Protesters can say what they want. They are not entitled to block students from going to class, hurt people, disregard orders to leave a building when there’s a bomb threat.
The Administration can certainly go after people who do those things.
Protesters can say what they want. They are not entitled to block students from going to class, hurt people, disregard orders to leave a building when there’s a bomb threat.
The Administration can certainly go after people who do those things.
Administrations, like the Democrats , are cowards and feckless when it comes to standing up to the pro-palestine violence. Deport all non-citricens who break laws, withhold federal grants and expose the SQUAD for the racists they are.
When the City govt. or Universities don't act, bring in the troops and deport all non-citrizens who are violent and break laws. There's a new sheriff in town ...
“Hate speech” IS free speech. You’re using the same argument Tim Walz did during the VP debate. The whole point of having free speech laws is to specifically protect speech you disagree with. And who gets to decide what counts as ”hate speech”.
Well I think the issue is that these are not federal crimes but should be addressed by state and local authorities. In the Khalil case, while Khalil is not a sympathetic character and organized window-smashing protests, the Trump administration is going after him on vague charges of "supporting terrorism" (how so? verbally?) which raises very legitimate concerns.
Protesters can say what they want. They are not entitled to block students from going to class, hurt people, disregard orders to leave a building when there’s a bomb threat.
The Administration can certainly go after people who do those things.
Administrations, like the Democrats , are cowards and feckless when it comes to standing up to the pro-palestine violence. Deport all non-citricens who break laws, withhold federal grants and expose the SQUAD for the racists they are.
I completely agree with you. Those acts are non-violent protests, not speech. And those acts will get someone rightfully arrested.
The Federal government should not have any involvement in this whatsoever though. It is up to the college, or the city, or the private building owner.
When the City govt. or Universities don't act, bring in the troops and deport all non-citrizens who are violent and break laws. There's a new sheriff in town ...
@Matt- some are not non-violent. And hate speech is not free speech.
“Hate speech” IS free speech. You’re using the same argument Tim Walz did during the VP debate. The whole point of having free speech laws is to specifically protect speech you disagree with. And who gets to decide what counts as ”hate speech”.
When you are threatening the very existence of someone, that's hate speech. THAT is not covered under the First Amendment.
What is your definition of threatening someone’s existence? Is protesting a war threatening someone’s existence?
The only thing that’s not protected is things like threatening violence that is potentially immediately possible.
If you advocate the overthrow of the United States, for example that’s not against the law.
If you say, you hate Jews, that’s not against the law.
If you say you wanna kill the Jews that’s not against the law.
If you are holding a machete and you say, let’s go kill Jews, and start leading people to violence, that is against the law
Absolutely!
Well I think the issue is that these are not federal crimes but should be addressed by state and local authorities. In the Khalil case, while Khalil is not a sympathetic character and organized window-smashing protests, the Trump administration is going after him on vague charges of "supporting terrorism" (how so? verbally?) which raises very legitimate concerns.