Oh, wow — we might actually see a cage-match contest of hateful intolerance between Trump and folks like SUPER? Bring it on, I need to buy more popcorn.

I wonder what clever nickname these folks will give Trump & Vance (genocide Joe and killama will be hard to top). It appears the ceasefire will fail (again), and with Trump stating he supports a full ethnic cleansing of Gaza (you know, for their own protection) and a willingness to up US support (he already removed restrictions on supplying Israel with large bombs Biden had put in place - has flirted with supplying direct US military support), I’m guessing folks are about to find out that things can indeed get worse.

Protesters have a right to engage in political speech, even if that speech is wrong, or unhelpful, or even hateful. This right applies equally to Charlie Kirk and Zaytoon. Those rights don't extend to threatening or assaulting individuals or calls to imminent lawless action. So the stickers saying "Kill All Zionists" that cropped up all over campus are probably protected speech (because they're vague as to who, when, and where), whereas protest tactics that prevent suspected "Zionists" from using public accommodations aren't.

It remains to be seen whether the current administration will have the slightest regard for the First Amendment while enacting its Revenge Tour 2025. They seem to be enacting a "deport now ask questions later" approach.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

@1 What's it called when conservative nominal-Democrats are gleeful about Trump restricting the right to protest? Not-a-Horseshoe Theory?

@5: First, we have absolutely no idea what effect Trump’s order may have. The author of this post linked to it, but did not in any way explain how it would affect public protests at UW. The linked statement from UW’s outgoing President doesn’t really say either.

Second, as @2 noted, the situation on the ground in Gaza may get a lot worse, due in part to Trump’s reversal of “Genocide Joe’s” (remember him?) restrictions on Israeli armaments. So there may be more protesting to do, as well.

Third, if it’s Trump and his over-reaching executive orders, vs. SUPER (aka the wonderful folks who vandalized the UW HUB, including student artworks, as a “protest”), you should expect to see lots more “plague on both your houses” comments here. (I apologize in advance if they make you cry.)

@6 you've been very vocal regarding your concern about antisemitism on college campuses, so given this order is explicitly designed to combat that alleged trend is it safe to assume you strongly support President Trump's action here?

@7 No one supports Trump. That being said, Instant Karma is a b*tch. You all had a fun time going at "G Joe" and cheering on idiot Sawant's efforts to help Trump, after being told over and over this will in fact make things worse.

Guess what, it did. No one supports Trump, but Schadefreude is also a b*tch. Maybe think through your actions next time.

(PS - I doubt there will be much protest. From the above, everyone appears to be happily rolling over in the face of actual oppression vs before. As expected.)

@8 "No one supports Trump"

I'm pretty confident tensorna, thumpus, and a few others who spent the past year calling any criticism of Israel "antisemitic" and disparaging campus protestors support Trump on this issue. And I'm not sure how things are "worse" now, you understand protestors were being arrested under Biden right? To be honest you seem ignorant on this topic.

"Chabaud said. “They want us to stay home, they want us to feel afraid. Let’s not give them what they want.”"

"As we continue to organize, we have to make these demands of the university administration and make it clear that they’re standing on their asses right now. It’s time to get off of that and it’s time to actually protect your students,” Chabaud said."

The irony of these two statements is that this is exactly the sort of trauma and anxiety they were inflicting upon Jewish students in the name of "justice". In fact most of the stuff they are complaining about is the exact thing they themselves were doing. Your right to free speech is nullified the moment you cross the line into intimidation and harassment, vandalizing public property and restricting/nullifying others rights as part of your movement. As noted above the chickens have come home to roost and there is zero sympathy for these dipshits if they get their visas revoked.

@9. Trump is an asshat and generally a pos but occasionally even bad administrations do something right.

@9: It's worse now because the aspiring dictator who rode to office on his promise to make all those annoying woke people shut up for good is resolved to use American military assets to bulldoze Gaza and turn it into some combination of Atlantic City and Arrakis. After he strong-arms Jordan into accepting Gaza's former residents when he's finished ethnically-cleansing them out of our new 51st State. Which, knowing him, will be named Trumpistan or Trumpachusetts. And then he'll appoint one of his sad coterie of sycophants and half-wit progeny to be Feyd-Rautha / Bugsy Siegel over the locals.

That's why it's worse.

@11 he doesn't need to bulldoze Gaza, his whole argument is that it's currently uninhabitable because it was leveled during the previous administration. He's not really wrong:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20415675

"Fifteen months of conflict have probably damaged almost 60% of buildings across the Gaza Strip, with Gaza City suffering the heaviest destruction, according to experts from CUNY Graduate Center and Oregon State University who have been analysing satellite data. The UN estimates the damaged buildings include more than 90% of the housing units in Gaza"

@3: "So the stickers saying "Kill All Zionists" that cropped up all over campus are probably protected speech (because they're vague as to who, when, and where)"

Not quite so simple, I think. You're doing a true threat analysis, which can certainly be relevant to the First Amendment in some cases, but in this case, what you actually want is a Title VI Civil Rights Act analysis. Under Title VI, schools that receive federal funds are forbidden to either create or remain deliberately indifferent to a hostile environment.

Harassing conduct creates an impermissible hostile environment when, based on the totality of the circumstances, the harassment is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's educational environment. Factors to be considered among the totality of the circumstances include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with the victim’s academic performance.

So you can imagine a "Kill All Zionists" sticker campaign which does not violate the Civil Rights Act, but you can also imagine a sticker campaign that does. Be wary of trying to establish bright-line rules in this area, and don't imagine that you can get away with discriminatory harassment just because you aren't threatening anyone in particular.

For Progressives who may sometimes struggle to perceive anti-semitism, consider how you would react to a "Kill All Blacks" sticker campaign. How many of those stickers, and under what circumstances, would you be willing to tolerate before you decided they create a hostile environment for black students?

lol, no. I’m a critic of Israel myself. The only people who get called anti-semitic are people who are anti-semitic, such as you. 😘

You remind me of those sexist right-wingers who get called out for sexism and then they’re like “waaah this is outrageous, i guess men aren’t even allowed to talk to women at all nowadays!” 😆

@14 was intended for @9, sorry.

@13 "Zionists" isn't a protected class

@16 Good lord, get over yourself. The ignorance is all yours. But kudos... you really showed those "corporate" Democrats who is boss, didn't you? Keep living in denial... I'm sure it makes you feel better. And I'm sure Trump will come to your rescue and aid when you need it.

@16: "Zionist isn't a protected class."

Ha ha, didn't I just warn you against bright-line rules in this area? 😉 Religion isn't a protected class, either. Title VI protects against discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Those are the very areas where anti-Zionism so often veers into bigotry ... as you know only too well yourself, non? 😉

Last year, for example, protestors at UCLA blocked students from access to certain parts of campus unless the students disavowed the state of Israel. Judge Scarsi, C.D. Cal., issued an injunction prohibiting the university from "knowingly allowing or facilitating the exclusion of Jewish students from ordinarily available portions of UCLA’s programs, activities, and campus areas. ... For purposes of this order, all references to the exclusion of Jewish students shall include exclusion of Jewish students based on religious beliefs concerning the Jewish state of Israel."

Other courts have issued similar orders in similar cases.

@17 you seem to be taking this way too personally. I know not Trump, or Biden, or any other politician is coming "to my rescue." Do you?

@18 how many "Kill All Hamas" stickers would you be willing to tolerate before you decided they created a hostile environment for Arab students? How many "Kill All Nazis" stickers before it's a hostile environment for Germans? To answer your question I'd tolerate zero "Kill All Blacks" but infinite "Kill All Zionists" (or "Hamas" or "Nazis")

@19: Hah, that's the first interesting thought I've heard from you in my six months here, congratulations! 😃

As always, be wary of bright-line rules in this area. I can imagine a "Kill All Hamas" sticker campaign that would constitute impermissible anti-Arab harassment for purposes of Title VI: if, say, the stickers were repeatedly slapped onto the walls of the Islamic House at the UW in the dead of the night, for example. Even though the Islamic House is, obviously, not affiliated with Hamas, and even though the Islamic House serves students of diverse races and national origins, not just Arabs—last time I attended services, our imam was a Bangladeshi—the issue for Title VI is "perceived" national origin. A bigot might well "perceive" the Islamic House as an Arab institution and harass it with anti-Hamas stuff based on that perception, which would be unlawful (provided the other elements of a Title VI claim were met: severity, educational impact, etc).

But I think "Kill All Hamas" conduct would have to be much more egregious than "Kill All Zionists" conduct in order to rise to the level of impermissible harassment. Zionism is the movement for the self-determination of the Jewish nation. If you are against Zionism, you are against Jewish self-determination. Hamas is a political organization in Palestine, one of many, and not even the largest. If you are against Hamas, it is possible that you might be against Palestinian self-determination (in which case, shame on you), but it is also possible you might just be against that one Palestinian organization in particular. Zionism is more closely tied to Jewish national identity than Hamas is to Palestinian or Arab national identity, so anti-Zionist conduct is more likely to be discriminatory on the basis of national origin than anti-Hamas conduct.

The headline post does a great job of describing the protestors' over-reach:

"...citing the university’s extensive failure to protect students on visas including but not limited to scheduling an ICE recruitment event on campus and allowing right-wing activist Charlie Kirk to spread his racist agenda at the encampment last spring."

A student might interview for employment at the ICE for after her graduation because she wants to fight cross-border trafficking in teenage girls. Kirk held a sold-out speaking event in the HUB Ballroom, and may well have attracted more paying listeners than the UW encampment did protestors. The protestors' demands, to prevent recruitment to legal jobs, and for censorship of a speaker (presumably for his daring to attract a larger audience than they could), shows their true agenda. It also means no one will regret their deportation if they exceed the terms of their visas, as others here have already noted.

"UW
Student
Activists Fear
Repression Under
Trump’s New Executive Order"

when djt's goonsquads
can no longer be controlled
is when hair furor declares Martial
Law and outlaws Dissent ~ we'll All be

under his and his psyco-
phants' iron fists of fury
the Repression retribu-
tion & score-evening'll
leave Everyone -- 'cept
fellow fascists - Fearful

but
thanks to
that olde Jew
from NYC, now VT

there' IS Room
for Hope:

missive to Me?
from Bernie:

Dear kristo

I am not going to kid you.

I do not often find myself in the habit of thanking Elon Musk, but he has done an exceptional job of demonstrating a point that we have made for years — and that is the fact we live in an oligarchic society in which billionaires dominate not only our politics and the information we consume, but our government and economic lives as well.

That has never been more clear than it is today.

But given the news and attention Mr. Musk has been getting over the last few weeks as he illegally and unconstitutionally dismantles government agencies, I thought it was an appropriate time to ask the question that the media and most politicians don't seem to be asking: What do he and other multi-billionaires really want? What is their endgame?

In my opinion, what Musk and those around him are aggressively striving for is not novel, it is not complicated and it is not new. It is what ruling classes throughout history have always wanted and have believed is theirs by right: more power, more control, more wealth. And they don’t want ordinary people and democracy getting in their way.

Elon Musk and his fellow oligarchs believe government and laws are simply an impediment to their interests and what they are entitled to.

In pre-revolutionary America, the ruling class governed through the “divine right of kings,” the belief that the King of England was an agent of God, not to be questioned. In modern times, the oligarchs believe that as the masters of technology and as "high-IQ individuals,” it is their absolute right to rule. In other words, they are our modern-day kings.

And it is not just power. It’s incredible wealth. Today, Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg have a combined worth of $903 billion, more than the bottom half of American society — 170 million people.

Since Trump was elected, unbelievably, their wealth has soared. Elon Musk has become $138 billion richer, Zuckerberg has become $49 billion richer and Bezos has become $28 billion richer. Add it all up and the three wealthiest men in America have become $215 billion richer since Election Day.

Meanwhile, while the very rich become much richer, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 85 million are uninsured or under-insured, 25% of seniors are trying to survive on $15,000 or less, 800,000 are homeless and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth.

--VT Senator Bernie Sanders

more:

In pre-revolutionary America, the ruling class governed through the “divine right of kings,” the belief that the King of England was an agent of God, not to be questioned. In modern times, the oligarchs believe that as the masters of technology and as "high-IQ individuals,” it is their absolute right to rule. In other words, they are our modern-day kings.

And it is not just power. It’s incredible wealth. Today, Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg have a combined worth of $903 billion, more than the bottom half of American society — 170 million people.

Since Trump was elected, unbelievably, their wealth has soared. Elon Musk has become $138 billion richer, Zuckerberg has become $49 billion richer and Bezos has become $28 billion richer.

Add it all up and the three wealthiest men in America have become $215 billion richer since Election Day.

Meanwhile, while the very rich become much richer, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 85 million are uninsured or under-insured, 25% of seniors are trying to survive on $15,000 or less, 800,000 are homeless and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth.

Do you think the oligarchs give a damn about these people? Trust me, they don’t. Musk’s decision to dismember U.S. AID means that thousands of the poorest people around the world will go hungry or die of preventable diseases.

But it’s not just abroad. Here in the United States they’ll soon be going after the healthcare, nutrition, housing, and educational programs that protect the most vulnerable people in our country - so that Congress can provide huge tax breaks for them and their fellow billionaires.

As modern-day kings, who believe they have the absolute right to rule, they will sacrifice, without hesitation, the well-being of working people to protect their privilege.

Further, they will use the enormous media operations they own to deflect attention away from the impact of their policies while they “entertain us to death.” They will lie, lie and lie. They will continue to spend huge amounts of money to buy politicians in both major political parties.

They are waging a war on the working class of this country, and it is a war they are intent on winning.

I am not going to kid you — the problems this country faces right now are serious and they are not easy to solve. The economy is rigged, our campaign finance system is corrupt and we are struggling to control climate change — among other issues.

But this is what I do know:

The worst fear of the ruling class in this country is that Americans — Black, White, Latino, urban and rural, gay and straight — come together to demand a government that represents all of us, not just the wealthy few.

Their nightmare is that we will not allow ourselves to be divided up by race, religion, sexual orientation or country of origin and will, together, have the courage to take them on.

Will it be easy? Of course not.

The ruling class of this country will constantly remind you that they have all the power. They control the government, they own the media. “You want to take us on? Good luck,” they will say. “There's nothing you can do about it.”

But our job today is to not forget the great struggles and sacrifices that millions of people have waged over the centuries to create a more democratic, just and humane society:

Overthrowing the King of England to create a new nation and self-rule. Impossible.
Establishing universal suffrage. Impossible.
Ending slavery and segregation. Impossible.
Granting workers the right to form unions and ending child labor. Impossible.
Giving women control over their own bodies. Impossible.
Passing legislation to establish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a minimum wage, clean air and water standards. Impossible.

In these difficult times despair is not an option. We’ve got to fight back in every way we can.

We have to get involved in the political process — run for office, connect with our local, state and federal legislators, donate to candidates who will fight for the working class of this country.

We have to create new channels for communication and information sharing. We have to volunteer not just politically, but to build community locally.

Whatever we can do is what we must do.

Needless to say, I intend to do my part — both inside the beltway and traveling throughout the country — to stand up for the working class of this country. In the days, weeks, and months ahead I hope you will join me in that struggle.

In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
Mon, Feb 10, 2025

more @:
berniesanders.com

@21 you ducked the question: you stand proudly with President Trump on this rebuke of campus antisemitism, right?

@23: As you’ve now made it clear you’d completely failed to comprehend my answer the first time, I’ll quote it for you, then explain: “… we have absolutely no idea what effect Trump’s order may have. The author of this post linked to it, but did not in any way explain how it would affect public protests at UW. The linked statement from UW’s outgoing President doesn’t really say either.“

Since I don’t know, I can’t say. (Yeah, yeah, yeah; you would never let such a mere trifle slow you down in the slightest.) I thought the schools infested with eliminationist* advocates did a good job of handling them on their own, so I see no need for any additional effort there.

*To the best of my recall, I didn’t use the term, “anti-Semitic,” to describe persons who’d loudly demanded the violent elimination of Israel. I avoided that term, in part, because I did not care what motivated their eliminationism.

@24: To me, the offensive part of the Trump order is its section 3(e), which instructs the Departments of State, Education, and Homeland Security to provide guidance to federally funded schools regarding the grounds for inadmissibility of aliens under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3), the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act devoted to aliens involved with terrorism or who undermine US foreign policy. The forthcoming guidance is supposed to encourage the schools to “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds.”

I’m all for enforcing anti-discrimination laws on campus. I’m all for deporting aliens who conceal their involvement with terrorism during their admission process. I’m not in favor of turning schools into police informants. If Homeland Security wants to kick out a terrorist, let the agents build the case themselves. Don’t ask our schools to do it for them.

@25: "I’m not in favor of turning schools into police informants."

I agree with you completely on that. The role of a university is not to surveil the campus on behalf of external law-enforcement agents. If the campus protests had gotten to the point they were threatening the role of the university (which includes ensuring the safety of all students), then the university might call upon external law-enforcement resources. That would be the university's call, not the law-enforcement agency's call. As I've already implied, I saw no evidence any of the campus protests got anywhere near threatening the roles of the universities which hosted those protests, so such interventions were not necessary.

Law-enforcement agencies with jurisdictions which include the university campus may operate on the campus. If they decide to do so, they must not operate in a manner which interferes with the role of the university.

rwnjs
/AIPAC
flooding
the Zone like
in DC now even
right here, at Home.

@25 and @26 -- in
Kompleat Ageeement?

wormmy must be pretty
High up the Foodchain
to beleive his a i sock-
bott'll NEVER be com-
ing for Him: Dystopia
Lurks, just like good
ol' Wormtongue.

@23 For the last year Tensorna has repeatedly regurgitated misleading talking points (like the GOP and some Democrats with help from the corporate media) about campus protests portraying them as hot beds of vandalism, antisemitism and violence even though protests were peaceful until violent counter-protesters (UCLA) or cops showed up, and almost all acts of antisemitism were the fact of anonymous individuals and not necessarily protesters (no, saying that Palestine should be free is not antisemitic). There were a few cases of sprayed graffiti that for the most part were also the actions of unknown people and were certainly not claimed by protesters.

As far as I can tell there was no "kill all zionists" campaign on the UW campus.

@20 " If you are against Zionism, you are against Jewish self-determination"

Zionism denies Palestinian right to self-determination to the land they have occupied since the Bronze age.

@29 "even though protests were peaceful"

harassing fellow students, preventing them from accessing public spaces, depriving them of the education they have paid for and destroying public property is not peaceful.

@30: “land they have occupied since the Bronze age.”

That’s the Jews, actually. You’re thinking of the Jews. The self-concept of a Palestinian nation emerged much more recently, only within the last hundred years or so. 😉

@31 because you witnessed and counted all of these incidents?

@32 No, I am thinking of the ancestors of the people we call Palestinians today. May be they were Jews at some point but most of them aren't Jews now.

@33 So unless you personally witness something it didn't happen despite the numerous incidents documented on social media and the news? you're really grasping at straws today Bob to defend these yahoos. Once you're done with the protestors why don't you start telling us how great Hamas is treating their prisoners as they are paraded through town looking beaten and emaciated while being forced to participate in a sideshow reading out propagandist statements. I didn't personally witness that though so I guess it isn't happening.

@35 Dude, you are now mentioning prisoners brutalized by Hamas to discuss student protests and I'd be the one grasping at straws?

"incidents documented on social media and the news"

do you know the meaning of the word 'documented'? A person claiming something happened is not documentation.

Could you cite many 'documented' incidents?

@29: "For the last year Tensorna has repeatedly regurgitated misleading talking points (like the GOP and some Democrats with help from the corporate media) about campus protests ..."

Well, then, you'll have no problem providing quotes from me, with URLs, and matching them to "talking points" (which, of course, you'll also quote, with URLs) doing just that. Please feel free to start right away. Meanwhile,

@29, @33: "... campus protests portraying them as hot beds of vandalism, antisemitism and violence even though protests were peaceful until violent counter-protesters (UCLA) or cops showed up, and almost all acts of antisemitism were the fact of anonymous individuals and not necessarily protesters..."

You really should have taken the hint @18 before you played the UCLA card. From the university's official report:

'On April 29, 2024, the encampment protesters began using human phalanxes (with protesters shouting, “human chain”) to block certain persons from moving freely through public areas of Royce Quad, and surrounded some other individuals to forcibly move them from areas in or adjacent to the encampment. By April 30, students wearing a Star of David or a kippah, or those refusing to denounce their Zionism (which for many Jews, but not all, is akin to renouncing their Jewish faith), were physically blocked by the protesters’ phalanxes from entering or passing through the occupied area of Royce Quad, entering Royce Hall, or entering Powell Library. These actions violated the California Penal Code prohibition against willfully and maliciously obstructing the free movement of persons; assault within the meaning of the California Penal Code; a violation of the Student Code of Conduct prohibitions on discrimination, harassment, obstruction or disruption, conduct that threatens health or safety, and in some cases unwanted personal contact; and a violation of the UCLA Group Code of Conduct prohibitions on obstruction or disruption, fostering a harmful environment, and unwanted personal contact. Moreover, it has long been understood that a public University’s failure to stop the type of behavior described above denied, in this case, Jews’ Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law, their First Amendment right to free speech, their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free exercise of religion, and constituted violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.' (https://www.antisemitismreport.org, pp. 53-55)

So, what you're saying is protesters who do not themselves wish to be subjected to illegal assaults should not first assault others? Or had you something else in mind?

@36 nah I'm just assuming that since you want to pretend these "protests" were peaceful sit in's where they did nothing but strum guitars and sing songs rather than intimidate and harass their fellow students that you'd you make the leap eventually to Hamas. A simple Google search will put up numerous incidents of Jewish students being harassed and/or denied a right to their education. @37 provides just one documented incident. You really are killing what little credibility you had on this topic by continually denying these things happened and they were not good.

@31 "harassing fellow students, preventing them from accessing public spaces, depriving them of the education they have paid for and destroying public property is not peaceful."

Those are all nonviolent forms of protest. If by "peaceful" you mean "not disruptive or inconvenient to anyone," well, that doesn't sound like a very effective protest. That type of complaint is only ever leveled by people who don't agree with the protesters and never will, and really just want them to go away.

@39: Try reading @37 again: “…surrounded some other individuals to forcibly move them from areas in or adjacent to the encampment. […] These actions violated the California Penal Code prohibition against willfully and maliciously obstructing the free movement of persons; assault within the meaning of the California Penal Code…”

If you’d been “surrounded” and “forcibly moved” by persons who prevented you from entering a building at your school, you’d call it nonviolent? How about if they targeted you by your actual or perceived religious faith? Would that make it better?

If some of these protestors lose their visas and can no longer harass students on American college campuses, then please don’t expect much of an outcry on their behalf.

@37 I don't need to provide any quotes. Everyone who has read your comments on this topic knows that you have systematically portrayed campus protests as hot beds of vandalism, antisemitism and violence just like Republicans have done in congress during hearings. Let's face it, you have laid the ground for Trump's current actions.

@38 one example of protesters restricting access to public space, how many to go before you can demonize the entire movement?

Regardless of what one thinks of the protesters' tactics on that day, don't you find it ironic that in the defense of their "god given right" to ethnically segregate and restrict the movement of Palestinians in Palestine every day, Zionists counter-protesters use California law to protect their freedom of movement to access a library on one specific day?

@41: So, you can’t actually provide even a single example of my having “…regurgitated misleading talking points…”? Oh well, I suppose you could instead complain about my having quoted at length from an official report, eh?

Yes!

“…one example of protesters restricting access to public space,”

No, multiple examples of protestors committing assaults under the laws of the State of California. (And by targeting Jews, because there’s never anything wrong with that, right?) Please recall this was the very protest you’d described @29 as, “…peaceful until violent counter-protesters (UCLA) or cops showed up…” No, it was violent and bigoted from almost the very day it started. Let's face it, protests like this have laid the ground for Trump's current actions.

And then, of course, the whataboutism. Perhaps your assumption about a connection between UCLA, Columbia U., or anywhere else, and the situation in Gaza/West Bank, could use some examination?

Here’s a thought: do you believe such protests are likely to make Americans more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, or less sympathetic? If less sympathetic, then why are you defending, denying, and minimizing such abusive tactics?

@40 "If you’d been “surrounded” and “forcibly moved” by persons who prevented you from entering a building at your school, you’d call it nonviolent?"

Yes? If I was injured that would be different but just being "forcibly" prevented from entering a building is not violence. If you try to enter a sports event or concert without a ticket and security stops you have you been subjected to violence, in your opinion?

@43: Wow — you even quoted the phrase, “forcibly moved,” and then equated it to a hypothetical example of preventing trespassing. Do you not understand the harassed students already had the right to enter those spaces, and were “forcibly moved” from them? Your made-up ‘example’ got it exactly backwards.

Same question as above: “… do you believe such protests are likely to make Americans more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, or less sympathetic? If less sympathetic, then why are you defending, denying, and minimizing such abusive tactics?”

@41: Besides the protestors at UCLA, federal courts have also identified anti-semitic conduct by protesters at Harvard, MIT, and Cooper Union (although in the case of MIT, the school itself was found not liable for the protestors’ anti-semitic conduct). Columbia settled a lawsuit against it for anti-semitism by protesters, in which the university conceded the fact of anti-semitism. There are probably some more examples I can’t recall. There will be even more in the coming months as the numerous anti-semitism lawsuits work their way through the courts, including at least one ongoing against UW.

It’s not far-fetched to suggest that pro-Palestinian protests commonly shade into anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. I think it’s actually pretty routine. 😉

@44 whether a person has a right to be in the space or can be lawfully removed is irrelevant to the question of whether their removal is "violence"

@45 "It’s not far-fetched to suggest that pro-Palestinian protests commonly shade into anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. I think it’s actually pretty routine"

You and Trump both

@41 "don't you find it ironic that in the defense of their "god given right" to ethnically segregate and restrict the movement of Palestinians in Palestine every day, Zionists counter-protesters use California law to protect their freedom of movement to access a library on one specific day?"

Let's chat when the students trying to get to class are calling for all protestors to be murdered so they can install a theocratic, authoritarian regime that suppresses the basic human rights of vast amounts on the population.

@43 "If you try to enter a sports event or concert without a ticket and security stops you have you been subjected to violence, in your opinion?"

No because you are trying to enter a space you do not have a right to enter. In the case above they are violating the rights of others as part of their protest and yes that is a form of violence. What's ironic in your statement is one of the reasons the protestors used to shut down recent speaking events is that the speech itself was "violent", so on one hand you have the mere act of speaking being violent but physically violating someone's rights is not violent....weird world you live in.

@47 I don't think speech is violence. I understand "violence" to be the use of physical force intended to cause harm. Apparently you guys have some other definition that includes preventing college kids from making it to class.

@48: '...the encampment protesters began using human phalanxes (with protesters shouting, “human chain”) to block certain persons from moving freely through public areas of Royce Quad, and surrounded some other individuals to forcibly move them from areas in or adjacent to the encampment.'

Read that again: '...surrounded some other individuals to forcibly move them from areas in or adjacent to the encampment.' That's not speech, that's harassment, intimidation, threatening behavior, and (in the cases where the phalanxes of students physically touched the persons they 'forcibly move[d]'), assault under California law.

If you want to argue explicitly in favor of assaults by protestors upon random passers-by, please continue right along. You're almost there.

@49 "That's not speech, that's ... (in the cases where the phalanxes of students physically touched the persons they 'forcibly move[d]'), assault under California law."

No it's not.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-240/

@48 so in your mind the right to protest includes depriving others of their rights and that is acceptable?

@51 when a sidewalk is closed for construction do you get righteously indignant about your "right" to access that space being denied? Yes, I don't care if protesters occupy space that other people then aren't able to access at that time. I certainly wouldn't cry to a court about it.

@52 that's not even close to being similar. If a sidewalk is closed for construction there is a detour and/or an alternative way to access a building if you need to get inside. I guess in your mind all of this was completely harmless as well? F the brain cancer lady right and the baby right? I can't believe you continue to defend this as harmless.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/08/10/goldengatebridge-protesters-criminally-charged-over-gaza-demonstration/

"The affidavit cites one woman who missed a pre-op appointment for brain surgery to remove a tumor in her temporal lobe. Another woman told investigators she ran out of water for infant formula and missed a pre-surgery doctor visit for her baby.

One woman cited in the affidavit said her disabled child was stuck on a school bus for hours on the bridge. A surgeon told authorities she had to reschedule a procedure planned for that day. And at least two people said they had to relieve themselves in their cars because they were trapped."

@50: "No it's not [assault]"

Correct, but it is a battery.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-240/

The protesters didn't commit assault, but they did commit battery. Is that really a hair worth splitting, lol.

@52: “I don't care if protesters occupy space that other people then aren't able to access at that time. I certainly wouldn't cry to a court about it.”

A protest that excludes all persons from access equally would not constitute a violation of the Civil Rights Act. A protest that excludes Jews from access more than other persons would. See the subtle difference? Cause the courts sure do! 😉

@54: Battery citation should have been to:
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-242/

@53 "I guess in your mind all of this was completely harmless as well? F the brain cancer lady right and the baby right? I can't believe you continue to defend this as harmless."

Oh noooo some people had to reschedule their doctor appointments! Throw the book at those heathens!

@50: "An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another."

That's the entire section. Note that actual harming or even touching of someone is not required, merely the attempt. So how, exactly, did the protestors "forcibly move" unwilling persons without committing "assault" against them?

@51: "...I don't care if protesters occupy space that other people then aren't able to access at that time."

Again, that's not the issue. The issue was the protestors "forcibly moved[d]" persons out of whatever areas the protestors had arbitrarily declared other persons had to vacate.

But even under your interpretation, what the protestors did was still a crime: “Every person who willfully and maliciously obstructs the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk, or other public place or on or in any place open to the public is guilty of a misdemeanor.” (https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-647c/)

By all means, continue to defend obstreperous criminal behaviors as legitimate protest. It certainly has improved the situation in Gaza, hasn't it?

@58 as long as you now agree the protest was not "violent" under any reasonable definition. And I'm pretty sure the whole point is to be obstreperous.

@57 such a weird hill to die on. I’m glad more people generally share my point of view.

@60: Weird Palestinian hills are kind of his thing. This week, he says the protests were never violent or anti-semitic. Last week, he went on and on about how nobody got raped in the October 7 attacks. In November, he said Hamas’s videotaped beheading of a wounded hostage was an act of Palestinian self-defense. And don’t even get him started on the question of Jewish nationality! 🤪

@59: If you don't want to understand the word, "forcibly," equates to, "violently" when the target of the force doesn't want it, then you won't. Full stop. (And no one can make you, so there!)

So, to recap: by your logic, it's A-OK the protestors "...surrounded some other individuals to forcibly move them from areas in or adjacent to the encampment," because it only becomes "violent" if those individuals refuse to be moved, or (worse yet!) actually fight back? Any violence is entirely their fault, because they did not simply submit to being handled like cattle?

Still unexplained: how this improved conditions in Gaza.

@60: Sympathy shouldn't be wasted on babies who need food and surgery. Duh. People who block freeways are the real victims here. If you were a decent human being, you'd agree, loser. (Now, why can't we ever get anyone to vote for what we want?!?)

You guys are such reactionary dorks. If you were alive during the Civil Rights era you'd be complaining about all the people who missed their doctor appointments because they couldn't get over the Edmund Pettis Bridge, and this King guy needs to do LeGiTiMaTe protest not criminally obstruct the roadway.

@63: Martin Luther King wasn’t forcing Jews to denounce Israel as a condition for entering classrooms. 😉

@64 now who's splitting hairs

thanks!
for your
anti-AIPAC
comments, ab

you're
doing Yoe-
man's Work @tS

head-to-head
w/rwnjs intent
on stripping Gaza
bare as any Palestinian
larder bulldozed into Oblivion

totes
Justified
by AIPAC's
ubiquitous minions
24/7/365.25 We Never Sleep

just like
Palestinians!

If they
had actual
fucking Beds.
andfoodmedicine
WATERdoctorsclinics

homes.

fucking
LIVES.

bring on
the Casinos:
it's M.E. AMERICA,

brought to you by
2KLB BUNKER BUSTERS
And the American Taxpayer!

does that mean
WE get a Cut
too?

we're sending
Ukraine the Bill
and it's a BIGGEE.

looks like we're
gonna own
it, too.

"I'll take Manhattan"?
We'll Take GAZA:
it's Time for
Conquest.

AND THNX!
thirteen12
likewise.

@65: Since you asked, that would be Martin Luther King splitting that particular hair:

“In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.”

😘

@60, @68: It's been less than a year, everything was extremely well-documented as it happened (including Congressional testimonies!), lawsuits stemming from anti-Jewish behaviors on campuses continue to wend their ways through the courts, and yet the Stranger and supportive commenters have already canonized their upside-downer fictional narrative into a hard-core mythology, as @66-67 nicely confirms. It's beyond merely (e.g.) the Stranger consigning to the Memory Hole SUPER's vandalization of the HUB, and threatening student journalists there. They're literally denying what actually happened by claiming the exact polar opposite is true, and when that fails, claiming that assaulting Jews, and demanding these Jews recant (political) heresy, somehow wasn't violent harassment. It's all truly bizarre, as if they believe the wrong side won the Cold War, and they'll remedy that by determinedly aping the worst behaviors of the losing side. (And remember, losses come only from not being extreme enough, so they'll pound their disinformation campaign even harder this time!)

(You might think that getting called out for mocking parents' stated concerns for sick hungry children might cause someone to stop and think, "Is what I'm doing here really all that good?", but not to true fanatics, it won't.)