I wonder what punishment the could levy ?

... BDS is very fashionable on campus these days.

that these four be required to give out their fecking pamphlets at the door, or at one of the tables set out inside for that purpose, like everyone else? Or that these four be required to utilize the open mike Q and A session to air their views, like everyone else? That seems in keeping with decorum.

On the other hand if Abe Foxman and those of like mind have their way perhaps careers can be destroyed, students can be expelled, and the actual content of the BDS debate as presented at the forum be totally ignored -- because no coherent counterclaims to the principles espoused by the BDS movement (as per J. Butler's speech) have to date been formulated.

And rightly so.

A public meeting sponsored by all the students political science department.


Shameful is what it is.


If not expulsion , suspension definitely.

The pamphlets were on the Jewisg students' laps , and how could they 'utilize the open mike Q and A session '
if they were forcibly expelled from the hall?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113431133

'no coherent counterclaims to the principles espoused by the BDS movement '

The Zionist left would disagree with you :


'Why Liberal Zionists Won't Join BDS'

by Peter Beinart Feb 12, 2013 9:45 AM EST


Posted here ,Enjoy :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113431122

has smartphone video.

Perhaps they have the audio and video.


On edit: This is a great distraction from BDS.

Clearly these Jewish students were denied their freedom of speech


One would expect this to happen in The New State Of Palestine,


http://www.democraticunderground.com/113431120


BUT it must NOT be tolerated in The USA.

seems some here could have different standards when it comes to Muslim or Arab students

and convicted

Anyway the better question is why dont the BDS supporters and event sponsers have video or even just audio to support their claims about the students?

it's almost amusing the attempted distraction from the obviously different standards here

But they could not expel them all , I guess...

The 'optics' would of been wrong

you might decide to keep quiet.

Otherwise, you fail.

What was the difference?

A private or NGO does not have to allow everyone a voice. They are allowed to restrict speech as much as they want just like DU or any other private forum. If it were the government on the other hand then it would be a denial of the right of freedom of speech.

which is a public institution. That was the reason for all of the fuss before the lecture. The concern was that a public school was paying for and lending its prestige to the lecture. Plus the school countered that concern by claiming that the event would promote discussion. Throwing people out of a private lecture may not deny them a right of free speech, but it sure puts the lie to the college's lame excuse for supporting the lecture in the first place.

was not a violation of the right to free speech.

And enlighten yourself about how there's more than the one POV provided by the IDF.

Or try to develop an argument for/agains't the views expressed at the forum.

Otherwise I think you're selling pure shit.

There was an open mike at the forum, and people with all viewpoints including anti-BDS were given the floor. These 4 martyrs-to-freedom were given an opportunity to play by the rules and they declined.
They said that they had all-important pamphlets to distribute, that for an unknown reason couldn't be distributed at the door or at a table provided for that purpose, or that couldn't be condensed for the Q&A. Then why don't they (or you) post a link to the contents of said pamphlets?
I don't see anyone here who's unwilling to discuss those contents in light of the messages heard at this BDS forum. Keeping to the facts of what was actually said. But I don't see any link to such contents - and I wonder why.

Shouldn't you be boycotting it?

The movie received Israeli funding and Israeli government backing.

"The point of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is to withdraw funds and support from major financial and cultural institutions that support the operations of the Israeli state and its military. The withdrawal of investments from companies that actively support the military or that build on occupied lands, the refusal to buy products that are made by companies on occupied lands, the withdrawal of funds from investment accounts that support any of these activities, a message that a growing number of people in the international community will not be complicit with the occupation. For this goal to be realized, it matters that there is a difference between those who carry Israeli passports and the state of Israel, since the boycott is directed only toward the latter. BDS focuses on state agencies and corporations that build machinery designed to destroy homes, that build military materiel that targets populations, that profit from the occupation, that are situated illegally on Palestinian lands, to name a few."

Please don't rebut with a phrase taken out of context.

On edit.
Here's a link to Guy Davidi's (the Israeli co-director's) statement
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/oscar-nominated-5-broken-cameras-israeli-or-palestinian-film#statement

video supporting their contention about the students being disruptive.

As I said before a small microcassete or microchip recorder is very common in college to record lectures.


What is lame are all the excuses used to dismiss the recording in this thread.

Yes, and that's the whole purpose of this tempest in the tiniest teacup, serenaded by the world's tiniest violin.

In contrast Butler's statements are substantial, e.g.
"The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement is, in fact, a non-violent movement; it seeks to use established legal means to achieve its goals; and it is, interestingly enough, the largest Palestinian civic movement at this time. That means that the largest Palestinian civic movement is a non-violent one that justifies its actions through recourse to international law. Further, I want to underscore that this is also a movement whose stated core principles include the opposition to every form of racism, including both state-sponsored racism and anti-Semitism. ."

and

"The point of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is to withdraw funds and support from major financial and cultural institutions that support the operations of the Israeli state and its military. The withdrawal of investments from companies that actively support the military or that build on occupied lands, the refusal to buy products that are made by companies on occupied lands, the withdrawal of funds from investment accounts that support any of these activities, a message that a growing number of people in the international community will not be complicit with the occupation. For this goal to be realized, it matters that there is a difference between those who carry Israeli passports and the state of Israel, since the boycott is directed only toward the latter. BDS focuses on state agencies and corporations that build machinery designed to destroy homes, that build military materiel that targets populations, that profit from the occupation, that are situated illegally on Palestinian lands, to name a few."

and

"Let us consider, then, go back to the right of return, which constitutes the controversial third prong of the BDS platform. The law of return is extended to all of us who are Jewish who live in the diaspora, which means that were it not for my politics, I too would be eligible to become a citizen of that state. At the same time, Palestinians in need of the right of return are denied the same rights? If someone answers that “Jewish demographic advantage” must be maintained, one can query whether Jewish demographic advantage is policy that can ever be reconciled with democratic principles. If one responds to that with “the Jews will only be safe if they retain their majority status,” the response has to be that any state will surely engender an opposition movement when it seeks to maintain a permanent and disenfranchised minority within its borders, fails to offer reparation or return to a population driven from their lands and homes, keeps over four million people under occupation without rights of mobility, due process and political self-determination, and another 1.6 million under siege in Gaza, rationing of food, administering unemployment, blocking building materials to restore bombed homes and institutions, intensifying vulnerability to military bombardment resulting in widespread injury and death."

I've read the article and it (very badly) elides on the first two points of BDS, and absolutely denies RoR on purely racist (called "nationalist&quot grounds.

In 21st century political discourse terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' have become so bastardized as to lose any trace of meaning. In fact I'm automatically suspicious when encountering them, and I redouble my resolution to discard all the bs rhetoric and look only at what is argued w.r.t. fundamental issues. I rate this article an "F".

Thanks

very common in college. Using such a small voice recorder that could be kept in ones pocket is easier and less disruptive than holding up a videophone.

Methinks there is more afoot.

I've been in University recently, and they use video.

There is also a difference between a College or University course, and a protest lecture.

Perhaps I am wrong.

actually, they were not entitled to take recordings at all, so even an audio recording such as this was not strictly permitted.

It seems as though the ejected students were passing papers between themselves (you can hear the persistent rustle of papers throughout), and talking quietly amongst themselves.

If the students were ejected for this then frankly it was a bit precious on the part of the event organisers, particularly when they must have been mindful of the controversy that it would cause.

It is still hypocrisy of the highest order that pro-Israel groups would be so concerned for the students who were "silenced" (SILENCED!!!) at an event that most of those same groups were determined to prevent happening in the first place.

Amongst themselves or to others remains to be seen.