World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
If peaceful protest is going to be consistently met with violent police response; maybe they should stop being peaceful from the outset.
I wonder how long it will take for enough to realise their government is not compatible with protests. Peer pressure does not encourage authoritarians.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK
The running platform was making empathetic people angry; small scale protests are a badge of honor and large scale protests are a mild annoyance to be dealt with however they deem fit.
It won’t happen at this rate. Last thing that was closest to that was the CHOP zone in Seattle a few years ago. And that still fell through. Most protest folks that participate won’t fight back since most are against baring arms and only want it to be via peace since they are too afraid to die for something. They will shift that fear on to their peers and react as well with “I don’t want to have people miss me” or “I don’t have the time to up and remove my life from what I’ve worked towards so far”
Ah yes, the CHOP zone arguing for zero police, that turned into a violent, crime riddled zone where the protesters eventually all left because, against all they believed in, without police crime runs rampant and they don’t like having their possessions destroyed/stolen, or being assaulted/killed.
It was a wonderful example of how dumb most protesters are and how they don’t even understand the consequences of what they’re protesting for.
"FreedomAdvocate" the bootlicker. The definition of irony, if anyone needed it.
Like how bills that goes away our rights tend to have names that sound like they expand them
If security shows up to stop protestors from leaving, they aren't there to secure the peace, they are there to oppress.
They weren’t there to stop them from leaving, they were there to make them leave the right way - after being identified. The protesters didn’t like this though since they didn’t want to be held accountable for their actions, which is ironic because they want everyone else to be held accountable for things that weren’t even anything to do with their actions.
How can you create an account with that name and also say you must comply with any authority even when they're infringing on your rights? There's no legal requirement to identify themselves (and even then, only to police, not to security) unless they're suspected of commiting a crime. Being trespassed is not a crime. Trespassing is. They were told they had to leave, and on attempting to leave they were prevented from doing so, so they had not committed a crime and were being prevented from complying with the trespass order.
You can’t accuse someone of trespassing if you prevent them from leaving. No one is required to identify themselves to security.
Trespassing requires you to be notified that you shouldn’t be there. Without notice, there is no trespassing. After giving notice, trespassing only occurs if they remain on the property in spite of being notified they’re not allowed to be there. By preventing them from leaving, you are preventing them from satisfying your requirement for them not to be there, and thus undermining any trespassing charge.
Even if they were trespassing, none of that justifies being assaulted by police officers.
Oh brother...
The “violent police response” was in response to the protesters turning violent when they were locked in the building that they illegally took over. The police locked them in so they could identify and/or arrest every one of them as they came out, but the protesters didn’t want to be identified and held accountable for their actions, so they turned violent. That violence was met with resistance by the police, in the form of physical restraint.
It’s all on video btw. We can see that the protesters are the ones that first became violent.
They had no requirement to identify themselves to campus Public Safety Officers. PSO's are not police. Locking them in the building is clearly unlawful detainment, and must invalidate any trespass charge as they were prevented from leaving (to be guilty of trespass you must first be notified and then remain in spite of being allowed to leave). Reasonable force is aboslutely an appropriate response to unlawful detainment.
Taking over a university facility and making demands isn't "peaceful." Peaceful is sitting outside of University property and protesting.
Not to mention that the protesters are the ones that turned violent when faced with the police attempting to identify and arrest them lol. It’s like they forget that it’s all being recorded by multiple people lol
Lemmy doesn't like to hear this, they are quickly turning into Reddit 2.0...
Taking over a building is on the far end of "peaceful".
The majority of protests involve taking over space temporarily; that alone doesn't make them not peaceful.
They weren't invading/forcing their way into spaces that they weren't already openly invited to be in, nor were they violent towards officials that were demanding they leave (self-defense aside).
They refused to leave, so they were trespassing. They then became violent when they were made to stay until the police got there, and were violent towards the police.
If you prevent them from leaving at any point you invalidate the accusation of trespass.
I specifically didn't say they were being violent. When asked to leave their presence becomes trespass. Being somewhere you aren't supposed to be gets to the far side of "peaceful". You're not violent, maybe, but you're not lawful either. At that point the police are within their right to remove you.
Peaceful does not mean lawful. You can peacefully break the law.
The law is not always right - that is why it has the facility to be changed - and when laws are wrong it is a good citizen's duty to break them, as that is the first step to changing them.
Sure.... But...
Don't be vague. We're talking about trespassing. Somebody peaceably trespassing in your living room would be a pretty big deal.
It's fine that they protested, but expect to be arrested when you refuse to vacate a building you're trespassing in.
Fun fact: trespassing isn't even a crime everywhere, not on its own. Also, trespassing doesn't occur automatically, in a nutshell you have to be notified and then remain on the property in spite of notice - this is why No Trespassing signs are a thing, they serve as notice.
Here, the students had every right to be there so were only trespassing after they were told to leave but remained. You're absolutely right that they should expect to be arrested after this point. However, they should not expect nor do they deserve to be assaulted by police acting unlawfully (yet apparently shielded by the legal system).
These people think that trespassing into the country is fine and not cause for deportation, so you’re not going to get an intelligent answer from them on this topic.
Maybe you could try making an intelligent comment yourself, before you criticise others?
You have literally said you are for the armement of Israel. Of course any protest against Israel is too violent for you.
Yes? If a bunch of Trump supporters took over the same building, would you have the same attitude about it?
Ohhh, Mr. "gotcha question" showed up.
Feel free to complain that I didn't answer your question like you deserve one
Okay.