Reflecting on his time as a University of Pennsylvania alumnus, a recent tweet points out that the tolerance for illegal protests is heavily influenced by the perspectives being voiced. The post suggests that if the protesters were promoting white nationalist views, law enforcement would swiftly intervene to remove them.
Adding to this discussion, Professor Bernstein shared his observation on the ongoing illegal encampment at Johns Hopkins University. He highlights the risks associated with allowing non-students to occupy the campus, indicating that they are potentially provoking public safety concerns.
The article raises concerns about the preferential treatment given to certain protests over others, citing that even objectionable ideologies like white nationalism are protected under the First Amendment. It references legal cases that have upheld the rights of individuals to express racist views, emphasizing the principle of free speech.
Furthermore, it criticizes progressive cities for violating the First Amendment by showing bias towards specific protests. It mentions instances where law enforcement agencies have investigated non-threatening activities, such as confederate-flag flyers, despite constitutional protections.
The narrative extends to recent events at George Washington University, where police hesitated to remove anti-Israel protesters, raising concerns about selective enforcement of laws based on political considerations.
David Bernstein adds: Similar incidents have been reported in Denver and UCLA, highlighting the challenges faced by law enforcement in maintaining order amidst ideological tensions.
The article concludes by suggesting that federal authorities should investigate whether police departments are breaching their obligations by failing to uphold the law impartially. It also underscores the impact of such inaction on the safety and well-being of Jewish students.
Please rephrase this sentence.
Source link
