There is profound confusion on campus right now around the distinctions among free speech, civil disobedience and lawlessness.[snip]Noise limits can protect the ability of students to study and sleep. Restricting the amount of time any one group can demonstrate on the limited open spaces on campus permits other groups to use the same space. If one group is permitted to occupy a quad indefinitely, for example, then that action by necessity excludes other organizations from the same ground. In that sense, indefinitely occupying a university quad isn’t simply a form of expression; it also functions as a form of exclusion. Put most simply, student groups should be able to take turns using public spaces, for an equal amount of time and during a roughly similar portion of the day.Civil disobedience is distinct from First Amendment-protected speech. It involves both breaking an unjust law and accepting the consequences. There is a long and honorable history of civil disobedience in the United States, but true civil disobedience ultimately honors and respects the rule of law. In a 1965 appearance on “Meet the Press,” the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. described the principle perfectly: “When one breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust, he must do it openly, he must do it cheerfully, he must do it lovingly, he must do it civilly — not uncivilly — and he must do it with a willingness to accept the penalty.”But what we’re seeing on a number of campuses isn’t free expression, nor is it civil disobedience. It’s outright lawlessness. No matter the frustration of campus activists or their desire to be heard, true civil disobedience shouldn’t violate the rights of others. Indefinitely occupying a quad violates the rights of other speakers to use the same space. Relentless, loud protest violates the rights of students to sleep or study in peace. And when protests become truly threatening or intimidating, they can violate the civil rights of other students, especially if those students are targeted on the basis of their race, sex, color or national origin.
That last segment after "especially" is why I don't read French often. He is steeped in the Woke platitudes and cannot apparently hear himself. He is on the right track - we need the rule of law and equality before the law and due process. We all benefit. It doesn't matter whether they are targeted on the basis of their race sex, color or national origin. French is trying to have it both ways. He apparently wants to discriminate based on race sex, color or national origin while also wanting the of law and equality before the law and due process which would preclude "especially." There is no especially for any of the Woke sacrosanct identities. That is mere ideological cretinism.
There is simple rule of law and equality before the law and due process. That is what we need and what postmodernist, intersectional, competitive victimhood, social justice precludes. French wants both but he can only have one.
We need the Classical liberal model (rule of law and equality before the law and due process) and need to dispense with the Social Justice nonsense. It is that simple. Just as Reverend King said.
