These students were found guilty of conspiring to prevent the Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren from exercising his right to free speech, but--since the speaker continued speaking--didn't he prevent them from exercising Their rights to free speech?
From KABC Los Angeles, CA
Prosecutor Dan Wagner told jurors the students acted as censors to block the free flow of ideas and infringed upon the rights of 700 people who had gone to the Irvine campus to hear Oren.
"In this country, you get to protest. That's a vital component of our society," said Dan Stormer, the defendants' civil rights attorney.
"We can't allow a group of people to shut down the free speech of our society. We can't allow them to use the 'heckler's veto,'" said Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.
"I hope that America will not allow the death of democracy, but will give life to dissent," said Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California.
14 Comments
budzos"conspiring to prevent free speech."
Seems accurate to me. Your right to free speech doesn't extend to drowning out someone else's message, no matter how you feel about it. Just like your right to swing your arm around stops where my nose begins.
I'm not sure what the penalty for "conpsiring" and not actually succeeding to prevent free speech should be. But I don't think you should be allowed to do it.
Personally I think everyone should just leave their imaginary gods out of public policy and discourse.
budzosbut--since the speaker continued speaking--didn't he prevent them from exercising Their rights to free speech?
I forgot this was the reason I chimed in. NO. What a silly question. Disrupting an organized event where people have gathered to hear a speaker is not free speech. Holding the event is free speech. Standing up and shouting spontaneously could be considered a form of free speech. But planning ahead to occupy the speaker's and audience's time with a series of interruptions is simply denying the speaker and the audience their right to enjoy/participate in their planned activity.
It's like walking up to a basketball court and kicking the ball onto the roof because the sound of dribbling annoys you, and then calling that playing basketball.
budzos^ Or, a better analogy.. it's like running on the court at an NBA game and grabbing the ball. You're free to play basketball, just not here and now at the expense of everyone else's intent.
quantumushroomislam is a cancer on the world.
'Clever' atheists can claim other religions are just as bad, but it's comparing skin cancer to sunburn.
Boise_Lib*promote
siftbotSelf promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, September 25th, 2011 12:30am PDT - promote requested by original submitter Boise_Lib.
SDGundamXI fully support what they did. Disrupting a speech is a perfectly legitimate form of protest and given Israel's continued policies in the Gaza strip it is certainly warranted, in my opinion.
I do not support them trying to get the charges dropped, though. The whole point of civil disobedience is to break the law peacefully and to go to jail for what you believe. If they feel that strongly about the issue they should do whatever jail-time they're given with pride--and be willing to do it again if necessary.
Honestly, I don't see how they even have a case. As this article clearly explains, the Supreme Court has routinely ruled in favor of governments' (both local and federal) right to limit the time, manner, and place of speech so long as there is no infringement on content. Given that the speech-place will probably not be considered a "traditional public forum" (see the article) I don't think they have much of a legal chance of winning.
Related article: Woman tackled and arrested for disrupting Netanyahu's speech in front of U.S. Congress
Food for thought (from the article above):
And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, “This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia.” And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.
transportersays...i'm not gonna lie, the "irvine 11" is a terrible name. and yeah, i couldn't care less about any of this.... DONWNOTES IF YOU MUST, BUT MY CLIENT'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH WILL NEVER BE SILENCED ~Dan Stormer (great attorney, you can tell cuz he never takes his sunglasses off his head)
hpqpThe irony of Muslims squawking about free speech is so thick you'd need one of these to cut through it.
Where were these valiant defendants of free speech when Muslims around the world were burning embassies over a cartoon?
Or when an author was getting a bounty put on his head (in fatwa form) for writing a novel?
Come back when you're a bit more consistent. It's easy to appropriate the rights and liberties of the free country you live in only when it suits you.
/caustic hyperbole
Ryjkyj>> ^quantumushroom:
islam is a cancer on the world.
'Clever' atheists can claim other religions are just as bad, but it's comparing skin cancer to sunburn.
Sunburn causes skin cancer.
quantumushroomRe: 'Clever' not Clever.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^quantumushroom:
islam is a cancer on the world.
'Clever' atheists can claim other religions are just as bad, but it's comparing skin cancer to sunburn.
Sunburn causes skin cancer.
Yogi>> ^quantumushroom:
Re: 'Clever' not Clever.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^quantumushroom:
islam is a cancer on the world.
'Clever' atheists can claim other religions are just as bad, but it's comparing skin cancer to sunburn.
Sunburn causes skin cancer.
BURN!
Yogi>> ^SDGundamX:
I fully support what they did. Disrupting a speech is a perfectly legitimate form of protest and given Israel's continued policies in the Gaza strip it is certainly warranted, in my opinion.
I do not support them trying to get the charges dropped, though. The whole point of civil disobedience is to break the law peacefully and to go to jail for what you believe. If they feel that strongly about the issue they should do whatever jail-time they're given with pride--and be willing to do it again if necessary.
Honestly, I don't see how they even have a case. As this article clearly explains, the Supreme Court has routinely ruled in favor of governments' (both local and federal) right to limit the time, manner, and place of speech so long as there is no infringement on content. Given that the speech-place will probably not be considered a "traditional public forum" (see the article) I don't think they have much of a legal chance of winning.
Related article: Woman tackled and arrested for disrupting Netanyahu's speech in front of U.S. Congress
Food for thought (from the article above):
And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, “This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia.” And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.
Well if the Supreme Court said so it must be right and completely fair.
Ryjkyj>> ^quantumushroom:
Re: 'Clever' not Clever.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^quantumushroom:
islam is a cancer on the world.
'Clever' atheists can claim other religions are just as bad, but it's comparing skin cancer to sunburn.
Sunburn causes skin cancer.
Hey, it's your terrible analogy.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.