So, one’s right to “monkeywrench the system” trumps another’s right to free speech? Okay I’m gonna go kill a congreesman I disagree with. But it’s okay because what I’m doing is really “monkeywrenching” the system. And him not casting any more of his votes or making any more of his speeches is the way I measure success.
Gotcha.
The point is that they should not HAVE TO LEAVE. They have a right to be there. The kids have a right to protest, but not to the point that violence is imminent. And if it does get to that point, the cops should arrest the students that are going too far.
WHOA…there’s a tiny bit of difference between what you suggested doing and what the protesters were doing.
For one, murder is illegal. And the protester’s actions were not. No violent acts happened.
Try again.
Nice. 
Now I pit you for making me laugh. That is all, back to the scumbags…
There actions were illegal. The only reason violence didn’t ensue was because the recruiters left. If you’re standing in the street holding a sign “Stop the war”? And a bunch of rednecks make it clear that if you don’t leave that violence will ensue—without overtly threatening you, you think that’s okay. I would say that if a cop was around that he would be duty bound to protect your right to legally speak your mind. Do you disagree with that?
Right. And those students ought to know that by doing so, they can have the tap of federal funds shut off to their precious school.
Actions have consequences, even in Santa Cruz.
They did not have the right to physically block the recruiters or interested students. The military is an honorable and productive career, and, in general, makes excellent citizens. The student protest probably should have been broken up (or at least controlled) by riot squad.
The recruiters have the legal right to be on campus, regardless of protests. The assembly should have been protected. Period.
You know, you’re right. I came back here specifically to mention that the protestor’s actions were basically intimidation, which is illegal. I basically had a brain cramp on the original post.
However, my point is that your analogy is still very shaky. But I understand you were being extreme to make a point.
Not suggesting anyone owns any word. You and your fellow right wing toadies are free to use whatever words you want.
And why exactly should the students go to a military base bar where soldiers who will undoubtedly be unable to control themselves will assault them? Even you, who wasn’t even there, want to club these students with your big ol’ gun.
The tires were slashed last April, not at this protest.
Then I guess they got smarter since then!
Wrong. The Solomon Amendment only applies to denial of access by the schools themselves. Students protesting recruiters does not endanger federal funding.
Which completely ignores the fact, and my point, that you are misrepresenting the administration’s culpability in this case.
Yeah, and here back in reality the 14,039 or so other students that weren’t protesting don’t face the consequences of the 100 or so students who were protesting.
Betcha any reasonably competent attorney could make a very convincing case that failure to provide a safe environment for the recruiters and interested students is tantamount to not allowing them access.
Mob rule, eh?
I read that article in the physical paper this morning, actually, and was surprised to see that. (Despite my listed location, I’m visiting my parents in the Bay Area at the moment.) I’m being a little bit hyperbolic here, but I went to school in Santa Cruz for three years and I can promise you that “career in the military” doesn’t even register on the typical UCSC student’s radar. I remember once making an offhand comment about how guys in military uniform are hot to some housemates in Santa Cruz and was met with puzzled and/or horrified looks. The military is bad! Guns are bad! Why don’t we all have some nice stir-fried seitan and then meditate for awhile? Afterwards, we can have a drum circle on the beach!
How so? If this just happened for the first time, I would agree with you. But last year 300 kids “protested”. This year they had every reason to expect that 300 or more would “protest”. Not only did they not briing in enough cops to handle the 300 kids, they didn’t bring in enough cops to hand le the 100 that actually showed up, due to the rain. That’s either willful complicity or fuck-head incompetence. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Yes. Thank you for being so gracious. On both counts.
Sigh, I am going to say this again using small words. There is no evidence that there were not enough cops. The recruiters felt the situation was going to result in someone getting hurt, and decided to leave instead of that happening. No matter how many cops are there they can’t magically move the protestors. If the students were not complying with the police then the cops would have to use force to get their demands met. The recruiters did not want to see force used, so they left.
Again, there is no evidence that the police presence was not adequate.
Okay. I see your point. My point is that if things escalated to to the point that violence between the two groups was imminent, that either 1) there weren’t enough cops or 2) the cops didn’t do their job correctly. I admit we do not know which from the article. So in the meantime, I pit them both (just to be safe).
translation: I don’t know what happened, but military people ran away from something and people I would call “liberals” were involved, so I’m fucking pitting someone goddammit.
Cry me a fuckin’ river, magellan. Boo-hoo.