Maryam Alwan figured the worst was over after New York City police in riot gear arrested her and other protesters on the Columbia University campus, loaded them onto buses and held them in custody for hours.

But the next evening, the college junior received an email from the university. Alwan and other students were being suspended after their arrests at the “ Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” a tactic colleges across the country have deployed to calm growing campus protests against the Israel-Hamas war.

The students’ plight has become a central part of protests, with students and a growing number of faculty demanding their amnesty. At issue is whether universities and law enforcement will clear the charges and withhold other consequences, or whether the suspensions and legal records will follow students into their adult lives.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Too many people worship the law as if it was the word of god. They don’t realize we are actually making this shit up as we go, and the laws can be changed at any moment.

        “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”

        Thomas “I fucked Sally Hemings” Jefferson

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The first amendment has absolutely no references to permits. In fact it explicitly says you absolutely do not need anything, and that protests are legally protected free speech.

        You may protest all you want on public or federal land. I know. I routinely tell cops to “fuck off,” because I know where I happen to be standing. I have yet to be arrested for a protest that I attended, and I have never even attempted to get a permit.

        Privately owned property is the only place they can summarily arrest you, and that’s just a trespassing charge.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Technically yes. In reality? Lmao. We’ve seen our first amendment right be abrogated time and again in the last 8 years.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You may protest all you want on public or federal land.

          Not in restricted areas like a military base or halls of congress.

        • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah keep reading. You’re given one fake right and there are 100 other laws. Just because you’re the right shade, telling a cop to F off, is a crime in itself even if they’re completely wrong. Most people would be arrested just for that.

          And that is the entire point. If “the law” is completely discretionary based on the encounter you have with the enforcers and the punishers (police, DA, judges, etc), then you have no rights. Step out of line and you’re in prison.

          The US is a shithole.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Trespassing. You have the right to assembly, but that doesn’t extend to anywhere, any time.

      These protestors could protest on the sidewalk, or get a permit and do a planned protest in a public park, or even work with the city to close roads for a planned march. As long as they kept it peaceful, police would have very little justification to arrest anyone.

      Instead, they are doing it on college campuses, or public roads without permission. And when they are told to leave, they refuse. At that point, you are trespassing, and the police are justified in arresting you.

      Civil disobedience grabs far more attention than protesting legally. We’re here talking about their cause because it made headlines due to civil disobedience. But activism has its costs.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        7 months ago

        Most of these protests are being done in zones designated by the university for protest. They are supposed to be allowed to protest there, as long as it doesn’t disrupt people getting to class and such.

      • RenegadeTwister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Is it tresspassing, though? Not trying to argue with you, to be clear. They’re students paying tuition and housing fees. I guess I could see that arguement if they weren’t students. Though I agree, civil disobedience and disrupting the status quo is the only way to get people to take notice and do anything.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Unless it’s your place of residence, you are always trespassing if the owner (or employees acting on the owners behalf) tells you to leave.

          Paying tuition doesn’t give you unfettered access to the school.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Freedom of assembly and speech apply to public schools since 55 years ago from the Tinker descion.

            • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Public school rules don’t generally apply to universities. Though there is a constitutional right present due to most schools being government or quasi-government actors and college campuses being traditional public forums (again, very generally), the exercise of some rights are more broadly interpreted while other are more narrowly interpreted.

            • Wrench@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Afaik, universities are private. Specifically, Columbia University is definitely private.

              And the ruling you’re talking about has a lot of restrictions which wouldn’t apply here anyway.

              You can’t discriminate against cause. If you allow one protest to give speeches in the Quad, I suppose you would be required to give other causes equal access to the Quad.

              These students created an encampment, which goes beyond past permitted protests at that university, afaik. I doubt university admin would allow that under any circumstances, even if they agree with the cause, because it sets a dangerous precedent.

              But, again, this is a private university. These rules do not apply.

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          They’re students paying tuition and housing fees.

          Are they? When I was in college, I don’t think I ever saw somebody from college demonstrate, it always was someone from the outside who relied on the fact that universities allowed it.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, it is not. It is the accurate term describing the legal justification that the police need to legally remove the protestors from the premises.

          So many of the replies around this topic live in the clouds. There’s a reason protestors are being forcibly removed. People should understand the nuances of free speech and freedom of assembly. Choosing to disobey is taking on risk to your well-being.

          These are facts. This is not commentary on whether the protestors are “right” or “wrong”. But we should all know the risks they are taking for doing so, and understand when the universities and police are actually overstepping their authority.

          • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            You’re replying to people who can’t believe the injustice of these laws by explaining that the laws are legal. No consensus will be reached; these are two completely different perspectives. Personally, I think laws, being a made up construct, should generally promote positive behavior like stopping genocide, so I easily side with the protesters and commenters here expressing indignation alongside them.

            The legality argument also ignores the police tradition of breaking the law while shutting down protests just because they can get away with it.

            • Wrench@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              The legality argument also ignores the police tradition of breaking the law while shutting down protests just because they can get away with it.

              And that’s precisely why it is so important to keep the legality of specific actions in mind while evaluating the actions of both the protestors, and the police, while having the conversation on protests and the responses such as these.

              This conversation is the result of a direct reply to yet another comment indicating a lack of understanding of what is legal when protesting in the USA.

              The morality of both the protestors and the authorities is far more subjective. But I keep seeing the same basic question “I thought it was legal to protest in the USA, how can they arrest them?”, so clarifying the boundaries of your rights is a good starting point, IMO. And frankly, bears repeating due to how frequently this is misunderstood and misrepresented.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If the police can just tell you to leave then you don’t actually have a right to protest.

      • lefixxx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        If the only legal way to protest is to do it alone in a field then the legality of the protest is a moot point. Protesting is about the public getting heard and the cost is to productivity. The cost shouldn’t be an arrest record and stigma. This isn’t because two or three assholes are disrupting a campus. Students are getting arrested in dozens. Professors are getting arrested too. What the colleges and universities are doing against their own students is unacceptable.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are so many felonies in this country you basically commit a few every day by accident.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You can look it up, the federal code has over 5,200 crimes and that was over 2 years ago last I could find that someone counted. The average person unwittingly commits over 2 felonies a day.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s a tactic to break the protest, scare the protesters into compliance. Arrest them all, haul them off to jail. Ruin their futures. Then drop charges since they do have the right to protest, but now they won’t anymore

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      7 months ago

      Do we not have the right to protest?

      No. Be sure to vote for Democrats to keep the fascism away in power.

      • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        When people were protesting unarmed black people getting murdered in 2020; Donald publicly told police to rough them up during arrests, sent out DHS in unmarked vans to snatch people off the streets, tear gassed a group of protesters so he could hold his little Bible upside down. There’s probably a bunch I am forgetting, it was a long fucking year.

        That was the same year his dimwitted response to the pandemic caused tens or hundreds of thousands more deaths than otherwise.

        He committed an insurrection. You want Repubs in power forever telling cops to beat the shit out of not only protestors, but voters? Go ahead with it.