The schools & police trampling on student rights don't understand the true meaning of "trespassing"
The schools & police trampling on student rights don't understand the true meaning of "trespassing"
When officials dismantle peaceful tent encampments and arrest demonstrators, they are the ones who commit trespass.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I think you forgot the /s
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.
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.
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...
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.
Fuck Israel and all but this is such a stupid take on property rights.
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.
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.)
What university campus has a closing time?
Where in the first amendment does it say you have a right to a tent encampment, I must have missed that part.
You’re right, I forgot that the constitution is the basis of all moral reasoning and we can’t make any arguments that don’t stem from it.
Nope I didn't say anything about moral reasoning, you're the one talking about that for whatever reason. I'm talking about the law, since the article is claiming the students have a first amendment right to their encampment.
Sorry but its trespass to be there after hours its trespass to assume control of a public space its public for a reason its there for everyone if your going to protest do it correctly when the place is open when it comes to closing time pack up and go to your hotel room then show up during the day don't try to take control of any space and respect others and there religious beliefs
Just wondering, when people were driving through BLM protesters, were you like "stay out of the street and you won't get run over"?