I’m not defending it. Yes, the police can build a case against someone. This is not hard. I’m done with this conversation, respectfully. It has taken enough of my time.

I should note, it could be in violation of his Green Card requirements, however.

But Columbia can determine that is violent speech, inform police, and have him arrested for violating their policies/the law. That’s what a trial would have to prove he ISN’T saying. However, simply detaining him in an unknown, unnamed place is illegal.

Oh yeah, Trump and Rubio are looking to make a point here and they were itching to use a “Free Palestine” protestor to make it.

All I’m saying is if a private institution determines an act to be illegal, they can notify police — but the offender in question should ALWAYS be allowed a fair trial.

If the private institution determines that he committed a crime — which it is clear Columbia did — they can make a case to police. He can be arrested at a later date. No, he should not be deported or lose Green Card status without due process and a trial.

I’m only providing the perspective of a private institution, such as Columbia.

Okay, let me spell this out. If Columbia determined he committed a crime, he could later be arrested. Not all arrests are made on the spot, so yes, he could later be arrested at home. Yes, the First Amendment provides protection but not if actions are determined to incite violence.

So we’re saying the same thing, then.

If I go into a restaurant and I start spouting off loud nonsense that the managers determine to sound threatening or dangerous, they will call the police and have me arrested. It doesn’t matter what I actually said; it matters how it was perceived and received within a privately-owned entity.

I’m not sure of your point here, but no need to elaborate.

What he DOESN’T deserve is to be kidnapped to some unknown and unnamed location. That’s the infringement on his rights at play here.

Yes, and I said this, re: deserving of due process and a fair trial.

No, the arrest is not an affront to freedom of speech.

4. If engaging in violent rhetoric, that is not categorized under protected speech, no matter where it was said. I don’t know whether he was, and he deserves a fair trial to determine if such violent things were, in fact, said publicly.

1. Free speech protections don’t apply within private entities. Amendment I protections are in regard to state actors and public spaces. 2. He is wholly deserving of due process and a fair trial, as is every person. 3. He has been disseminating TPs regarding the demise of Western civilization.

From what I heard, he was engaging in violent speech. I haven’t heard him firsthand, so I don’t know, but if so, that is not protected speech, regardless of whether he said it on a campus or not.

I wasn’t asking for a dissertation on oppression, and I don’t need one.

…Bet you thought I was serious.

Hard to tell anymore when we’re living under the rise of fascism in a world that often feels more parody than reality.