This is a strawman. Of course there is free speech. It doesn't mean it's okay to talk on the phone in a cinema or recite the Bible aloud during a math lecture. It doesn't mean it's fair play to shout obscenities on the train and spit on people. Idk about US but there is a thing called "verbal abuse" and police is 100% callable for that. That out of the way so how about hostile environment for students again? I was downvoted for asking a question and this did not answer it.

▲

hackyhacky 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Shouting obscenities on the train, as well as hate speech broadly, are constitutionally protected under the first amendment.

Creating a hostile environment for students based on their religion would violate the Civil Rights Act. However, there is a paucity of evidence that the universities did that. Allowing protests probably isn't sufficient, especially when prohibiting those same protests would be unconstitutional.

Even if the protesting students were spitting on Jewish students, that doesn't impact the legality of the protest. The spitting could be prosecuted as battery.

I recommend reading this [1] great article about the sometimes confusing rhetoric used in the media about American free speech.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220313175157/http://popehat.co...

▲

throwaway290 4 days ago | parent [-]

Okay so if I get it correctly they could be kicked out like in the cinema or not, because like I assume regardless of free speech there are rules, but this "cinema" cannot be prosecuted by US gov for NOT kicking a noisy jerk out of it because then it becomes a free speech thing. If taking away grants counts as prosecution? I guess that makes sense.

▲

lupusreal 4 days ago | parent [-]

State schools like UCLA cannot restrict speech in the same way that private organizations could, because they are part of the government. The cinema analogy is therefore spurious.

▲

davrosthedalek 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Honest question on this: It is clear that first amendment protects the rights of protesters from persecution by the government. But does that mean that the government would need to endure protests in any federal building at any time?

If not, I think you could make a case that UCLA could kick protesters out, for example if they take over a building. In contrast to a private university, they probably couldn't act on what the protesters do outside of the university. But I do think that they must have some regulatory power on campus.

	▲	hackyhacky 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> But does that mean that the government would need to endure protests in any federal building at any time? No. It means that the university cannot censor protests based on their content. They can certainly require protesters to get a permit, to stay within certain areas, to act within usual behavior parameters. > If not, I think you could make a case that UCLA could kick protesters out, for example if they take over a building. Of course. But that's not the claim made by the administration.

▲

throwaway290 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh right. I forgot not all unis are private in the US. Then it makes more sende...

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I was downvoted for asking a question and this did not answer it.

I am 100% sure your comment was downvoted for this sentence:

> I'm not in the US but I heard pretty interesting things about what was happening in universities following Oct 7.

People here don’t like propaganda-fueled speculation. The commenter also literally answered your question. You asked if it was meant to be implied as false and they said yes.

▲

throwaway290 3 days ago | parent [-]

I was not reading propaganda and he did not answer the question. I will make it shorter to make it very clear. The question: "hostile environment for students?" the answer: "free speech, cudgel, fealty". I get it and I agree wit all of that. But it is answer to some other question that was more convenient to the "answerer"

	▲	lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I was not reading propaganda I don’t doubt this but it’s also easy to read the comment as though that’s where your thoughts originate. > But it is answer to some other question that was more convenient to the "answerer" I disagree on the question being unanswered, however; you did not ask for details but instead for confirmation. I am saying this with the intention to be helpful; I am not intending to criticize your arguments. My point is simply that you did not communicate your thoughts as effectively as you seem to believe.