As students return to college campuses across the United States, administrators are bracing for a resurgence in activism against the war in Gaza.
Elsewhere on Lemmy I have been pilloried for being a free-speech absolutist, but I don’t think that most of these restrictions impede the free exchange of ideas (as opposed to deliberate disruption, which is not speech).
The University of Pennsylvania has outlined new “temporary guidelines” for student protests that include bans on encampments, overnight demonstrations, and the use of bullhorns and speakers until after 5 p.m. on class days. Penn also requires that posters and banners be removed within two weeks of going up. The university says it remains committed to freedom of speech and lawful assembly.
This seems entirely reasonable.
At Indiana University, protests after 11 p.m. are forbidden under a new “expressive activities policy” that took effect Aug 1. The policy says “camping” and erecting any type of shelter are prohibited on campus, and signs cannot be displayed on university property without prior approval.
This seems reasonable too. Note that the rule about signs applies only to attaching them to publicly-accessible university property. People are free to carry signs or display them in their dorms and on-campus offices.
The University of South Florida now requires approval for tents, canopies, banners, signs and amplifiers. The school’s “speech, expression and assembly” rules stipulate that no “activity,” including protests or demonstrations, is allowed after 5 p.m. on weekdays or during weekends and not allowed at all during the last two weeks of a semester.
I do disagree with this one. Allowing protests only on weekdays before 5:00 PM is not reasonable.
Protests don’t really work if they’re not disruptive.
At the same time, any legitimate authority has a vested interest in minimizing disruption.
It’s one of those things where I think neither side is inherently in the wrong, at least insofar as the question of “Protest vs. Disruption” is concerned. One must protest for what one believes is right, even if that protest must be disruptive to achieve its goals, and one must be prepared for a response from the authorities if that protest is sufficiently disruptive. You have to break rules, and you have to accept that the authorities are not necessarily wrong in trying to enforce the rules.
Short of saying “Only people I like are allowed to protest” or “Republicans can shut down the interstate highway indefinitely because they hate gay marriage”, neither of which are particularly appealing, I don’t really think that there’s another option.
That this is all done by universities in the defense of a genocidal apartheid state, though? Not very morally ambiguous. This isn’t a minor policy disagreement, or even a major one. This is support of corruption in US politics, the blatant sabotage of US interests abroad, and apartheid and genocide in Israel. Fuck these places trying to run interference for Israel.
The dynamic still holds as valid. It’s just that the universities are shitty fucking authorities for taking the side that many of them have.
I would be very interested in seeing any example of a case where minorly disruptive protest was successful at accomplishing its goal. Large scale disruption that paralyzes the flow of goods or services is one thing, like a strike for instance. But I think back to Occupy Wall St, and it was just absurd how poorly it all worked. Then on top of that, the expectations were so high that the failure set our movement for economic reform back instead of forward, by demoralizing the whole movement for years. It didn’t really recover until Bernie started running for President.
That was about as big and disruptive as you can go, too, and fresh off of a major economic fuck up that actually hurt many Americans.
It’s literally just a waste of energy, when people should be composing compelling arguments, compiling their evidence, and actually spreading it to new people via newsletters, flyers, pamphlets, conversations, speeches etc etc etc. Grassroots outreach.
Frankly I think that’s all too difficult though, and it’s easier for people to just pitch a tent somewhere and chant, even if it accomplishes nothing or even harm for your cause. It lets people feel like they’re helping, even if no strong evidence for the success of the method can be presented. Just theory.
Then on the flip side, you have BLM, which was able to actually create some change by getting some people elected through mass civic engagement. Some few places actually got some police reform, since the BLM protestors were mostly all peaceful and lawful, and you could sympathize with their cause. And there was a metric shitload of them, that always helps.
The right to a free exchange of ideas includes the right to disagree with protestors without being harmed.
You say this but if I saw someone punch a Nazi, I would cheer and forget who it was if asked by the police.
I don’t see how that has any relevance to the argument. Harming people is already illegal and isn’t being addressed here.
This is a common idea, but its misguided. It requires that you can pressure leadership to change their behaviors by inconveniencing people and/or costing the leadership money, otherwise it has no mechanism for success. This has never really proven to be the case when they have the cheaper alternative of using the law to remove you.
What actually needs to be done is rallying support among the masses themselves for either a paralyzing general strike, or at least a show of voting force that threatens politicians with removal in the next election cycle. Neither of these goals is furthered by simple disruptive protest. A small minority cannot impose their will without first gaining a significant amount of support from the majority, so ultimately, behaviors that are sympathetic to those less politically-engaged will see better success than behaviors that are not.
What actually needs to be done is rallying support among the masses themselves for either a paralyzing general strike, or at least a show of voting force that threatens politicians with removal in the next election cycle. Neither of these goals is furthered by simple disruptive protest.
Protests rally support.
I have been pilloried for being a free-speech absolutist
deliberate disruption, which is not speech
Do you even know what the words “absolute”, and “speech” mean?
bans on encampments, overnight demonstrations, and the use of bullhorns and speakers until after 5 p.m. on class days. Penn also requires that posters and banners be removed within two weeks of going up. The university says it remains committed to freedom of speech and lawful assembly.
This seems entirely reasonable.
No, seriously. What do the words “absolute”, and “speech” mean to you? For that matter, do you even know what “free” means??
Note that the rule about signs applies only to attaching them to publicly-accessible university property. People are free to carry signs or display them in their dorms and on-campus offices.
So people are allowed to protest as long as nobody from the outside world sees it? That’s gonna be super effective! 🤦
For a supposed “free speech absolutist”, you seem to be VERY opposed to people voicing dissent in ways that inconveniences anyone in the slightest.
Allowing protests only on weekdays before 5:00 PM is not reasonable.
But allowing them only AFTER that same time is?
Sounds like you’re exactly as much of a “free speech absolutist” as Elon Musk and everyone else who claim to be one: not at all.
At least your username is (unintentionally?) accurate about you…
Your right to free speech is not infringed if people choose not to listen to you, or if they listen but remain unconvinced. On the contrary, you’re infringing on their rights if you force them to listen, and especially if you attempt to extort them. (I consider “extortion” the right word to describe the behavior of protesters who deliberately cause serious disruptions unless their demands are met.)
Allowing protests only after 5:00 PM is reasonable because protests that take place after courses have ended for the day are less disruptive to the university’s primary goal of educating students. Protesters are still left with plenty of time to express their ideas. Many protesters are going to be upset about this because they want to be disruptive, but that is not their right.
Your right to free speech is not infringed if people choose not to listen to you, or if they listen but remain unconvinced
Nobody claimed anything even close to that. Can you please TRY to argue in good faith rather than immediately trot out the strawmen?
On the contrary, you’re infringing on their rights if you force them to listen
Another strawman, as nobody has said anyone should be forced to listen to anything.
(I consider “extortion” the right word to describe the behavior of protesters who deliberately cause serious disruptions unless their demands are met.)
Wow. Just wow. You REALLY don’t have a fucking clue what extortion OR protest is! 🤦
reasonable because (…) less disruptive
Protests without disruption accomplish nothing. Which is the ACTUAL reason why people who are against protesting want to minimize disruption.
primary goal of educating students
By keeping them and others from hearing anything but the official version about a genocide that they themselves are contributing to economically by refusing to divest?
To paraphrase Nick Fury: you SAY education, but I think you mean the other thing.
Protesters are still left with plenty of time to express their ideas.
As long as they do so at a time and place where aa few people as possible will see or hear them 🙄
Many protesters are going to be upset about this because they want to be disruptive
Because they don’t get noticed without being disruptive and a protest that nobody notices is as useful as tits on a tractor.
but that is not their right.
Their right to express grievances is explicitly addressed in the first amendment of the US constitution. Nowhere does it say “unless it’s inconvenient to people who claim to be for free speech but are more interested in what Martín Luther King referred to as negative peace and Nazis being treated courteously than the rights of protesters and the lives of Palestinians”
Protests are largely only effective if they’re disruptive. That’s kind of the point… a protest you can easily ignore isn’t going to change anything.
And the point isn’t really to gain support, it’s to force change.
Edit: To expand on this, there are much more effective ways to gain support; mainly through community interaction, conversation and education. Which should be seen as separate action vs. protesting.
Edit 2: Upon re-reading my comment I would like to amend my statement that the point is to force “change”. While change is the desired outcome, the point of protests is to force awareness.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but my objection is to the following argument that some people are making:
-
I have the right to protest.
-
My protest isn’t going to be effective unless I am disruptive.
-
Therefore, I have the right to be disruptive.
I’m saying that (3) doesn’t follow from (1) and (2). The right to speak does not imply the right to be heard and obeyed.
While I feel we mostly are in agreement, I have a problem with the verbiage you use. Specifically the idea that the desired outcome is to force the population at large to “obey” protesters.
While no one should be forced to “obey” a protest, the disruption itself is often necessary to make the issues visible and impossible to ignore. It’s not about the right to be heard and obeyed, but about ensuring that the issues at hand cannot be easily dismissed or overlooked. Disruption, when done with purpose, has historically been a critical tool for marginalized groups to bring about the changes that polite appeals often fail to achieve.
Like most “free speech absolutists,” you find all kinds of exceptions.
I seriously doubt you would be so “absolutist” if someone knocked on all of your neighbors’ doors to tell them that you’re a pedophile. Suddenly that whole “everyone has a right to free speech” thing goes away when their lies threaten your livelihood.
