Campus Rallys and freedom of Speech

[NotInRHouse]

Unfortunately or not, that's protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court made that clear over half a century ago in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that the KKK can't be punished for what they advocate. The Court ruled that advocacy can be forbidden only when it (1) it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The key word is "imminent."

Again, I'm not saying this is right of wrong. I'm just telling you the state of the law. As I said above, the First Amendment protects a lot of vile speech. That means Rutgers can't punish it. Rutgers can punish violation of its time, place and manner rules, e.g. prohibitions on disrupting classes or libraries, but it can't punish based on the content of the speech unless the Brandenburg test is met.

Idk how more people don't understand this...or that the same people who say RU can ban this and that group say Twitter can't remove posts...education around these issues is incredibly poor. These are things I learned in HS. Granted AP history...but Skokie and Sullivan should be mandatory.

 

[NotInRHouse]

1 and 2 in your post are complete lies. Is this a satire post?

No they're not. At least in the information I've seen, they disrupted a class- which is why they correctly were punished- and they basically think Israel shouldn't exist....which is an opinion held by some Jewish groups. It is an opinion absolutely protected by the 1A.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Is Liberty U blocking those things from happening in public places? If so it is a 1A infringement.

Wearing a Kefiyah is protected by 1A. It’s claiming support for terrorists but it is permitted by law. Wearing them along with another actions for the purpose of intimidating and threatening Jews is not protected by 1 A and a civil rights violation. It especially is when it is done with the explicit purpose of intimidating Jews.

Yeah. For example if you go to Liberty (or BYU or others) you can be punished for violations of moral codes. For example, kissing in public. Certainly any same sex conduct. Dancing at Liberty,. Caffeine at BYU. All not protected by 1A. At a public school, absolutely protected.

A direct threat is not permitted and that isn't what they did. Saying that Israel shouldn't exist is a 1A protected opinion. If someone says Quebec should be independent, or Scotland, or Catalonia, is that anti Canadian/English/Spanish bias? How about Calexit and Texit? Puerto Rican independence?

Where did they say they want to intimidate Jews or anyone else? It seems quite likely having graduated RU myself that there would be many Jewish students that would take a very skeptical eye (like most American Jews at this point and probably most Americans generally) towards the conduct of the current Israeli government which has something like a 15% approval rating in Israel itself.

 

[RUBOB72]

So much hate and racism from a number of Rutgers students.

I’m surprised nj.com hadn’t picked up on the vile hate yet

Surprised that NJ.com hardly mentioned it ? Surprised that MSM accepts this as ok . Who is to say those 3 protestors shown are actual Rutgers students?

 

[NealPageNJ]

No they're not. At least in the information I've seen, they disrupted a class- which is why they correctly were punished- and they basically think Israel shouldn't exist....which is an opinion held by some Jewish groups. It is an opinion absolutely protected by the 1A.

Your points are total lies. And yes it is protected by 1A. Still doesn’t mean you’re not lying with your claims.

 

[NealPageNJ]

Yeah. For example if you go to Liberty (or BYU or others) you can be punished for violations of moral codes. For example, kissing in public. Certainly any same sex conduct. Dancing at Liberty,. Caffeine at BYU. All not protected by 1A. At a public school, absolutely protected.

A direct threat is not permitted and that isn't what they did. Saying that Israel shouldn't exist is a 1A protected opinion. If someone says Quebec should be independent, or Scotland, or Catalonia, is that anti Canadian/English/Spanish bias? How about Calexit and Texit? Puerto Rican independence?

Where did they say they want to intimidate Jews or anyone else? It seems quite likely having graduated RU myself that there would be many Jewish students that would take a very skeptical eye (like most American Jews at this point and probably most Americans generally) towards the conduct of the current Israeli government which has something like a 15% approval rating in Israel itself.

How is any of that a 1A violation? Do Liberty and BYU represent government?

You’re purposely pretending to not know what was said and intended.

“Most American Jews”. Holy moly you’re totally lost in this topic trying to use approval ratings. It’s probably better you stay away from the topic.

 

[RUBOB72]

Yup. All this makes one wonder what is happening on college campuses like Rutgers where students and staff are conducting themselves these ways. I find the most shocking part the staff.

College staffs and history has documented unrest and protests at Rutgers since at least the 60’s. Some of the worst anti protest actors included those who attended Rutgers .

 

[NealPageNJ]

No they're not. At least in the information I've seen, they disrupted a class- which is why they correctly were punished- and they basically think Israel shouldn't exist....which is an opinion held by some Jewish groups. It is an opinion absolutely protected by the 1A.

You may want to actually watch the video with the demands

Demanding Rutgers calls for a ceasefire without including Hamas surrender and claiming a war of self defense as “genocide” when Hamas has claimed over and over again the will perpetrate Oct 7 events again and again is calling for more Israeli deaths.

Demanding Rutgers end a partnership with Tel Aviv University is antisemetic. Do you hear calls for the same in other areas of the world? Why not?

It is well known this group has been found to target and harass Jewish students at Rutgers. Especially at the Hillel house and have chosen classes with Jewish student leaders to disrupt.

I can not believe in 2024 we have someone defending this.

I agree that much of this speech is 1A protected. But it probably isn’t within the code of conduct and university policy. You know if any of this free speech replaced Israel or Jews with a number of other identities the response would be very different and free speech would not even be considered.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

You may want to actually watch the video with the demands

Demanding Rutgers calls for a ceasefire without including Hamas surrender and claiming a war of self defense as “genocide” when Hamas has claimed over and over again the will perpetrate Oct 7 events again and again is calling for more Israeli deaths.

Demanding Rutgers end a partnership with Tel Aviv University is antisemetic. Do you hear calls for the same in other areas of the world? Why not?

It is well known this group has been found to target and harass Jewish students at Rutgers. Especially at the Hillel house and have chosen classes with Jewish student leaders to disrupt.

I can not believe in 2024 we have someone defending this.

I agree that much of this speech is 1A protected. But it probably isn’t within the code of conduct and university policy. You know if any of this free speech replaced Israel or Jews with a number of other identities the response would be very different and free speech would not even be considered.

NutHouse is a well known bigot

 

[jaydogsmooth1]

How so? They likely have Jewish members.

The group on video?

 

[retired711]

[snip]

I agree that much of this speech is 1A protected. But it probably isn’t within the code of conduct and university policy. You know if any of this free speech replaced Israel or Jews with a number of other identities the response would be very different and free speech would not even be considered.

Keep in mind that if the speech is protected by the First Amendment, then it can't be punished by Rutgers no matter what its code of conduct says. That is what it means to be protected by the First Amendment. And the identity of the group at which the speech is aimed does not matter in determining whether it is protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

The group is spreading disinformation and is “a threat to our Democracy “

 

[NotInRHouse]

How is any of that a 1A violation? Do Liberty and BYU represent government?

You’re purposely pretending to not know what was said and intended.

“Most American Jews”. Holy moly you’re totally lost in this topic trying to use approval ratings. It’s probably better you stay away from the topic.

That is my point, You are the one conflating private and public.

Sorry that most people are not following the Israeli government narrative as blared by RW US media.

 

[NotInRHouse]

You may want to actually watch the video with the demands

Demanding Rutgers calls for a ceasefire without including Hamas surrender and claiming a war of self defense as “genocide” when Hamas has claimed over and over again the will perpetrate Oct 7 events again and again is calling for more Israeli deaths.

Demanding Rutgers end a partnership with Tel Aviv University is antisemetic. Do you hear calls for the same in other areas of the world? Why not?

It is well known this group has been found to target and harass Jewish students at Rutgers. Especially at the Hillel house and have chosen classes with Jewish student leaders to disrupt.

I can not believe in 2024 we have someone defending this.

I agree that much of this speech is 1A protected. But it probably isn’t within the code of conduct and university policy. You know if any of this free speech replaced Israel or Jews with a number of other identities the response would be very different and free speech would not even be considered.

LOL.

You literally have hostage families in Israel demanding a ceasefire. Are they antisemitic?

Yes. There are calls all the time for schools to not cooperate with foreign states. For example, GOP debates mentioned the Confucius Institutes on college campuses and disbanding them. Does that mean they hate all Chinese people, or the Chinese government?

Where is the evidence of the targeting?

I CAN believe in 2024 we have anyone criticizing Israel with the exact words you hear everyday from Israelis as antisemitic from the people who have nothing to say about ACTUAL antisemitism from Charlottesville to Elon to Kanye and their enablers for obvious reasons. And I can further believe they'd mangle the 1A to get there.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The group on video?

Yes

 

[jaydogsmooth1]

Yes

I would be shocked if any of them were indeed Jewish

 

[DJ Spanky]

In announcing the end of its suspension, the group issued demands including that Rutgers divest its endowment from Israeli bonds and companies “upholding Israeli settler-colonialism, apartheid, and genocide.” The group also demanded that Rutgers end its affiliation with Tel Aviv University and protect Palestinian students when they exercise their political rights. It called on President Jonathan Holloway to publicly acknowledge the genocide against the Palestinians, advocate for a ceasefire, and that the university hire more professors specializing in Palestine and create a department of Middle East Studies.

Let them say their part, and show their face.

That is what differentiates these students from others. You want to make these demands and say these file things, fine, do it without hiding your identity.

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

That is what differentiates these students from others. You want to make these demands and say these file things, fine, do it without hiding your identity.

They are Cowards

 

[NealPageNJ]

LOL.

You literally have hostage families in Israel demanding a ceasefire. Are they antisemitic?

Yes. There are calls all the time for schools to not cooperate with foreign states. For example, GOP debates mentioned the Confucius Institutes on college campuses and disbanding them. Does that mean they hate all Chinese people, or the Chinese government?

Where is the evidence of the targeting?

I CAN believe in 2024 we have anyone criticizing Israel with the exact words you hear everyday from Israelis as antisemitic from the people who have nothing to say about ACTUAL antisemitism from Charlottesville to Elon to Kanye and their enablers for obvious reasons. And I can further believe they'd mangle the 1A to get there.

Sir/Madam,

I’m not sure if you find it fun to be a bigot on social media or just lack general intellect. You should be able to understand the difference between Israeli parents pressuring the government to work out a deal to remove family from a hostage circumstances and another group who are calling for a ceasefire in the name of “apartheid, colonial” Israel while encouraging “decolonization” by the means of a terrorist organization. These two positions are not close to equal and your false equivalence is, for a lack of better words either dumb, hateful or both.

As for the requested evidence, you can look into the lawsuits filed. No, I’m not finding links and posting them. You may also want to follow up with members of the Rutgers Hillel and their family. Student leaders have been targeted, targeted in classes. Not to mention the public calls for “intifada, intifada revolution.” In front of Hillel without approval. Imagine if a group “protested” with chants “lynch, lynch, uprising.” It would be interesting to see where your reliance on 1A would fall.

There are plenty of people who do have things to say about what you listed. Your attempt at a classical defection, “well what about ……., means this doesn’t count.” Your bigotry is on full display in the message board. It is poor form mate.

 

[RUBOB72]

This poster seldom posts anything related to actual Rutgers sports except topics relating to racism ,anti religion, Jan.6th, and oddly only takes the (moral) viewpoint of guess what side of the aisle? He is as biased as the day is long. Yes he is vile and has never been willing to debate anything where a common agreement could be possible.

 

[NealPageNJ]

This poster seldom posts anything related to actual Rutgers sports except topics relating to racism ,anti religion, Jan.6th, and oddly only takes the (moral) viewpoint of guess what side of the aisle? He is as biased as the day is long. Yes he is vile and has never been willing to debate anything where a common agreement could be possible.

Thank you for the info. I wasn’t sure if the posts were satire or just trolling. I was not aware of the history of previous posts. Probably better to ignore going forward

 

[RUBOB72]

Reading his postings is like the ancient beliefs in the Pagan God of fertility BAAL. The belief in an all new world … an all inclusive society … all new thinkings on climate… what should or shouldn’t be consumed… this run by factions of world wide elitists group. Hello Davos .

 

[RUBOB72]

Thank you for the info. I wasn’t sure if the posts were satire or just trolling. I was not aware of the history of previous posts. Probably better to ignore going forward

I have him on ignore for quite sometime now .

 

[retired711]

I've been participating only to make sure everyone understands that the Constitution greatly restricts Rutgers in how much it can do about pro-Palestinian protesters. But I do want to make plain that I am offended by calls for the destruction of Israel (and that is what "from the river to the sea" means, although apparently not all protesters realize it) and support, tacit or express, for Hamas terrorism. I say this even though a lot of Israeli policy bothers me. There may be a theoretical distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism (opposition to the existence of Israel); but in practice they are the same: there are seven million Jews in Israel, all of whom would be murdered, expelled, or oppressed if Israel were destroyed, and certainly it is hard to imagine a much more anti-Semitic result.

 

[NealPageNJ]

I've been participating only to make sure everyone understands that the Constitution greatly restricts Rutgers in how much it can do about pro-Palestinian protesters. But I do want to make plain that I am offended by calls for the destruction of Israel (and that is what "from the river to the sea" means, although apparently not all protesters realize it) and support, tacit or express, for Hamas terrorism. I say this even though a lot of Israeli policy bothers me. There may be a theoretical distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism (opposition to the existence of Israel); but in practice they are the same: there are seven million Jews in Israel, all of whom would be murdered, expelled, or oppressed if Israel were destroyed, and certainly it is hard to imagine a much more anti-Semitic result.

Your post is one of the first I have seen that is able to summarize the vast complications of these circumstances. I agree that much of this is protected by free speech. It just needs to be applied equally. I’ll add that I really believed a two state solution was possible and necessary until about 5 weeks ago. I understand there are some extreme Israelis. But it sure looks like the large majority of those in Gaza and those who call themselves Palestinians have no interest in peace. The more I see, the more it seems they believe they have been fighting this war for a century and they will continue to fight until Israel no longer exists. This is the cause that we see on college campuses. I don’t know the answer here. The people of Gaza also deserve some support after this war to rebuilt their infrastructure and as a society. But how do you do that and make sure the funds don’t just lead to an entire terrorist state again? The US or Israel would have to occupy the area during the rebuild. Schools will need to be built. It will look like colonialism to those that hate Israel. The more I see the more I believe it will just go back to attacks in Israel and then return attacks from Israel. A cycle of violence that nobody has been able to end for centuries.

 

[RUBOB72]

This hate has been ongoing for not decades but several thousand years. It festers and is troubling …it is unending and for some strange reason is supported now by nations who claim they wish an all inclusive society.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I would be shocked if any of them were indeed Jewish

Prepare to be shocked.

When I was a student there was a group of Hasidic folks that stood across from the Grease Trucks waving Palestinian flags.

 

[NotInRHouse]

That is what differentiates these students from others. You want to make these demands and say these file things, fine, do it without hiding your identity.

Anonymous speech is specifically protected by the Constitution. This point was made when it was recently suggested that everyone have to identify themselves online with their full real name a la China.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Sir/Madam,

I’m not sure if you find it fun to be a bigot on social media or just lack general intellect. You should be able to understand the difference between Israeli parents pressuring the government to work out a deal to remove family from a hostage circumstances and another group who are calling for a ceasefire in the name of “apartheid, colonial” Israel while encouraging “decolonization” by the means of a terrorist organization. These two positions are not close to equal and your false equivalence is, for a lack of better words either dumb, hateful or both.

As for the requested evidence, you can look into the lawsuits filed. No, I’m not finding links and posting them. You may also want to follow up with members of the Rutgers Hillel and their family. Student leaders have been targeted, targeted in classes. Not to mention the public calls for “intifada, intifada revolution.” In front of Hillel without approval. Imagine if a group “protested” with chants “lynch, lynch, uprising.” It would be interesting to see where your reliance on 1A would fall.

There are plenty of people who do have things to say about what you listed. Your attempt at a classical defection, “well what about ……., means this doesn’t count.” Your bigotry is on full display in the message board. It is poor form mate.

Where are these individuals at RU specifically supporting Hamas?

Where is in the in the Constitution that speech is protected based on the nationality of the speaker?

The lawsuit that I am aware of deals with a law student at Newark.

To compare chanting "intifada" or Arabic for "struggle" to lynching is absolutely ridiculous, only surpassed by your refusal to provide evidence of any contention.

Supporting the 1A is never bigoted.

OTOH declaring anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government, when that includes most Israelis, most Americans, most American Jews, and basically most people globally, is anti-Semitic...is pure bigotry.

Also bigoted: insisting "very fine people" attend a rally where chants of "Jews will not replace us" are made, but students calling for divestment from Israel is anti-Semitic. Same for supporting Kanye and Elon, but then insisting a group on the New Brunswick campus are responsible for alleged acts at Newark.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I have him on ignore for quite sometime now .

Oh no. Someone who believes "Reefer Madness" doesn't like me. How will I go on?

 

[NotInRHouse]

I've been participating only to make sure everyone understands that the Constitution greatly restricts Rutgers in how much it can do about pro-Palestinian protesters. But I do want to make plain that I am offended by calls for the destruction of Israel (and that is what "from the river to the sea" means, although apparently not all protesters realize it) and support, tacit or express, for Hamas terrorism. I say this even though a lot of Israeli policy bothers me. There may be a theoretical distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism (opposition to the existence of Israel); but in practice they are the same: there are seven million Jews in Israel, all of whom would be murdered, expelled, or oppressed if Israel were destroyed, and certainly it is hard to imagine a much more anti-Semitic result.

This is not what is happening at RU, at least evidenced here, though it may have occured elsewhere. That said, the fact that people are now attributing what happens at the Newark law school to NB undergrads really explains the media frenzy and why we have the 1A.

There are Jews, for example, the Neturei Karta, that don't believe Israel should exist. But we've skipped beyond them to the point that now calling for cease fire- as notable ex-kibbutz resident Bernie Sanders has done- is anti-Semitic. Calling for what the parents of hostages themselves call for now is anti-Semitic. It's obscene.

It's the same thing we dealt with after 9/11 and yet people rush into the exact same mistakes. Step 1 always beinbg trash the Constitution, or "terminate" it in their parlance. So thanks for your commentary as it is desperately needed.

 

[retired711]

This is not what is happening at RU, at least evidenced here, though it may have occured elsewhere. That said, the fact that people are now attributing what happens at the Newark law school to NB undergrads really explains the media frenzy and why we have the 1A.

There are Jews, for example, the Neturei Karta, that don't believe Israel should exist. But we've skipped beyond them to the point that now calling for cease fire- as notable ex-kibbutz resident Bernie Sanders has done- is anti-Semitic. Calling for what the parents of hostages themselves call for now is anti-Semitic. It's obscene.

It's the same thing we dealt with after 9/11 and yet people rush into the exact same mistakes. Step 1 always beinbg trash the Constitution, or "terminate" it in their parlance. So thanks for your commentary as it is desperately needed.

The Neturei Karta are a tiny (and I mean *tiny*) fraction of Jews. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many more than them. May I add that there is a huge difference between what pro-Palestinian protesters are asking for and what the parents of hostages are asking for. The latter aren't chanting "from the river to the sea."

 

[NotInRHouse]

The Neturei Karta are a tiny (and I mean *tiny*) fraction of Jews. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many more than them. May I add that there is a huge difference between what pro-Palestinian protesters are asking for and what the parents of hostages are asking for. The latter aren't chanting "from the river to the sea."

For sure, but the 1A is specifically there to protect minority, no matter how tiny, opinions.

I also don't think we can paint protesters with one brush. I think it strains credulity to believe Jewish Voices for Peace wants to destroy Jews, for example. A lot of people on "both sides" don't know what their words mean half the time. Though they're still protected.

 

[retired711]

For sure, but the 1A is specifically there to protect minority, no matter how tiny, opinions.

I also don't think we can paint protesters with one brush. I think it strains credulity to believe Jewish Voices for Peace wants to destroy Jews, for example. A lot of people on "both sides" don't know what their words mean half the time. Though they're still protected.

I have made plain that I think that anti-Israel speech (as opposed to conduct) is protected by the First Amendment, and I have explained why. So I don't think there's a need for you to cite the First Amendment in replying to me.

Like Neutrei Katra, JVP is a fringe group among Jews Its use of a "peace name" rather than a name that acknowledges its anti-Israel stance is indicative.

Edit: it's very important to keep separate the questions of whether speech is protected by the First Amendment and whether that speech is good, for instance, Westboro Baptist's speech is protected, but no one should agree with its message.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I have made plain that I think that anti-Israel speech (as opposed to conduct) is protected by the First Amendment, and I have explained why. So I don't think there's a need for you to cite the First Amendment in replying to me.

Like Neutrei Katra, JVP is a fringe group among Jews Its use of a "peace name" rather than a name that acknowledges its anti-Israel stance is indicative.

Edit: it's very important to keep separate the questions of whether speech is protected by the First Amendment and whether that speech is good, for instance, Westboro Baptist's speech is protected, but no one should agree with its message.

No doubt, and I know you understand but clearly others in the thread do not. My point is that 1) minority speech in particular, no matter how unpopular, is protected and 2) that even if a group is small, I really doubt people, even small groups, call for their own destruction.

But then again, we have people saying even calling for a ceasefire, which Israelis and the only Senator who ever lived in Israel call for, so, I am sure someone will claim they want to destroy themselves or something like that.

The difference IMO w a group like Westboro (who still protected in their speech if they exist) is that they were quite obviously just trying to cause hurt to absolute strangers on some of the darkest days of their lives. This type of in person trolling, at best, is still protected as in Skokie case which was the same idea. It's different from what a lot of the protests on this issue, where on both sides, people seem to be protesting in prominent areas like Times Square versus choosing the neighborhoods of people they think will be most emotionally hurt. I personally don't think, at least in the American context, that most people want an entire religion or ethnicity destroyed, even if a handful of people on both sides at these events made comments like that. The fact that perhaps the most pro-Palestinian politician in America is Jewish scrambles the line that a lot of people want to unfortunately draw.

 

[retired711]

No doubt, and I know you understand but clearly others in the thread do not. My point is that 1) minority speech in particular, no matter how unpopular, is protected and 2) that even if a group is small, I really doubt people, even small groups, call for their own destruction.

But then again, we have people saying even calling for a ceasefire, which Israelis and the only Senator who ever lived in Israel call for, so, I am sure someone will claim they want to destroy themselves or something like that.

The difference IMO w a group like Westboro (who still protected in their speech if they exist) is that they were quite obviously just trying to cause hurt to absolute strangers on some of the darkest days of their lives. This type of in person trolling, at best, is still protected as in Skokie case which was the same idea. It's different from what a lot of the protests on this issue, where on both sides, people seem to be protesting in prominent areas like Times Square versus choosing the neighborhoods of people they think will be most emotionally hurt. I personally don't think, at least in the American context, that most people want an entire religion or ethnicity destroyed, even if a handful of people on both sides at these events made comments like that. The fact that perhaps the most pro-Palestinian politician in America is Jewish scrambles the line that a lot of people want to unfortunately draw.

You think Bernie Sanders is "the most pro-Palestinian politician in America?" Have you ever heard of Rashada Tlaib, for instance?? There is no comparison between what he says and what she says -- she is a "from the river to the sea" advocate, and that position is irreconcilable with the existence of Israel

You say that Westboro is "still protected in their speech if they exist." Do you doubt they exist??

I agree that people calling for a cease-fire aren't all anti-Semitic; at this point, probably most aren't. That still leaves more than a handful who advocate destroying Israel, and thus dooming seven million Jews to death, expulsion, or oppression. That is an anti-Semitic position no matter who takes it. It is a position protected by the First Amendment (which, as I've stressed from the beginning, protects all manner of vile speech), but it is still wrong.

 

[NotInRHouse]

You think Bernie Sanders is "the most pro-Palestinian politician in America?" Have you ever heard of Rashada Tlaib, for instance?? There is no comparison between what he says and what she says -- she is a "from the river to the sea" advocate, and that position is irreconcilable with the existence of Israel

You say that Westboro is "still protected in their speech if they exist." Do you doubt they exist??

I agree that people calling for a cease-fire aren't all anti-Semitic; at this point, probably most aren't. That still leaves more than a handful who advocate destroying Israel, and thus dooming seven million Jews to death, expulsion, or oppression. That is an anti-Semitic position no matter who takes it. It is a position protected by the First Amendment (which, as I've stressed from the beginning, protects all manner of vile speech), but it is still wrong.

If Westboro still exists today....have you heard about them recently? Last I did was when they came to RU as I mentioned earlier.

Isn't Tlaib a big ally of Bernie? And, I could have missed it, but I didn't see a House effort to condition funding for Israel, which Bernie led. From what I understand, Tlaib has support from Jewish constituents in her district. Their understanding of those terms may not be the same as others.

Even taking Neturei Karta or Jewish Voices for Peace as a minorities, do you really think they are anti-Semitic? It's counter-intuitive to say the least. I think what they'd say is they want people to be able to live where they wish regardless of their faith and to have free movement regardless. Perhaps a pipe dream. But not a hateful one. Maybe a binational state, or one state for two people where everyone has the same political rights. But calling for people to die, by those groups, I don't see it.

I think that if there was a death threat element to it, it would change the 1A analysis. You have to look at the intent of the speaker, and I wouldn't put those groups in the same bucket as someone who openly praises and justifies Hamas, which would be totally wrong. Much like I wouldn't instantly assume that someone who considers themselves a strong supporter of Israel justifies Ben Gvir and other Kahanists, radical settlers, or the death or forced relocation of Gazans.

 

[NealPageNJ]

Where are these individuals at RU specifically supporting Hamas?

Where is in the in the Constitution that speech is protected based on the nationality of the speaker?

The lawsuit that I am aware of deals with a law student at Newark.

To compare chanting "intifada" or Arabic for "struggle" to lynching is absolutely ridiculous, only surpassed by your refusal to provide evidence of any contention.

Supporting the 1A is never bigoted.

OTOH declaring anyone who disagrees with the Israeli government, when that includes most Israelis, most Americans, most American Jews, and basically most people globally, is anti-Semitic...is pure bigotry.

Also bigoted: insisting "very fine people" attend a rally where chants of "Jews will not replace us" are made, but students calling for divestment from Israel is anti-Semitic. Same for supporting Kanye and Elon, but then insisting a group on the New Brunswick campus are responsible for alleged acts at Newark.

Plenty of students and staff supporting the position of Hamas. Now you need a list?

It doesn’t. Not sure what the point is here.

Lawsuit, Title IV complaint and OCR complaint. Plenty to read there.

Try to pretend “intifada” means struggle is false. Simple application of context clues explain. “Intifada” is a reference to terrorist attacks with the goal of destroying Israel. “Globalize the Intifada” , “Intifada Revolution.” It’s pretty easy to understand what it means and who is being threatened.

Disagreeing with the Israeli government is not bigotry. You’re pretending that’s all that is happening. You’re posturing with claiming so much support for those who are against Israel.

Why do you keep bringing up the right wing antisemitism? Every poster I have seen here, including me acknowledges it as wrong. It seems you’re trying to use it to justify your position of bigotry. Right wing and left wing bigotry is unacceptable. How many times does it need to be acknowledged for you?

Rutgers has a antisemitism problem right now. As so many campuses. And it is embedded in left side ideology. It needs to be addressed. These facts seem to upset you. I don’t know why you are so committed to defending this hate. You do you. But you keep putting it out there for the world to see.

 

[NealPageNJ]

If Westboro still exists today....have you heard about them recently? Last I did was when they came to RU as I mentioned earlier.

Isn't Tlaib a big ally of Bernie? And, I could have missed it, but I didn't see a House effort to condition funding for Israel, which Bernie led. From what I understand, Tlaib has support from Jewish constituents in her district. Their understanding of those terms may not be the same as others.

Even taking Neturei Karta or Jewish Voices for Peace as a minorities, do you really think they are anti-Semitic? It's counter-intuitive to say the least. I think what they'd say is they want people to be able to live where they wish regardless of their faith and to have free movement regardless. Perhaps a pipe dream. But not a hateful one. Maybe a binational state, or one state for two people where everyone has the same political rights. But calling for people to die, by those groups, I don't see it.

I think that if there was a death threat element to it, it would change the 1A analysis. You have to look at the intent of the speaker, and I wouldn't put those groups in the same bucket as someone who openly praises and justifies Hamas, which would be totally wrong. Much like I wouldn't instantly assume that someone who considers themselves a strong supporter of Israel justifies Ben Gvir and other Kahanists, radical settlers, or the death or forced relocation of Gazans.

What’s happening at Rutgers and college campuses is not just about criticizing the government of Israel. This is not Rutgers. It’s Stanford. Same themes but more direct here.



And no, it doesn’t mean right wing bigotry should be acceptable because of this stuff. And I do agree, much of this is 1A protected. But also against codes of conduct. And we all know if Jews and Israel were replaced with many other terms there would be action. That in itself is an issue.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Plenty of students and staff supporting the position of Hamas. Now you need a list?

It doesn’t. Not sure what the point is here.

Lawsuit, Title IV complaint and OCR complaint. Plenty to read there.

Try to pretend “intifada” means struggle is false. Simple application of context clues explain. “Intifada” is a reference to terrorist attacks with the goal of destroying Israel. “Globalize the Intifada” , “Intifada Revolution.” It’s pretty easy to understand what it means and who is being threatened.

Disagreeing with the Israeli government is not bigotry. You’re pretending that’s all that is happening. You’re posturing with claiming so much support for those who are against Israel.

Why do you keep bringing up the right wing antisemitism? Every poster I have seen here, including me acknowledges it as wrong. It seems you’re trying to use it to justify your position of bigotry. Right wing and left wing bigotry is unacceptable. How many times does it need to be acknowledged for you?

Rutgers has a antisemitism problem right now. As so many campuses. And it is embedded in left side ideology. It needs to be addressed. These facts seem to upset you. I don’t know why you are so committed to defending this hate. You do you. But you keep putting it out there for the world to see.

You keep saying lawsuit and investigation...those are *all* at Newark. You are comparing a situation at New Brunswick with absolutely no evidence.

You then read into what you want without evidence.

New Brunswick does not have, and never has had, such a problem.

If your next response isn't proof at New Brunswick, it's a full and total admission.

I am sorry that these facts upset you.

It's further a fact that anti-Semitism is *entirely* a right wing problem in the American context.

Leaders of the American left are Bernie Sanders, a former kibbutz resident. The Senate Majority Leader. The governor of Colorado. Countless House members, including nearly every major right wing bete noir (Schiff, Wasserman Schultz).

The leader of the American right
'
'1) Sat for dinner with two of the most notorious American anti-Semites
2) Claimed a protest where "Jew will not replace us" was shouted included "very fine people" (Oh, and pretty please include in your response that it's a hoax. Surely you can tell us the name of a "very fine person" who left in disgust after those chants, right?
3) Claimed Hezbollah was "smart"
4) Told a group of American Jews about "your prime minister." Gee, as an American, I never thought I had one.
5) Had his supporters waving Confederate flags and wearing a "Camp Auschwitz" sweatshirt invade the Capitol which he now calls "hostages"


Your devotion to lying to smear a campus and force political views is really something.