Hundreds of helmeted police swarmed the site of a pro-Palestinian protest at the University of California at Los Angeles early on Thursday, firing flash bangs, arresting defiant demonstrators and dismantling their encampment.

The pre-dawn police crackdown at UCLA marked the latest flashpoint in mounting tensions on U.S. college campuses, where protests over Israel’s war in Gaza have led to student clashes with each other and with law enforcement.

“I’m a student here. I’m an English major,” one student said to television cameras, as police dragged him away. “Please don’t fail us. Don’t fail us.”

Live TV footage showed officers taking down tents, tearing apart barricades and removing the encampment, while arrested protesters sat with their hands restrained behind their backs with zip-ties.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      41·
      6 months ago

      If they are paying to go to the university and I’m paying taxes for them to go to the university, why does the university get to decide that they aren’t allowed to exercise their first amendment rights?

      • Eyeuhnluuung@lemmy.world
        11·
        6 months ago

        They are allowed to express their first amendment rights, but first amendment rights are not unlimited. See Ward v Rock Against Racism (1989) where the Supreme Court developed a test for time-place-manner restrictions.

        You can disagree with the law and very well established Supreme Court precedent, but you can’t generally argue that the universities are violating the law by creating time, place and manner restrictions for free speech (unless they are failing the time-place-manner test).

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          2·
          6 months ago

          In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to a New York City regulation that mandated the use of city-provided sound systems and technicians to control the volume of concerts in New York City’s Central Park. The Court found that the city had a substantial interest in limiting excessive noise and the regulation was “content neutral.” The court found that “narrow tailoring” would be satisfied if the regulation promoted a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively without the regulation.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_v._Rock_Against_Racism

          What on earth does that have to do with protesting on college campuses?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              4·
              6 months ago

              You really think this was content neutral? The day before protesting at Indiana University started, they passed a new regulation barring protest camps in a field where there had been protest camps since the 1960s. I was in one in 1991 to protest the Gulf War. Then in 2024 they arrested 33 students and put a sniper on the roof.

              This was absolutely not content neutral.

              Also, what alternative avenues of communications do these students have to let their universities understand exactly what they are demanding?

              • Eyeuhnluuung@lemmy.world
                1·
                6 months ago

                Is unequivocally content neutral to initiate a new place restriction before any content is expressed in that place. If they subsequently allow other protests in that place, but continue to restrict Gaza protests in that place, then it is not content neutral.

                Your second question is either disingenuous or involved zero actual effort on your end, or both. Obviously this is an emotional subject, but it doesn’t absolve from using critical thinking.

                I’m not sure it’s helpful to continue, take care.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  Making a rule because you know a protest is about to happen is the opposite of neutral.

                  I’m not surprised you dismissed the second question since it’s obvious it doesn’t pass that test.