In 2020, I wrote about the toppling of the monument to George Washington on the campus of George Washington University, where I teach. The university was silent on the vandalism by far left groups. Now, after George was restored, protesters have again vandalized the monument by spray painting pro-Palestinian slogans on its base. It is a continuation of property damage seen recently on Capitol Hill, including the defacing of the Columbus statue in front of Union Station as police watched. A pro-Palestinian group heralded the property damage on GW campus this week and pledged more such action until the university cuts ties with Israel.
The beheading of George in 2020 was quickly brushed aside and the university avoided direct criticism of the BLM protests, which resulted in property damage throughout the city. That included efforts to topple historic monuments.
Last May, pro-Palestinian students not only occupied our University yard, but a street was cut off for weeks and the law school effectively locked down due to the encampment. (I could not drive to my office or go into the building without special permission). The protesters at one point called for the beheading of university officials, including the university president, in a mock trial.
After the most recent vandalism with the message “disclose divest now” in red spray paint, the Student Coalition for Palestine at GWU posted on Instagram a statement supporting the action:
Last night, autonomous protestors sent a message to Provost Christopher Alan Bracey at his home, spray painting the message amplified and repeated by students, faculty, and the people of this city onto Bracey’s very own driveway: “DISCLOSE DIVEST NOW!” During the encampment earlier this spring, Provost Bracey himself violently assaulted two students. A statue of George Washington on campus was also branded with the same demand.
Let this be a message to Bracey and every administrator at this University. We will never falter from our demands. This administration has the blood of 186,000 Palestinians on their hands. The burn of pepper spray, the bruises of police brutality, and the mark of handcuffs and zipties on our comrades are forever seared into our memory and consciousness. Your crimes will follow you wherever you go. You will be confronted in your events, in your offices, at your homes. Every step you take we will be there to hold you accountable.
The students allege that Provost Chris Bracey committed assault last April when he slapped a phone out of the hands of a protester who was filming him.
The continued vandalism on our campus is often defended as free speech. It is not. As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” there is a difference between conduct and speech. I have defended the right of pro-Palestinian groups to protest on campus. However, occupying buildings or trashing property is criminal conduct that should be sanctioned or prosecuted. The problem is that the few charges brought against such actors were largely dropped.
As students return, protests are again ramping up around our campus and other schools.
As for George, the monument will have to be, again, restored. It is all being heralded as “a message to Bracey and every administrator at this University.” The question is whether officials will be equally clear and consistent in their own message that threats, property damage, and other offenses will not be tolerated on our campuses.
What to do with the gullible students who would follow a Narwhal with their tusk pointing away from their true intent, anarchy?
Look over there, isn’t that a beautiful picture, green fields and the smell of Honeysuckle. I preach to you that our cause is not only justified but ordered by our illustrious leaders; our murderous clan members have spoken to the justification and demonstrated that barbarism and anesthesia of foe are some of the tools we’ll use to reach the Heavenly Paradise of Green Fields and Honeysuckle.
To the students’ punishment? Require them to remove the paint, and pay any damages that may have resulted, you know “Manual Labor”.
“Require them to remove the paint”
I suppose making them lick it off would be considered “cruel and unusual”. Too bad.
The goal of the enemies of America is not only to tear down “George” and burn the American flag, but to nullify the Constitution, deny actual Americans the freedom of thought, opinion, and speech, compel adherence to the ideology of the enemy, giving them aid and comfort, “fundamentally transform [and terminate] the United States of America,” and amalgamate the remnants into the “Global States of the Communist Manifesto.”
Imagine: Milquetoast Americans allow it.
Treason.
As to advocates for Palestine, it is a real shame that no one was allowed to speak for Palestine at the just concluded Democratic National Convention.
Shows who controls the Democratic Party.
It was a weird convention – The Obama’s – who have used political influence pedaling to amass nearly 100M since leaving office, we bemoaning greed – and Barack ranted about the cult of personality ?
Aside from the FAct that Pres. Obama is the epitomy of a cult of personality.
What exactly is Harris ?
Her campaign has devolved to nothing but emotions, and strange and mostly meaningless platitudes.
What is she running besides a cult of personality ?
Shanahan has spoken out about the corrupt efforts of Democrats to rig the election.
RFK Jr. has spoken about the corrupt efforts of democrats to rig the election.
Even Jill Stein has spoken out against the corrupt efforts of democrats to rig the election.
There is no one EXCEPT democrats that believes the conduct of democrats is acceptable.
RFK Jr.’s withdraw speech in AZ was amazing. He made it clear – He has not changed.
Todays; democratic party is NOT the party of his father or uncle.
It is the party of the elite.
It is the party of Billionaires – Democrats had Multiple billionaires – ones that were NOT self made demoaning the impact of money on governance.
Democrats Ranted about Trump’s Wall Street Billionaire Buddies – Trump support is NOT coming from Wall Street. Democrat support is.
It is Not Trump that has been caught trying to sell public power. It is not Trump who is in debted to Wall Street the elites.
I do not think that RFK Jr or Shanahan dreamed they would be endorsing Trump at the start of this election.
That is how egregious the conduct of democrats has been.
RFK jr. spoke a long list of ways that democrats have changed since 1960 – none of them good.
As he noted – there is no time in history where those seeking to censor others have not been the bad people.
School officials are down with it, right ?
Maybe after they slaughter all the white male Christians they can get to the down with it administrators.
However, there are probably very few white male Christians attending at this point.
I wonder if the foreigner student body “community” is more than 50%, it must be wonderful for them to “see demonocracy in action” !
I’m just hoping a million of the midamerica gang bangers the demoncrats let flood over the border decide to invade the University and take it over.
I can hardly wait to see the spin they put out on that.
In the mean time Meyers can hug himself since 20 to 1 is now what 50 to 1 or more ? Tell me some more sweet little lies.
I shipped a cup of water west and east each to those borders and said a Prayer of thanks for the oceans.
Penalty for violations of 18 U.S. Code § 1369 is;
“The United States has a rich history of honoring the sacrifices made by its military veterans. We commemorate those sacrifices with hundreds of memorials and monuments established nationwide.”
“For that reason, the defacing, destruction, or desecration of these sites is a criminal offense—and when it happens on federal property or when crossing state lines, it’s a federal crime under Title 18 U.S. Code 1369. If convicted of violating this law, you could face up to 10 years in federal prison.
Destruction of Veteran Memorials – 18 U.S. Code § 1369”
“Sometimes, mischief and misconduct could result in federal charges if you act maliciously. Federal criminal charges mean you could possibly face time in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”
EG Eisner Gorin, LLC
Veterans Memorials
18 U.S. Code § 1369 – Destruction of Veteran Memorials
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/veteran-memorials
As I see it, Jonathan Turley is spot on with his article IAW Federal Statute.
During the Civil Rights era, civil disobedience (breaking laws) was primary done for Jim Crow laws that were illegal under the federal U.S. Constitution.
For example: local laws requiring separate bathrooms for African-Americans or denying equal privileges in public accommodations (hotels, restaurants, public swimming pools, riding at the back of the bus or movie theatre, etc) – those Jim Crow laws were illegal under the U.S. Constitution.
College kids simply destroying property and committing crimes is not civil disobedience! They are not being denied any of their constitutional rights like during Jim Crow.
The actions of these protesters are civil disobedience.
They are also crimes – just as the acts of those in the civil rights movement.
The thesis of non-violent resistance is that Society itself will recoil from imposing criminal sanctions for what are obviously bad laws.
When civil rights activists were arrested for sitting at the wrong part of the lunch counter – they had committed actual crimes.
There were then punished and the rest of us recoiled over the use of force in our names to enforce a bad law.
If ProHmas supporters violate the law, and are jailed and the overwhelming majority of people are fine with that – that is societies judgement that the laws they violated were just laws and the punishment is deserved.
If however society recoils from jailing these people – which seems unlikely, then their civil disobedience will be effective.
18 U.S.C. 1369
“(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy, any structure, plaque, statue, or other monuments on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States shall be….”
(b) A circumstance described in this subsection is that—
(1) in committing the offense described in subsection (a), the defendant travels or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce; or
(2) the structure, plaque, statue, or other monument is located on property owned by, or under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction.”
What are the Related Federal Offenses?
18 U.S. Code Chapter 65 Malicious Mischief has several federal statutes that are related to 18 U.S.C. 1369 destruction of veterans’ memorial, such as the following:
18 U.S.C. 1361 – Government property or contracts;
18 U.S.C. 1362 – Communication lines, stations, or systems;
18 U.S.C. 1363 – Buildings or property within territorial jurisdiction;
18 U.S.C. 1364 – Interference with foreign commerce by violence;
18 U.S.C. 1365 – Tampering with consumer products;
18 U.S.C. 1366 – Destruction of an energy facility:
18 U.S.C. 1367 – Interference with the operation of a satellite:
18 U.S.C. 1368 – Harming animals used in law enforcement.
Eisner Gorin, LLP
Veteran Memorials
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/veteran-memorials
Doubtless some bright young student of Mao’s Cultural Revolution will point out that this act of vandalism was conducted on a private university campus, therefore it is private property and thus not subject to 18 U.S.C. 1369. Not so fast, it depends… And yes, George Washington qualifies as a veteran, therefore his statue is protected.
The question at hand is; was the statue vandalized on private property, or public property. GWU itself states this about their origins:
“The George Washington University (GW or GWU) is a private federally-chartered research university in Washington, D.C. Originally named Columbian College, it was chartered in 1821 by the United States Congress and is the first university founded under Washington D.C.’s jurisdiction. It is one of nation’s six federally chartered universities.”
Note that the university in its own words declares that GWU is a “private federally-chartered research university.”
“In the United States, American University, Gallaudet University, Georgetown University, Howard University, and George Washington University are congressionally chartered universities, due to their location within the U.S. federal district. Georgetown University was the first federally chartered institution of higher education in the United States when President James Madison signed the university’s charter into law on March 1, 1815.[14]”
Therefore such vandalism committed irrespective of taking place on “private” property, would not circumvent the stipulations of 18 U.S.C. 1369, in as much as GWU is a Congressionally Chartered university located within the U.S. federal district and as such the statue of George Washington would fall under the protection of Federal statute.
StackExchange
LAW
Universities – Public Area or Private Area in U.S.?
“Can Universities irrespective of whether they are public or private universities be considered a public area? If they are considered a private area: Can they deny anybody from entering their property, even though in a lot of cases they are being funded by the government?”
“The source of an entity’s funding is not relevant, but potentially relevant is whether the institution is created by law or not. Typical state universities are created by official government action, and may be specified as part of the state’s constitution. Such a university is a “government university”, and is subject to the limitations placed on government action (for example with respect to the 1st Amendment). There is no uniform public / private legal distinction, but the most likely grounds for making any distinction would pertain to trespassing and warrants.”
“Suppose that you want to have a political rally on university property, in a public forum. If the university is a private one, they may inspect your ideology, declare it to be repugnant to their interests, and prohibit the rally. If the university is a government one, the 1st Amendment prohibits them from banning your rally because your ideology is repugnant. But the right to speak freely in a public forum is not absolute: it can be regulated because of a compelling government interest. (The grounds for such regulation will be narrow, for example, there can be a requirement to schedule events and party B may be precluded from rallying at a place and time if party A has a prior claim on that place and time).”
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/23484/universities-public-area-or-private-area-in-u-s
Therefore, no one has the right to violate Federal statute irrespective of their particular feelings, opinions, presupposed grievances, whether imagined or real, and therefore such actions are not as otherwise might the case on private property, protected under the 1st Amendment. By committing vandalism and or destruction of a veteran statue on a campus of a congressionally chartered university, I would submit that the action is a clear violation of Federal Statute.
The answer as to why harsher penalties are not the consequence of such actions as we see continually taking place under Democrat rule, is a more lengthy answer better served in separate response. But most of us already know the answer to that.
“And yes, George Washington qualifies as a veteran…”
He was of course a British veteran before he turned coat, so given the Professor mistakenly thinks we are trying to impose our laws on you, perhaps the vandals should be charged under British laws 🙂
Well then, Robert E. Lee who was, prior to his Confederate Congress Officer’s Commission, a U.S. Army Officer as Commissioned by the U.S. Congress, so according to that rationale he should never have asked President Andrew Johnson for a pardon in the summer of 1865, where upon Lee then took the Amnesty Oath on October 2nd of that same year, swearing allegiance to the United States government. Poor ole Abe would be spinning around in his monument chair.
Confederate soldiers were subsequently provided veterans benefits after the civil war, thereby recognizing them as veterans of war. Confederate statues were constructed as a location for families to mourn and honor their fallen loved ones whose bodies were buried in mass graves where they fell. Destroying our national heritage under the guise of racism and white supremacy is criminal. A Marxist move ushered in with Obama the Usurper.
Had you won the revolutionary war he would have been tried under British law and hanged. Instead he became the first president of the United States and Britian was forced to recognize the US as an independent country.
As I noted previously in the subseqent 200+ years increasing Britian has FOLLOWED the US rather than lead.
While Britian has been heading the wrong way for a few decades, over the past two centuries Britian has evolved to be more like a representative republic than a monarchy. As has most of the world.
Britian is (until recently) to be commended for following our lead. It was and still is one of the leading voices for self government and the importance of individual liberty. The core foundations of the United states came from the scottish enlighenment.
But over time after the revolutionary war Britain ceded its position as the pinnacle of individual liberty, and concurrently slowly ceded its position as the worlds most significant superpower.
The latter being a consequence of the former.
Where did you serve in Iraq, when exactly, and what did you do?
The statue is not federal property. Was it paid with public money?
Spraying graffiti on it is at minimum a nuisance. Plus, finding out exactly who did the defacing is going to be a problem.
I have no idea who owns the statute – nor do you.
What we BOTH know is that protesters do not.
If the actions of protestors are meerly a nusance – perhaps they should be punished by having to restore the statute.
Issues identifying the criminals do not change the crime.
These criminals need to be kicked out of school and DEPORTED – period. We are sick & tired of ‘the authorities’ letting them threaten and trash whatever/whomever they choose.. both the guests here taking advantage of our universities and the non-guests who support them. They all need to go back to the ME and do their supporting of HAMAS there… while Israel has a right to defend itself… J6 non-violent, non-destructive protesters still sit in jail while this nonsense is tolerated.
It can all be stopped in a minute, arrest non-students with JAIL TIME and expel students. It is so simple it is no wonder that the academic class can’t figure it out.
The only time the left understands this process is when it is the right that protests. I guarantee you that there will never be another violent or even non-violent protest by rightists at the capital because Garland’s/Biden’s/Harris’ DOJ gave out such onerous punishments as a way to discourage and punish such actions. We saw two IVY LEAGUE LAWYERS toss a Molotov cocktail into a police car and the left came to their defense and they got plea deals. Two lawyers bombing a cop car and they got less time than grannies trespassing at the capital or at a Planned Parenthood Clinic.
The only hope is that when the schools open in a week or two and the “protests” start up if we see it having a negative affect on Harris-Walz campaign they will nip it in the bud.
Why not jail students, not just non-students, if their crimes warrant it? They are not children. As we would say here, if you want to play Big Boys’ Games, then Big Boys’ Rules apply.
In fact they are children. Ignorant, pampered, high school graduates with underformed brains.
* it’s just this world where 80 percent of earth’s inhabitants live in big sewers. They eat chit, cook chit, bathe in chit and are coming to your nation with their chit.
Comrade
Davey (anonymous),
“Oliver Reeder outs himself as a spastic idiot who needs a civics lesson. Misconduct is not free speech.”
Again, reading comprehension man. Read for comprehension.
Under BRITISH LAW speech can be construed as conduct. He’s making the point that under BRITISH law things are different. He’s not arguing that AMERICAN law is wrong or flawed. He’s literally telling you they are different because each country has sovereign right to determine what speech can mean. That’s it.
Oliver is not Svelaz. It’s hilarious watching you thinking you have it figured out. I’m not Svelaz either. Svelaz really messed you up. He/she must have gotten under your skin a lot. Perhaps you should call yourself Ahab.
A swing and a miss.
“Under BRITISH LAW speech can be construed as conduct. ”
That has NOT been true until recently.
The US once had laws that required negros to sit at the back of the bus. That was US law.
It was also wrong – just as any british law that holds speech alone to be conduct.
Most of us are not morons. Words are NOT conduct.
“He’s making the point that under BRITISH law things are different.”
and he is running afoul of Kant’s catagoricial imperative.
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
US law discriminating by race was WRONG. British or any other countries law that punishes speech as conduct is WRONG.
You left wing nuts are constantly trying to game your way out of your own immoral arguments.
Nazi laws discriminating against Jews were WRONG.
Just because some nation has made a law does not make that law Moral.
“He’s literally telling you they are different because each country has sovereign right to determine what speech can mean.”
And that is literally INCORRECT. It is also a stupid argument.
Does each nation have the sovereign right to determine the orbit of the sun and the moon ?
Nations make laws,
They make good laws and bad laws.
They make laws that are far beyond their legitimate powers.
We are no more obligated to give British laws criminalizing speech any respect than we do the Jewish laws of the Nazis or American Jim Crow laws of the past.
WRONG IS WRONG.
“Oliver is not Svelaz”
I have no idea, and unless you are Oliver and Svelaz, and George neither do you.
But then logic is not your forte.
“I’m not Svelaz either.”
I do not claim nor care if you are svelaz, or George or Oliver.
What is true is that you make identically stupid idiotic arguments.
What “Gets under” peoples skins is that your argument ALWAYS devolve to using the force of govenrment to run other peoples lives.
To control their speech and if you could their thoughts.
That would be immoral even if you actually were better at running other peoples lives than they are.
But you are not.
“ Under BRITISH LAW speech can be construed as conduct. ”
That has NOT been true until recently.”
Are you absolutely sure about that?
“ Most of us are not morons. Words are NOT conduct.”
Irrelevant, the British legal system recognizes speech can also be construed as conduct. Just because you don’t does not mean others do.
“ He’s making the point that under BRITISH law things are different.”
and he is running afoul of Kant’s catagoricial imperative.”
Again, irrelevant. The British can make their laws as they see fit. That’s the point.
“ Just because some nation has made a law does not make that law Moral.”
It is moral to them. What you think is irrelevant to their system. You don’t get to impose your standard and declare it morally superior.
“ He’s literally telling you they are different because each country has sovereign right to determine what speech can mean.”
And that is literally INCORRECT. It is also a stupid argument.”
Wrong, you don’t get to determine what is morally superior or proper on a sovereign nation just at others don’t get to say the same about us. Using false equivalence makes for poor arguments.
“ Oliver is not Svelaz”
I have no idea, and unless you are Oliver and Svelaz, and George neither do you.
But then logic is not your forte.”
I know who I am. Where does anonymous get idea he can say?
John Say, your arguments are mostly rambling and long diatribes saying little.
The question is why does it bother you, Svelaz? Projecting again.
You just dont like being outed.
I said yesterday that Oliver wasnt stupid enough to be you, but today he proved me wrong.
Bwahahahahahhaha
Henry David Thoreau would point out that aping civil disobedience while avoiding consequence is not civil disobedience at all. It’s just nihilism and anarchy. It’s evil.
Today, we learn something even Thoreau might not have anticipated. Tolerating civil disobedience is the establishment outsourcing a reign of terror to independent thugs and narcissists. It’s tyranny with plausible deniability. These days, it doesn’t even have to be plausible to be denied. Harris and Walz are experts in this growing field.
And before the ankle biters start howling about J6, Trump prosecuted many of the offenders, and Biden prosecuted too many in fact. Joe is another expert in creative tyranny.
Diogenes,
Well said.
The world will be disappeared.
Caveman texted.
Another way to look at it:
The October 7 attack by Hamas in Gaza was the product of “Theocratic Government” model, the opposite of America’s model of government.
Iran a “theocracy” (opposite of religious freedom) that imposes one religious interpretation onto its citizens, directs, controls and funds the terrorist group Hamas.
George Washington also strongly opposed “Theocratic Government” – the same system that created the Gaza crisis in the first place. So elite college students just desecrated the guy who is their ally also fighting theocracy – George Washington!
It’s not magic. The government is set up as a business model. The executive carries out the wants of the shareholders and senators and reps have their proxies. The courts are there to uphold the law and the constitution.
It’s an amazing structure way ahead of its time. It was a time of barter and trade, hunt and gather, a simple agrarian nation. The constitution set the stage for development and had to be inspired by the creator.
Fact: protestors will continue with violent and destructive protesting under the guise of free speech – until they are not allowed/prevented from doing so. Not stopping it, and punishing the protesters, will never be effective until it is stopped completely. Destruction of property is against the law. They must be stopped, in a way that they will not be encouraged to continue.
* symbolic representations such as flags and monuments is burning the Constitution itself. It’s traitors and treason. It’s not even traitors because these people were never citizens.
They haven’t any idea what the principle of free speech means. If they behave uncivilly they should be held to the law so they can learn.
The sinister cruelty of it is nothing the law should sink into. Their demand is to destroy Israel and death to America. Pitiful but should be recognized as a cult with a deranged leader like so many others in history.
It’s noted.
Just throw these morons in jail.
Road crews cleaning up graffiti while in custody is more just.
And no bail, and misplace the cell keys!
While the terrorist antics of the far left are disgusting; the truly disgusting part of all this is the lack of social and political push-back to these America-hating thugs by citizens. Bring back tar and feathering at least, but to just shrug it off as “that’s how it is these days” is intolerable and shows that the left has already won the mind game.
Professor Turley seems to be at odds with his views on protests. Vandalism has always been a part of protests. The Boston tea party has always been celebrated as a patriotic moment in our history which led to the British to create the coercive acts of 1774. Turley’s demands for punishment of students vandalizing and demanding actions of the university is the same reaction the British had to the vandalism of the Boston tea party. Oppression.
Turley believes that protesting is only acceptable if it’s exercised in the most controlled orderly and civil manner. That didn’t happen on Jan 6. Buildings were occupied illegally, vandalism was committed, theft, and threats were a plenty and professor Turley could barely muster a full throated condemnation of the Jan 6 rioting and demand harsh punishment as he does for pro -Palestinian protesters. Free speech and protests are messy affairs and they are very much a part of this nation’s proud traditions. They are always going to be there.
you conflate acts of rebellion against a government from which we wished to extricate ourselves with acts of those who purposefully express their hatred of their own government. If these thugs burning our flags and cities truly want to remove our current government and replace it with their utopian perfection, then they are not protestors but seditious rebels.
“you conflate acts of rebellion against a government from which we wished to extricate ourselves with acts of those who purposefully express their hatred of their own government. If these thugs burning our flags and cities truly want to remove our current government and replace it with their utopian perfection, then they are not protestors but seditious rebels.”
Well, George Washington and his fellow Founding Fathers were seditious rebels, and only ceased to be following the Treaty of Paris in 1783. I am not defending the morons committing criminal acts in 2024, just pointing out that use of such language is a two edged sword. One would not like to be an ignoramus like Nancy Pelosi who screamed “insurrection” about 6th January whilst ignoring that your entire country, and its laws and Constitution, were born of insurrection. You won (with French help) in 1783, fair and square, no complaints from this Briton. And I understand, though not with total approbation, the motivation of the insurgents, or Patriots as you delight in calling them. But there is a reason why we call it the American Revolutionary War, not the War of Independence.
“The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), also known as the American War of Independence…,” from Gigi’s friend, Mr. wikipedia
* Charles and Kate were most likely poisoned. It’s the nexus and expected actually.
“You won (with French help) in 1783, fair”
That is correct, Oliver. Had Washington lost, today the capital of Great Britain might be Washington DC. 🙂
“Vandalism has always been a part of protests.”
False.
I know logic is not your forte, but words have meaning – there is a giant gulf between vandalism is SOMETIMES a part of protest and is i ALWAYS
Violence is SOMETIMES justified – as part of Protest, self defense and resistance to tyranny
When you resort to violence, you had Better be right about your beleif that your violence is justified.
“The Boston tea party has always been celebrated as a patriotic moment in our history”
Correct – it was a violent response to acts of tyranny.
“which led to the British to create the coercive acts of 1774.”
Which made things worse.
Civil disobedience can come in many forms – violent and non-violent.
SOMETIMES Violent civil disobedience can be the most effective form.
Do you honestly think that the violence of Hamas or of ProHamas supporters has rallied people to their cause ?
“Turley’s demands for punishment of students vandalizing and demanding actions of the university is the same reaction the British had to the vandalism of the Boston tea party.”
Correct.
” Oppression.”
False. One of the most fundimental differences is that Turley is not calling for the punishment of all students, or even all prohamas protestors – only those who engaged in violence.
The british responded by punishing everyone in the colonies which undermined what support they had.
Do you beleive that Punishing those who defaced the GW statute will undermine support for the US govenrment ?
It is tyranical government that undermines government, not laws that are widely respected.
Oliver and You – if you are even different rant that British Law punishs speech as conduct.
The pushback and protests by ordinary Bits seems to bely that.
“Turley believes that protesting is only acceptable if it’s exercised in the most controlled orderly and civil manner.”
You do not know what Turley beleives, nor do I.
You can be as violent as you wish in your protests – then we get to see how the people respond when you are punished.
If your violence is justified – People will push back against the government.
Not seeing a huge movement to release falsely imprisoned ProHamas protestors.
” That didn’t happen on Jan 6. Buildings were occupied illegally”
False = the constitution and SCOTUS on numerous occasions have strongly asserted that the govenrment can not make laws for the purpose of diminishing first amendment rights – while the issue of Tresspass has NOT been brought to SCOTUS – they have pretty much made clear with their 1512C decision that first amendment rights take precedence.
The US capitol is the pre-eminent public forum in the entire would – you can not shutdown public access without also shutting down congress. Those are inextricably constitutionally linked.
“vandalism was committed”
Very little
“theft”
Very little and only by the most strained interpretations of theft.
Pelosi’s podium was moved 10ft. Most of us do not call that theft.
“threats were a plenty”
Threats are not inherently crimes.
Again you are clueless about US first amendment law.
In brandenberg v OH the court found that a threat is protected speech
Except when the purpose is to incite or produce imminent lawless action
it is likey to incite or produce such an action.
the Court found that abstract discussions are not the same as actually preparing or inciting individuals to engage in illegal acts.
In later cases the court requires that criminal threats must be Clear, immediate and credible
A divorced spouses threats of unspecified violence to his wife and police officers did not meet ANY of those requirements.
There were no threats of any kind on J6 that csame close to meeting the Brandenberg requirements.
“professor Turley could barely muster a full throated condemnation of the Jan 6 rioting and demand harsh punishment as he does for pro -Palestinian protesters.”
Actuially Turley has leaned far to harshley against J6 defendants. If ProHamas protestors were punished like J6 defendants organizers would face decades in jail.
“Free speech and protests are messy affairs and they are very much a part of this nation’s proud traditions. They are always going to be there.”
Correct and this country has pent more than 200 years sorting out what speech is acceptable and what is not. While it is never possible to do so perfectly – there is very little in the way of grey areas with much of what we are debating.
Defacing or damaging property that is not yours is illegal – whether we are talking ProHamas protestors, BLM riots, Kavanaugh protestors, Laffeyette park protesors or J6 protestors.
Making demands such as divesting from Israel or stopping the certification of an election are protected by the first amendment.
Occupying private property without the permission of the owner is illegal.
Occupying government property is usually illegal but not always and always less consequential.
Occupying a public forum for free speech is pretty much never illegal.
Violence against others is usually illegal.
Arson is always illegal.
There is not alot of grey areas here.
Absolutely protests are messy.
It is the obligation of government in the midst of a protest to respect the actual rights of protestors.
It is the obligation of protestors to act within the law. as summarized above.
* it’s time to to overturn the flag burning opinion. Any fire is not free speech, any vandalism is not free speech. What you burn on your own private property is your business . No burning on no burn days.
Rent a stadium and attend with speeches qualifies. These protests and demonstrations should be met with the same number of people with an opposite opinion and may the best man win.
GW might size down. Cut out bullchit classes and raise the bar for entrance.
There will be no consequences for these thugs because much of the faculty sympathizes with them. A student would more likely be expelled for using the wrong pronoun when addressing another student
That is the state of the modern US Academy
*stay away from that Chisholm. Professor Turley would be mire than welcome elsewhere.
Expel asap.
* chithole
* more
Proofread
George Washington University should immediately invest in several high quality Belgian Water Canons. Soak the little Pro Hamas rioters down when they try and vandalize anything on University property (they probably need a bath anyway).
* thanks Professor for the trek into history and what once was.
The Book of Job. Steve Jobs of the earth.