Connect with us

Wisconsin

As encampments sprout on Wisconsin campuses, here’s what to know about student protest rights

Published

on

As encampments sprout on Wisconsin campuses, here’s what to know about student protest rights


Across the U.S., college students are building “Gaza Solidarity Encampments” to demonstrate support for Palestinians. But as tensions rise, many students have wondered what rights they have to demonstrate on the campuses where they live and pay tuition.

The Pro-Palestinian rallies gained traction earlier this month when student organizers at Columbia University established an encampment on the main lawn. On Monday, University of Wisconsin students in Milwaukee and Madison joined the movement, calling on the university system to divest from companies that support weapons manufacturing and Israel.

The Journal Sentinel spoke to American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin staff attorney R. Timothy Muth for insights on the rights of student protesters. Here’s what you need to know:

Advertisement

What are the protection differences between an encampment and a regular protest or march?

When protesters set up an encampment, they often set up tents and sleeping quarters near or within the organization they are protesting.

According to Wisconsin law, no person may picnic or camp on university lands, except in areas specifically designated as picnic or camping grounds. These rules include pitching tents or overnight use of sleeping bags, blankets, makeshift shelters, motor homes, campers or camp trailers on university property.

Additionally, according to Wisconsin law, universities and other government organizations are allowed to place “reasonable time, place and manner restrictions” on speech or protest activity. This means that they can regulate when, where, and how expression takes place, as long as their restrictions are content-neutral, narrowly tailored and provide sufficient alternatives to express ideas.

How do protest rules differ on a public vs. private campus?

The rules and regulations for protest at a public university need to comply with the First Amendment, Muth said, meaning that individuals have the right to assemble and express their views.

Advertisement

However, according to Wisconsin law, private property owners can set rules for speech on their property. A private university could enact a wide variety of restrictions, some of which could be perceived as unreasonable by protesters, because they are granted more flexibility to prohibit some speech and the locations where protesters are permitted to demonstrate.

If a police officer asks for the name of a protester, but is not placing them under arrest, does the protester have to respond?

According to Muth, a person is not required to answer any questions of law enforcement since they have rights under the Fifth Amendment to not speak. If a person is being arrested, they have the right to state that they do not want to answer questions without an attorney present.

However, Muth recommends that student protesters confirm whether or not their campuses have established rules which require them to identify themselves to campus security, as some private institutions might have a rule in place to maximize student safety.

In most cases, like at UW-Madison, campus policies do not supersede state law and protesters have a right to not respond to law enforcement.

Advertisement

Are there rules that govern the behavior of opposing groups at a protest?

Police are permitted to keep antagonistic groups separated, but, according to state law, the groups should be allowed to be within sight and sound of one another. Protesters of opposing groups are allowed to speak to and shout at one another during rallies and demonstrations. According to Muth, a protester cannot be arrested for exhibiting those behaviors.

At a protest, Muth said, “the police are responsible for protecting each group and their expression.”

What types of speech are not protected?

Though almost all speech is protected at a protest, there is an exception for so-called “fighting words” that have the potential to cause harm to an individual or group.

This type of speech is an incendiary, obscene or defamatory statement that aims to incite violent action. This speech is directed at a specific individual or group that create an imminent threat or incite violence.

Protesters should avoid using this language, as it could lead to arrest or removal from the protest premises.

Advertisement

What rules should people be aware of when capturing video recording or photos at a protest?

Generally, the courts state that if a person is in a public space, they do not have any particular expectation of privacy. Therefore, individuals can be photographed or surveilled while walking down a public street, protesting, or partaking in any activities within a public area.

Campus security, the police, and counter-demonstrators are legally allowed to take photos of protesters, according to Muth.

Additionally, he said, “If the police are arresting people or using force, protesters have the First Amendment right to to record and photograph. We generally encourage people not to photograph identifiable pictures of protesters who have not agreed to be photographed.”

Do police officers have the right to view photos and videos captured at an event?

Muth said protesters who want to guarantee that their photos and videos are not accessible to law enforcement should establish a lock or password on their phone before attending a protest.

“Under the Fourth Amendment, it is prohibited for the police to search your phone without a warrant, but that doesn’t mean they won’t look through an unlocked phone,” Muth said.

Advertisement

If protesters are concerned about privacy, Muth said that it is important to evaluate their personal approach to digital security. In addition to locking phones, anything that protesters post publicly to social media can be evaluated by law enforcement following a protest and used as evidence.

Are there any restrictions when it comes to carrying weapons while at a protest?

Wisconsin law allows for the carrying of firearms in a wide variety of settings. However, according to the Wisconsin Administrative Code UWS 18.10(3), individuals are prohibited from “carrying, possessing, or using any dangerous weapon on university lands or in university buildings or facilities, unless it is for law enforcement purposes or the person receives written approval of the chief administrative officer.”

This rule applies to all lands controlled by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. At private institutions like Marquette University, many schools prohibit the possession of weapons in campus buildings, offices and residence halls.

What other safety precautions should student protesters should keep in mind?

If protesters think there is a possibility of them getting arrested, Muth said they should memorize a phone number for somebody who can pick them up from the police station or contact a lawyer on their behalf.

Advertisement

If protesters believe their rights have been violated, the ACLU recommends they complete the following steps:

  • Write down everything they can remember, including officers’ badge and patrol car numbers and the agency they work for
  • Get contact information for witnesses
  • Take photographs of all injuries
  • File a written complaint with the agency’s internal affairs division or civilian compliant board

Tamia Fowlkes is a Public Investigator reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Contact her at tfowlkes@gannett.com.



Source link

Wisconsin

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody

Published

on

President of Wisconsin’s largest mosque released from ICE custody


A federal judge has ordered the release of the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, after finding that immigration officials probably detained him in retaliation against his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, suppressing his first amendment rights in the process.

The US district judge James Patrick Hanlon’s order on Thursday marked a sharp rebuke against Trump officials, including the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who had tried to paint Salah Sarsour as a national security threat.

“Salah Sarsour, who has lived in this country for more than three decades and served as a core pillar in his community without any issues, should never have been detained in the first place,” his legal team wrote in a statement. “While we continue to fight these baseless claims in court, today is about celebrating a family being reunited. It is also a sober reminder that, if the government can target Mr Sarsour, everyone’s free speech rights are at risk.”

Sarsour describes himself as a stateless Palestinian, according to the order. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) says that he is a Jordanian citizen. He has lived in the United States for more than three decades, becoming a legal permanent resident in 1998. Immigration officials approved Sarsour’s citizenship application decades ago, though he did not naturalize.

Advertisement

Sarsour has garnered public attention as a champion for Palestinian rights, and serves as a board member of an advocacy group called American Muslims for Palestine.

But Rubio personally signed off on a memo to the DHS last year describing Sarsour as deportable despite his green card, because “his actions undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world”. The memo, cited in Hanlon’s order, accuses Sarsour’s group of being “found to have been involved in activities providing funds to Hamas”.

A group of plainclothes ICE officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles swarmed Sarsour on 30 March of this year, arresting him and putting him in deportation proceedings. ICE ultimately detained him in Clay county jail in Indiana.

Sarsour lost 30lb while detained, the order says. His lawyers told the court that he was “at constant risk of developing serious complications from diabetes given that the medical staff only checks his blood-sugar levels once a month”. Tightly controlling diabetes typically requires multiple glucose checks daily.

Hanlon’s order says that homeland security officials and Rubio probably trampled on Sarsour’s first amendment right to free speech and appeared to have arrested him in retaliation for his Palestinian rights advocacy.

Advertisement

The order cited a New York Times story and the website for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative thinktank that dreamed up Project 2025,

The Heritage Foundation presented the White House with the idea to present prominent foreign-born Muslims and Palestinian rights leaders as terrorists in order to sue them, deport them or pressure employers to fire them, the order says, citing reporting from the Times and Heritage’s own website. Sarsour was probably among the targets of that campaign, the order says.

The federal government, through its lawyers, contended that Sarsour should be deported based on two convictions from more than three decades ago in Israel – one for throwing a molotov cocktail and the other for attempting to store weapons and ammunition.

Sarsour denies having committed those crimes.

But Hanlon viewed those crimes as a non-issue for justifying his incarceration, noting that the federal government knew about them since the 1990s and approved his legal permanent residency and his citizenship application anyway.

Advertisement

Sarsour’s speech on Palestinian rights “is core political speech and squarely within the scope of the First Amendment”, the order says. “Mr Sarsour has submitted evidence allowing a reasonable inference that his protected speech was ‘at least a motivating factor’ in Respondents’ decision to detain him.”

A spokesperson for homeland security described Sarsour as a “terrorist”, citing the convictions from his youth in Israel.

Government lawyers had argued that Sarsour did not have the same first amendment rights as US citizens. If he were released, they said, he should have to pay a $25,000 bond, wear an ankle monitor, check in routinely with ICE and remain confined to his house.

Instead, Hanlon ordered his release on personal recognizance, meaning that Sarsour does not have to pay a cash bond to compel him to show up in court again. The order, however, requires him to remain in the state of Wisconsin.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute

Published

on

Couple asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Brewers 50-50 raffle prize dispute


(WLUK) – A couple challenging the decision not to award them a 50-50 raffle prize at a Milwaukee Brewers game asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case, calling it one of “statewide importance.”

Matthew and Annette Flynn purchased ten raffle tickets at the July 7, 2023, game, and held the winning number which was originally selected for $13,000. According to court records, the raffle rules in effect at the time required the winning ticket holder to claim the prize at a designated 50-50 table by the end of the top of the seventh inning. Flynn said she did not see the winning number displayed or hear it announced and was directed by stadium personnel to another location before making her way to the claim table. Officials determined she did not arrive before the deadline and selected a new winning ticket.

The Flynns sued, but the circuit and appeals courts ruled the raffle’s rules gave the foundation sole discretion to determine the official winner and that the rules clearly stated a participant who failed to claim the prize within the specified time would be disqualified.

In a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed Wednesday, the Flynn’s asked the high court to take the case, saying the decision “affects not only the parties to this action but potentially every Wisconsin resident who participates in charitable raffles and similar gaming activities.”

Advertisement

“This case presents significant questions concerning contractual discretion, discovery, judicial review of charitable gaming decisions, and the treatment of digital evidence within Wisconsin’s appellate system. For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that this Court grant review of the decision of the Court of Appeals,” the petition states.

The high court does not have to take the case. At some point, it will vote on if to take it. If it does, a months-long process to review the issues will begin. If it does not, the appeals court ruling would stand.

According to the rules posted on the Milwaukee Brewers’ website, the deadline to claim the prize is no longer during the game the tickets were purchased.

Comment with Bubbles

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

Advertisement

“The Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number may claim the Prize at the 50/50 Table located on the Loge (2nd) level concourse behind Sections 216/217 until such time as the Ballpark officially closes to fans after the end of the game. If the Participant in possession of the Raffle ticket with the potential winning number does not claim the Prize by the time the Ballpark closes to fans after the end of the game, that Participant may still claim the Prize within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period for the respective baseball game by contacting the Raffle hotline (414-902-4334). A Prize that is not claimed within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the Raffle Period will be awarded in compliance with applicable regulations,” the site states.



Source link

Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer

Published

on

Wisconsin DOJ probes fatal shooting by Oneida County officer


ONEIDA COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) — The Wisconsin DOJ is investigating an officer-involved death that occurred on the morning of June 17 in the town of Lake Tomahawk.

According to a press release, around 10:30 a.m., two Oneida officers arrived at Lumen Lake Drive to arrest a subject in a felony investigation.

Upon contact with the officers, the subject brandished and shot a firearm. One officer shot the subject in return.

EMS pronounced the subject dead on the scene. No members of law enforcement or the public were injured.

Advertisement

Both officers will be placed on administrative assignment, per the agency’s policy.

WFRV will update this story as needed.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending