<p>I’m trying to find a good article, but the city of Berkley allows protesters to protest in front of a marine recruiting station [I’m ok with that, free speech]. But now Berkley calls the Marines “unwanted intruders” and have voted to kick the marines out of the city. </p>
<p>I am liberal and I adamantly defend a person’s right to free speech, and I don’t like the war. I lost my brother-in-law (RIP Justin) over there so I feel the pain of families who have loved ones over there. But do you think that a city should be allowed to kick out the very people who are fighting to give them their right to free speech?</p>
<p>Any thoughts. Please don’t turn this into a war/anti-war debate thread (I will shut down the thread because that’s the last thing I want), I just want to know what the thoughts are about a city kicking out the marines.</p>
<p>They haven’t kicked them out according to the two articles, just protesting their presence. I don’t think a city council could kick out a federal agency anyway. Damn California hippies.</p>
<p>The council should have no power over what the USMC does. Also, think about what this does to guys in Berkeley that were about to enlist; it discourages them. In one of the articles, the lead protester said that people can enlist, just not in Berkeley. I don’t see what gives her the right to make that decision for everybody in the city. Honestly, the extent to which they are intruding on the USMC office’s business seems to be inappropriate, and the council should not have granted that parking space in front of the shopping area.</p>
<p>I had to laugh when I saw this on FOX News this morning because they, of course, presented the whole thing with their blantant conservative bias and basically ridiculed the City of Berkeley.</p>
<p>Of course the city can’t really kick them out, and I’m really surprised that they would try. But it makes perfect sense to me that the people are protesting outside the recruiting office. The military doesn’t exactly have a clean track record, no matter what anyone says about it keeping the country free and all of that jazz.</p>
<p>Beefs is right (about not kicking them out). They can’t do that. Here in L.A., our City Council voted to take a position for a complete withdrawal from Iraq. Great, but so what? It’s nothing other than symbolic sentiment.</p>
<p>Stated by a damn Callifornia hippie, and proud of it!</p>
<p>If the Marines own the space they’re sitting in, Berkeley can’t do a thing about it. That’s a property issue. If they rent their property from the city of Berkeley, then the city of Berkeley can terminate their leases (or refuse to renew at expiration, which is their right), effectively driving them out of town.</p>
<p>As for recruiting at public schools, technically that’s city property, and all they have to say is that military recruiters acting in such capacity are not welcome on school property, and entering school property in such a capacity constitutes trespass.</p>
<p>The problem with the above is that the schools would probably lose federal funding. I remember there was a court case (which I believe was on a public college campus, but it should apply at a public high school as well) which said that Military recruiters have the right to advertise and recruit on the campus as long as the schools accept federal funding.</p>
<p>Well then it’s the discretion of the city to decide whether it’s worth it or not. Private schools don’t allow military recruiters to advertise on campus. But they don’t accept ANY public funding. Also applies to private COLLEGES…they have a right to tell recruiters to pound sand.</p>
<p>Thank you for adding your illuminating contribution to the thread. You know what I hate? Those who can’t spell the names of things they “hate.” (Bezerkely? What? It’s B-e-**r-z-e-r-k-e-l--e-**y.)</p>
<p>I think it’s slightly on the wrong side to try to kick them out, but to ask them not to recruit on campus (unless someone objects to that) seems fine.</p>