic-gradelurker agree on the second point, not so much on the first. One easy example are picket lines during strikes, which are absolutely supposed to stop scabs and customers from going about their day. _Some_ level of inconvenience is necessary for effective protesting, it's just the nature of the beast - and the more unheard you go, the less accomodating the protest is going to get.
LMAO, what? Disrupt how? Preventing students from going to class is a crime. Invading a building you don't own and constructing barriers is a crime. Constructing barriers on campus is a crime.
Crimes don't become legal because you're protesting. You can call that "not allowing protests", but you're wrong.
@@funfunfun3624 let's not compare people protesting against a genocide to people whose whole ideology is built on getting rid of anyone they consider undesirable.
As usual, great job with the legal perspective and a copy+paste job with the news reporting perspective.
lmaoooooo
"I'm a lawyer, not an idiot' ... those aren't mutually exclusive
Which is why the statement was made, so you know.
And yet, with the reporting in this video, he proved both true.
Alina Habba is a good example
yes like the lawyer that took Illumanati's case.
They are cause some lawyers are idiots
A few things are missing from this analysis - the governers and other politicians involved made comments that were not content-neutral at all.
A governor or politician can make a non-content-neutral statement. It is not relevant to the analysis. E.g., a politician can say "the KKK Is not welcome in our state - we do not tolerate intolerance." Saying that is fine and doesn't effect any laws on the books. It's not a content-neutral statement, but such statements do not carry the force of law on their own.
Content neutral laws refer to govt actions and policies. A statement by a politician in a campaign speech is not an official govt. action or policy. The first amendment also applies to politicians making statements.
A governor can say anything about anything, only thing that they can be held to account for are how they enforce/create policy
@@millerjames908 that's very not true, people who hold a government office are limited in several ways in what they are able to say. they are allowed to be not content-neutral, but what you have said is demostrably false.
@@hashbeth If the statement is related to the enforcement of an executive order the governor signed into office then that would surely be relevant to (for example) attempts to sue against that order of violating speech rights. How the law is applied is surely of relevance to its impact on 1A rights.
The guy you show at 19:22 was an agitator. He wasn't trying to get into the campus building, he was trying to go through the encampment and take photos of people to post online. He actively was trying to make a scene to get on video there.
So the same thing as the protesters, only they were actually trying to ruin someones life.
If the encampment is on public space, he has a right to be there as much as the campers do, though. They have no right to block his right of way.
Agitator or not, doesn’t give protesters the right to block his way
@@mof5490 “agitator” that doesn’tgive anyone a right to domineer public property
@@Ilyak1986 to be clear, there was plenty of space to walk around the encampment. He had been purposefully trying to walk THROUGH them with a cameraman following him. He's an influencer wanting attention
More and more as I watch these videos, the question of what is legal or illegal becomes more and more tangential to matters of what is moral, it's almost like the state sets the rules to benefit its own interests, irrespective of how morally bankrupt those may be or something...
When white supremacists wanting to share their genocidal rhetoric gets more institutional backing than those protesting a genocide, the time has come to re-asses the value of those institutions.
I'm sorry, are you calling pro-Israeli White-supremacists now. And don't call pro-Hamas "protesting a genocide". If you can't even use non-loaded terms, you aren't really qualify to civilly discuss anything.
@@NoName-mi8js the very fact that you frame it that way is deeply disingenuous. I do not support Hamas, I support the Palestine civilian population. Equally, I am not hostile to Israel as a people, or even necessarily as a state, but to the Netanyahu government, which I would in fact classify as Ethno-Nationalist.
But for the record, the white supremacists I was talking about in my original comment were not in fact anything to do with Israel's government, but entirely different far-right actors mentioned elsewhere in the video.
Showing up to a Jew's backyard and protesting, probably mentioning "river to the sea"... They realize we're not IN the ME, right? Can we at least stay the hell off each other's homes? Next up: let's gather in a circle in white robes on some black dean's lawn to protest his transphobia or something.
At the end of the day, the takeaway for me is that you can argue til the cows come home whether the student protests were illegal - and maybe they were. But the fact is that the police and counter-protestors were weaponized by college administrations to brutalize these students - and their pro-Israel demonstrations received NONE of the scrutiny pro-Palestine ones have, even the ones led by Jewish students. That's the rub here, and tips their hand: this is the suppression of political views the colleges want squashed dressed up as close to legal as they can.
As someone who went to the protests there simply where no significant "pro Israel" counter protesters. So it is hard to see how we might have even responses here.
Your conclusion is almost correct. It's rather the political zeitgeist of America to silence anti-Israel protests. This is thoroughly true with almost no means of media that supports such protesters because of such political bias.
@@turbog20 The violence of such anti-protesters is well documented. Google isn't hard to do. The difficulty unfortunately is rather MSM actively ignored this or used dishonest equivocation in language such as a "clash" occurring when anti-protesters attacked. This is a sad instance where Twitter was unfortunately one of the most accurate means of media available on a topic.
@@turbog20because Pro-Israel protesters get silenced, threatened, and pushed away.
@@Matt-ww9wv They weren't silenced in any significant way. The proof is that nearly every American heard about the protests. That isn't silence.
By a wide margin the protests were peaceful AND were allowed to happen. Criticizing when the police went too far AND when protestors went too far is completely fair. The media did both.
I expect the comments section will be incredibly friendly and no one will be banned
That video you showed of a student trying to get to class was them trying to get into the encampment, there was one building that UCLA closed and that was the library next to the protest. You were able to walk around the protest and that student specifically was known for antagonizing students and trying to get into the encampment and literally had bear spray on him
I feel like if college administrations can't handle demands for accountability regarding who they're financially in bed with, they deserve to lose massive amounts of would-be students' tuition. Especially if they've private. Let the free market do what it does.
Just a question is your freedom of speech violated if the government threatens the private institution with withholding funds if you don't act against the protesters?
Probably, depending on how the protestors are defined. I'd imagine that's fairly in line with the example he provided where Governor Abbott issued an executive order for private institutions to suppress any protests using speech like "from the river to the sea." Notable that pro-Palestinian protestors are seemingly explicitly targeted with that law, and that's what LegalEagle highlighted as the constitutionally-questionable bit.
Absolutely it's violated. But then the university would argue it's the government to blame, and not it
It can be, but it's difficult to prove.
The government has the power of the purse strings, and is entitled to use its 'bully pulpit' to advocate it's own beliefs.
But it's a big lift for a plaintiff to show that the government did something it legally can do, but for an impermissible reason under 1A.
Disney found this out recently. After the court dismissed it's claim against the Florida government.
Well, if sleeping/camping on campus grounds is illegal, and people were sleeping/camping on campus grounds.... they should be arrested for breaking the law. Also, if the protestors are calling for the genocide of an entire group of people they should also be arrested. Enticing violence and murder should not be legal, or part of free speech, in any civilized country.
Also, Jewish students have been attacked on campuses simply for being Jewish and the universities have done nothing to protect them. I thought it was illegal to harass/persecute people based on skin colour or religion... or has that changed? The fact is, most of these protestors don't even know what they are protesting about. This is setting a very dangerous precedent.
People should read history and how the holocaust started - it's eerily similar to what's going on today and it's scary.
@@yasminni485 That's a whole lot of disinformation, with you conveniently altering the facts and making broad assumptions to make students protesting against genocide/war crimes by Israel actually the people calling for genocide. It's clear how disingenuous you are being, considering what you said is entirely irrelevant to the original post of this thread.
19:22 Actually, this guy is, literally, a plant/agitator that _directly_ works with members of republican congress (caught on film). His objective here is to make pro-Palestinian protesters look as bad as possible. In this video (which is filmed by his crew) he is trying to go through protesters even though the protesters told him that he could go around. The video is clipped in such a way to make the protesters seem like they are blocking him for no reason.
I find it extremely disappointing that LegalEagle didn't do his homework on the bad faith out of context clips. They are fairly easy to disprove since there are counter clips with context. It is almost as if Zionists have to be dishonest lest they have to own up to crimes against humanity.
Good to know. Context is absolutely necessary.
Yeah, there are 'Jewish people' in both groups, and he's not being blocked for being 'Jewish' he's being blocked because he's trying to enter an event where he's been verbally abusive to.
proof of what you are saying?
Really glad you commented. He was so clearly trying to be disruptive, so to have that extra context really hammers home that he was there explicitly to cause a scene. It is a major shame that Devin has basically supported this individual in their dishonesty, and that this likely will only further harm the effort to free Palestine.
This is really important context!
OBJECTION: Wouldn't the Carson v. Makin ruling change the protections that private schools receiving federal funds can violate?
good point!
Does a private school that accepts state vouchers have to adhere to the same rules as a public school?
Moral of the story, private universities provide no guarantee of your first amendment rights and are therefore an inferior choice for learning about creative expression.
But a superior choice for preparing you for the restrictive hellscape that is 99% of employment options.
Well no, you can be removed from public universities too. You have a right to protest on public grounds, not block access to public facilities.
UCLA is literally a state school and had one of the worst crackdowns.
The first amendment doesn't mean private entities are obliged to provide you a platform. However, academic freedom is a good thing.
Of course every public university in the US has become for the profit of the board members, so you can't win.
Crazy that at 19:20 the example he uses is a professional counter protester and agitator with links to Israel and was well known to the protesters. I don't think he was even a student as well. Not saying that it didn't happen anywhere but using that guy as an example is wild lmao
He's gone to multiple different universities. Must have transferred really quickly I'm sure.
The government can't take your rights, but the private sector can so let's privates everything.
So you've read the Republican playbook.
Your comments on videos shot at UCLA were incomplete regarding blocking student access. Access wasn't being blocked for students to get on campus, as you stated, but access was being blocked into the encampment only. There was plenty of space for students to pass by on campus walkways, but the complaining students insisted on pushing into the encampment itself. In the background of the videos you can see other students freely walking past the encampment. Lots of space!
Source?
And to whom exactly was access "into the encampment" being blocked?
@@adamredwine774No one, the dude in the video was trying to stage an incident. That was the point of OP’s comment.
@@MaJetiGizzle His motive is irrelevant. The crowd of child r@pe apologists did, in actual fact, block him.
Ignorance if the law is no excuse unless you're police officer then its a requirement
The 3 problems with the response to the protests:
1) In most cases law enforcement escalated unnecessarily. Clearing a civil disobedience protest should typically be done gently. Lifting the protestors and moving them off the scene rather than resorting to batons and irritants.
2) Law enforcement often failed to protect students from the significantly more dangerous counter protestors.
3) Law enforcement, the media, and the administration all egregiously and intentionally misrepresented the protestors, their behavior, and their objectives.
4) The protestors' demands are overwhelmingly reasonable. They essentially boil down to:
a. Transparency in the university's investment policy.
b. Moving investment away from firms actively engaged in supplying the ongoing conflict.
c. A call for a cessation of hostilities.
Given that the protestors have demonstrated a willingness to negotiate and bargain on these issues the proper response is a discussion followed by a substantive change in university policy in order to bring it more in line with basic reason and fairness.
This is why I support the protesters even if I'm not sure I agree with their arguments - their right to do what they did is at the very core of a constitutional Republic. And nothing they did seemed unreasonable or criminal.
Kids were assaulted by counter protesters for doing the very thing universities are supposed to encourage: speaking out, and speaking loudly.
The protests were a pointless exercise in bourgeois slactivism, only done on campuses because they're the most convenient spot to protest. The justification this is about investments is a post-hoc justification for not commuting the extra few blocks to protest federal government offices, Israeli consulates, and arms manufacturers.
@@AudioArcturiacomrade, they want the shooting to stop. what's so wrong with that?
1) and 2) are both a result of the cult of "officer safety," where cops' lives are worth more than those of the people they're supposed to protect. 3) is a result of the media and admin disagreeing with the protestors and wanting them punished, and the police just liking to beat people up and taking any excuse to do so.
He focuses way too much on the right to protest, and not enough on the states horrible reaction to it
“I’m a lawyer, I’m not an idiot”, I’m sorry but those things aren’t mutually exclusive😅
I appreciate you and thank you for making content.
It's funny how NYPD won't do shit for anyone with squatters unless they've given to the Mayor's election campaign.
wont someone think of the NYC land owners
Squatting is both a civil and criminal matter, as you said police don't do shit. Why would they work when they can make it just your problem? You think they're here to help or something? lol.
There's a reason I conceal carry, at best the police MIGHT see fit to solve my murder if I allow it to happen, it's not their job to stop it. Heck even though it's their job to solve this theoretical crime they likely would let it slip through the cracks.
@@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusketWell, it technically is their job to stop your murder, since an attempted crime is still a crime and regardless crime prevention is amongst the aims of law enforcement. That the police doesn't do its job is a different matter.
Tell the nypd the squatters were shittalking Israel lol
@@AulusAugerius Well, we can go back on forth on what is technically their job, but that's not very clearly defined. What is clearly defined, tho, is the law. Per the Supreme Court (South v. Maryland 1856 iirc), a police officer does not have any legal duty to protect you from harm (i.e. murder) unless they have a "special relationship" with you. "Special relationship" here meaning they have assumed a duty beyond what they would owe the another member of the public.
In case that's unclear, iirc this case was used to defend the police from a lawsuit, in which a man was being brutally stabbed on a subway car. Two officers were just behind the door in the next car over; they saw it happening and didn't do anything. The stabbing victim managed to fight back and overpower the stabber after grave injury to himself, at which point the officers entered to arrest the already subdued stabber. That Supreme Court ruling was used to successfully argue that the officers had no duty to stop the crime and protect the victim from harm.
Thabk ya for making this video, really helped inform us about the topic of free speech/protesting, as well as clarify for the specific cases happen in the news on university campuses. I never thought about the fact that there could be a difference between private and public schools and your analysis and deep dive into the first amendment in the context of these scenarios helped me learn a lot more about it!
In the case of Case Western Reserve University, I as an alumni intend to make my feelings clear by withholding further donations to the school for their actions agaisnt pro-Palestinian students.
Not everything requires a court!
"alumni" is plural. The correct singular form is "alumnus".
This correction was made with the best of intentions, and without any intent to offend or debase.
I work for a company that does dentures and and repairs and the week after all the arrests in New York we had a suspicious amount of denture repairs from New York.
My school just had a protest (most of the colleges in my area did), there were cops surrounding every corner.
I watched from a safe distance, listening to what they had to say.
your peers are puppets being manipulated by social media
And? What happened?
@@RocketGator05well, seeing as this is a proxy and religious war rather than a war with logic behind it; nothing. There are no good points to be had on either side. There is no "correct" answer to this conflict, everyone sucks.
Were they calling for the death of Jews? Because that’s what was happening at Columbia and UCLA.
And?
I question the sincerity of anyone claiming to promote and value campus safety if they respond to student protests with police in riot gear. Regardless of whether or not it was the right decision to end the protests, relying on the police to do so, rather than on some deescalation centered approach, was not the way to do so safely.
The one I question even more than that is the school that allowed counter protesters to launch fireworks at the protesters and assault them, with no arrests made so far, while the campus police stood by and police coming to break up the encampment later.
I question the sincerity of anyone who complains that Jewish students aren't worth protecting.
@@SafetySpooon the only person singiling Jewish students out is you here mate.
@@SafetySpooon Jewish protestors did in fact not get protected from violent pro-Israel counter protestors or the violent police.
Always interesting, thank you.
In Canada the irony is that the one province who said “tear down this wall” after just 12 hours of setup follow two weeks of experience else where in the country, and it was the only province who had previously ruled that such encampments were legal!
Really seems like the Palestinian camp was peaceful, until the counter protesters attacked violently, at which point the police just watched the violent attack, then used the violent attack AGAINST the Palestinian protesters to shut down the Palestinians protest... did I understand that right?
The counter protests were completely nonviolent. It was the pro-palistinians who went straight to throwing hands
@@TheXtremeBoltGuy Video evidence shows otherwise. It is also widely accepted by authorities, that it was a one sided violent attack by the counter "protesters". That's why this is such an issue, for the police to stand by and watch.
0:07 objection: the statement assumes facts not in evidence. Plenty of lawyers are also filling out form ID-10-T
I'd be willing to testify as to the percentage of lawyers that are, in fact, intellectually challenged. In fact, I believe there is an argument to be made that law school actually creates the condition. 😂
I’m at indiana university and we also had arrests, but the campus rule they used to make those arrest was made the evening before the protest via “ad hoc committee.” It didn’t exist 24 hours prior, and the only notification received for the new rule were these flimsy little signs.
Awesome video, very educational
Does speech count as an incitement to violence if the police beat you senseless for it?
Have you heard about that one, I forgot where it was but, they changed their zoning laws for food joints and had to have the courts define Taco's and Burritos as sandwiches so they could comply with the new law. That one sounds like it would be good for a short, and a chuckle if nothing else. :D
It’s taken as a given here that the students in the encampment engaged in violence, from what I’ve seen the violence that has taken place has been done by both police and counter protesters near exclusively.
Nah, some of the protesters responded to violence with violence. But they didn’t incite it, you just can’t expect every single protester to be willing to turn the other cheek.
And tbh at that point it’s self defense. Especially since the cops have even attacked people for just filming them
This is why the terms "de jure" and "de facto" exist. The law as written says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, that "No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", and that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted", but in practice, the law is just whatever the State enforces. Police effectively make the law by deciding that a protest is "illegal" and committing violence against the "criminals", and it doesn't matter because the police are effectively not accountable to anyone (since all other government bodies rely on the police to do their own jobs)
Great video. Thank you for sticking to the word of the law and legal side of things.
I appreciate the education on how the law works and the oppurtinity to form my own opinions afterward.
I'd love to hear a part 2 to this, covering the Case Western Reserve University encampment, where protesters are having their degrees rescinded. That sounds like retaliation for protected speech to me
It's a private university.... protected how?
Case Western Reserve is a private university. Unless rescinding the degrees violates the university's Code of Conduct they're well within their authority to do it. Devin even goes out of his way in this video to point out private schools aren't subject to the First Amendment.
@@ReinSouls I would say the argument here isn't free speech, it's contractual. Most universities have clear cut standards for receiving a degree: you take x amount classes, earn y amount of credits, pay the tuition and fees, as a result you are given a degree. Unless there was a statement made to the student, and the student agreed, that a b or c type of behavior violates the agreement between the student and the university, then I would say this is a contract violation on the university's part. I'm not a lawyer, but that is how I would argue it. Of course, the downside here is that if you win, the precedent created is that universities can just ban protests and all kinds of behavior willy nilly, but a lot of places (like religious schools) already do that.
@@deemzz8275 They'll have something in the Code about illegal/disruptive behaviour and expulsion/degree rescinding decisions to then be made by disciplinary panel yada yada. It will have been designed to get rid of students who have been convicted of serious violent/sexual crime, drug dealing, stealing/selling tests, etc. But they can easily be weaponised by administrators who don't like protestors, whistleblowers, etc to then get rubber-stamped by a complicit disciplinary panel. Same as any business unfortunately. HR is there to protect the organisation and its bottom line (i.e. donors, shareholders & C Suite). Not the individual - whether student or faculty.
It has been proven that Eli, the UCLA student that claimed to be blocked from attending classes, could have walked around the encampment, but instead he chose to instigate and try to breach the encampment many times.
Wow, that just makes the rioters look even worse.
@@spacetoast7783You mean the agitators who were harassing the peaceful protestors.
It’s public property, Palestine protesters aren’t entitled to telling people what to do when they’re not above the law
Objection! What about all the IDF supporters who attacked the protestors? Also Jewish people including Ben Netanyahu has used “from the river to the sea” so Jewish people can say it but not the protestors???
Take that!
Take that!