Irvine 11: Jury reaches verdict in free-speech case

[aggiesal]

Source: LA TImes

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef015435a5eeeb970c-pi

An Orange County jury has reached a verdict in the Irvine 11 case of Muslim students accused of conspiring and disrupting a February 2010 speech by the Israeli ambassador to the United States.

The case garnered national attention over free-speech rights and centered on conflicting views of who was being censored. Prosecutors argued that Ambassador Michael Oren was "shut down" when his speech was interrupted by students who took turns shouting preplanned phrases in a crowded UC Irvine ballroom.

Six defense attorneys argued that the students, seven from UC Irvine and three from UC Riverside, were only following the norm of other college protests and were being singled out.

All 11 are GUILTY on both counts



Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/irvine-11-jury-reaches-verdict-in-free-speech-case.html

---

So much for free speech.

[msongs]

1. deliberate & malicious interuptions of a presentation by others have consequences. n

if you're going to be a rabble rouser who denies free speech rights of others and be rude about it, you have to expect to be unwelcome. It's part of the deal no matter who you interrupt or what your issue is. However any consequences should be consistently applied to all cases of similar intensity.

[aggiesal]

3. Yup, these 11 stood up ...

one at a time.
Made their statement.
Followed police orders with incident.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Self-deleted

[JackRiddler]

19. Indistinguishable from a Governor Reagan speech during the crackdown on students.

[Bandit]

32. Too bad Tea Baggers weren't held to that standard during Health Care Debate

They certainly did their very best to deny our Representatives of their right to Speech..Those town hall meetings were pretty much shut down because of them.

[Heywood J]

38. "deliberate & malicious interuptions of a presentation by others have consequences"

God forbid someone interrupt a commercial or shout an anti-racist slogan against a KKK rally, then.

[Indydem]

2. People used to practice civility.

Now if we don't like someone's message we shout over them and act like animals.

Free Speech has limits.

[truebrit71]

4. "Free speech has limits"....did you read that back after you typed it or did you just hit enter?

....I agree with your point about civility and todays' SOP of just shouting down what we don't like to hear, but if it has limits, how can it be free?

[Indydem]

6. Free speech has limits.

You can't threaten people.

You can't yell "fire" in a theatre.

You can't run around the streets cursing and carrying on.

Why in the world should anyone be, without consequences,permitted to engage in such uncivil behavior? Did it change the speaker's mind, or affect his future actions? No. Did it change the minds of the audience or affect their opinion of the speaker? No. It was pure showmanship, stomping on the rights of others in an uncivil manner to show just how special they thought themselves to be.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. One more time

ONLY the GOVERNMENT can violate the First Amendment. Shouting someone down does NOT endanger the public order, as no one is in danger unless the words incite violence.

From what I have read, at NO point did anything the students said rise to the level of "yelling fire in a crowded theatre".

You can talk 'till you are blue in the face, and their is no law which compels me to listen or remain silent. Allowing you your say without interruption is a COURTESY, not a RIGHT. Discourtesy is NOT illegal.

[DeSwiss]

29. Sure you can.....

...our government threatens us and a lot more people in the world all the time. It comes under the heading of "National Security." And not only can one shout "fire" in the theater, but you have a moral obligation to do so when the theater is actually on fire. That's what these students were doing. Shouting "fire." The problem seems to be that the fire they're complaining about is primarily consuming them, and that's why some people want to shut them up.

- As for cursing in the streets ("and carrying on" - whatever that is) the real obscenity is that we're all lying down and taking this shit without a peep......

K&R

''The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.'' ~John Stuart Mill, ''On Liberty'' (1859)

[Psephos]

51. Was the ballroom on fire?

If not, then the students were not shouting "fire."

[DeSwiss]

52. I realize that metaphor is lost on most...... :-/ n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

56. I get your metaphor

and it is apt, but it clouds the issue. The simple fact these folks are forgetting is that ONLY the government can violate the First Amendment. Please see my other posts for the legal argument that this was a violation of the First Amendment by the government, but it was perpetrated against the students.

[DeSwiss]

71. '....it clouds the issue."

Actually, it does the exact opposite.

Have a nice day.

[No Elephants]

59. And people tell me I'm too literal.

[boppers]

79. Thank you for this post.

Hyperbole often hides reality.

[Heywood J]

35. "It was pure showmanship"

Because that never happens anywhere else, under any other circumstances, and is illegal. Right.

"stomping on the rights of others"
You mean by them also speaking. Right.

[alfredo]

5. Rev Falwell main streamed shouting down others when

he would appear on TV discussions. He'd rarely allow a word or two to come out of their mouth before he would shout them down. This tactic became the norm with the Christian Right and their Republican allies.

[Indydem]

7. Well then,

We should be just like them, right?

[alfredo]

9. No, but we should call them out on their rudeness.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Nah, it's easier

to just criminalize rudeness, but just for certain people. You know, dark-skinned people.

:sarcasm:

[alfredo]

17. I'm sure some will agree with you, especially those who

don't know the meaning of sarcasm.

[Kurska]

18. Or criminalize malicious organized disruptions of private events.

If you went to a concert, got up on the stage and started unplugging the equipment, do you honestly believe you wouldn't be arrested?

[Kelvin Mace]

22. *sigh*

Different circs entirely. While a concert may be staged in a public venue, you will note that that ticket you buy is in fact a contract. By buying and using the ticket, you state you will abide by certain rules. Breech the contract and you will be ejected. Resist being ejected and you will be arrested.

What these students did doesn't come close to your example.

[Kurska]

23. Both were private events, I fail to see the difference because one was free. n/t

[U4ikLefty]

25. show me the contract Einstein.

[DeSwiss]

30. "....in a crowded UC Irvine ballroom."

Public servant in a public venue. Sorry, no dice.

- Besides, civil disobedience is subject to "no law".......

EOM

''The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.'' ~John Stuart Mill, ''On Liberty'' (1859)

[Kelvin Mace]

54. Hmmm...

The event was open to the students and the public and held in a public venue.

Harvard is a private university, UC is not.

[No Elephants]

67. Touching someone else's personal property is not comparable to speech..

I've not heard of instances were people have been jailed for making noise at a concert, such as booing or cheering or singing along (often very badly), even if so doing drowned out the performers.

[JackRiddler]

16. This isn't about what "we" should be, but about the rights of all individuals.

Your justifications for ending the First Amendment, which would serve beautifully for most any authoritarian regime shutting down protest, are noted.

[Kurska]

20. It was a private event, this isn't a first amendment issue. n/t

[No Elephants]

63. How was it a private event?

[KansDem]

8. "Now if we don't like someone's message we shout over them and act like animals."

Sounds like the employee handbook at FOX News...

[Kurska]

12. Indeed, we should hold ourselves to higher standards. n/t

[No Elephants]

64. You are free to do so, but voluntarily.

[No Elephants]

62. No one is arresting folk at Fox.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. That only seems to be the case

when the groups protesting are "left of center".

If you are to the right, you can scream "You lie!" during a presidential address and suffer no penalty.

If this were Jewish students protesting an Arab leader, they *might* have been arrested, but they certainly would NEVER have gone to trial.

To determine the fairness of any court ruling, I always replace the players with their polar opposites. Unless I get the same ruling with both groups, justice has been thwarted.

if you're going to be a rabble rouser who denies free speech rights of others

Once again, you misunderstand the law. The First Amendment prevents the GOVERNMENT from abridging your right to say what you please. It does NOT prevent people shouting you down. In the news story I did not see any government official prevent the Israeli ambassador from making his speech. I did see government officials preventing people from expressing their disagreement with his speech.

The speech was given at a publicly funded university, and the students of that same university system.

While the First Amendment grants us free speech, it does not abridge other people's First Amendment right while we are talking, especially in a public venue. At best, this was a matter for disciplinary action by the university, NOT criminal charges.

Sadly, this ruling will probably be upheld, and why not, since Sept 11th, we have lost Amendments 4-8.

[saras]

34. Brilliant, obvious, and effective

"To determine the fairness of any court ruling, I always replace the players with their polar opposites. Unless I get the same ruling with both groups, justice has been thwarted."

It's also useful to stick oneself, one's spouse, or one's child into the defendant role and see how it plays. If it's not fair for you, it's not fair for anyone else.

[No Elephants]

61. I am not sure every Arab who takes an anti-Israel stance is "left of center."

Not sure how to characterize these particular students or this particular issue.

[SoapBox]

15. The powerful...the rich...and the crazy (as in Perry and Palin) can say all they want...

but the rest of us had best just STFU and take what they dish out or.....it's off to Gitmo!

I'm proud of these folks...and I'm sick and tired of bowing down to Israel.

[petronius]

21. I generally dislike this form of 'activism', and the defense's argument that

a guilty verdict "could chill student activism and the free exchange of ideas at colleges" is arrant nonsense, but this should never have been in the courtroom - campus procedures and sanctions could have deal with it perfectly adequately (and usually do). I really have to (not) wonder why it went so far with these particular students...

Another thing I don't like is this prosecutorial double-dipping: conspiring ought to be subsumed into actually doing it - charges for both seem unfair.

(By the way, it's 10 guilty, not 11.)

[Kelvin Mace]

57. I agree with everything you say

except the "arrant nonsense" bit. If it were Jewish students protesting an Arab speaker they would not have been prosecuted. What was done was done because chilling CERTAIN student's activism is just a continuation of the same attitude prevalent since 9/11.

The recent NYPD/CIA joint spying operation on Muslim groups/sympathizers, or suspected Muslim groups/sympathizers, makes this rather obvious.

[petronius]

76. Fair point. My objection was to the notion that taking away this particular mode of protest

would have a general chilling effect. In other words, preventing students in general from using the 'sequential interruption' technique wouldn't cut down general student activism at all.

But I don't doubt that the prosecution here was viewpoint-targeted, and I agree that sending the message that students might face prosecution based on the content of their protest, regardless of the means, would be chilling in the specific and the general (perhaps that's actually what the defense meant, and I just missed the point)...

[bemildred]

60. +1. nt

[U4ikLefty]

24. This as all about protecting Israel.

fucking sad

[stockholmer]

26. disgusting! further proof of the stranglehold that Israel has on most levels of US politics & policy

When will America learn that support of the vicious, wicked government that runs that troubled little nation has been, is now, and will be one of its principal downfalls? So, so utterly sick of the double-standards accorded these fascists.


the latest tidbit:


Israeli FM Urges Arming Khurdish Terrorists Report: Israel may offer military aid to PKK to punish Turkey

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-256246-report-israel-may-offer-military-aid-to-pkk-to-punish-turkey.html

Turkish FM Slams Israeli Counterpart Over Calls to Back Terror

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4120836,00.html


has quite possibly lead to this:


Kurdish militants threaten more bombs after Ankara

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/kurdish-militants-threaten-more-bombs-after-ankara

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Orange County, long known as a bastion of civil rights. This verdict will

obviously be overturned on appeal. There was no incitement to violence in their speech, nor was there any crying 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Since when has it become a crime to 'disrupt'?

If I were an Orange County taxpayer (I'm in LA County), I'd be seriously pissed at how the D.A.'s office was wasting precious resources infringing the first amendment.

[Major Hogwash]

31. How many Muslims live in Orange County?

Probably not as many Jews, but I wonder how many of them there are.
I think you're absolutely right about the verdict being overturned, but the idea of not being able to go to a public rally or speech and disrupt it is beginning to be put down harder now than it was back in the 60s, in my opinion.

We're just supposed to shut up and "eat our peas" these days.

[azureblue]

28. It's OK

when Goopers and baggers do it. So why not Muslims? I don't see the difference.

[alp227]

33. Disrupting speech is NOT free speech! simple as that!

if you argue the opposite you make liberalism look bad

[Heywood J]

36. You know, you're right.

No one should ever say anything bad about a defective company or product, for example. That would be disruptive of many carefully-laid marketing plans. We should use this logic to stop all criticism and violate the very letter of the amendment by having government criminalize speech that runs counter to things you like.




:sarcasm:

[alp227]

37. NO, i mean disrupting events like what these students did.

this is not like those congressional town hall events that are open forums. if those muslim students wanted to dissent they could either wait till the Q&A session or set up their own forum.

[Heywood J]

39. "disrupting events"

God forbid anyone protests a KKK or white supremacist rally. You'd throw away the key.

[alp227]

41. are you seriously comparing the Israeli ambassador speech to a KKK rally?

furthermore the ambassador's speech was not held in a public open space.

[aggiesal]

42. A public university is ...

a public location.

It was built with our tax dollars.

[Heywood J]

43. For the sake of the thread, I'm not getting into I/P politics

as to the content of the ambassador's speech or recent events in the Middle East. However, both are "events" as you described them. If a skinhead group rents a room somewhere and they get protested, will you still condone throwing the protestor in jail for saying something the group didn't like?

Never mind the answer, I don't think I want to get into a further discussion with someone who would cavalierly throw away a hard-won freedom paid for with death and suffering for the sake of not offending someone.

[alp227]

47. Why is it so hard to understand the difference between expression and disruption????

As I said earlier, those in opposition could've expressed their views either in a Q&A session or another channel. NOT BY DISRUPTING A SPEECH.

[No Elephants]

65. To the protestors, he may be the equivalent. I don't think the way to analyze this is

to get into a situation where government gets to decide who does and who does not merit interruption. The content of the speech or the identity of the speaker should never be the issue.

Whether I disrupt a speech by the Grand Wizard of the KKK or by my U.S. Senator, the penalty (or lack thereof) should be the same.

[petronius]

74. The CA Supreme Court actually decided, when it addressed this law, that context

and the norms of conduct that reasonable people would expect at events of a certain type of event, did inform the determination of whether 'disruption' had occurred. So, what might trigger the law at a sit-down non-political event would be innocuous at a rally or campaign event (like a town hall).

They also felt that there was a greater 1A issue with heckling etc at political events than other - the case they were addressing (Kay, link below) actually involved heckling a congressman, and the SC overturned the verdict...

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelvin Mace]

58. Publicly funded university

staging a public event in a public venue.

Looks the same to me.

[Kelvin Mace]

55. All together now

Only the GOVERNMENT can violate the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A PUBLIC university (an institution funded by taxpayers and established and run by the government of California) invited a PUBLIC representative of another government to address a PUBLIC event at a PUBLIC venue. The protesters were peaceful, did NOT endanger the public in any way (no "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" comparisons apply), stated their grievances peacefully and did not resist their unlawful arrest.

It is as simple as that.

To not understand the law makes liberals look bad.

A government official did not shut down the speech on the stage, government officials (the police) shut down the protest.

As I have stated elsewhere, at BEST this was a student disciplinary matter. The students may have violated a university rule, but their actions did NOT rise to the level of violating the law.

The easiest way to check the fairness of this action is to switch the players with their polar opposites and see if the same thing would have happened if Jewish students protested the Iranian ambassador's speech. I submit that while the students might still have been arrested, the charges would have been dropped after the uproar it would have caused.

[No Elephants]

66. Students have no obligation to grant anyone free speech and that is simply true.

Government--including the people who run public universities and the police--have that obligation, not the students. The students disrupted, yes, but claiming that has something to do with "free speech" or the First Amendment is incorrect as a matter of law.

[McCamy Taylor]

44. This reminds me of the ruling that matching funds dilute the free speech of the rich.

Israel has an almost unlimited voice in this country---so let's kick anyone who tries to present an opposing argument.

[vminfla]

45. I thought there were only 10

With all of the shrill screaming and yelling, it was easy to lose track http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsdtafcbqrE&feature=player_embedded Either way, this should reinforce the fact that the US is a nation of laws. Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that you can accost and attack them.

[aggiesal]

46. 10 that organized

1 stood up because he felt compelled to join.

[vminfla]

48. oh, you mean the 10 incited a riot.

OK, that makes sense. After all, that was their aim.

[aggiesal]

49. You forgot to display the SARCASM icon n/t

[vminfla]

50. What sarcasm

The criminals intended to incite. They accomplished that.

[aggiesal]

70. Not true ...

Their only intention was to let the people know how they felt.
One person is not inciting.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vminfla]

78. True

There are ways to debate and there are ways to incite. The sentencing should include both diversity training and anger management.

[TomCADem]

53. Freedom Works Organized Tea Partiers To Do The Same Thing During HCR Debate

But, of course, they were backed by corporations and they were generally not Muslim.

[plumbob]

68. Lesson: don't interrupt the Israeli government anytime anywhere.

Had this occurred during a speech by a Hamas leader, no biggie.

These young people made the mistake of thinking they were living in the country I grew up in. It's a shame they're not.

Oh, well, just another reason for people to stick their heads into the pit of "social media" and let the powers that be do what they want.

[No Elephants]

69. I don't think we can discuss this thoughtfully without knowing exactly what they were convicted of.

Was there a statute they were alleged to have violated?

If so, what does that statute say?

Were they convicted of merely shouting, or were they convicted of something else?

Until we know, I don't know how we can say whether the verdict was right or wrong. Or whether prosecutorial discretion is being abused.

While we await relevant details, though, the authoritarism on this board can be stunning sometimes, given that only lefties should be posting here. Just saying.

[petronius]

73. It would have been CPC 403

"Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section 302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Which is an old (1870s) law and apparently rarely used. The California Supreme Court addressed it once, in 1970 (in re Kay), and had some Constitutional concerns, but drew some limits around the law to keep it valid.

I've read that there is a current lawsuit (filed by an attorney for these students, I think, but in a different case) challenging it on 1A grounds...

[Odin2005]

75. I'm sorry, but those students were being rude assholes.

Seriously, that kind of thing is something Teabaggers do, it's uncivil and below us.

[alp227]

77. agree, this is indefensible, and why's it so hard to understand the diff

between disrupting speech and free speech?

[Ash_F]

80. Were the people who staged protests in the US during the 60s assholes?

This is not an issue to compare to the teabaggers. They are well represented in the political system of the country they live in. Over-represented I would say as they are basically just establishment Republicans relabeled.

The bottom-line is if a person is unfortunate enough to be born to an Arab family in one of the occupied territories in Israel, they will be living a highly regulated life. Travel, employment, education, ability to own property and even the food they eat is heavily restricted. By a government they have no vote in.

I do not know much about California, but I think this would be called 'disturbing the peace' in Texas. Fair enough. The students just wanted to be heard and they got that. This case is all over the internet. They would not have achieved the same effect, with the resources they had, any other way in my opinion.