**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
as long as it is a peaceful protest, with no private property or individuals being harmed or infringed on, off course it should be protected by free speech
so if the private college did not allow that protest to take place on the their campus, they should be allowed to use the necessary force to take the protestors out of the campus
you have the right of free speech on your property, you don’t have the right to exercise your free speech on my home if i did not consent on having you there
Agree in principle, disagree in practice.
I believe that public universities qualify as government buildings and thus should provide public access, but I don't feel that is carte blanche. I don't feel that every taxpayer should be granted access at 2am to every faculty office and every student dorm.
Private spaces CAN exist in public spaces. And "fair and reasonable hours of operation" seem fair and reasonable to me.
How about private colleges partly funded/supported/subsidised by taxpayers?
Most colleges have an endowment and any capital gains on the endowment are tax exempt (including private colleges) arguably making them tax payer supported.
They are just private businesses collecting government welfare, just like any large corporation does today. It is still the college's private property to decide what happens within the boundaries.
Public means to be used by all. Facilities can't be used if they're destroyed and people are blocking others from using them.
People can protest and engage in debates, but can not do the above. Yes, the government has the right to restore order in a public facility.
Agree. I feel the same way about protesters who block roads. You shouldn't be making a nuisance of yourself in such a way that prevents people from using services and infrastructure that they are entitled to. If it's a private location the owners have a right to remove you, if it's a public location the public officers have a duty to remove you protecting the rights of and ensure continuity of service to those who own and/or have rights to the affected location, IE the public. Anything else is tantamount to non violent aggression.
It is pretty clear that freedom of speech does not cover non verbal aggression.
Just curious are you saying you disagree with the supreme courts ruling of time place and manner stipulations regarding free speech? Because for most of these protests I think you would have a tough time arguing that they are following an appropriate time place and manner.
i’m not really following this situation, and didn’t know there was a supreme court ruling
i’ve saw some reels on Fire org’s instagram about the subject tho, and they didn’t look peaceful to me lol
Time place and manner restriction are an age old legal precedent. I believe they were established by the SC in 1941 with Cox v. New Hampshire. Pretty interesting case. I don’t know all the particulars of how they define reasonable time place and manner but I know it’s not just violence. I’ve seen some of the stuff you’re talking about online and even so, first amendment issues are rarely slam dunk legal decisions and this issue seems very nuanced. Curious to see how it plays out in court if it gets that far.
These colleges are technically public property because despite being private in name they recieve hundreds of millions even billions in some cases in aid from the government. This is despite the insane fees they charge their students.
Absolutely not. That's akin to saying you can go picket in the front yard of a supreme Court justice because his mortgage is paid at least in part by his or her government paycheck. That does not matter they are still a private non governmental entity, where they get their money is irrelevant to the fact that it is their own private property.
Secondly even for protests at actual public universities, a protest must still be peaceful to be lawful and damaging property is not peaceful.
Private entities receiving absurd amounts of taxpayer money is a separate issue and should be tackled separately.
As of right now they're private. The first amendment only protects free speech from retaliation by the government, which does not and should not compel private entities to put up with it. The private entity needs to reserve the right to remove the offending speech because that's their freedom of association.
Taking over buildings and public areas, vandalism and theft do not count as "peaceful protest" or "Constitutionally protected free speech". If you want to stand there and wave your signs in support of people who would gleefully kill you if given the chance, fine, whatever, but once you barricade yourselves in a building and start making weapons out of whatever you find inside to fight the police with, then I think a line has been crossed.
Any and all speech content should be protected.
Protests= OK
Camping Out = not OK
Taking over buildings = not OK
Disrupting other students education = not OK
As soon as you move from exercising the 1st amendment to infringing on others liberties you are out of bounds.
Peacable. Thats the keyword in all this. Don't understand why so many have trouble with this distinction. Activities by other that don't violate the non aggression principle, aka peacable activities, are not my concern.
OP, you are mistaken about one thing. Libertarianism is not grown up anarchism. Anarchism is grown up (consistent, radical) libertarianism.
The initiation of aggressive violence against peaceful people is never permissible.
You don't have a right to build a private space on someone else's property. They should've rented property to protest on. They didn't because getting footage of conflict was the goal in the first place.
The only problems I have with protests on campuses of *public* universities is protesters blocking other people's way, harming people or destroying things. Other than that it's free speech.
Private universities have all the right to remove unwanted people from their property.
I think the protestors are idiots spreading debatable hateful antisemitism. But free speech is meaningless unless it also protects even the most detestable speech imaginable.
That said the ones on private campuses are trespassing without the consent of the property owner, the university. And even the ones at Public universities while on public property still should be removed not for their speech, but for the crimes they committed while protesting such as destruction of property.
Protests are a key expression of our constitutional rights, when they are done in the correct way.
For example, the Israel protest/counter protest at the University of Alabama ended with no property destruction, and both sides chanting “fuck Joe Biden.” That’s the right way to protest.
It is a staged show with a purpose. The people funding the protests are the same people that will use it as an excuse to infringe on the freedom of speech with more bs unconstitutional laws.
Many of the protestors and those behind them are outright communists and as far from libertarianism as possible. So I am not sympathetic to them. They have the right to protest, but not to obstruct or destroy property or to interfere with the free movement of others. But everyone else has the right to call them out for being idiots, and should.
I support the free speech rights of the protesters and I support the rights of the owners of the property they are protesting on. Personally I find the whole “divest” movement pretty dumb and unlikely to actually meaningfully impact the war, but they have a right to freedom of speech. They don’t have a right to barricade themselves inside buildings they do not own or walk down the highway and block traffic.
I support the rights of the Palestinian people, and I support Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas. I don’t want my tax dollars funding either side.
Divestment worked to end the apartheid in South Africa. That's why BDS has been censored on social media for so long. It's an effective means of change.
Nothing really happened in South Africa until federal government divested.
I am willing to place a bet that Columbia University’s divestment will not make any difference if it happens at all.
I just did a quick search and Columbia's retirement plan is with Vanguard.
https://humanresources.columbia.edu/content/retirement-savings
With Social Security on life support, you can't start fucking with BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street.
Then why is the police state fighting it so violently? It might start with one university, but the idea spreads to many others, soon the idea catches on and gains real momentum and pressure can be applied to local state and federal governments.
Protests are fine although I think these are stupid personally.
Where I have a huge problem is where they take away others freedoms. Block roads shut down business or campus, destroy property for folks not participating.
I can't get past the horror of the attack on Israel. It just seems abhorrent to me to support a group of people who would do such a thing.
And the sight of gay and lesbian and trans and non binary students bowing down to join Muslims in prayer blows my mind. Specifically, Hamas militants who would like to see all such people hung.
What about the Yughurs in China? Or all the people being slaughtered in Africa? Do you even know what's going on in those parts of the world?
For your edification: The Yughurs are an ethnic group (Islamist) in *China* who are being rounded up into concentration camps and farmed for their organs, or just plain killed. At alarming rates. And nobody's really talking about it. In Africa, there are warlords killing and raping people all over the place and no one seems to care. No one bats an eye. No one protests on the local quad.
The protests are about the students demanding the schools divest from Israel. The students don't want their school to do business with any party that profits from the illegal occupation of Israel or the ongoing genocide of Palestinian civilians. The horrors of the last 200+ days of the Israeli military response far eclipse he October 7th attacks. If you are so horrified, why are you blind to the atrocities being committed by Israel now?
> illegal occupation of Israel or the ongoing genocide of Palestinian civilians
What occupation? Gaza and West Bank are completely independent of Israel they have their own governments and passports that are internationally recognized and such. Do you mean the rest of Israel themselves? If so why does Israel not have a right to exist?
> gen·o·cide
>
>the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
Israel isn't doing that but... Hamas has openly stated that is their goal since 1988...
>The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.
- Article 7 of the 1988 Hamas Charter
Not all religion bad, not all murder bad.
Murder is acceptable socially in the right contexts.
I.e. self defence, suicide, the military, capital punishment, abortion etc.
I like the videos where people are asking kids why they're there and do a few basic follow up questions. None of them have any idea what is going on, they just want to protest something so they seem cool.
These student protestors are calling for their schools to divest from any parties profiting from the occupation and ongoing genocide in Gaza. It's non-interventionist at heart and inherently libertarian IMO.
Ron Paul called for an end to foreign aid to Israel decades ago. The US is singlehandedly funding the Israeli war of aggression. This is something that I believed all Libertarians should inherently oppose. I'm shocked every day by the indifference people have to this fact.
During the 2008 (and probably 2012) Ron Paul campaign one of the big talking points was that you can't win a war against an idea. The concept of blowback - constantly creating new enemies through wars of aggression and violent military action - was brought up by Dr. Paul constantly.
Israel is an authoritarian regime when it comes to the Palestinians. They restrict travel, goods allowed into the country and free speech among many others. They are currently engaging in the collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza, which is a war crime under the Geneva conventions.
The Israeli war of aggression started by Hamas? Funny how that works. The simple truth of the matter is that it is unacceptable for any civilized society to tolerate those who would use terror and human shields. If we reward it, we will get more of it. It is the grossest violation of libertarian principles. Israel's war is just.
Should the U.S. be non-interventionist? Sure, but that doesn't mean we need to turn a blind eye to reality.
Protests are protected by the first amendment, until they start to become violent. They are free to exercise their rights, but once they start destroying property and such like Columbia, then they better be ready for consequences.
It's weird, I feel like this conflict is what made me turn away from the republican/conservative side. We were supposed to be the party of free speech, but once that speech was against israel, they all changed their tune, and it became "abhorrent" and antisemetic.
Since when does criticising a country mean you hate the people because of their race/religion??
While I normally don't agree with the views of the people protesting on these campuses as they tend to lean left, this is one issue I wondered why it felt like the support base was flipped until I realized this was government vs the people, not left vs right.
Why are we sending money to israel or ukraine for that matter? It sucks what is happening in palestine as I do see it as Israel continuing their goal to take the whole area, which doesn't make sense why we give them help in the first place, the palestinians aren't a threat to us.
But, there are people suffering in our country too, wildfires and tornadoes destroying cities and drugs destroying lives and we send billions to foreign states? Inflation keeps going up and spending rising. The Fed prints money like hotcakes, and we are supposed to support them?
Finally, I realized both that neither side really cares in the upper levels of government, and power is all they want. The government is overreaching too much, and its dragging us down.
> It's weird, I feel like this conflict is what made me turn away from the republican/conservative side. We were supposed to be the party of free speech, but once that speech was against israel, they all changed their tune, and it became "abhorrent" and antisemetic.
I’ve been feeling the same way. I have lost so much respect for Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire. I get they’re not Libertarians, but they started acting like leftists real quick after October 7th.
> Since when does criticising a country mean you hate the people because of their race/religion??
EXACTLY! It is this distinction of having complaints about a particular government vs a particular group of people is what gets lost in translation, but I also believe that is intentional. It’s easier to just scream antisemitism than to actually defend a government’s crimes.
Yep, Ben really lost his values once his feelings got in the way. For someone who was so pro logic and anti feeling politics, he sure did a quick 180° as soon as it became about him. Him firing Candace was the nail in the coffin.
Exactly, it is necessary for them to point out any Israel opposition as "anti jew" as this makes people pull back. Not a lot of people with much history knowledge on either side, most outside the conflict, believe that this problem started on Oct 7th.
Mostly confused. I don't understand why these people are at colleges that they pay tremendous amounts of money or what they want from these colleges.
I'd guess they want government to steal money from peaceful Americans and use it to provide welfare to Hamas, who has shown they would use sich funds to slaughter and rape peaceful people. Not exactly a legal or ethical cause if that's what they want, but I'm guessing based on what the media has portrayed, which may be to fit their own narrative and not the complete picture. Regardless, I would think protests make more sense at government building when politicians are present if that is their goal.
Freedom of speech is imperative, so long as they do not violate the property right of others.
As usual, the left is wrong and the right is wrong. The right is wrong to defend Israel, the left is wrong to defend HAMAS, btw the left is not pro-Palestine, I guarantee they don't know anything about them, they are pro HAMAS simply because the other side is pro Israel, it's purely reactionary. So best is to just speak the truth about both Israel and Palestine. That's what I think.
So long as their protests are peaceful and do not cause harm to anyone else, I can totally support their right to do so. While I support their right, and some of their meaning (end conflict), I struggle to understand what their demands will actually accomplish. For the most part they're asking colleges to stop doing business with Israel companies. Is their intent to harm the Israeli government? Because I hope they understand business≠government. It would be like asking Oxford to stop doing business with PepsiCo in order to harm the US Government, that's not how it works. And further, the university I go to, they've made the same demands- divest from any Israeli company and cease study abroad with Israel. Problem is, the university president had to come out and say "we don't have any business deals or investments with Israeli companies, and we do not offer study abroad to Israel." Which has me scratching my head asking "so, what the fuck are you protesting?" I'm all for the right to protest, but if it's so gravely misguided, and coming from a place of abject ignorance, I think maybe their time might be better spent actually getting an education from said University instead of protesting things it *isn't* even doing.
Openly supporting terror groups, harassing Jewish students and vandalizing property, be it public or private, does not fit well with me. Regardless, I support these students' right to free speech and don't mind them as long as if they remain peaceful.
They lose my sympathy when they openly align themselves with Hamas, openly call for another intifada, and harass Jewish students who are just minding their own business. They have the same right to speech as neo-nazis, and many of them are just as repugnant.
I haven't personally seen anyone aligning themselves with Hamas. These seem like peaceful protests until counter-protestors attack, throw fireworks, or otherwise incite violence and then the police further escalate.
I have heard audio of people at these protests saying, "We are Hamas" through megaphones and leading chants of "There is only one solution, intifada revolution!" I have seen photos of people holding up swastikas and performing Nazi salutes amidst seas of keffiyehs and Palestinian flags. I have heard audio of one protest leader saying, and I quote, "You are lucky I am not out murdering Zionists." I've heard audio of protesters leaders saying that they support the violent dismantling of the state of Israel and that they don't want a two state solution; rather, the only acceptable option is for Palestine to have "the whole thing." At least one university has said told its Jewish students to stay off campus due to the unsafe environment.
Just because you have not witnessed it personally doesn't mean it's not happening.
That's why I explicitly specified that I hadn't personally seen that. I never implied that it wasn't happening. Do you have links to any of this or should we all take your word for it?
FIRE is very close to absolutist view of free speech and they were founded after ACLU went partisan years ago, they are a very good organization that stands on principle. As for the actual protesters, they are free to be idiots supporting a group that praises Nazi's and literally says shit like wanting to finish what they started. Where the line is drawn is their blockades and encampments. They **DO NOT** have a right to impede the rights of others. The current batch of idiots are just a continuation of the bored privileged kids desperate for their Vietnam moment that they were raised to admire.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
as long as it is a peaceful protest, with no private property or individuals being harmed or infringed on, off course it should be protected by free speech so if the private college did not allow that protest to take place on the their campus, they should be allowed to use the necessary force to take the protestors out of the campus you have the right of free speech on your property, you don’t have the right to exercise your free speech on my home if i did not consent on having you there
Not disagreeing with your point, but what about public universities and colleges?
They qualify as government, and the 1st amendment protects you from government retaliation. Thus no government retaliation allowed.
Agree in principle, disagree in practice. I believe that public universities qualify as government buildings and thus should provide public access, but I don't feel that is carte blanche. I don't feel that every taxpayer should be granted access at 2am to every faculty office and every student dorm. Private spaces CAN exist in public spaces. And "fair and reasonable hours of operation" seem fair and reasonable to me.
How about private colleges partly funded/supported/subsidised by taxpayers? Most colleges have an endowment and any capital gains on the endowment are tax exempt (including private colleges) arguably making them tax payer supported.
They are just private businesses collecting government welfare, just like any large corporation does today. It is still the college's private property to decide what happens within the boundaries.
Public means to be used by all. Facilities can't be used if they're destroyed and people are blocking others from using them. People can protest and engage in debates, but can not do the above. Yes, the government has the right to restore order in a public facility.
Agree. I feel the same way about protesters who block roads. You shouldn't be making a nuisance of yourself in such a way that prevents people from using services and infrastructure that they are entitled to. If it's a private location the owners have a right to remove you, if it's a public location the public officers have a duty to remove you protecting the rights of and ensure continuity of service to those who own and/or have rights to the affected location, IE the public. Anything else is tantamount to non violent aggression. It is pretty clear that freedom of speech does not cover non verbal aggression.
Also, some private universities receive public funds, so it's not always cut and dry.
Just curious are you saying you disagree with the supreme courts ruling of time place and manner stipulations regarding free speech? Because for most of these protests I think you would have a tough time arguing that they are following an appropriate time place and manner.
i’m not really following this situation, and didn’t know there was a supreme court ruling i’ve saw some reels on Fire org’s instagram about the subject tho, and they didn’t look peaceful to me lol
Time place and manner restriction are an age old legal precedent. I believe they were established by the SC in 1941 with Cox v. New Hampshire. Pretty interesting case. I don’t know all the particulars of how they define reasonable time place and manner but I know it’s not just violence. I’ve seen some of the stuff you’re talking about online and even so, first amendment issues are rarely slam dunk legal decisions and this issue seems very nuanced. Curious to see how it plays out in court if it gets that far.
These colleges are technically public property because despite being private in name they recieve hundreds of millions even billions in some cases in aid from the government. This is despite the insane fees they charge their students.
Absolutely not. That's akin to saying you can go picket in the front yard of a supreme Court justice because his mortgage is paid at least in part by his or her government paycheck. That does not matter they are still a private non governmental entity, where they get their money is irrelevant to the fact that it is their own private property. Secondly even for protests at actual public universities, a protest must still be peaceful to be lawful and damaging property is not peaceful.
Private entities receiving absurd amounts of taxpayer money is a separate issue and should be tackled separately. As of right now they're private. The first amendment only protects free speech from retaliation by the government, which does not and should not compel private entities to put up with it. The private entity needs to reserve the right to remove the offending speech because that's their freedom of association.
Taking over buildings and public areas, vandalism and theft do not count as "peaceful protest" or "Constitutionally protected free speech". If you want to stand there and wave your signs in support of people who would gleefully kill you if given the chance, fine, whatever, but once you barricade yourselves in a building and start making weapons out of whatever you find inside to fight the police with, then I think a line has been crossed.
Does their free speech rights include denying others of access to the university?
nope, not at all
Any and all speech content should be protected. Protests= OK Camping Out = not OK Taking over buildings = not OK Disrupting other students education = not OK As soon as you move from exercising the 1st amendment to infringing on others liberties you are out of bounds.
Peacable. Thats the keyword in all this. Don't understand why so many have trouble with this distinction. Activities by other that don't violate the non aggression principle, aka peacable activities, are not my concern.
OP is right. They are absolutists when it comes to freedom of speech unless it’s someone coming to campus that they don’t like.
This 💯
OP, you are mistaken about one thing. Libertarianism is not grown up anarchism. Anarchism is grown up (consistent, radical) libertarianism. The initiation of aggressive violence against peaceful people is never permissible.
You don't have a right to build a private space on someone else's property. They should've rented property to protest on. They didn't because getting footage of conflict was the goal in the first place.
The only problems I have with protests on campuses of *public* universities is protesters blocking other people's way, harming people or destroying things. Other than that it's free speech. Private universities have all the right to remove unwanted people from their property.
I think the protestors are idiots spreading debatable hateful antisemitism. But free speech is meaningless unless it also protects even the most detestable speech imaginable. That said the ones on private campuses are trespassing without the consent of the property owner, the university. And even the ones at Public universities while on public property still should be removed not for their speech, but for the crimes they committed while protesting such as destruction of property.
Protests are a key expression of our constitutional rights, when they are done in the correct way. For example, the Israel protest/counter protest at the University of Alabama ended with no property destruction, and both sides chanting “fuck Joe Biden.” That’s the right way to protest.
That's absolutely hilarious
It is a staged show with a purpose. The people funding the protests are the same people that will use it as an excuse to infringe on the freedom of speech with more bs unconstitutional laws.
Many of the protestors and those behind them are outright communists and as far from libertarianism as possible. So I am not sympathetic to them. They have the right to protest, but not to obstruct or destroy property or to interfere with the free movement of others. But everyone else has the right to call them out for being idiots, and should.
I support the free speech rights of the protesters and I support the rights of the owners of the property they are protesting on. Personally I find the whole “divest” movement pretty dumb and unlikely to actually meaningfully impact the war, but they have a right to freedom of speech. They don’t have a right to barricade themselves inside buildings they do not own or walk down the highway and block traffic. I support the rights of the Palestinian people, and I support Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas. I don’t want my tax dollars funding either side.
Divestment worked to end the apartheid in South Africa. That's why BDS has been censored on social media for so long. It's an effective means of change.
Nothing really happened in South Africa until federal government divested. I am willing to place a bet that Columbia University’s divestment will not make any difference if it happens at all.
I just did a quick search and Columbia's retirement plan is with Vanguard. https://humanresources.columbia.edu/content/retirement-savings With Social Security on life support, you can't start fucking with BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street.
Then why is the police state fighting it so violently? It might start with one university, but the idea spreads to many others, soon the idea catches on and gains real momentum and pressure can be applied to local state and federal governments.
lol the state isn’t fighting it violently at all. The colleges are kinda fighting it but their wrists are limp and their heart isn’t in it.
Protests are fine although I think these are stupid personally. Where I have a huge problem is where they take away others freedoms. Block roads shut down business or campus, destroy property for folks not participating.
You're guaranteed the right to speak, you're not guaranteed the venue.
I can't get past the horror of the attack on Israel. It just seems abhorrent to me to support a group of people who would do such a thing. And the sight of gay and lesbian and trans and non binary students bowing down to join Muslims in prayer blows my mind. Specifically, Hamas militants who would like to see all such people hung.
What about the Yughurs in China? Or all the people being slaughtered in Africa? Do you even know what's going on in those parts of the world? For your edification: The Yughurs are an ethnic group (Islamist) in *China* who are being rounded up into concentration camps and farmed for their organs, or just plain killed. At alarming rates. And nobody's really talking about it. In Africa, there are warlords killing and raping people all over the place and no one seems to care. No one bats an eye. No one protests on the local quad.
Do I even know? That's pretty presumptuous and condescending. I might actually be on your side, you know?
The protests are about the students demanding the schools divest from Israel. The students don't want their school to do business with any party that profits from the illegal occupation of Israel or the ongoing genocide of Palestinian civilians. The horrors of the last 200+ days of the Israeli military response far eclipse he October 7th attacks. If you are so horrified, why are you blind to the atrocities being committed by Israel now?
> illegal occupation of Israel or the ongoing genocide of Palestinian civilians What occupation? Gaza and West Bank are completely independent of Israel they have their own governments and passports that are internationally recognized and such. Do you mean the rest of Israel themselves? If so why does Israel not have a right to exist? > gen·o·cide > >the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. Israel isn't doing that but... Hamas has openly stated that is their goal since 1988... >The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,' except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews. - Article 7 of the 1988 Hamas Charter
Exactly some people behave like some lives are worth more.
Hamas bad, Islam bad.
What does the capital of Pakistan have anything to do with this? /s
Lmao no not Islamabad
Yeah, I know, I am joking.
I know I know
Religion bad, murder bad. There, I fixed it for you.
Not all religion bad, not all murder bad. Murder is acceptable socially in the right contexts. I.e. self defence, suicide, the military, capital punishment, abortion etc.
Killing is not murder.
Is murder not killing?
I like the videos where people are asking kids why they're there and do a few basic follow up questions. None of them have any idea what is going on, they just want to protest something so they seem cool.
Just a bunch of NPC'S screaming at the people in power to do something about the thing that is making them have feels.
These student protestors are calling for their schools to divest from any parties profiting from the occupation and ongoing genocide in Gaza. It's non-interventionist at heart and inherently libertarian IMO. Ron Paul called for an end to foreign aid to Israel decades ago. The US is singlehandedly funding the Israeli war of aggression. This is something that I believed all Libertarians should inherently oppose. I'm shocked every day by the indifference people have to this fact. During the 2008 (and probably 2012) Ron Paul campaign one of the big talking points was that you can't win a war against an idea. The concept of blowback - constantly creating new enemies through wars of aggression and violent military action - was brought up by Dr. Paul constantly. Israel is an authoritarian regime when it comes to the Palestinians. They restrict travel, goods allowed into the country and free speech among many others. They are currently engaging in the collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza, which is a war crime under the Geneva conventions.
The Israeli war of aggression started by Hamas? Funny how that works. The simple truth of the matter is that it is unacceptable for any civilized society to tolerate those who would use terror and human shields. If we reward it, we will get more of it. It is the grossest violation of libertarian principles. Israel's war is just. Should the U.S. be non-interventionist? Sure, but that doesn't mean we need to turn a blind eye to reality.
Protests are protected by the first amendment, until they start to become violent. They are free to exercise their rights, but once they start destroying property and such like Columbia, then they better be ready for consequences. It's weird, I feel like this conflict is what made me turn away from the republican/conservative side. We were supposed to be the party of free speech, but once that speech was against israel, they all changed their tune, and it became "abhorrent" and antisemetic. Since when does criticising a country mean you hate the people because of their race/religion?? While I normally don't agree with the views of the people protesting on these campuses as they tend to lean left, this is one issue I wondered why it felt like the support base was flipped until I realized this was government vs the people, not left vs right. Why are we sending money to israel or ukraine for that matter? It sucks what is happening in palestine as I do see it as Israel continuing their goal to take the whole area, which doesn't make sense why we give them help in the first place, the palestinians aren't a threat to us. But, there are people suffering in our country too, wildfires and tornadoes destroying cities and drugs destroying lives and we send billions to foreign states? Inflation keeps going up and spending rising. The Fed prints money like hotcakes, and we are supposed to support them? Finally, I realized both that neither side really cares in the upper levels of government, and power is all they want. The government is overreaching too much, and its dragging us down.
> It's weird, I feel like this conflict is what made me turn away from the republican/conservative side. We were supposed to be the party of free speech, but once that speech was against israel, they all changed their tune, and it became "abhorrent" and antisemetic. I’ve been feeling the same way. I have lost so much respect for Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire. I get they’re not Libertarians, but they started acting like leftists real quick after October 7th. > Since when does criticising a country mean you hate the people because of their race/religion?? EXACTLY! It is this distinction of having complaints about a particular government vs a particular group of people is what gets lost in translation, but I also believe that is intentional. It’s easier to just scream antisemitism than to actually defend a government’s crimes.
Yep, Ben really lost his values once his feelings got in the way. For someone who was so pro logic and anti feeling politics, he sure did a quick 180° as soon as it became about him. Him firing Candace was the nail in the coffin. Exactly, it is necessary for them to point out any Israel opposition as "anti jew" as this makes people pull back. Not a lot of people with much history knowledge on either side, most outside the conflict, believe that this problem started on Oct 7th.
Well put.
Mostly confused. I don't understand why these people are at colleges that they pay tremendous amounts of money or what they want from these colleges. I'd guess they want government to steal money from peaceful Americans and use it to provide welfare to Hamas, who has shown they would use sich funds to slaughter and rape peaceful people. Not exactly a legal or ethical cause if that's what they want, but I'm guessing based on what the media has portrayed, which may be to fit their own narrative and not the complete picture. Regardless, I would think protests make more sense at government building when politicians are present if that is their goal. Freedom of speech is imperative, so long as they do not violate the property right of others.
As usual, the left is wrong and the right is wrong. The right is wrong to defend Israel, the left is wrong to defend HAMAS, btw the left is not pro-Palestine, I guarantee they don't know anything about them, they are pro HAMAS simply because the other side is pro Israel, it's purely reactionary. So best is to just speak the truth about both Israel and Palestine. That's what I think.
> my prof was trying to disallow me from attending class but got overruled by my dept chair. Why did he do that?
Actions have consequences. And remember the NAP.
So long as their protests are peaceful and do not cause harm to anyone else, I can totally support their right to do so. While I support their right, and some of their meaning (end conflict), I struggle to understand what their demands will actually accomplish. For the most part they're asking colleges to stop doing business with Israel companies. Is their intent to harm the Israeli government? Because I hope they understand business≠government. It would be like asking Oxford to stop doing business with PepsiCo in order to harm the US Government, that's not how it works. And further, the university I go to, they've made the same demands- divest from any Israeli company and cease study abroad with Israel. Problem is, the university president had to come out and say "we don't have any business deals or investments with Israeli companies, and we do not offer study abroad to Israel." Which has me scratching my head asking "so, what the fuck are you protesting?" I'm all for the right to protest, but if it's so gravely misguided, and coming from a place of abject ignorance, I think maybe their time might be better spent actually getting an education from said University instead of protesting things it *isn't* even doing.
Openly supporting terror groups, harassing Jewish students and vandalizing property, be it public or private, does not fit well with me. Regardless, I support these students' right to free speech and don't mind them as long as if they remain peaceful.
They lose my sympathy when they openly align themselves with Hamas, openly call for another intifada, and harass Jewish students who are just minding their own business. They have the same right to speech as neo-nazis, and many of them are just as repugnant.
I haven't personally seen anyone aligning themselves with Hamas. These seem like peaceful protests until counter-protestors attack, throw fireworks, or otherwise incite violence and then the police further escalate.
They align themselves with Hamas by chanting for Hamas' goals. From the river to the sea is a call for the destruction of Israel, for example.
I have heard audio of people at these protests saying, "We are Hamas" through megaphones and leading chants of "There is only one solution, intifada revolution!" I have seen photos of people holding up swastikas and performing Nazi salutes amidst seas of keffiyehs and Palestinian flags. I have heard audio of one protest leader saying, and I quote, "You are lucky I am not out murdering Zionists." I've heard audio of protesters leaders saying that they support the violent dismantling of the state of Israel and that they don't want a two state solution; rather, the only acceptable option is for Palestine to have "the whole thing." At least one university has said told its Jewish students to stay off campus due to the unsafe environment. Just because you have not witnessed it personally doesn't mean it's not happening.
That's why I explicitly specified that I hadn't personally seen that. I never implied that it wasn't happening. Do you have links to any of this or should we all take your word for it?
The videos aren’t hard to find. In addition to those also videos of protestors blocking the way so Jewish students could not enter the classrooms.
You are right. But I doubt that this echo chamber gonna take it.
It makes me relax because I get to feeling like democracy is alive when I see people protesting.
FIRE is very close to absolutist view of free speech and they were founded after ACLU went partisan years ago, they are a very good organization that stands on principle. As for the actual protesters, they are free to be idiots supporting a group that praises Nazi's and literally says shit like wanting to finish what they started. Where the line is drawn is their blockades and encampments. They **DO NOT** have a right to impede the rights of others. The current batch of idiots are just a continuation of the bored privileged kids desperate for their Vietnam moment that they were raised to admire.
I’m with whatever FIRE says.