WDSmart

Although I am not an opponent of PRIDE month, I do agree that no one or no facility should be required to fly any type of flag at any time.

Thanks for your response. I believe and agree with everything you said above, except for two things: "What you might see in the movies is rarely factual." I believe that many movies with scenes of trials are based on facts, even though they may be dramatized somewhat. "A court generally determines the level of guilt and the severity of punishment, not that the person was or was not a criminal." If the person is found guilty of a crime, then they are, by definition, a "criminal." If they are found not guilty in this one case, they still could be a criminal, but not from the judgment of this one case. They may be a criminal because they have been found guilty in a prior case, or have admitted their guilt without going to trial. You also bring up an interesting point when you write, "I also decided, on my own volition, that a violation of crime was unintentional and closed the investigation, not seeking punishment for the individual as there was no harm done." That, for me, raises the question of whether or not a person is a criminal if they UNINTENTIONALLY committed a crime and/or there was, at least in your judgement, NO HARM DONE. These are aspects of a crime that, IMO, should be decided by a prosecutor, judge, or jury, not by an investigator.

I agree with most everything you've said above, but I'd expect all this to be done following due process. In other words, I don't think an ICE agent should be able to stop anyone on the street, demand proof of their citizenship or visa status, and if they couldn't produce that on the spot, detain them and deport them without further due process. And, yes, my "...how do YOU KNOW,,,?" was a generic reference. I could have written, "...how does ONE KNOW,,,?" I have never worked in law enforcement, investigated violations of the law, or gathered evidence to be used in a court of law. I have only learned about these from reading about them or seeing them portrayed in movies.

The Catholic world might need a pope, but I certainly don't...

Don't you mean "Donald," not "Joe"? 🤔

Don't you mean "Donald," not "Joe"? 🤔

Yes! I agree with all that above, (except the first sentence/question). You seem to be confusing "protesting" with "freedom of speech." They are not the same thing, although most protests do involve freedom of speech. But nowhere can freedom of speech be used as an excuse to violate rules or laws, or commit or encourage violence. I've put more "double-speak" remarks beneath each of your points above.

They ALWAYS have the right to free speech under the 1st Amendment. "Occupying campus buildings," or "disruptions to our academic activities," or lighting buildings on fire or injuring people is not "free speech." These protestors are not, or should not/cannot be punished for their free speech. They are being punished for violating rules or laws, but not for their free speech. Another example that you might agree with is that the insurrectionists on January 6 were not arrested (and now pardoned ) for exercising their free speech. They were arrested for breaking into the Capitol using force.

Yes, we disagree. Free speech can occur at all times and in all public places. No, you can't disrupt a place of business or any other private gathering, but you can speak your mind and support whomever you want, even Zionists. Yes, Columbia is a private university. I'd put them in the category of a "business." I don't need to look up any laws. All I need to do is read the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. There are some exceptions to speech considered "free speech," but none that apply here in this instance.

First, I think the university should take action against any students. Second, if public laws were broken, people should be accused and given a trial if they contest the charges. Those who are determined to be guilty should face the consequences, which, I assume, would not be severe since what they appear to have done are only misdemeanors, not felonies. These people did protest without violence, at least none that I read in the article. All citizens and foreigners have the right to free speech, so they should be allowed to participate in protests, as long as they are peaceful. Who cares what other countries do? This is about the USA, not Zimbabwe.

I am neither reformed nor weird. I'm woke. Yes, I also believe a "criminal" is someone who has committed a crime. My point is, and always has been, that to call someone a criminal, you first must KNOW they committed a crime, not just SUSPECT them of committing a crime. If that's the case, they are a "suspect," not a "criminal," or you could call them a "criminal suspect." "A criminal suspect is a person who is believed to have committed a crime, but has not yet been found guilty. In criminal law, a suspect is someone who is under suspicion, often formally announced as being under investigation by law enforcement officials. If a suspect received an arrest warrant, they might then be identified as a defendant; and after the suspect was convicted or found guilty, they would be called an offender." Microsoft Edge online dictionary

There are many people (MAGA supporters) who believe all immigrants, whether they have a visa or not, should be treated like criminals. This and other forum topics are full of their posts.

I have no problem with Columbia's actions against this demonstration because it disrupted the university's services. However, I would expect actions like this to be done regardless of the topic of the demonstration.

Yes, "Someone" that robs a bank but has yet to be caught, charged and found guilty is still a criminal by the very act of committing the crime. But that doesn't mean you can name them and then call them a criminal yet.

My point is, how do YOU KNOW someone has committed a crime unless you see them commit the crime yourself, they admit to it, or they are found guilty by due process. Otherwise, you're just taking someone else's (or 10 other people's) accusation that they committed a crime. Immigrants who have entered the country (USA) without a visa (illegally) MAY be eligible for a Refugee Visa if they came here fleeing violence. A refugee is not an illegal alien. They can be detained and charged as an illegal alien, but if they prove they are a refugee, those charges are dropped. (At least that's how I think that works.)