Around 100 protesters were arrested on Saturday at a pro-Palestine encampment at Northeastern University, but not the one whose hate speech got everything shut down.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It also could just be a racist acting on their own agenda. Regardless, it’s devastating to the vast majority of peaceful protesters. They need to identify and cast out bad actors as soon as they’re identified to protect themselves from legal repercussions, let alone discredit to their cause.

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It also could just be a racist acting on their own agenda

        I could buy that if not for this:

        The next morning, dozens of NUPD and Boston police arrested around 100 demonstrators, but not the one whose hate speech got everything shut down.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That doesn’t suggest anything other than police bias. They could just as easily be protecting a racist. It’s not unheard of.

          • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It is incredible precision, and it wouldn’t be among the 10 first cases I’ve heard of a police mole dynamiting a protest to create reasons to arrest people. The cases I know of are from Spain though.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              It could be a plant, but it also could just be one racist asshole that justified police intervention, then the police let the racist go after arresting the remaining protesters. SCOTUS ruled “guilt by association” in protests now, so it’s completely legal.

              The most important message to protect protesters is to identify and eject bad actors as soon as they’re identified. There’s no room for bystanders at a protest now that your criminal record is on the line.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Tell that to right-wing media. They focus 100% of the story on the bad actors, and like it or not, half of our government reads that news exclusively. Extremists are a cancer to any cause. The message to share with protesters is to have zero tolerance for extreme behavior, and immediately call out bad actors that show up at their demonstrations, for the good of their cause. Especially now that being a bystander can get you charged.

          You want the news to read, “Protesters criticize and eject demonstrator calling for killing Jews from pro-Palestine rally.”

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              My point is, protesters need to be vigilant to outcast problem actors as soon as they’re identified. The goal is to protect the protesters from the legal repercussions of one bad actor.

              • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Not arguing with you, i agree with your point. Only caveat being: that no matter what, the headlines won’t read this, because **the whole point of AIPAC (and the state) using bad actors like this is to from up an excuse for cops to arrest and break up protesters. It’s a very effective tactic they’ve been using for decades. They will at best put up a story like this, exonerating the arrested protesters after the fact.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  That’s assuming they aren’t charging the protest as a whole, without the ability to identify the initial bad actor. The new ruling does not explicitly state that the instigator needs to be identified for the protest to be charged as a whole.

                  There’s now nothing stopping police from saying they saw someone throw a rock, but couldn’t identify who, and then charging the protest as a whole. SCOTUS completely fucked freedom to assemble.