Does Rutgers allow groups to hold rallys or marches on campus which include hate speech?
is hate speech protected at Rutgers?
is hate speech protected at Rutgers?
Campus Rallys and freedom of Speech
- Thread starter Proud NJ Sports Fan
- Start date
Death To Israel was chanted and swastikas flashed during a “rally” last weekend on campus.
Would Death to Palestine or Ukraine be accepted on The Banks?
Would Death to Palestine or Ukraine be accepted on The Banks?
Rutgers actually disbanded the Student Bar Association this week for hate speech
aclj.org
VICTORY: Rutgers University Disbands Student Bar Association for Violating Its Own Rules and Targeting Jewish Students With Vile Antisemitism | American Center for Law and Justice
Ever since the U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas unleashed a brutal attack on our closest ally, the State of Israel, last month, a number of antisemitic campus groups have stood up to defend the terrorists, including by denying that Hamas did the very things they proudly and openly . . .
aclj.org
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
The story and headline don't agree -- the headline says "disbands" and the story says "suspends." CBS news also says "suspends."Rutgers actually disbanded the Student Bar Association this week for hate speech
VICTORY: Rutgers University Disbands Student Bar Association for Violating Its Own Rules and Targeting Jewish Students With Vile Antisemitism | American Center for Law and Justice
Ever since the U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas unleashed a brutal attack on our closest ally, the State of Israel, last month, a number of antisemitic campus groups have stood up to defend the terrorists, including by denying that Hamas did the very things they proudly and openly . . .
"Suspended indefinitely ". While definitely not "disbanded" The indefinitely part sounds promising.
Frankly I'm shocked that Rutgers did it at all. Very pleased but shocked
Rutgers needs to purge those spewing racist stuff from campus. Teachers and students
The law schools have enough Jewish faculty that Rutgers had to do *something.*
I wouldn't put too much stock in "indefinitely." All that means to me is that there is no definite ending date. Probably Rutgers will restore the SBA when things calm down, and of course no one can know when that will be.
The SBA is the student government. It doesn't do much normally except organize events and give "professor of the year" awards in a rigged election that few students vote in.
My understanding is that the SBA that's been suspended is the one at the Newark branch of the law school. That doesn't surprise me -- the Newark branch has always been a bastion of radicalism (including many faculty members.)
Rutgers caved to a domestic terrorist group
www.nj.com
Palestinian student group reinstated at Rutgers
The group had been suspended Dec. 11 because the university believed it posed “a substantial and immediate threat to the safety and well-being of others.”
Rutgers, along with many other universities, are going to need to get this under control and fast. Student activism is nothing new, but accepting hate speech from students and also faculty needs to be addressed. I imagine violent threats are addressed in a code of conduct for students and policy for staff. Is there a reason it is not getting addressed for real?
Look at this Al Queada - like video
Who are these people ? Who is financially supporting them ? They do not belong on a state funded university. They are a threat to everyone on campus.
@GSGS
Last edited:
Keep in mind that Rutgers is not in the same position as Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc.. Rutgers is a state institution and therefore cannot punish speech protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. (Private institutions don't have to worry about that.) The Supreme Court has long interpreted the First Amendment to protect a lot of pretty vile speech, e.g. those awful people who picket military funerals with signs saying "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." For better or worse, Rutgers has to allow such speech.
So if the protest was Students for White Pride and called for the destruction of Somalia they would be good to go
NJ residents pay taxes to Rutgers and they are funding a legit domestic terrorist group right now
NJ residents pay taxes to Rutgers and they are funding a legit domestic terrorist group right now
In fact- those people- Westboro Baptist- protested at RU many years ago outside of Hillel on College Ave.
They were outnumbered by student counterprotesters.
It's interesting though that people very angry about students protesting for Palestinians provoke more outrage than Westboro Baptist praising dead soldiers outside of Hillel. Or Charlottesville. Or beating the police with the American flag.
Funny that...
Both groups are deplorable
All 3 if you include Charlottesville, and 4 beating police w/American flags
Still doesn't excuse this group's actions; which, by all accounts, is truly sickening
NutHouse is more far left than those vile antiSemetic students for palestine
He no doubt supports them, Antifa and every other anti-American group
And dumber too.
You’ll never have an adult convo with him.
He’s truly insane and a waste.
The first amendment should be equally protected. I’m old enough to remember first amendment demonstrations came with permitted restrictions on actions, not speech. For example, those practicing the first amendment are to only be in area x between x o’clock and x o’clock. The schools also need to protect the civil rights of all students. In this case Jewish students. What’s happening right now across campuses is not protected by the first amendment and it includes students and staff.
He’s deflecting
This is happening now at Rutgers so he wants to direct our convo somewhere else because he agrees with that vile group
Sure looks like Rutgers can punish threatening speech or conduct and a ton of other disruptive behavior under the Student Code of Conduct, just like they already did for this group with the suspension:
VII.D.2:
Using or threatening to use force against a person or animal.
VII.F:
F. Bullying, intimidation, and harassment:
1. Making any communication to another person in any manner likely to cause alarm, including through electronic or social media platforms.
2. Subjecting another person or animal or threatening to subject another person or animal to striking, kicking, shoving, or offensive touching.
3. Threatening to reveal or releasing personal information or media about a person electronically or through other means of communication.
4. Engaging in any other course of alarming conduct or repeatedly committing acts with the purpose of seriously alarming another person.
A person’s behavior should be sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent as to substantially disrupt or interfere with the orderly operation of the institution or the rights of a student to participate in or benefit from the educational program.
* * *
N. Disruption
1. Intentionally or recklessly interfering with any University activity or University sponsored activity.
2. Disrupting or obstructing an academic class or lecture, an administrative or support function, or official University business.
3. Engaging in classroom conduct that is prohibited by the faculty member or is in violation of the law or University policy. It should be noted that this policy is not intended to punish students for classroom dissent or hinder organized, peaceful, and orderly protests that are undertaken within reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions placed upon the same by the University.
O. Disorderly conduct Engaging in conduct that is disruptive, lewd, or indecent, regardless of intent, which breaches the peace of the community.
edit: I'm sure the updated code also covers much of this (not sure why an older version came up first in search):
Last edited:
Sure looks like Rutgers can punish threatening speech or conduct and a ton of other disruptive behavior under the Student Code of Conduct, just like they already did for this group with the suspension:
VII.D.2:
Using or threatening to use force against a person or animal.
VII.F:
F. Bullying, intimidation, and harassment:
1. Making any communication to another person in any manner likely to cause alarm, including through electronic or social media platforms.
2. Subjecting another person or animal or threatening to subject another person or animal to striking, kicking, shoving, or offensive touching.
3. Threatening to reveal or releasing personal information or media about a person electronically or through other means of communication.
4. Engaging in any other course of alarming conduct or repeatedly committing acts with the purpose of seriously alarming another person.
A person’s behavior should be sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent as to substantially disrupt or interfere with the orderly operation of the institution or the rights of a student to participate in or benefit from the educational program.
* * *
N. Disruption
1. Intentionally or recklessly interfering with any University activity or University sponsored activity.
2. Disrupting or obstructing an academic class or lecture, an administrative or support function, or official University business.
3. Engaging in classroom conduct that is prohibited by the faculty member or is in violation of the law or University policy. It should be noted that this policy is not intended to punish students for classroom dissent or hinder organized, peaceful, and orderly protests that are undertaken within reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions placed upon the same by the University.
O. Disorderly conduct Engaging in conduct that is disruptive, lewd, or indecent, regardless of intent, which breaches the peace of the community.
edit: I'm sure the updated code also covers much of this (not sure why an older version came up first in search):
That particular group is calling for destruction of Israel and the murder of its citizens.
Plus they are harassing and threatening RU students.
It is clear that the First Amendment allows regulation of time, place, and manner -- so long as that regulation is applied equally to all speech. (You can't make special rules for speech you don't like.) It is also clear that the First Amendment does not protect actions other than "symbolic speech." Thus if I were to follow you around saying that you ought to be murdered, that would not be protected. But it is also clear that the First Amendment protects a lot of speech that you and I would find repulsive. Here's an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
F.1 and F.4 might well not survive a court challenge. (Campus speech codes like this have not been tested in court; they're too recent and the campuses haven't done much to try to enforce them -- in part because of constitutional concerns.) Generally, speech can't be punished even if it legitimately upsets other people. The picketing case I mentioned above is an example. There the Supreme Court held the picketing to be protected by the First Amendment.Sure looks like Rutgers can punish threatening speech or conduct and a ton of other disruptive behavior under the Student Code of Conduct, just like they already did for this group with the suspension:
VII.D.2:
Using or threatening to use force against a person or animal.
VII.F:
F. Bullying, intimidation, and harassment:
1. Making any communication to another person in any manner likely to cause alarm, including through electronic or social media platforms.
2. Subjecting another person or animal or threatening to subject another person or animal to striking, kicking, shoving, or offensive touching.
3. Threatening to reveal or releasing personal information or media about a person electronically or through other means of communication.
4. Engaging in any other course of alarming conduct or repeatedly committing acts with the purpose of seriously alarming another person.
A person’s behavior should be sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent as to substantially disrupt or interfere with the orderly operation of the institution or the rights of a student to participate in or benefit from the educational program.
* * *
N. Disruption
1. Intentionally or recklessly interfering with any University activity or University sponsored activity.
2. Disrupting or obstructing an academic class or lecture, an administrative or support function, or official University business.
3. Engaging in classroom conduct that is prohibited by the faculty member or is in violation of the law or University policy. It should be noted that this policy is not intended to punish students for classroom dissent or hinder organized, peaceful, and orderly protests that are undertaken within reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions placed upon the same by the University.
O. Disorderly conduct Engaging in conduct that is disruptive, lewd, or indecent, regardless of intent, which breaches the peace of the community.
edit: I'm sure the updated code also covers much of this (not sure why an older version came up first in search):
The rest of the provisions are probably fine because they limit conduct, not speech.
In saying all of this, I am not being an advocate. I am just trying to answer the original question about why Rutgers doesn't do more about hate speech; a big reason is that the First Amendment limits what Rutgers can do.
Last edited:
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.
I’m all for people self-incriminating themselves. Neo-Nazis, pan-arab fascists, you name it. Let them say their part, and show their face. Eventually these yokels will be identified and when they do, there goes their shot at internships, entry level positions, etc. No need to play god on what speech is and isn’t acceptable.
Just keep in mind that the public sector can't do that, although certainly private employers can.
The Palestinian group at RU
1) isn't violent
2) isn't calling for people to be killed for race, religion or sexuallty
Which is quite different than the other groups. They just have a viewpoint you don't like.
I don't agree with a lot of their views but they are far more protected by the 1A than violence.
Take this to its logical conclusion. If the 1A applied equally to private and public our dear friends at Liberty U would be *required* to allow dancing, drag brunch, and speeches from atheists.
Now I'm sure a lot of people very angry about that think Rutgers should expel students wearing a kefiyah but here we are.
The 1A protection of free speech is one of the greatest legal innovations in the history of humanity,. It keeps the government out of regulation of speech and lets the market choose.
They're representing an organization and foresting an ideology that openly calls for the destruction of Jews
End of story
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 or 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.
Last edited:
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.
Similar threads
