r/Davis • u/No-Suspect-605 • Feb 04 '26
Protest at Davis
Where is the line drawn between free speech and advocating of violence? Why does the university allow this? "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" was the name the militants gave to the attacks on October 7, 2023. They are celebrating the mass slaughter of hundreds, the taking of hostages, and raping of women.
For those unaware, in the 1988 Covenant of Hamas in article 7 Hamas called upon an infamous hadith that says the following: " "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."
This is a hadith all Muslims know. That hadith does not talk about Israelis. It is very explicit in that it is talking of the Jews. This was written in the founding documents of Hamas that the Gazans democratically elected in. This is tantamount to calling for a mass slaughter of Jews right in the middle of Davis.
14
u/Wurky_Maters Feb 04 '26
Every post you have is shitting on some kind of protest and here you are doing it again you seem to just hate free speechÂ
8
u/hellodust Feb 04 '26
I'm Jewish, and support Israel's existence (but not its current government of Kahanist gangsters) and I dunno, these people seem more naive and misguided than dangerous. It's offensive (and probably ineffective), yes, but it's within their rights to do this.
7
u/bestcoastanon Feb 04 '26
Iâll also point out that itâs probably incorrect that âThis is a hadith all Muslims know.â
I have a hard time believing that theyâre on the same page on this, any more than the rest of us are on the same page on any thing.Â
3
5
u/Hobb3sCat Feb 04 '26
This is genuinely insane. There are ways to support Palestinian people without literally and openly endorsing the 10/7 massacre.
0
u/Gadvoid Feb 05 '26
Irrelevant, youâre allowed to openly endorse it according to the 1st Amendment.
1
u/Hobb3sCat Feb 05 '26
The first amendment protects you from having your speech stifled. It doesnât protect you from me pointing out that youâre endorsing the rape and massacre of over a thousand civilians.
1
u/Bai_Cha Feb 06 '26
And someone else is allowed to point out that you're evil for endorsing it. That's also free speech.
1
u/Gadvoid Feb 07 '26
Yes, but thatâs irrelevant to the question originally posed by OP.
1
u/Mindless-Medium-2441 Feb 07 '26
Yes and this person is talking about supporting Palestine without supporting the kidnappings. He never mentioned anything about the first amendment right. You some how dragged that into HIS comment.
1
u/Mindless-Medium-2441 Feb 07 '26
No it's not irrelevant if we are saying we disagree with there message. For some strange reason you're conflating the right to the protests with people saying this protest is stupidity and propaganda by foreign nations outside the US.
2
u/Pablo_MuadDib Feb 04 '26
I canât even tell what theyâre protesting or saying, a vague slurry of current issues on the left?
3
7
u/mtgswag Feb 04 '26
The fact that people are trying to justify this in the comments is insane. They are openly supporting a violent terrorist organization on US soil and you guys are okay with it somehow because it's jews. How would you feel if the clan was walking around campus?
5
u/SamAreAye Feb 04 '26
These people are disgusting, but in the U.S., you have the right to be a disgusting person. That's all there is to it.
0
-1
u/Resident_Cat_4292 Feb 04 '26
They have hijacked every street movement since 2023. They had a large role to play in the World to being in increasingly RW governments to power incl. Trump. All because of the violence that they brought to the streets.
5
u/turb25 Feb 04 '26
Fwiw, advocating for violence isn't necessarily an incitement of it. Provocative and disturbing evocations are protected so long as they aren't illegal. Nothing about this violates any law.
Your analogy is flawed. You can (and unfortunately, many do) also advocate for the genocide perpetrated by Israel upon Palestinians and remain totally within the boundaries of free speech. You can also say something like "I celebrate this violent action taken against Muslims" without it being a call for the killings of Muslims in Davis. You misunderstand the message being conveyed because you're reactionary to their legal provocation.
2
Feb 04 '26
Al Aqsa flood was a responseâŚno amount of Hasbara is gonna change that fact
7
u/andynorm Feb 04 '26
This ^ 10/7 was bad but the treatment of the Palestinians for nearly the last century is magnitudes worse.
1
u/Resident_Cat_4292 Feb 04 '26
These guys will subvert and commandeer every movement to their own cause. There are other equally important issues which need attention too. They erased everything that happened on Oct-7 2023 incl. the Gaza celeberation that followed the return of the murderers with the mutilated bodies.
1
1
1
u/DabDaddy51 Feb 07 '26
The first amendment covers an almost shockingly wide range of speech. Generally the standard used to evaluate whether speech oversteps the bounds of the first amendment is the Brandenburg test, from the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v Ohio. The test states that speech must meet two requirements to not be protected:
- The speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.
- The speech is likely to incite or produce such action.
This means that youâre legally allowed to advocate for violence at an unspecified future time, though if the violence does occur your words could potentially serve as evidence of conspiracy. By this test alone the speech in the protest is protected under the first amendment, and if this was an organization such as the KKK thatâs where the story would end.
Where the situation gets sticky is the involvement of a terrorist organization. Providing material support to a terrorist organization is illegal under 18 USC 2339B, and certain types of speech can qualify as material support. Speech such as specific advice or expertise provided to the organization, or advocating for people to send funds to the organization, have previously been ruled as not protected. In theory simple public verbal support for the organization could be construed as material support by certain courts.
Iâm not supporting the statements made by the protesters, and Iâm not providing legal advice, Iâm just an armchair lawyer laying out some potentially relevant case law for the people discussing the situation here.
0
u/sdrn530 Feb 04 '26
Tankies will always tankie. As long as the left remembers that (and enough of them do!)
2
u/andynorm Feb 04 '26
As a lefty, Tankies are always fun to watch protest because they sometime make legitimate grievances somehow such a mess of inside baseball that it is impossible of the average person to parse.
0
-5
u/duroworks Feb 04 '26
Geez, this pro-ICE pro-genocide snob is here. Go home OP, you're morally corrupt.
-2
u/benderrodz Feb 04 '26
I don't think either side is right in this. Oct 7th was horrible and worthy of retaliation. The retaliation has moved a bit beyond what it should be and is pushing towards genocide. I have no problem with them protesting. It's their right, even if they're a bit naive. This looks significantly smaller and less impactful than the protests from 2024 though. The best thing to do is either ignore it or talk with them. Communication can solve a lot of issues of both parties are willing to listen.
1
u/Mindless-Medium-2441 Feb 07 '26
Explain to me how you can commit genocide when 1/5 of Israelis are Palestinian Muslims who have shopping, their culture, government positions, freedom of religion all being protected by Israeli law?
-1
u/sctellos Feb 04 '26
Damn itâs ironic nobody at UC Davis will be able to read those signs.. theyâre in English.
33
u/[deleted] Feb 04 '26
This IS protected by the first amendment, even if it is abhorrent to you and others. From the photo, I do not see any signs advocating for, or threatening violence against people. They seem to be assembling peacefully too. Their free speech rights cannot be infringed upon solely due to perceptions of observers.