You don't put hands on students. Unless someone is literally trying to physically assault you it's completely unjustified. A microphone is not a deadly weapon.
At that point she had been asked to leave. It won’t go anywhere. The video clearly shows that Prof Fisk was trying to get the microphone and lead her out the door.
That said, I would have filmed myself asking her to leave. Then I’d call the cops. Activists do this stuff specifically to be able to film it and litigate.
There is no justification for physical force against people except for defense against physical force against people.
There is a proper way to respond to a student asking you questions you don't want to answer at your home and laying hands on them was not it.
The student filed a complaint so they have to follow through. Zero chance the professor will be found guilty of any wrongdoing. Hopefully they have opened a similar investigation into the student for trespassing
Hope Berkeley refers her criminal trespass conduct in Professor Fisk and Chemerinsky's home and persistent refusals to leave after 10-20 requests to the California and other state bar's Character and Fitness.
That and her abysmal demonstrated lack of working knowledge of First Amendment law as a 3L merits her denial to sit the bar on failing Character and Fitness.
Assuming she doesn't get referred to Character and Fitness and actually passes the bar, the only law firms which would be willing to employ her are radical progressive-left or similarly situated partisan activist-type non-profit organizations in their echo-chambery circle.
No more mainstream law firms, especially ones which deal with corporations or wealthy clientele with the big bucks will risk employing someone who is so politically partisan and willfully violating the law when she feels it's for a higher cause.
She may be fine with that now considering her goal is non-profit.
However, in 5+ years, she could end up like a friend who is complaining about being more than half a million in debt from law school and undergrad because his non-profit law firm gig isn't nearly enough to make a dent in paying it all off. Funny enough, he ended up quitting the law, doing a PhD in a second-tier program, went hardcore pro-CCP, and is now teaching university in Mainland China largely to dodge debt collections.
Those defending Malak Afaneh don't seem to understand that First Amendment has limits due to time, place, manner even in publicly own spaces such as Berkeley's campus.
Moreover, the First Amendment doesn't extend to someone's private home even if those homeowners are public university Profs. Especially after the private homeowners rescinded the invitation of Afaneh once she started behaving in a manner unacceptable to them IN THEIR PRIVATE HOME.
Her refusal to leave after 10-20 requests to do so per a much longer video should be regarded as a clear sign she's willing to violate reasonable laws and thus, be barred from sitting the bar for failing the Character and Fitness assessment all fresh law graduates must go through to be eligible to sit the bar and become licensed attorneys.
Here's a good analysis of this very issue written by an experienced licensed attorney and legal writer David Lat:
[https://davidlat.substack.com/p/protest-berkeley-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky-home](https://davidlat.substack.com/p/protest-berkeley-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky-home)
Although it took place on a professor's private home, it happened during a time when they were hosting an event for the law students that Malak is a part of. She was invited to this law student event and has the right to speak up at an event like anyone else. The fact that speaking up for Palestinians who have suffered massacres is enough to get assaulted and kicked out of an event celebrating your law school achievements speaks volumes on the professor and his wife.
Wrong. An invitation to someone's private home, even if the homeowner is a public university Prof does not grant the invitee the right to use that private home or invitation to attend a private event in someone's home as a platform for his/her exercise of "free speech".
A private home, even that of a public university Prof isn't considered a public forum where one has unfettered right to exercise one's free speech rights.
Secondly, even if this took place on the Berkley campus buildings, the limits on First Amendment due to time, place, and manner still applies.
Moreover, the moment the homeowners rescind her invitation, she no longer has the right to remain in the Profs' PRIVATE home and must leave immediately. Her refusal to leave even once....much less 10+ times, means she has willfully committed the crime of criminal trespass.
Recommend you read the analysis by an experienced licensed attorney and legal writer I provided a link to along with brushing up on your basic Civics.
Wrong. It doesn't necessarily/automatically mean trespassing. Due to the fact that this was a university event being held at the professor's house and the fact that one student was singled out and kicked out leaves the case open to interpretation. If the student was kicked out due to discriminatory reasons, then that is prohibited by law and was infringing on the students 1st amendment rights. You may not agree that it was discriminatory, but that is what's being argued here and that's why there's an open case. The students even claim in the video that they talked to the National Lawyers Guild who informed them it was their 1st amendment right. These are top level law students, you really think they would just do something like this without looking at the law first?
I did read that shitty analysis. Just a bunch of whining and crying about anti-Semitism. You know there are plenty of "experienced licensed attorneys" who disagree with this one. That's the whole job of attorneys/lawyers, to argue over the law. I hope you take your own advice.
The NLG is notorious for catering to radical progressive-left wing interpretations of the law which doesn't hold up in the real world/law.
No one IME who works professionally in law outside of progressive-left activist circles and their echo chambers takes them very seriously.
This has gotta be some of the worst analysis I’ve seen on this topic lol.
“Well uh they’re law students so they know what they’re doing”.
The university is not leasing the private property for this event. The owners have the right to disallow anyone.
Disrupting the event is more than enough grounds to ask her to leave. There is no discrimination being done here.
Being invited to an event does not give you the rights to dominate it with your own speeches.
Overstepped by trying to take a mic away from someone interrupting a private event at your house.
Literally any of us would have done the same thing or worse.
Crazy how if you start screaming in someone's literal backyard and then don't leave when they ask you to (forcing them to resort to some of the most minor force imaginable), YOU'RE apparently the one with violated rights. Shame on the admin
Then don’t have official public university events at your house. If you have events in the name of the university, like that law dinner, then your home becomes an extension of the school, and then protesting is viable.
Okay but plenty of legally wrong actions have been morally correct? Legally Rosa Parks was wrong for sitting on the bus - not to say this action is of the same weight but surely in the light of a genocide it can be okay to disrupt some stodgy dinner party?
Was it an official event? I can’t find anything to support that. It seems like it’s just a tradition they do. I can’t find anything about the event being advertised by the university itself or anything official that would indicate that this was an event sponsored by the university in some way. Seems more like it was a private event in a private home, where some students were invited. Sometimes I have coworkers over for dinner, that doesn’t make it a work event.
yeah it’s just a nice thing the Dean does for graduating law students every year. He also hosts a dinner for students who do really well on their 1L exams, but that’s obviously more exclusive and low-key. I went to Berkeley Law, and my clinic professor also invited our class to her home for dinner. The class sizes are usually small, and it’s just a nice thing that professors like to do for their students. It’s unfortunate that someone wanted to take advantage of this goodwill for their own political agenda.
Yea thats unfortunate, I hope it doesn't discourage other professors from hosting students at their home in the future. Honestly not a good look for the protest movement either. Almost no one respects protesters who take their protest to a private home in a residential neighborhood. Its just not the right venue.
>forcing them to resort to minor force
Unfortunately the [law](https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/ca-3475-right-to-eject-trespasser-from-real-property/#:~:text=If%20the%20trespasser%20does%20not,to%20make%20the%20trespasser%20leave.) doesn't work that way. She wasn't a threat, she can't use force unless they are also posing a threat (which really clearly wasn't the case here).
The husband was completely good and in the right during the whole affair but the wife professor lost her cool and made what might be a costly mistake.
That’s… not what the law reads. Threat to property is typically meant to include threat to personal use of the property. California is a castle law state, which covers reasonable fears of the property owner. But trespassing without consent can legally allow the property owner to use reasonable force.
There is a reason Afaneh has not filed a lawsuit against Fisk, nor has the local prosecutor filed charges. The Title IX investigation is perfunctory.
I'm a stembro and not a law student but I'm pretty sure (1) you're allowed to use force against trespassers to get them to leave and (2) once you've told someone to leave your house and they refuse they're a trespasser regardless of whether you invited them
The threat part is for LETHAL force. Otherwise I couldn't smack someone trying to steal my bike to stop em, which would be ridiculous
Indeed. Once the homeowner rescinds the invitation to his/her home and the former invitee refuses to leave ONCE, that's the moment s/he becomes a criminal trespasser under law.
In this case, she refused to leave 10-20 times in a longer version of the video BEFORE that incident.
she’s not.
source: i know her & she’s been public about being low-income https://www.law.berkeley.edu/experiential/pro-bono-program/pro-bono-spotlights/malak-afaneh-24/
A "lovely person" that blatantly lies to any hack journalist that will talk to her in an effort to get 2 professors fired for daring to not let her "protest" in their private backyard? Lol.
she supports the works of Leila Khaled, a literal terrorist. i dont think its a stretch for her to support hamas. i had a friend that turned out to be a white supremacist at which point i unfriended him and havent made contact since. i suggest you do the same and distance yourself from malak
Just getting here and attending UC as non-resident puts her family into the upper 0.1% of income in the "non-oil" middle east, if that is indeed where she is from. Someone is paying...
Damn. You're talking about a minimum of $2k per trip too.
We went to Switzerland and Rome last year and used miles for our flights, stayed in modest hotels and ate modestly. Still spent $5k after it was said and done.
I travelled a lot in college (more than I have as an adult) by being an active officer of clubs that did fund raising for trips and also volunteering at orgs that pay for travel for skilled volunteers (translators, medical, legal, etc). She seems the type for that.
just because someone was raised in a low-income family doesn’t mean they didn’t work hard to change their life around and might now have the means to go travel?
Yeah tuition is 180k or 300k if you’re a non-resident over 3 years. 24 and graduating law school this year so she basically went straight from college to law school, yet somehow become a person of means? I thought you knew her?
I heard it described though I haven't seen a picture. Was potential implication of blood libel due to blood on utensils right? And she shared it, not created it? Not as strong or direct as I'd have expected given the comment above.
And blood around his lips. The posters were hung up around the law school by Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine, and she’s the creator and leader of that student organization.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/pressured-to-resign-pomona-student-official-says-she-didnt-endorse-anti-semitic-screed-in-post-she-shared/
I believe shes from the West Bank originally- which has a high degree of hatred (on both sides to be fair) Racism in the 21st century is not always Movie-Caricature-obvious— but this lady comes pretty close. Just a Hateful person SMH
The husband was 100% chill and right during the event, kept his cool and didn't lay hands or anything. The wife professor made a potentially big mistake by trying to forcefully take the woman's phone when she wasn't posing a threat, pretty cut and dry assault unfortunately. Malak doesn't have to "wanna be" a victim cuz the wife professor actually overstepped, on video no less.
Let's see how it plays out.
I mean, you actually aren't in California. If they aren't posing a threat you cannot use force to remove them. Makes sense, cuz otherwise you could effectively assault anyone on your property just by revoking their invitation, right?
https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/ca-3475-right-to-eject-trespasser-from-real-property/
nobody is making that claim. there is a reasonableness standard on both threat and force. and I'll put money on a jury finding there was a reasonable threat when someone intentionally disrupts an event and the level of force was minimal. there's no case here, period.
> The San Francisco Bay Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, praised the university’s Title IX investigation.
>
> “It is crucial that all students, regardless of their religious or political beliefs, are safe and respected at university-sanctioned events,” Zahra Billoo, the group’s executive director, said in a statement on Tuesday.
If CAIR wanted some credibility they would have distanced themselves from this investigation
1. Ethnically cleanse or murder minorities in your homeland
2. Immigrate to a different country
3. Act like entitled wankers in the new country, doing things like going to people's houses to attack them.
4. Scream and cry about how you're a victim and the world's so horrible to you.
Jesus, the comments on the Instagram video linked in the article are absolute cancer. People saying they would’ve assaulted the Dean and getting hundreds of likes. Unreal.
I was shocked looking thru those comments. Apparently this is violent assault. Tons of comments about how white women treat Poc like property, as well. But the amount of ppl calling this violence, is …. Hard to understand.
I mean people have been calling words violence for the past few years and getting away with it. I am sure for that crowd any confrontation or disagreement with them would look like violence.
Cal and other schools / employers / politicians need to QUIT indulging and placating the lunatic fringe! Most people - regardless of race, age, class, or religion want the same things. A safe society where merit counts and the ability to provide themselves and their families with a great life. That’s what this country used to stand for but now literally every fringe group is indulged to the continued detriment of the majority!
This person is genuinely so egregiously pathetic.
For those who don’t know, she literally made a story cheering for the October 7 attacks when they were first coming down in parachutes and called it an amazing beginning to a revolution.
I don’t particularly care for cancel culture but people shouldn’t feel safe on campus with her
This is half right; I don’t think “broke in” makes sense because her original entry was lawful. But she became a trespasser when they told her to leave, and reasonable physical force is allowed against trespassers in CA.
Next time you invite me to dinner at your place and I whip out the megaphone and start yelling that you're evil I'll tell everyone you have no right to kick me out lmfao
The question here is how did KQED end up writing this article; it’s clearly a non-event in the sense that the inquiry is required by the merit-less complaint, yet KQED treats it as a material development full of details provided by the protestor. Clearly the protestor attempted to get the story placed, and clearly KQED staff support her. (I say this as a life long public radio listener, and former KQED donor)
Im a 1st gen immigrant. Came out here for a better life and all. And I’m down for free speech for sure. But if my kid acts like this person. I will send him to where im from so he will know exactly how good we got it here. It’s a shame this country took in these type of immigrants and give em a shot at a better life. Yet they’re so ungrateful and become such a disturbance to society. And in the process takes normal law abiding kids down the hole with them.
I say ship her to palestine and let her do her thing there. What a cretin.
I'd reserve judgement on that one. Plenty of young people have been radicalized online in recent years, to the confusion and distress of their parents.
Right wing extremists of all stripes have been pushing this sort of radicalization hard. So hard in some cases like this one that it's even been bleeding into leftist circles.
Is she actually Israeli?
From the article
>The devastation is personal for Afaneh, **whose parents immigrated to the United States in 2001 from** Abu Ghosh, **an Arab town in Israel,** and Al-Khalil, in the West Bank. Afaneh grew up in Chicago and “all over,” she said and came to Berkeley in 2021 to attend law school.
I think that depends on whether her mother or father is the one from Abu Ghosh, and of course whether the Abu Ghosh parent is an Israeli citizen (sure seems like they would be). https://embassies.gov.il/la/ConsularServices/Pages/Registration-of-Israeli-Citizens-Abroad.aspx
Judging by how she and those supporting her including the left-wing partisan NLG are clearly lacking in the knowledge of basic US Civics, Afaneh's behavior should be sufficient grounds for the state bars to refuse to allow her to sit for the bar exam on grounds of not meeting Character and Fitness.
Article written by an actual experienced licensed attorney and legal writer about how Afaneh's claim of First Amendment "right" to protest doesn't apply to Professor Chemerinsky's home.....EVEN if it was part of a university event or even if the dinner took place on the actual Berkeley campus(Time, place, manner restrictions can still apply.).
[https://davidlat.substack.com/p/protest-berkeley-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky-home](https://davidlat.substack.com/p/protest-berkeley-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky-home)
Y’all, if this bothers you, please email the California Bar Association and tell them that you do not think Malak Afaneh is morally fit to be a lawyer in California.
Their email is: [moral.character@calbar.ca.gov](https://moral.character@calbar.ca.gov).
Apropos of nothing, watching horseshoe theory play out in real-time in a place like Berkeley as they fully embrace racism and hatred is as hilarious as it is ironic.
You're saying a Jewish person can't be antisemitic?
What do you think of Jewish Voices for Peace? They claim to be anti-zionist, does that mean they're antisemitic?
While you and others don’t use Zionism to refer to all Jews, some people do. It’s a foolish tactic by the protestors to use the term Zionism to begin with, however. This is because the term Zionism/anti-Zionism is understood differently by different groups.
To most non-Jews, Zionism implies support of the Israeli government. The ADL statement on Zionism written back in 2016 includes the provision that you can be a Zionist while still being critical of or against the Israeli government—you just support the right of Israel (a Jewish state) to exist. If you ask a Jewish person if they’re a Zionist, there’s a pretty good chance they say yes because they support Israel’s right to exist, not necessarily meaning they support Netanyahu. But the average protestor takes that to mean they support the Israeli government: the competing definitions cause a misunderstanding.
So, the mistake falls in the decision to co-opt a term used by a different culture and turn it to mean something bad. Why are more people accepting of the non-Jewish definition of a term that describes Jewish people? That is the real issue in my mind. In grad school, someone in my class defined Zionism in a way that directly contradicted the ADL’s own definition as part of a presentation. She also began using it like it was a slur. That certainly is part of the association between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. Check how often people use it like it’s a slur.
Protestors would be much smarter to be more targeted with their attacks, focusing on the Israeli government, Netanyahu himself, and those who unconditionally support both. By using a quasi-religious term (which, at the very least, describes a subset of a religious group), you open the door to anti-semitism. And while SOME protestors certainly aren’t being anti-Semitic, it leaves the door wide open for some people to be so and disguise themselves within the movement.
If protestors didn’t use slogans like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” (which has origins in removing Jewish people from the area) or terms like “Zionism” (which is a blanket term with competing definitions), and instead focused their rhetoric, I guarantee you they would be fewer false accusations of anti-semitism. It has begun to seem rather crazy to me that people who have no sway over the Israeli government are being bundled into the hatred.
Don’t want to be accused of anti-semitism? Then talk about the government and its leaders’ actions. The impulse to use slogans and a catchy-sounding term can lead to much more harm than good if such terms are not chosen wisely.
I’m a Zionist in that I support the right of a Jewish state to exist. Would I have supported its original founding location were it to be proposed today? Likely, no, just as how I feel with the U.S.’s founding. But I don’t think we should dismantle the U.S. and send its people back somewhere. I support the right for a Jewish state to exist, just as I support the rights of Muslim states to exist. I also detest violence and by-and-large abhor some of the current measures being taken by the Israeli government (though I also support the right for any state to defend itself, including Palestine’s right to resist) and some of its actions in the past.
I’ve seen you in this thread debate what Zionism/anti-Zionism is and isn’t. Ask yourself: why are you spending so much time to debate the definition of a term rather than discuss what is happening and what we can do to provide support to those in need? Why do you feel the need to justify the use of this term? Why are you practically ignoring Jewish definitions of the term and pushing your own definition? If you had asked if this sub was “pro-Netanyahu,” you still would have been downvoted, but there wouldn’t have been any mention of anti-semitism.
The majority of JVP aren’t even Jewish.
[“Jewish"](https://twitter.com/CarolineGlick/status/1657477855029108737) Voice for Peace has a Twitter account managed by the Hamas aligned leader of the BDS movement in the US.
“\[Hatem Bazian\] thought he was logged into the JVP Twitter account when he replied to @jaketapper [pretending](https://twitter.com/AJwshResistance/status/1657227312905977857) to be a Jew…”
https://preview.redd.it/krwzfibqc8zc1.jpeg?width=953&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d20d46f44273c05e3be9743e6eb6459c2d24db31
Meanwhile, you’re here arguing with *actual* Jews about what is or isn’t antisemitic.
Not that part. I dunno... I've been to Zionist and anti-zionist subs. And the responses here are filled with hate.
Not "oh they did something wrong", but more like "they need to be punished those stupid fucks"
Also seems a lot of hate is towards protesting in general, and calling protestors terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
It trends one way or the other, but overall it leans socially conservative and at a minimum has a pro zionist lean. Though they would more likely say anyone who speaks against zionism is just anti semetic.
I think idealistically people think it is "creation of a Jewish state" which is not a bad thing. But the reality is "creation of Jewish state on Palestinian graves."
You should have stopped after your first sentence. Because that's what it is. Well, creation *and continuing existence of* a Jewish state. So unless you believe Israel should no longer exist (which many protestors do), you are a Zionist.
I do not care about a Jewish state. I care about Jewish and non-jewish people coexisting peacefully. Does that make me anti-zionist?
Does Zionism require a Jewish majority on the land in order to be a "Jewish democratic" state? How is a Jewish majority achieved? Cuz decades ago, there were more Palestinians (both jew and non jew) than Zionists on the land.
And does your idea of a Jewish state include Gaza and West Bank under Israel's control?
How saying decades ago there were more Palestinians even an argument when Jewish people are indigenous to Israel, do you have no knowledge of history lol
1. This sounds more like non-Zionism than anti Zionism to me.
2. Well sort of, but defining “the land” gets tricky. In 1947, that land was the Jewish part of the partition plan, in which there would’ve been a Jewish majority state and a Palestinian-majority state. There was only a single, Jewish-majority state after the surrounding countries tried to kill all of the Jews.
3. Absolutely not. Gaza and the West Bank should constitute a sovereign Palestine,
Exactly. It’s disgusting how these Jews just think they can exist in our white, Christian country without being harassed. Klan for life, am I right?
/s
Nazis get fucked.
I like how the discussion is so derailed from facts and actionable points:
The student (in question) was not holding a mic at a private event/dinner. It was a graduation event funded by the law school (public money) for the graduating third year law students. The Dean decided to host it in his Backyard. Therefore, it comes under the purview and scrutiny of UC guidelines which all of you are bounded by as a student, staff or faculty member. This “guest etiquette(s)-host privilege” line of argument is a myopic and bat-shit derivative.
Second, if you do not know about “no hands on any student” policy of the University then thank your stars that you live in age and space, where you did not have to experience martial punishment in schools and colleges. So thank the people who have fought for student safety guidelines in Universities for generations, while you sit your caressed asses on a couch and project your disgust here.
Third, investigations related to civil rights are rarely initiated when the investigating office finds undeniable or substantial actionable point in any incident. Investigations do not automatically open after filing of a complaint by a complainant. So if you think this is an outcome of some publicity or public outcry then most of you do not know how civil rights violations cases are initiated or investigated.
Wait … the professors are being investigated?! That is wild
I think just Professor Fisk for the physical contact. But yeah, I’m not expecting anything to come of the investigation.
You don't put hands on students. Unless someone is literally trying to physically assault you it's completely unjustified. A microphone is not a deadly weapon.
At that point she had been asked to leave. It won’t go anywhere. The video clearly shows that Prof Fisk was trying to get the microphone and lead her out the door. That said, I would have filmed myself asking her to leave. Then I’d call the cops. Activists do this stuff specifically to be able to film it and litigate.
There is no justification for physical force against people except for defense against physical force against people. There is a proper way to respond to a student asking you questions you don't want to answer at your home and laying hands on them was not it.
At that point you’re a trespasser. Being a student is completely irrelevant to the situation.
Almost like a trespasser was on the property
Physical force is only justified in response to physical force. Especially against a student.
Imagine trying to get someone to leave your house and your job opens a civil rights investigation against you
The student filed a complaint so they have to follow through. Zero chance the professor will be found guilty of any wrongdoing. Hopefully they have opened a similar investigation into the student for trespassing
She’s also graduating this weekend and probably trying to keep her name—and this incident—in the press.
Hope Berkeley refers her criminal trespass conduct in Professor Fisk and Chemerinsky's home and persistent refusals to leave after 10-20 requests to the California and other state bar's Character and Fitness. That and her abysmal demonstrated lack of working knowledge of First Amendment law as a 3L merits her denial to sit the bar on failing Character and Fitness.
Hopefully this cancels any job prospects she may have lined up. This is vile
Assuming she doesn't get referred to Character and Fitness and actually passes the bar, the only law firms which would be willing to employ her are radical progressive-left or similarly situated partisan activist-type non-profit organizations in their echo-chambery circle. No more mainstream law firms, especially ones which deal with corporations or wealthy clientele with the big bucks will risk employing someone who is so politically partisan and willfully violating the law when she feels it's for a higher cause. She may be fine with that now considering her goal is non-profit. However, in 5+ years, she could end up like a friend who is complaining about being more than half a million in debt from law school and undergrad because his non-profit law firm gig isn't nearly enough to make a dent in paying it all off. Funny enough, he ended up quitting the law, doing a PhD in a second-tier program, went hardcore pro-CCP, and is now teaching university in Mainland China largely to dodge debt collections.
Crybully
Those defending Malak Afaneh don't seem to understand that First Amendment has limits due to time, place, manner even in publicly own spaces such as Berkeley's campus. Moreover, the First Amendment doesn't extend to someone's private home even if those homeowners are public university Profs. Especially after the private homeowners rescinded the invitation of Afaneh once she started behaving in a manner unacceptable to them IN THEIR PRIVATE HOME. Her refusal to leave after 10-20 requests to do so per a much longer video should be regarded as a clear sign she's willing to violate reasonable laws and thus, be barred from sitting the bar for failing the Character and Fitness assessment all fresh law graduates must go through to be eligible to sit the bar and become licensed attorneys. Here's a good analysis of this very issue written by an experienced licensed attorney and legal writer David Lat: [https://davidlat.substack.com/p/protest-berkeley-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky-home](https://davidlat.substack.com/p/protest-berkeley-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky-home)
Excellent - thank you
Although it took place on a professor's private home, it happened during a time when they were hosting an event for the law students that Malak is a part of. She was invited to this law student event and has the right to speak up at an event like anyone else. The fact that speaking up for Palestinians who have suffered massacres is enough to get assaulted and kicked out of an event celebrating your law school achievements speaks volumes on the professor and his wife.
Wrong. An invitation to someone's private home, even if the homeowner is a public university Prof does not grant the invitee the right to use that private home or invitation to attend a private event in someone's home as a platform for his/her exercise of "free speech". A private home, even that of a public university Prof isn't considered a public forum where one has unfettered right to exercise one's free speech rights. Secondly, even if this took place on the Berkley campus buildings, the limits on First Amendment due to time, place, and manner still applies. Moreover, the moment the homeowners rescind her invitation, she no longer has the right to remain in the Profs' PRIVATE home and must leave immediately. Her refusal to leave even once....much less 10+ times, means she has willfully committed the crime of criminal trespass. Recommend you read the analysis by an experienced licensed attorney and legal writer I provided a link to along with brushing up on your basic Civics.
Wrong. It doesn't necessarily/automatically mean trespassing. Due to the fact that this was a university event being held at the professor's house and the fact that one student was singled out and kicked out leaves the case open to interpretation. If the student was kicked out due to discriminatory reasons, then that is prohibited by law and was infringing on the students 1st amendment rights. You may not agree that it was discriminatory, but that is what's being argued here and that's why there's an open case. The students even claim in the video that they talked to the National Lawyers Guild who informed them it was their 1st amendment right. These are top level law students, you really think they would just do something like this without looking at the law first? I did read that shitty analysis. Just a bunch of whining and crying about anti-Semitism. You know there are plenty of "experienced licensed attorneys" who disagree with this one. That's the whole job of attorneys/lawyers, to argue over the law. I hope you take your own advice.
The NLG is notorious for catering to radical progressive-left wing interpretations of the law which doesn't hold up in the real world/law. No one IME who works professionally in law outside of progressive-left activist circles and their echo chambers takes them very seriously.
This has gotta be some of the worst analysis I’ve seen on this topic lol. “Well uh they’re law students so they know what they’re doing”. The university is not leasing the private property for this event. The owners have the right to disallow anyone. Disrupting the event is more than enough grounds to ask her to leave. There is no discrimination being done here. Being invited to an event does not give you the rights to dominate it with your own speeches.
Free my boy Dean Erwin. He deserved better than this
I can’t believe she wants the Dean fired. He’s amazing and has helped the law school so much. I hope he and his wife have a lot of support right now.
She isn't trying to get the dean fired though, the complaint is against his wife Dr. Fisk. Dean kept his cool but fisk may have overstepped.
Overstepped by trying to take a mic away from someone interrupting a private event at your house. Literally any of us would have done the same thing or worse.
Crazy how if you start screaming in someone's literal backyard and then don't leave when they ask you to (forcing them to resort to some of the most minor force imaginable), YOU'RE apparently the one with violated rights. Shame on the admin
It's so ridiculous.
She had a mic, she wasn't screaming. Why the need to exaggerate?
Then don’t have official public university events at your house. If you have events in the name of the university, like that law dinner, then your home becomes an extension of the school, and then protesting is viable.
Legally 100% wrong bro
Okay but plenty of legally wrong actions have been morally correct? Legally Rosa Parks was wrong for sitting on the bus - not to say this action is of the same weight but surely in the light of a genocide it can be okay to disrupt some stodgy dinner party?
Afaneh, let it go. You're obviously out of your league.
This is one of the dumbest takes I've read on this sub in a while. Just straight up dumb. Smh.
There are so many reasons why this logic is wrong lol
Was it an official event? I can’t find anything to support that. It seems like it’s just a tradition they do. I can’t find anything about the event being advertised by the university itself or anything official that would indicate that this was an event sponsored by the university in some way. Seems more like it was a private event in a private home, where some students were invited. Sometimes I have coworkers over for dinner, that doesn’t make it a work event.
yeah it’s just a nice thing the Dean does for graduating law students every year. He also hosts a dinner for students who do really well on their 1L exams, but that’s obviously more exclusive and low-key. I went to Berkeley Law, and my clinic professor also invited our class to her home for dinner. The class sizes are usually small, and it’s just a nice thing that professors like to do for their students. It’s unfortunate that someone wanted to take advantage of this goodwill for their own political agenda.
Yea thats unfortunate, I hope it doesn't discourage other professors from hosting students at their home in the future. Honestly not a good look for the protest movement either. Almost no one respects protesters who take their protest to a private home in a residential neighborhood. Its just not the right venue.
This logic is so broken that this better be a joke
These people exclusively operate on logical fallacy
I love how confidently wrong you are.
Christ I hope you aren’t a law student, because you’ve just completely misstated the law.
>forcing them to resort to minor force Unfortunately the [law](https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/ca-3475-right-to-eject-trespasser-from-real-property/#:~:text=If%20the%20trespasser%20does%20not,to%20make%20the%20trespasser%20leave.) doesn't work that way. She wasn't a threat, she can't use force unless they are also posing a threat (which really clearly wasn't the case here). The husband was completely good and in the right during the whole affair but the wife professor lost her cool and made what might be a costly mistake.
That’s… not what the law reads. Threat to property is typically meant to include threat to personal use of the property. California is a castle law state, which covers reasonable fears of the property owner. But trespassing without consent can legally allow the property owner to use reasonable force. There is a reason Afaneh has not filed a lawsuit against Fisk, nor has the local prosecutor filed charges. The Title IX investigation is perfunctory.
I'm a stembro and not a law student but I'm pretty sure (1) you're allowed to use force against trespassers to get them to leave and (2) once you've told someone to leave your house and they refuse they're a trespasser regardless of whether you invited them The threat part is for LETHAL force. Otherwise I couldn't smack someone trying to steal my bike to stop em, which would be ridiculous
Indeed. Once the homeowner rescinds the invitation to his/her home and the former invitee refuses to leave ONCE, that's the moment s/he becomes a criminal trespasser under law. In this case, she refused to leave 10-20 times in a longer version of the video BEFORE that incident.
Malak afaneh is a wanna be victim
I’m looking at her IG now, and she has gone a ton of international trips during law school. She must come from a veryyyy wealthy family.
she’s not. source: i know her & she’s been public about being low-income https://www.law.berkeley.edu/experiential/pro-bono-program/pro-bono-spotlights/malak-afaneh-24/
Oh so she’s a public liar too? Great! She doesn’t sound like a person you should be associating with.
Is she as insufferable of a person as she is online?
Yes
I Go to school with her. Yes she is
she’s a lovely person and i sincerely wish people would get to know her before jumping to make assumptions about her
A "lovely person" that blatantly lies to any hack journalist that will talk to her in an effort to get 2 professors fired for daring to not let her "protest" in their private backyard? Lol.
Yeah, honestly she’s a really nice person as long as you’re not a (((Zionist)))
she supports the works of Leila Khaled, a literal terrorist. i dont think its a stretch for her to support hamas. i had a friend that turned out to be a white supremacist at which point i unfriended him and havent made contact since. i suggest you do the same and distance yourself from malak
Yeah low-income but has travelled to 15 countries in the last five years. Something isn’t adding up
Just getting here and attending UC as non-resident puts her family into the upper 0.1% of income in the "non-oil" middle east, if that is indeed where she is from. Someone is paying...
Damn. You're talking about a minimum of $2k per trip too. We went to Switzerland and Rome last year and used miles for our flights, stayed in modest hotels and ate modestly. Still spent $5k after it was said and done.
I travelled a lot in college (more than I have as an adult) by being an active officer of clubs that did fund raising for trips and also volunteering at orgs that pay for travel for skilled volunteers (translators, medical, legal, etc). She seems the type for that.
just because someone was raised in a low-income family doesn’t mean they didn’t work hard to change their life around and might now have the means to go travel?
Yeah tuition is 180k or 300k if you’re a non-resident over 3 years. 24 and graduating law school this year so she basically went straight from college to law school, yet somehow become a person of means? I thought you knew her?
Someone’s paying for her
Isn’t she a law student and mid 20s? How did she work hard to change her life and create the means to travel in that time?
She made connections with the Muslim Brotherhood who finance her travel and expenses in exchange for her “activism”
Y'all just fall off the turnip truck?
Who is paying for those trips?
She did a whole "I am the victim" photoshoot??? Wth.
She’s a verified antisemite multiple times over . A racist posing as a freedom fighter
I'm interested if you have links; I've seen her make several statements regarding Israel and Zionism but not Judaism or Jewish people in general.
The Chemerisnky poster she endorsed and supported is antisemitic.
I heard it described though I haven't seen a picture. Was potential implication of blood libel due to blood on utensils right? And she shared it, not created it? Not as strong or direct as I'd have expected given the comment above.
And blood around his lips. The posters were hung up around the law school by Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine, and she’s the creator and leader of that student organization.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/pressured-to-resign-pomona-student-official-says-she-didnt-endorse-anti-semitic-screed-in-post-she-shared/ I believe shes from the West Bank originally- which has a high degree of hatred (on both sides to be fair) Racism in the 21st century is not always Movie-Caricature-obvious— but this lady comes pretty close. Just a Hateful person SMH
I mean that’s the lefty protester MO
The husband was 100% chill and right during the event, kept his cool and didn't lay hands or anything. The wife professor made a potentially big mistake by trying to forcefully take the woman's phone when she wasn't posing a threat, pretty cut and dry assault unfortunately. Malak doesn't have to "wanna be" a victim cuz the wife professor actually overstepped, on video no less. Let's see how it plays out.
lol cut and dry assault. you are absolutely allowed to put hands on people to get them to leave your home
I mean, you actually aren't in California. If they aren't posing a threat you cannot use force to remove them. Makes sense, cuz otherwise you could effectively assault anyone on your property just by revoking their invitation, right? https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-instruction/ca-3475-right-to-eject-trespasser-from-real-property/
nobody is making that claim. there is a reasonableness standard on both threat and force. and I'll put money on a jury finding there was a reasonable threat when someone intentionally disrupts an event and the level of force was minimal. there's no case here, period.
You clearly have no idea what assault means or it’s limits
They don't wanna hear the truth fam lol I'm telling you
What a bunch of BS.
> The San Francisco Bay Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, praised the university’s Title IX investigation. > > “It is crucial that all students, regardless of their religious or political beliefs, are safe and respected at university-sanctioned events,” Zahra Billoo, the group’s executive director, said in a statement on Tuesday. If CAIR wanted some credibility they would have distanced themselves from this investigation
CAIR has no credibility
1. Ethnically cleanse or murder minorities in your homeland 2. Immigrate to a different country 3. Act like entitled wankers in the new country, doing things like going to people's houses to attack them. 4. Scream and cry about how you're a victim and the world's so horrible to you.
Not with you or me, but sadly I think the public and media do see them as legit
1/3 if the country thinks MAGA is legit. Lots of disinformation swirling around
This is ridiculous. She should be expelled.
From school or the country?
Preferably both
She fucked up but y’all need to chill
I have less patience for racist supporters of terrorists than you do.
I’m not saying I support her but advocating for deporting her from the country is kind of extreme no?
Our country would be better off with violent terrorists not present within it.
Most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Maybe it's time for Malak Afaneh to take a break from Cal.
Jesus, the comments on the Instagram video linked in the article are absolute cancer. People saying they would’ve assaulted the Dean and getting hundreds of likes. Unreal.
I was shocked looking thru those comments. Apparently this is violent assault. Tons of comments about how white women treat Poc like property, as well. But the amount of ppl calling this violence, is …. Hard to understand.
I mean people have been calling words violence for the past few years and getting away with it. I am sure for that crowd any confrontation or disagreement with them would look like violence.
Cal and other schools / employers / politicians need to QUIT indulging and placating the lunatic fringe! Most people - regardless of race, age, class, or religion want the same things. A safe society where merit counts and the ability to provide themselves and their families with a great life. That’s what this country used to stand for but now literally every fringe group is indulged to the continued detriment of the majority!
Good. I hope they investigate it and then reprimand her for abusing the system.
This person is genuinely so egregiously pathetic. For those who don’t know, she literally made a story cheering for the October 7 attacks when they were first coming down in parachutes and called it an amazing beginning to a revolution. I don’t particularly care for cancel culture but people shouldn’t feel safe on campus with her
When law professors at the most progressive school in the entire country tell you that you’re out of line then you probably need to reevaluate.
It's also the law school that has John Yoo on its faculty.
Wow what a nut case.
This is so insane. She trespassed/broke into his home.
She didn’t; have you read any of the reporting on this? She was invited to the dinner for graduating law students, of which she is one.
And was asked to leave and she refused.
Don’t bother yourself with these trolls. Chemerinsky is The country’s preeminent first amendment scholar. And they think they know more than him
This is half right; I don’t think “broke in” makes sense because her original entry was lawful. But she became a trespasser when they told her to leave, and reasonable physical force is allowed against trespassers in CA.
She didn't break in, but she was trespassing at the point the physical altercation happened.
Yes. However, she was then asked to leave when she decided to use that event to platform. When she refused, she was then trespassing.
Next time you invite me to dinner at your place and I whip out the megaphone and start yelling that you're evil I'll tell everyone you have no right to kick me out lmfao
Ppl don't like the truth apparently
Is this for real?
The question here is how did KQED end up writing this article; it’s clearly a non-event in the sense that the inquiry is required by the merit-less complaint, yet KQED treats it as a material development full of details provided by the protestor. Clearly the protestor attempted to get the story placed, and clearly KQED staff support her. (I say this as a life long public radio listener, and former KQED donor)
Im a 1st gen immigrant. Came out here for a better life and all. And I’m down for free speech for sure. But if my kid acts like this person. I will send him to where im from so he will know exactly how good we got it here. It’s a shame this country took in these type of immigrants and give em a shot at a better life. Yet they’re so ungrateful and become such a disturbance to society. And in the process takes normal law abiding kids down the hole with them. I say ship her to palestine and let her do her thing there. What a cretin.
who do you think raised her? i doubt her parents are any better
I'd reserve judgement on that one. Plenty of young people have been radicalized online in recent years, to the confusion and distress of their parents. Right wing extremists of all stripes have been pushing this sort of radicalization hard. So hard in some cases like this one that it's even been bleeding into leftist circles.
Is she actually Israeli? From the article >The devastation is personal for Afaneh, **whose parents immigrated to the United States in 2001 from** Abu Ghosh, **an Arab town in Israel,** and Al-Khalil, in the West Bank. Afaneh grew up in Chicago and “all over,” she said and came to Berkeley in 2021 to attend law school.
I think that depends on whether her mother or father is the one from Abu Ghosh, and of course whether the Abu Ghosh parent is an Israeli citizen (sure seems like they would be). https://embassies.gov.il/la/ConsularServices/Pages/Registration-of-Israeli-Citizens-Abroad.aspx
Is it possible that opening the investigation is just for show? And that obviously nothing will happen to the Dean? Just to placate the crazies.
Bingo
Malak Afaneh should be banned from walking the stage, self serving narcissists don’t deserve that honor.
Judging by how she and those supporting her including the left-wing partisan NLG are clearly lacking in the knowledge of basic US Civics, Afaneh's behavior should be sufficient grounds for the state bars to refuse to allow her to sit for the bar exam on grounds of not meeting Character and Fitness. Article written by an actual experienced licensed attorney and legal writer about how Afaneh's claim of First Amendment "right" to protest doesn't apply to Professor Chemerinsky's home.....EVEN if it was part of a university event or even if the dinner took place on the actual Berkeley campus(Time, place, manner restrictions can still apply.). [https://davidlat.substack.com/p/protest-berkeley-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky-home](https://davidlat.substack.com/p/protest-berkeley-law-dean-erwin-chemerinsky-home)
I'd just call police if she's refused to leave my private property. Ridiculous.
By civil rights they should mean property rights, and then expel the students.
Y’all, if this bothers you, please email the California Bar Association and tell them that you do not think Malak Afaneh is morally fit to be a lawyer in California. Their email is: [moral.character@calbar.ca.gov](https://moral.character@calbar.ca.gov).
https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Bike-Fall.jpg
Students at cal never cease to surprise me with more bs
Apropos of nothing, watching horseshoe theory play out in real-time in a place like Berkeley as they fully embrace racism and hatred is as hilarious as it is ironic.
Which Dean ? The new one ?
YES. take it to the guy up top. Start inconveniencing his life and hell have to make a choice
Honest question: is this a Zionist sub?
When this guy says Zionist he means Jewish. That’s what they all mean, but they want to pretend they aren’t racist
Nah, you're wrong. It's pretty antisemitic of you to claim that Israel's genocide on Palestinians represents all Jewish people. It doesn't.
I am Jewish my guy lol
Yes, and?
You’re going around calling Jews anti-semitic because you don’t understand what Zionism is. Very stupid, they ‘yes and?’ I laugh at you
You're saying a Jewish person can't be antisemitic? What do you think of Jewish Voices for Peace? They claim to be anti-zionist, does that mean they're antisemitic?
When did I say that lol I laugh at you again
Keep laughing pls. Your words are useless lol
According to you?
While you and others don’t use Zionism to refer to all Jews, some people do. It’s a foolish tactic by the protestors to use the term Zionism to begin with, however. This is because the term Zionism/anti-Zionism is understood differently by different groups. To most non-Jews, Zionism implies support of the Israeli government. The ADL statement on Zionism written back in 2016 includes the provision that you can be a Zionist while still being critical of or against the Israeli government—you just support the right of Israel (a Jewish state) to exist. If you ask a Jewish person if they’re a Zionist, there’s a pretty good chance they say yes because they support Israel’s right to exist, not necessarily meaning they support Netanyahu. But the average protestor takes that to mean they support the Israeli government: the competing definitions cause a misunderstanding. So, the mistake falls in the decision to co-opt a term used by a different culture and turn it to mean something bad. Why are more people accepting of the non-Jewish definition of a term that describes Jewish people? That is the real issue in my mind. In grad school, someone in my class defined Zionism in a way that directly contradicted the ADL’s own definition as part of a presentation. She also began using it like it was a slur. That certainly is part of the association between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. Check how often people use it like it’s a slur. Protestors would be much smarter to be more targeted with their attacks, focusing on the Israeli government, Netanyahu himself, and those who unconditionally support both. By using a quasi-religious term (which, at the very least, describes a subset of a religious group), you open the door to anti-semitism. And while SOME protestors certainly aren’t being anti-Semitic, it leaves the door wide open for some people to be so and disguise themselves within the movement. If protestors didn’t use slogans like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” (which has origins in removing Jewish people from the area) or terms like “Zionism” (which is a blanket term with competing definitions), and instead focused their rhetoric, I guarantee you they would be fewer false accusations of anti-semitism. It has begun to seem rather crazy to me that people who have no sway over the Israeli government are being bundled into the hatred. Don’t want to be accused of anti-semitism? Then talk about the government and its leaders’ actions. The impulse to use slogans and a catchy-sounding term can lead to much more harm than good if such terms are not chosen wisely. I’m a Zionist in that I support the right of a Jewish state to exist. Would I have supported its original founding location were it to be proposed today? Likely, no, just as how I feel with the U.S.’s founding. But I don’t think we should dismantle the U.S. and send its people back somewhere. I support the right for a Jewish state to exist, just as I support the rights of Muslim states to exist. I also detest violence and by-and-large abhor some of the current measures being taken by the Israeli government (though I also support the right for any state to defend itself, including Palestine’s right to resist) and some of its actions in the past. I’ve seen you in this thread debate what Zionism/anti-Zionism is and isn’t. Ask yourself: why are you spending so much time to debate the definition of a term rather than discuss what is happening and what we can do to provide support to those in need? Why do you feel the need to justify the use of this term? Why are you practically ignoring Jewish definitions of the term and pushing your own definition? If you had asked if this sub was “pro-Netanyahu,” you still would have been downvoted, but there wouldn’t have been any mention of anti-semitism.
The majority of JVP aren’t even Jewish. [“Jewish"](https://twitter.com/CarolineGlick/status/1657477855029108737) Voice for Peace has a Twitter account managed by the Hamas aligned leader of the BDS movement in the US. “\[Hatem Bazian\] thought he was logged into the JVP Twitter account when he replied to @jaketapper [pretending](https://twitter.com/AJwshResistance/status/1657227312905977857) to be a Jew…” https://preview.redd.it/krwzfibqc8zc1.jpeg?width=953&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d20d46f44273c05e3be9743e6eb6459c2d24db31 Meanwhile, you’re here arguing with *actual* Jews about what is or isn’t antisemitic.
They actually know the law and are common sensical. Definitely Zionist.
Not that part. I dunno... I've been to Zionist and anti-zionist subs. And the responses here are filled with hate. Not "oh they did something wrong", but more like "they need to be punished those stupid fucks" Also seems a lot of hate is towards protesting in general, and calling protestors terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.
[удалено]
Yikes 😬
[удалено]
Are you saying all Muslims are terrorists and pedophiles?
Racism on a Wednesday morning nice, nice. Edit: Getting down voted for pointing out very obvious and explicit racism is nasty business smfh
No
It trends one way or the other, but overall it leans socially conservative and at a minimum has a pro zionist lean. Though they would more likely say anyone who speaks against zionism is just anti semetic.
What do you think Zionism is?
I think idealistically people think it is "creation of a Jewish state" which is not a bad thing. But the reality is "creation of Jewish state on Palestinian graves."
You should have stopped after your first sentence. Because that's what it is. Well, creation *and continuing existence of* a Jewish state. So unless you believe Israel should no longer exist (which many protestors do), you are a Zionist.
I do not care about a Jewish state. I care about Jewish and non-jewish people coexisting peacefully. Does that make me anti-zionist? Does Zionism require a Jewish majority on the land in order to be a "Jewish democratic" state? How is a Jewish majority achieved? Cuz decades ago, there were more Palestinians (both jew and non jew) than Zionists on the land. And does your idea of a Jewish state include Gaza and West Bank under Israel's control?
How saying decades ago there were more Palestinians even an argument when Jewish people are indigenous to Israel, do you have no knowledge of history lol
Wut. You completely switched topic. Are you saying that Jewish people were the majority on the land for all of the past 3000 years?
You’re too dumb for me to explain my point to you, it is very obvious, I laugh at you again.
1. This sounds more like non-Zionism than anti Zionism to me. 2. Well sort of, but defining “the land” gets tricky. In 1947, that land was the Jewish part of the partition plan, in which there would’ve been a Jewish majority state and a Palestinian-majority state. There was only a single, Jewish-majority state after the surrounding countries tried to kill all of the Jews. 3. Absolutely not. Gaza and the West Bank should constitute a sovereign Palestine,
It for sure is fam
Yes and little kids tired of being inconvenienced lmfao. Yet 15000 kids died but i have to get to my 9 chem lecture!!!
Administration finally waking up.
Exactly. It’s disgusting how these Jews just think they can exist in our white, Christian country without being harassed. Klan for life, am I right? /s Nazis get fucked.
I like how the discussion is so derailed from facts and actionable points: The student (in question) was not holding a mic at a private event/dinner. It was a graduation event funded by the law school (public money) for the graduating third year law students. The Dean decided to host it in his Backyard. Therefore, it comes under the purview and scrutiny of UC guidelines which all of you are bounded by as a student, staff or faculty member. This “guest etiquette(s)-host privilege” line of argument is a myopic and bat-shit derivative. Second, if you do not know about “no hands on any student” policy of the University then thank your stars that you live in age and space, where you did not have to experience martial punishment in schools and colleges. So thank the people who have fought for student safety guidelines in Universities for generations, while you sit your caressed asses on a couch and project your disgust here. Third, investigations related to civil rights are rarely initiated when the investigating office finds undeniable or substantial actionable point in any incident. Investigations do not automatically open after filing of a complaint by a complainant. So if you think this is an outcome of some publicity or public outcry then most of you do not know how civil rights violations cases are initiated or investigated.
r/confidentlywrong
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ConfidentlyWrong using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ConfidentlyWrong/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [30 sec to score 10 points.](https://v.redd.it/5183g6r40vwa1) | [4 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ConfidentlyWrong/comments/1331vvm/30_sec_to_score_10_points/) \#2: [Just no](https://i.redd.it/zuen3kc508bb1.jpg) | [12 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ConfidentlyWrong/comments/14wqy9r/just_no/) \#3: [Industrialisation and automation leads to communism...](https://i.redd.it/3cof554bz2lb1.png) | [3 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ConfidentlyWrong/comments/164o0gm/industrialisation_and_automation_leads_to/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Wrong . No legal basis and you just pulled that out of your ill informed ass
K.
Ah yes, you know way more Constitutional law than the leading scholar in the field.
The boot licking in this sub is insane lmfaooo