Students "guilty" for disrupting speech

Firecat

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
After more than two days of deliberation, an Orange County jury on Friday found 10 Muslim students guilty of two misdemeanors to conspire and then disrupt a February 2010 speech at UC Irvine last year by the Israeli ambassador to the United States.
Click to expand...

Full story...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/irvine-11-verdict-1.html

Story with some more details...
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-muslim-students-guilty-disrupting-speech-223936211.html

Isn't shouting things at speakers something that happens quite often? I don't see how they can argue the students censored the Ambassador....the students aren't in any sort of position to "censor" anyone....
 
Last edited:
So much for free speech in this country, if they weren't Muslim I'm sure they wouldn't be convicted of anything.
 
That's quite simply stupid. I don't think it needs to be a breach of the First Ammendmend (however, it might be if they were arrested for the disruption, if they were told to leave and didn't that's something else, I suppose the University is private?), as freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want anywhere you want. For instance, on private property, it's up to the property owner to decide wether or not he'll approve of your actions, he can tell you to leave at any time for almost any reason.

Heckling shouldn't be punishable by itself. That's silly.
 
^ I'm not sure if this boils down to an Israel v. Muslim debate. What it does show is that there are those who will use bulling tactics to stop discussion. The Muslim Student Union could have had a companion event or a speaker of their own to rebut post the Ambassador or suggest a debate. The last suggestion of a debate is a great strategy because should the opposing view decline the offer it makes them look as though they are weaker. What I would say is of most importance is that just because a particular group and their view is popular at the moment does not mean we should not take time to listen to the outsiders.
 
nomix said:
That's quite simply stupid. I don't think it needs to be a breach of the First Ammendmend (however, it might be if they were arrested for the disruption, if they were told to leave and didn't that's something else, I suppose the University is private?), as freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want anywhere you want. For instance, on private property, it's up to the property owner to decide wether or not he'll approve of your actions, he can tell you to leave at any time for almost any reason.

Heckling shouldn't be punishable by itself. That's silly.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure UC Irvine is public
 
Momentum57 said:
^ I'm not sure if this boils down to an Israel v. Muslim debate. What it does show is that there are those who will use bulling tactics to stop discussion. The Muslim Student Union could have had a companion event or a speaker of their own to rebut post the Ambassador or suggest a debate. The last suggestion of a debate is a great strategy because should the opposing view decline the offer it makes them look as though they are weaker. What I would say is of most importance is that just because a particular group and their view is popular at the moment does not mean we should not take time to listen to the outsiders.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the tactics of most protestors, generally speaking. Even in this case, I don't agree with what they did. I think they had the right to do it though. My issue is with the criminal charges they faced. I don't think either article explicitly mentioned what they were charged with, but it seemed to suggest the charges had to do with what they did (disrupting the speech) and refusing to stop (now if authorities did try to get them to stop and they refused, I can understand a disorderly conduct charge or something similar).

*Edit

a different article mentioned this...

Each of the 10 defendants ? seven from UC Irvine and three from UC Riverside ? are charged with a misdemeanor for conspiring to disrupt Oren?s speech on Feb. 8, 2010, and a misdemeanor for disrupting it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Firecat said:
I'm pretty sure UC Irvine is public
Click to expand...
Then their actions should be considered covered by the First Ammendment if this was a public meeting.
 
I can kinda sorta understand the censoring charge, depending on how disruptive they were being. If the speaker couldn't concentrate because of it, couldn't give his speech because of it, than the students were in a sense using their first amendment rights to violate someone elses first amendment rights. It would be like allowing people the freedom to speak at a location, but installing blaring sirens that make it impossible for anyone to hear what they're saying.
 
Firecat said:
I don't agree with the tactics of most protestors, generally speaking. Even in this case, I don't agree with what they did. I think they had the right to do it though. My issue is with the criminal charges they faced. I don't think either article explicitly mentioned what they were charged with, but it seemed to suggest the charges had to do with what they did (disrupting the speech) and refusing to stop (now if authorities did try to get them to stop and they refused, I can understand a disorderly conduct charge or something similar).

*Edit

a different article mentioned this...
Click to expand...

I think we agree on the basics of the First Amendment however what I heard on NPR was a bit beyond a civil discussion. What concerns me is the alternatives that were available yet not utilized by the students.
 
Facepalm
 
Momentum57 said:
What concerns me is the alternatives that were available yet not utilized by the students.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There are so many better alternatives than just going in and heckling a speaker. Protest outside. Try to get people to boycott the event. Try to get a prominent pro-Palestinian politician, speaker, ambassador, etc out there. That said, I think it's ridiculous to charge them with anything. They should've been thrown out and the matter settled with that.

And appealing 56 hours of community service and (essentially) a year of informal probation? Man, you've got to take that deal, even if the charges are bull. :p
 
That is fairly old. I think that was just before or right after he took office.
 
It's not against the law to voice your opinion. It is, however, against the law to suppress someone's opinion, as they were clearly trying to do by disrupting the speech.
 
What???? When did that become a law?
 
laxmax613 said:
It's not against the law to voice your opinion. It is, however, against the law to suppress someone's opinion, as they were clearly trying to do by disrupting the speech.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anything about this being a law do you have any links to the penal code where its written?
 
Making trouble has always been a punishable offence in pretty much every jurisdiction in the world. The question is where the line goes between making trouble and exercising freedom of speech.

In all honesty, if that interpretation of the law was valid, it would make those who removed the arab students from the meeting criminals..
 
Exactly, and that is why there is no such law. There would be no police left to arrest the offenders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top