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...