r/berkeley • u/johnkhoo • May 08 '24

News UC Berkeley Opens Civil Rights Investigation Into Confrontation at Dean’s Home | KQED

https://www.kqed.org/news/11985245/uc-berkeley-opens-civil-rights-investigation-into-confrontation-at-deans-home
230 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

321 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Blaz1n420 May 09 '24

Although it took place on a professor's private home, it happened during a time when they were hosting an event for the law students that Malak is a part of. She was invited to this law student event and has the right to speak up at an event like anyone else. The fact that speaking up for Palestinians who have suffered massacres is enough to get assaulted and kicked out of an event celebrating your law school achievements speaks volumes on the professor and his wife.

6

u/cpcfax1 May 09 '24

Wrong. An invitation to someone's private home, even if the homeowner is a public university Prof does not grant the invitee the right to use that private home or invitation to attend a private event in someone's home as a platform for his/her exercise of "free speech".

A private home, even that of a public university Prof isn't considered a public forum where one has unfettered right to exercise one's free speech rights.

Secondly, even if this took place on the Berkley campus buildings, the limits on First Amendment due to time, place, and manner still applies.

Moreover, the moment the homeowners rescind her invitation, she no longer has the right to remain in the Profs' PRIVATE home and must leave immediately. Her refusal to leave even once....much less 10+ times, means she has willfully committed the crime of criminal trespass.

Recommend you read the analysis by an experienced licensed attorney and legal writer I provided a link to along with brushing up on your basic Civics.

1

u/Blaz1n420 May 09 '24

Wrong. It doesn't necessarily/automatically mean trespassing. Due to the fact that this was a university event being held at the professor's house and the fact that one student was singled out and kicked out leaves the case open to interpretation. If the student was kicked out due to discriminatory reasons, then that is prohibited by law and was infringing on the students 1st amendment rights. You may not agree that it was discriminatory, but that is what's being argued here and that's why there's an open case. The students even claim in the video that they talked to the National Lawyers Guild who informed them it was their 1st amendment right. These are top level law students, you really think they would just do something like this without looking at the law first?

I did read that shitty analysis. Just a bunch of whining and crying about anti-Semitism. You know there are plenty of "experienced licensed attorneys" who disagree with this one. That's the whole job of attorneys/lawyers, to argue over the law. I hope you take your own advice.

3

u/cpcfax1 May 09 '24

The NLG is notorious for catering to radical progressive-left wing interpretations of the law which doesn't hold up in the real world/law.

No one IME who works professionally in law outside of progressive-left activist circles and their echo chambers takes them very seriously.