Is THIS free speech? Pro-Palestine protestors CLASH with police.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 апр 2024
- "Free speech protects people who are saying truly horrible things, including truly horrible things about Jews and truly horrible things about Israel. It does not protect threats of violence," says Katherine Mangu-Ward.
Watch the full episode: • Where do libertarians ...
---
Subscribe to the Reason Roundtable:
RUclips: • Politics Created the B...
RUclips Music: • The Reason Roundtable ...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/68EwVbY...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
They're allowed to say what they want. They're not allowed to DO whatever they want.
both freedom and reality say otherwise.
@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER okay, try doing anything you want. See how long that lasts.
@@SlimThrull I already do it every day. and always will.
@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER doubt it.
@@SlimThrull sounds like a you problem
I don't have any issue with people on either side of the conflict in Israel protesting and making their voices heard. Free speech is important. Where I draw the line is the threat of violence, intimidation, harassment of other students or staff and mobs invading lecture theatres preventing others from speaking. If you disagree with what someone is saying in a lecture/talk/presentation etc, speak up in a civil manner and don't use weight of numbers to shout other speakers down. That's mob rule.
In terms of the tents, on a private university campus that's probably a trespassing issue.
I duly concur. Disrupting other people's lives cos you don't agree with something is totally whack and totally nullifies what you are protesting about. Cos I've got more immediate and important things to tend to in my life than to be disrupted by folks who are protesting by disrupting my life.
Pink hair is gonna pink hair.
You are 100% allowed to engage in civil disobedience, but part of civil disobedience is facing the legal consequence of your disobedience.
If its public property they have the right to protest. If its not and the owner tells you to leave, then you either leave by choice or in handcuffs. Its that simple 🤷♂️
Roads are deemed public property... so are bridges... so are you suggesting that protestors have the right to stop ME from using the roads or bridges so they can stage a protest? Are you suggesting that protestors should have the right to block access to a publicly funded college campus? What about public hospitals?
No.... just because something is deemed public property does not mean certain people have the right to restrict its use by others... either by force or by intimidation.
That being said.... government must allow for those who wish to voice their discontent to peacefully do so.... so long as they are NOT violating the rights of others.
Is it free speech yes, it’s also trespassing so off to jail
Your "right to free speech" gets no defense from me when you actively silence the opposing opinion and cause violence.
So far, three students were shot and they were Palestinians who ironically attended a Quaker school in the West Bank. Imagine they participated in a peaceful program and come to the US where they get shot. Thanks for ignoring all the ironies with this crisis:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Amendment I, The U.S. Constitution
@sagapoetic8990 I am going to need to see evidence of what you claim forst off. Second, violence isn't a part of free speech no matter what. Third, how does that have anything to do with what I was talking about? Fourth, you make no logical sense in according to what I even mentioned.
That is why police have been arresting pro zionist posing as anti-genocide protestors, so that you will not be fooled by the terrorism of the zionists being blamed on the righteous by the liar journalists.
No one is silencing anyone you're just a hypocrite who only believes in free speech as long as it is pro-israel
@Rizzjizzle if the schools just listened to their students and divested their funds from Israel it wouldn't be a problem.
The protests would also stop if Israel and the IDF just stopped committing warcrimes and had basic human empathy.
These protests are actually crazily similar to the protests against Vietnam and politicians funded by AIPAC are attempting to silence them in a very similar way. There were also many school protests against the invasion of Iraq and politicians called those protesters terrorists. Today they just replace the word terrorist with Hamas as a means to silence the protests and slander them into obedience.
It’s free speech for themselves, a gag for everyone else, as it has been for sixty years. 😊
*It's not all gloom & doom for students protesting at US campuses...*
The president of Iran's Shahid Beheshti University, Mahmoud Aghamiri, announced that *"We will accept students expelled from Western universities and scholarships would be offered* to American and European students" expelled for supporting Palestine.
The scholarships would reportedly cover tuition and housing... *for completing their courses at Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.*
Moral relativism comes from the postmodern abandonment of the pursuit of truth. That’s where wokeism/intersectionality comes from. There’s your line.
Freedom of Speech and the right to peaceably assemble are two entirely separate rights. Preventing a group of people from camping on private property is, in no way, a free speech issue. It's a property rights issue.
no. there is a differenece between, the private property of some ones house, and the "private property" of a massively funded entity, particularly one that is for profit.
The property rights of said massive entity, is over ruled by the right of public protest. Corporations are not people, and neither are schools. The public always comes before profit............. if they were camping and protesting on some ones front lawn of their home, youd be right....... but were talking about massive schools that are open to the public........... they have every right to protest on the schools property.
@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLERNo difference. Individuals made that property happen through their choices. Individuals that didn’t make it happen don’t get to take it over for a “noble cause”. That’s turning the people who own it into your slaves. Not ok in America.
@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER This is complete nonsense. You can't remove private property rights from people just because you don't like "massively funded entities." Either everyone is equal before the law or we don't have law.
And there is no "right to public protest" that includes occupying land for days at a time.
@@Hedgehobbit 1. schools, or governments, businesses, and similar things, are not " people"
2. yes, the right to protest, covers protesting, which one of the main means of protest, has always been to you know, be there protesting......aka occupying a space.......... what do you expect them to do, sit on their couch at home and chant? thats nonsensical.............. protests have always been about occupying a public space ( and yes, this is public as its open to the public).............. there were even protests, famously, and specifically called "the occupy protests"
3. protests, by nature, are intended to be distrustful, if they werent, then it wouldnt be a protest...... if the schools, or anything else being protested, dont like it, they can change their actions. problem solved.
@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER It doesn't matter if the owner of a property is an individual or a corporation. They are still the owner and have all the property rights of an owner.
There is no "right to protest" in the USA.
Any protest that disrupts traffic, denies access to public areas, or damages property is illegal.
If you're going to rant about how it's not about Marcuse, Foucault, or postmodernism, you should tell us what you think it is about or at least explain why you think its not. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're expecting we should take away from that.
It’s moral relativism built upon the relativism of those guys. These people are idiotic intellectuals.
all this crap comes from Germany and Russia during the 1800's not the enlightenment. Not France UK & US.
A fan of post modernist thinking cant see the connection. Would you want to anyway?
The devil controls the Internet
lmao this man’s Bandaid is ridiculous
It was kind of a forewarning of the nonsensical babbling which followed.
Yes it is.. not that have any real opinion on the actual protests.
But being removed is also ok it’s not an infringement on your free speech.
Preventing you from speaking out is.
👍
restricted speech on public property is despotic.
There's no restriction on speech. There can be restrictions on time, place and manner of assemblies.
It always first and foremost a property rights issues. What do we do with the commons? Here’s an idea - schools are buildings for teaching, roads are throughways for driving, etc. Maybe we need to reconsider this idea that people can disrupt public life whenever they demand attention.
Its not free speech to be such a huge disruption like this and destroy property
Do not ask what your country can do for you. Ask what your country can do for Israel.
Great quote.
I thought you guys were libertarian? You sound more neocon to me.
Nothing good has ever come out of the Palestinian people.
Your right to incite violence is generally protected by the USA first amendment except for some imminent direct incitement. I think the law should probably allow more free speech.
It’s absolutely free speech.
Reasoning doesn’t define free speech
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Amendment I, The U.S. Constitution
"peaceably" being the key word here.
CONGRESS being the other key word. Owners of property, such as universities are NOT Congress and CAN make rules to protect their property and prevent disruption of it's intended purpose.
of course it''s free speech. the question is "does a jewish baker have to bake a cake for a antisemite? does the jewish baker have to write on the cake "insert true fact about the holocaust"?
Facts about Israel that the haters of Israel don’t like: 👇
*1.* Israel became a state in 1312 B.C.E., two millennia before Islam.
*2.* Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves “Palestinians” in 1964, almost two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood in 1948.
*3.* After conquering the land in 1272 B.C.E., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years.
*4.* The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 B.C.E. lasted just 22 years.
*5.* For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule, (East) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it.
*6.* Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur’an.
*7.* King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it.
*8.* Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem.
*9.* In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to cleanse the land of Jewish presence. 68% of them fled without ever setting eyes on an Israeli soldier.
*10.* Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to flee as the result of violence and pogroms.
*11.* Some 630,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while close to a million Jews were forced to leave the Muslim countries.
*12.* In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. Of 100 million refugees following World War 2, they are the only group tohave never integrated with their co-religionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel,a country no larger than New Jersey, USA.
*13.* There are 58 Muslim countries, not counting Palestine. There is only one Jewish state.
*14.* Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel.
Israel ceded most of the west bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian authority, and even provided it with arms.
*15.* During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths.
*16.* Out of 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions up to 1990, 97 were against Israel; out of 690 general assembly resolutions, 429 were against Israel.
*17.* The U.N. was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws preventing Jews from accessing the temple mount and western wall.
*18.* Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost every one of them.
Half of these facts are either false or something merely misleading and besides the point
After 1, all your points are spot on wrong. You ignore our Constitution, to boot: especially the 1st Amendment. And no, my taxmoney should not be used to build up a foreign country, provide free housing for Israeli settlers, generous monthly stipends, free healthcare, and low cost tuition -- all the things you people hypocritically reject for Americans. Keep our money here and do not DARE force us to swear loyalty to a foreign country, including Israel. We are American and will stay that way. Push that stupid law and we will ALL protest. American first and do not tread on our Constitutional rights. Screw loyalty to a foreign country. NOT HAPPENING!!!
Haha I just noticed you don't even know what B.C.E means
BCE is a timeline.
@@patriotsforisrael3610 You have used BCE to refer to one thing that happened in the BCE period and one that happened in the CE period.
not only is protesting against your government, schools, corporations, and everything else your basic natural right.... so is the right to defend yourself against any one who tries to "arrest" you, no matter how shiny their badge is. Stop choosing to be victims.
You do not have a "basic natural right" to interfere with out people's lives, to prevent people from using public roads or sidewalks. And you most certainly don't have a "basic natural right" to destroy other people's property.
@@Hedgehobbit 1. again, schools, corporations, governments, and similar things ARE NOT PEOPLE!
2. again, yes, you have the right to be disruptive by numerous means, including the ones you mentioned, as this is the basic standard of protesting. always has been, always will be......
3. again, protesting isnt supposed to be enjoyable........... protesting isnt about doing business as usual....its not about keeping the status quo going........ the whole point in protesting, is for it to be, unpleasant, disruptive, destructive, and otherwise problematic for both the people and/or the things being protested, and even non participants....... youre not supposed to like it....... if they, you, or anyone else dosnt like the protesting..... change your actions, so there is nothing for people to protest against........PROBLEM SOLVED
get on the right side of history, instead of crying about people doing the right thing.
There is no right to resist arrest. There is the right to due process afterwards. You are advocating for anarchy, which will never be tolerated, anywhere.
@@johngehl3853 1. yes, you do indeed have the right to "resist arrest" , thats covered under the most basic right of all, its called self defense. Someone else's costume and fictional beliefs cant change your rights. not even if their costumes match, or have shiny jewelry.
2. yes, anarchy is exactly what i advocate, as it is the ONLY way to maximize peace, freedom, and prosperity. Government is inherently intolerable, hence why it is the largest source of oppression, violence, and other words CensorTube wont let me say, but if i did, one of them would rhyme with "Terry's ism".
Palestine 🇵🇸 🇵🇸 🇵🇸
Fart
@@spocko2181
You farted, you smell it 😂😂😂
Lol 😂 It's free speech plain and simple excluding criticism of Israel.
Free speech doesnt mean no consequences
The only consequences for speech should be more speech. Otherwise, you’re calling something else free speech. You can’t intimidate, cancel and coerce people when they say things you don’t like and still claim that you are for free speech.
I’m not sure if you realize this but that’s one of the chants of the radical leftist.
@Individual_Lives_Matter I know ...and now they are experiencing some karma😁