5 ms·

What's wrong with that? They're still covered by the law.

runako 1y ago
I'll make it simple in a few steps: 1. Many people have an aversion to harming children. This aversion is not universally shared, but it is a very common stance nonetheless. Children, especially, tend to have an aversion to being harmed. 2. Universities need to recruit children to leave their families and be governed by them (e.g. housing, food, etc.). 3. Parents of children are required to get approval for those children to go to the universities, so that the universities can function. 4. It is harder to recruit children to a university that has agreed that in vague circumstances it is ready to harm them. Note here that everyone already knows that there are sanctions for breaking the law, and that the university is advertising that it is willing to go above and beyond normal law enforcement procedures in hurting children. Does that clarify?
- dem_bones_ 1y ago
  Did you read the rest of the paragraph prior to the sentence you quoted? Any use of lawful force has to be justified by prevention of the violations described thus: > Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility. Civility includes protections against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views. Universities shall neither support nor permit a heckler’s veto through, for example, disruptions, violence, intimidation, or vandalism. Universities shall be responsible for ensuring that they do not knowingly: (1) permit actions by the university, university employees, university students, or individuals external to the university community to delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations; (2) allow demonstrators to heckle or accost individual students or groups of students; or (3) allow obstruction of access to parts of campus based on students’ race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion. Misbehaving children need to dealt with too, within the bounds of what is allowed by law. Otherwise, what, you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above?
  - runako 1y ago
    Yes, I read that. As you said, the law is still operant. This is not about normal law enforcement, this is about willingness to be more aggressive than the police normally would. > to delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations No, I do not think that it is reasonable for a child to be beaten or shot because someone delayed a class somewhere on campus (note that this does not even indicate that the harmed student must have been part of the demonstration). > allow demonstrators to heckle or accost individual students I do not think this is generally enforceable outside of a police state. And no, I do not consider it reasonable for a child to be beaten or shot because a person was "heckled" somewhere on campus. I am using "beaten or shot" because that's always a likely event when "lawful force" is exercised in America. > you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above No, I want to fall back on our existing laws, which have the benefit of decades/centuries of precedent, and which are enforced in more transparent fora.
  - Volundr 1y ago
    > Misbehaving children need to dealt with too, within the bounds of what is allowed by law. Otherwise, what, you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above? Heckling is not against the law last I checked.
    - rickydroll 1y ago
      At first, I thought it was a protected form of speech. TIL, I was wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto
      - Volundr 1y ago
        Your link does not back up your claim that heckling is illegal. In none of the cases mentioned in that article is heckling found to be illegal.
        rickydroll 1y ago
        Here is a better article that I intended to post, plus a couple more for some nuance on 1a protected speech vs. regulated speech https://nefac.org/is-heckling-a-speaker-a-crime/ https://nefac.org/is-heckling-a-speaker-a-crime/ https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-first-amendment-does-not-give-protesters-a-heckler-s-veto https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-first-amendment-does-no....

I'll make it simple in a few steps: 1. Many people have an aversion to harming children. This aversion is not universally shared, but it is a very common stance nonetheless. Children, especially, tend to have an aversion to being harmed. 2. Universities need to recruit children to leave their families and be governed by them (e.g. housing, food, etc.). 3. Parents of children are required to get approval for those children to go to the universities, so that the universities can function. 4. It is harder to recruit children to a university that has agreed that in vague circumstances it is ready to harm them. Note here that everyone already knows that there are sanctions for breaking the law, and that the university is advertising that it is willing to go above and beyond normal law enforcement procedures in hurting children. Does that clarify?

dem_bones_ 1y ago
Did you read the rest of the paragraph prior to the sentence you quoted? Any use of lawful force has to be justified by prevention of the violations described thus: > Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility. Civility includes protections against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views. Universities shall neither support nor permit a heckler’s veto through, for example, disruptions, violence, intimidation, or vandalism. Universities shall be responsible for ensuring that they do not knowingly: (1) permit actions by the university, university employees, university students, or individuals external to the university community to delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations; (2) allow demonstrators to heckle or accost individual students or groups of students; or (3) allow obstruction of access to parts of campus based on students’ race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion. Misbehaving children need to dealt with too, within the bounds of what is allowed by law. Otherwise, what, you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above?
- runako 1y ago
  Yes, I read that. As you said, the law is still operant. This is not about normal law enforcement, this is about willingness to be more aggressive than the police normally would. > to delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations No, I do not think that it is reasonable for a child to be beaten or shot because someone delayed a class somewhere on campus (note that this does not even indicate that the harmed student must have been part of the demonstration). > allow demonstrators to heckle or accost individual students I do not think this is generally enforceable outside of a police state. And no, I do not consider it reasonable for a child to be beaten or shot because a person was "heckled" somewhere on campus. I am using "beaten or shot" because that's always a likely event when "lawful force" is exercised in America. > you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above No, I want to fall back on our existing laws, which have the benefit of decades/centuries of precedent, and which are enforced in more transparent fora.
- Volundr 1y ago
  > Misbehaving children need to dealt with too, within the bounds of what is allowed by law. Otherwise, what, you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above? Heckling is not against the law last I checked.
  - rickydroll 1y ago
    At first, I thought it was a protected form of speech. TIL, I was wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto
    - Volundr 1y ago
      Your link does not back up your claim that heckling is illegal. In none of the cases mentioned in that article is heckling found to be illegal.
      - rickydroll 1y ago
        Here is a better article that I intended to post, plus a couple more for some nuance on 1a protected speech vs. regulated speech https://nefac.org/is-heckling-a-speaker-a-crime/ https://nefac.org/is-heckling-a-speaker-a-crime/ https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto https://www.aclumich.org/en/cases/hecklers-veto https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-first-amendment-does-not-give-protesters-a-heckler-s-veto https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-first-amendment-does-no....