this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
223 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3290 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
223
The schools & police trampling on student rights don't understand the true meaning of "trespassing" (www.lgbtqnation.com)
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 60 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

There is no form of effective protest of which is “acceptable”. Protests are meant to disrupt, to get as much attention as possible in order to spread a message and bring action, and those who oppose the protest will always object to that no matter what. That’s the point.

For protesters to act so socked that they’re getting arrested for protesting against the power elites at their schools while on private property seems pretty naive to me. They should have known that this would be the eventual outcome and to have been prepared for it. Not to say it should have stopped the protests from happening— just that, for protests to be effective, it has to piss off the right people, and you’ll likely get arrested, free speech be damned.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

If the point is to be disruptive, then loudly pointing out they are getting arrested for protesting is on brand and should be expected. The real question is why are you confused they continue to protest after being arrested?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Maybe he thinks that arresting anyone who opposes genocide is the right thing to do.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I never said I was confused

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No but i did, and that was being charitable

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you think insults are charity, it would appear that you’re the one who is confused.

[–] meeeeetch@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

When you're paying 40k a year to attend their hedge fund with a sports team, there shouldn't be much of any place that's off limits to you.

And it seems rare that college kids get arrested en masse. So they're right to be at least a little surprised that this protest got cracked down on so hard.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

I’m sure they’re normally allowed to be where they’re standing. If they’re asked to leave/disband, and they remain, it’s considered trespassing.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago

I think you forgot the /s

[–] anas@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

For protesters to act so socked that they’re getting arrested for protesting against the power elites at their schools while on private property seems pretty naive to me.

I’m really not sure what the appropriate reaction should be. Are they meant to celebrate getting arrested? It’s an expected outcome, but that doesn’t make it right.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

don't be obtuse

It’s an expected outcome, but that doesn’t make it right.

i didn't say that

I’m really not sure what the appropriate reaction should be.

not to be surprised that it happened, for one. and, while universities do generally, have an atmosphere which support free expression, and many even have somewhat permissive protest policies, they're private property. now, i'm not defending the actions of the universities, but i'm saying that getting arrested for protesting on private property vs while protesting on public property are two different things-- and one isn't nearly as outrageous as the other.

part of civil disobedience is getting arrested.

[–] anas@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

To be honest I haven’t seen anyone act surprised because they’re getting arrested for protesting. Then again, I’m not American, and the only news I’m reading are here on lemmy (and reddit).

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think it's the fact that they are arrested and very rarely actually charged with a crime, which essentially amounts to state sanctioned kidnapping.

But otherwise I do agree with you.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That’s one way to look at it. Another is that, rather than truly outrageously throwing the book at these protesters, the worst they got was a massive inconvenience.

Now, I’m not trying to downplay getting arrested - even brutally so. I have been arrested at protests by some nasty pigs who beat the shit out of me, and I have spend nights in jail as a result. I know how bad that shit sucks.

What I’m saying is that it’s what they signed up for. And if they want to protest police brutality, go do that, too, but don’t act all shocked that this happened.

Edit: in an ideal world, protesters would be treated with dignity and respect— but if we lived in an ideal world, there would be no need to protest.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Fair points. I just really hate the state monopoly on violence that they love to use almost exclusively on leftwing protests. If other such protesters were arrested as well, it would be less grating on my morals.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago

Me too

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 months ago

I also responded, “So, you are saying that property rights have priority over human rights?”

In this vein, I enter another definition of “trespassing” as “an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another.”

When university presidents and chancellors call in campus or municipal police officers to dismantle peaceful tent encampments and arrest demonstrators, they commit trespass against “the person” and their First Amendment right to “freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Not quite at the Sovereign Citizen level of legal misunderstand but getting there...

[–] LibertyLizard 19 points 6 months ago

Trespassing outside of people’s immediate dwelling spaces shouldn’t be illegal at all. It’s just a tool for the wealthy to control the rest of us and where we can exist on our common planet.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Fuck Israel and all but this is such a stupid take on property rights.

[–] Th4tGuyII@kbin.social 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This reads like something a Sovereign citizen would write.

The first amendment allows you to say whatever you want without threat of arrest, but it doesn't give carte blanche to do whatever you want whilst saying it.

If you're on private property after closing time to the public, then you're trespassing, regardless of why you're there.

The threat of arrest is something you have to accept if you're going to protest in a disruptive way - the ones you're protesting against will do anything they legally can to get you to stop.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

Minor point… at any time a property owner or an agent thereof can ask you to leave and your trespassing at that point.

As far as civil liberties, the reasons can’t be that you’re a protected class. But that’s about it. Generally, it’s really hard to prove that the rules are being unfairly applied to begin with, and then there are a lot of ways around that. it’s really hard to prove racism for some of those ways (“suspicious”=hoodie, for example.)

[–] LibertyLizard 5 points 6 months ago

What university campus has a closing time?