Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States recently gave a speech — or at least tried to give a speech — at UC Irvine at the invitation of UCI’s law school and political science department. A group of students at UC Irvine, apparently all members of the Muslim Students Union , decided to try to stop the speech.
The students came up with the following plan. They had been told that if they interrupted the speech, they would be arrested for disturbing a public event, so the students went sequentially, each interrupting the Ambassador once. Each student would stand up in the middle of the speech and start screaming out condemnation, which would trigger the wild applause of many other students in the audience. The student would then walk to the aisle to be arrested and escorted out by campus police. Once the Ambassador started again, the next student would go, resulting in a total of 10 interruptions to the speech and arrests of 11 students, 8 from UC Irvine and 3 from UC Riverside. The video is here:
As far as I know, we don’t yet know what the university will do in terms of disciplining the students or what the police will do in terms of formally bringing charges.
More coverage from the LA Times is here.
I’ll open comments for a brief window, in the hope that commenters can remain civil. But if things spiral out of control I’ll just close up comments rather than try to moderate them.
Anonsters says:
I’m confused by the title more than anything. It’s the kind of title you’d expect to find on a website not run by law-trained people (like: “See! Libruls and radicals are trying to take away free speech!”).
Unless you mean: “Free Speech on Campus: Against Michael Oren at UC Irvine”?
Oh, and I like the clip title. “Uncivilized Tactics.” Those damned Arabs and Muslims! They need some Civilizing!
Sounded to me like they had rather sophisticated tactics, rather than all 11 jumping up at once and causing a ruckus.
February 12, 2010, 2:43 pmOrin Kerr says:
Anonsters,
Your comment does not leave me hopeful that this will be a productive comment thread.
February 12, 2010, 2:47 pmzuch says:
Prof. Kerr:
If they’re willing to plead guilt (or nolo contendre) and accept punishment, sounds like textbook civil disobedience to me. I guess we’ll see.
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 2:49 pmAnonsters says:
Why? Because your title doesn’t make much sense, unless you meant to imply that the state of “free speech” on campuses is reflected by the attempt to interrupt a speech by an Israeli ambassador?
Which would be silly, given what we know about the state action doctrine.
And why is it unproductive to point out the questionably named Youtube clip? It’d be like having a clip of an African American speaking entitled, “Inarticulate Noises,” or something.
February 12, 2010, 2:51 pmJohn Cunningham says:
One will have to see how UCI reacts, but I would bet that nothing whatever will be done to the thugs disrupting the speech.
February 12, 2010, 2:52 pmShelbyC says:
The definition often get blurred nowadays, with folks claiming that they are engaging in civil disobedience when they violate any law to draw attention to their message, but textbook civil disboedience is the manifest disobedience of an unjust law. What unjust law were they disobeying?
February 12, 2010, 2:54 pmMonty says:
My right to free speech is meaningless if you can show up to my event, and literally drown out my speech. You have every right to hold a counter event, or as many other speeches as you want to try to drown out my message figuratively, but you should respect my right to speak, and the right of the audience to hear what I have to say. I know a student group isn’t state action, but what they did nonetheless shows contempt for the underlying principles represented by our First Amendment. The free exchange of ideas is fundemental to democracy, and that is what these protestors attacked.
February 12, 2010, 2:56 pmOrin Kerr says:
Anonsters,
I suppose if you wanted to come up with some sort of nitpicking to criticize something, you would come up with a) criticizing the post title, and trying to see it as somehow misrepresenting the state action doctrine, and 2) criticizing the title that whoever posted that clip put on the clip. But I think you would have to be in a quite uncharitable state of mind toward the blogger to do that. I expect better from you.
February 12, 2010, 2:58 pmBT says:
This may be a dumb question, but has the Jewish Student Union (assuming there is a group on campus that represents the interests of Jewish students) tried to stop any Palestinian officials from talking at the school?
Regardless, I don’t like these sort of displays, no matter who does them. Let the man speak, if you disagree with him–fine, do so in the Q&A, editorials, pamphlets, etc.
February 12, 2010, 3:00 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
What on earth does the state action doctrine have to do with the price of tea in China? He didn’t say “violations of the first amendment at Irvine.” If he had, it would be relevant, but he didn’t. In short, you’re confused.
It’s unproductive because your comment is irrelevant to the substance of the topic. And wrong, too, since it says “uncivilized,” not “unsophisticated.”
February 12, 2010, 3:03 pmAnonsters says:
Your reaction to my posts has been, to me, completely bizarre.
As I said in my first comment, “I’m confused by the title more than anything.” As in, I wasn’t sure if you were meaning to imply something by it or not. I honestly can’t tell half the time with your posts, Orin. Like the one the other week about Constitution 3.0 (or 2.0, I forget its edition number). I said in my comments there, I couldn’t tell if you were trying to make a point or not, and the comments were all over the place because people were assuming you were trying to imply different points. That’s not a criticism of you. It’s just a statement of my confusion.
And unless you were the one who named the Youtube clip, I fail to see why my pointing out it’s questionable name would make you think I was attributing anything at all to you. It would be like attributing the substance of a post on another blog you link to as representing your views, when you merely linked to it for some other purpose.
I suppose if you wanted to come up with some sort of reading of my comments as somehow attacking you in bad faith, you would read my comments the way you have.
I expect better from you.
February 12, 2010, 3:05 pmMike says:
Thuggish behavior has too long been the purview of the Left. The “Tea Parties” are the first visible response to show that the Right is taking tentative steps to be heard, but they need to begin the disruptions, name-calling, “civil disobedience”, etc., so that we can all be on equal footing.
If it leads to a civil war, so be it; the time of “reasoning” passed when a Clinton staffer spit at a W.H. military guard and the age of “Borking” turned from uncivil to partisan warfare.
February 12, 2010, 3:05 pmtroll_dc2 says:
“The students came up with the following plan.” In other words, they conspired to interrupt the speech in such a way as to try to keep Oren from getting through it.
It seems to me that what they did was rather like, though more disruptive than, a gay-rights group’s infiltration of a St. Patrick’s Day parade, since the event was sponsored, at least in part, by outside, Jewish organizations. (At least I think it was; the article said: “The speech about U.S.-Israeli relations was organized by several organizations and campus departments “to address tough issues in an open kind of way,” said Shalom Elcott, president and chief executive of the Jewish Federation of Orange County.”)
I hope that they get prosecuted and also punished by the school. But I am not hopeful. The norm seems to be that an educational institution does not press charges against its students.
February 12, 2010, 3:07 pmAnonsters says:
What is “free speech,” then, as a principle? Someone define it for me. Apparently everyone but me knows what it is outside the 1st Amendment context.
And clearly I fail for linking the two, on a law blog….
February 12, 2010, 3:08 pmJ says:
At the heart of America’s alliance with Israel is the recognition that both nations are liberal democracies. I cannot help thinking that the illiberalism of the protesters at this event only serves to confirm the basic similarity between the United States and Israel and to highlight the idea that Israel’s enemies are, in the final analysis, the enemies of the most basic principles America stands for.
February 12, 2010, 3:08 pmMike H says:
Campus free speech is a joke! What about the respectful exchange of ideas? What about being open to contrary opinions and allowing those who hold them to have their say? The radicals on campus and the administrations that do nothing to stop them (in many cases encouraging them) have turned our once proud university system into a joke that perpetuates garbage ideology with taxpayer subsidies.
30 years ago when groups like the PFLP relied on a steadily flowing spigot of Soviet money to fund their “mass movements“, campus leftist identified with Marxist-Leninist leanings, but I just cant see what common cause the modern campus left has with Palestinian muslim radicals.
I guess it has something to do with the “socialism of fools” .
February 12, 2010, 3:10 pmNobody At All says:
I have a question re: free speech.
Time, place, and manner regulations permit removal & disciplinary proceedings for those who disrupt a speech at a public university. Is there any way to prevent such disruptions (i.e. those students that have not yet stood up and disrupted), while respecting the 1st amendment precedent? Was this the only course of action constitutionally available to the university?
February 12, 2010, 3:11 pmOrin Kerr says:
Anonsters,
Could you send me an e-mail or give me a call? It sounds like you have some concerns with my blogging, and on the whole I think it’s probably better for us to work through them one-on-one. My contact info is on my homepage. Thanks.
February 12, 2010, 3:12 pmUgh says:
Any thoughts on whether this is constitutional?
February 12, 2010, 3:12 pmAnonsters says:
I fail to see why it’s a matter of “free speech” at all. If your speech maximally offends me, I have the right to speak up and say so, even if doing so disrupts your speech. If there are campus, or local government, or whatever codes that prohibit my disruption of your speech, well then, I’ll suffer the consequences, whatever those may be.
Would it not be worse, as a matter of this abstract free speech principle, if I were censored from speaking, in the name of civility?
[Edit: Ok, I don't fail to see it as a "free speech" matter at all. But it's not as obvious to me as it appears to be to some that this is an example of the left trying to destroy "free speech" or something like that.]
February 12, 2010, 3:14 pmChris Travers says:
Actually I think there are a number of elements to this that should be contemplated.
Having been raised a Quaker, I appreciate very well-thought-out demonstrations of civil disobedience. I think that civil disobedience is something which is done to send a message, and accepting punishment that comes with it is part of sending that message. The students involved here were very sophisticated in their approach and sent a message of their choosing. In terms of freedom of expression, one might disagree with the message they were sending (I do to a point) but I certainly disagree with the means no more than I would with burning Israeli and American flags in an open area of campus near the building (as a hypothetical). Here, the more the perpetrators will be punished, the more they will seem like victims of oppression to those who sympathize with them. (I find it interesting that Sacco and Vanzetti are still mentioned alongside Patrick Pearce in pro-IRA folksongs, for example.)
However, there are two other fundamental issues which are invariably tied here as well, regarding freedom of speech. The first is that UC Irvine has had a serious problem with harassment of and threats to Jewish students. I don’t believe colleges should generally limit free speech of students in the name of promoting civility in the academic environment, but at the same time, UC Irvine has had a number of problems including vandalisms, which go well beyond protected areas of speech. It is clear to me that Irvine has had serious problems and that the campus police doesn’t do enough to protect the Jewish students who go to school there.
The second is that a number of “experts” have been trying to push the idea that certain pure speech activities constitute unprotected harassment in areas of education if it involves classical Antisemitic themes, and that criticism of the state of Israel often rises to this level. In essence the ADL and the US Commission on Civil Rights have characterized anti-Zionism (in some cases very broadly defined) as a civil rights violation against Jewish students.
The struggle over free speech in campus regarding an issue as divisive as American support for the Israeli occupation is a complex one and we are only seeing a very small portion of it.
February 12, 2010, 3:15 pmSuperSkeptic says:
“open your mouth one more time and you are going to be arrested” – a Policeman in the video to a young woman.
What a disturbing and disgusting event, the arrest of all those young people for exercising their right to speak. Apparently speech isn’t free – it costs a misdemeanor.
I agree with Anonsters on this point.
This one, apparently:
* * *
Professor Kerr, it would be heartily ironic of you to shut down the comment thread for incivility in light of that video. (and premature, if based solely on Anonsters)
February 12, 2010, 3:16 pmtroll_dc2 says:
What do you mean by “right”? Are you talking law or force?
February 12, 2010, 3:16 pmSteve says:
I, too, long for a return to the golden age of campus free speech that never existed.
How many of the people who rightfully condemn this unacceptable behavior had similar words of criticism for the efforts to prevent Ahmadinejad from speaking at Columbia?
February 12, 2010, 3:19 pmS says:
This behavior was not civil. It was, also, not thuggish (no violence). It was immature, counter-productive and contrary to the values of open discourse.
February 12, 2010, 3:20 pmtroll_dc2 says:
SuperSkeptic, are you saying that the government commits a First Amendment violation when it tries to stop someone from interfering with a speech by someone else?
February 12, 2010, 3:21 pmAriel says:
Cf. Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia. In reading the transcript of his speech, I’m struck by the fact that there were no interruptions throughout his entire speech. When he told a whopper about there being no homosexuals in his country, he was booed. But that was well after he had given his main speech, and after a student persisted in asking about the topic.
Some have decried the labeling of the MSU students’ behavior as uncivilized. Contrast the nature of the regime in Iran with the democracy in Israel, and compare the behavior of the MSU students with the non-interruption of Ahmadinejad’s speech, and it becomes increasingly hard to consider the MSU students as anything other than uncivilized.
February 12, 2010, 3:27 pmADF Alliance Alert » UC Irvine: Muslim students systematically disrupt Israeli Ambassador’s speech says:
[...] Kerr writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States recently gave a speech — or at [...]
February 12, 2010, 3:27 pmARCraig says:
Setting aside the propriety of the disruptions, what they did was supremely counterproductive. They made themselves look like childish fools and the Ambassador look like the polite, diplomatic statesman he is. And I’m not particularly sympathetic to Israeli policies.
It’s worth noting, also, that clearly the majority of the crowd in that room was as disgusted with the disruptions as the faculty. That’s something of a counterweight to the embarrassment to the University in my book.
February 12, 2010, 3:27 pmNobody At All says:
If there are any lawyers who are versed in first amendment law, do any of you know off-hand what caselaw might be applicable?
I think that the analysis would be: limited public forum -> content neutral time, place, and manner regulation – > permissible to remove & discipline someone who disrupts a speech.
On the other hand, prior restraint of speech usually has to meet strict scrutiny – how does this mesh with the above analysis? Would it be constitutionally permissible (though perhaps not advisable) for a public university to remove someone prior to their disruption of an event? My gut says “no,” and that this was the only constitutional option for the university in this situation, but I have to think that this has been addressed before.
February 12, 2010, 3:30 pmropelight says:
This sort of thing is nothing new at UC campuses. It goes back at least to the early 70′s when I first encountered it. Students knew it was wrong, a violation of the most basic right of Americans. Yet, the campus administration refused to put a stop to it. Apparently, little has changed except the intolerant are now better organized.
February 12, 2010, 3:32 pmAnonsters says:
I don’t know, frankly, because we’re not talking about First Amendment rights here (judging by the responses to my state action point above). So I’m just invoking my nebulous “free speech right” the content of which everyone (apparently) intuitively understands.
February 12, 2010, 3:32 pmAJK says:
I think there’s a large difference between opposing a speaker’s invitation, or trying to discourage attendance at the presentation, and what happened here.
February 12, 2010, 3:32 pmTex Taylor says:
I wonder if the goons who disrupted the speech will ever recognize that their tactics an admission of weakness?
If they are right concerning their charges (if you can figure out their grievance as it sounded more like a pack of hyenas), what better way to expose your opponent’s weakness than letting them sound off?
February 12, 2010, 3:34 pmMadBuilder says:
You are basically saying you have the right to exercise your freedom at the expense of my freedom, and that is wrong. In effect you say, if you offend me I have the right to shut you up or ensure that you can’t be heard. That’s the philosophy of the bully.
February 12, 2010, 3:35 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Cognizant that my position is not currently the law, yes, if the facts are as they are here: Someone was trying to speak. Someone else was trying to speak. One of those parties was arrested. Yes, absolutely.
February 12, 2010, 3:35 pmroy says:
How so? By no legal or common-sense understanding do we commenters’ free speech rights include the right to use Kerr’s blog. AFAIK, Kerr allowing us to use his private property to express ourselves is an exercise of his free speech rights. So is disallowing us from doing so.
February 12, 2010, 3:36 pmMark says:
As a lifetime libertarian I am all for free speech, but that is not the issue here. There is the larger issue of the rights of everyone else involved.
Number one, the right of the university to utilize its facilities to further its fundamental mission which is the search for truth through inquiry and the free exhange of ideas — even ideas some members of the community might detest.
Number two is the right of other members of the audience who attended in good faith to hear what was to be said.
Each of these groups had their rights violated. What occured was not an example of free expression, but a premeditated conspiracy to prevent others for exercising their rights. Premeditation is clear from the strategty employed to thwart the threat that the university justly made public that disrupters would be arrested.
If a member of the audience had been arrested for asking an angry question during a scheduled Q&A period, I would agree that his or her rights were violated — no matter how provocative or obnoxious the question. But that is not what happened here.
To accept that these individuals were simply exercising thier free speech rights is to accept that any unscrupulous group can exercise a veto over the rights of free men. To argue that this is some form of laudable civil disobediance demonstrates a lamentable lack of common sense.
February 12, 2010, 3:36 pmSuperSkeptic says:
And that is exactly the philosophy of the University here.
February 12, 2010, 3:36 pmWillys says:
The students have spoken well of themselves, their parenting and their heritage. I take it they have spoken for Muslim society in general, an indicator of the leniency that society lends to Muslim terrorism. They can only be proud.
February 12, 2010, 3:37 pmARCraig says:
If they had evidence of the planned disruption, particularly if the student(s) didn’t deny it, I don’t see how forbidding them from entering the room is constitutionally distinguishable from removing them after the fact. The disruption is not an act of “speech”, it is a criminal action and may still be punished if intercepted before the fact just like any other crime. What they did was no different from if they had stood up and started silently flailing around- the mere fact that they were yelling words while committing their crime doesn’t make it 1A speech, much less protected speech.
February 12, 2010, 3:38 pmJSinAZ says:
I suspect, Anonster, that your confusion arises because you assume that only the state can suppress free speech. This is certainly not the case, as evidenced by the conspiracy to do just that in this instance. Non-state actors act to suppress speech constantly. Apparently it is now a student tradition to suppress speech with which they disagree – such is the current state of de-evolved academic culture in the United States.
My question is – must the participants of the meeting who do not wish to have the meeting disrupted submit to that intrusion? Do they have any recourse against the conspirators – clearly the participants were deprived of a service they wished to receieve by way of the lecture. Perhaps some annoying lawsuits need to be filed to raise the level of pain felt by these speech-supressing thugs.
February 12, 2010, 3:38 pmMatt says:
I am beginning to appreciate the actions of Father Ted Hesburhg more and more at ND in the late 60s and 70s. When some of the students had taken over an administration building to protest the war he informed them that this type of action had no place at ND and warned them that they had 30 min. to vacate the building or they would be expelled. He also told them that he would personally call the draft board to inform them of the students change in status. He was as good as his word and 30 min. later those who did not leave were expelled. There were very few protests on campus after that.
Drowning out a persons speech at a college or university is unacceptable. If you do not like the theme of the talk, hold your own counter talk and win people over with persuasion. It is only in a world that has been turned upside down that you can argue the people causing the interruptions were practicing their free speech. That was not free speech, it was the suppression of speech.
Matt
February 12, 2010, 3:39 pmAnonsters says:
But if you push your idea to its conclusion, you’re going to have to end up defending a position that says, “Whoever speaks first is the only one who has the right to speak at that moment, for as long as the first speaker continues to speak.” That’s not terribly satisfying, is it?
February 12, 2010, 3:39 pmChris Travers says:
If anyone is interested in the pro-IRA song I was mentioning, here are the lyrics. The youtube version is a different version than the lyrics, but the lyrics listed are closer to what is on Christie Moore’s CD recordings.
February 12, 2010, 3:39 pmmotionview says:
My understanding is that the Dean of UCI Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, is widely respected across the political spectrum. I’d really be interested in his take on this fiasco.
February 12, 2010, 3:40 pmAnonsters says:
And where do you locate your right to be free from non-state suppression of speech?
February 12, 2010, 3:41 pmBohemond says:
“Oh, and I like the clip title. “Uncivilized Tactics.” Those damned Arabs and Muslims! They need some Civilizing! ”
Yup. And I’m NOT being sarcastic.
February 12, 2010, 3:41 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Basically, because he posted a video of people being arrested for speaking when someone else (the university or Mr. Oren) disapproved. The university had cops waiting to do the arresting in anticipation of such disapproved speech. If he shut down the comments (despite our not having a “right” to comment – which I note, these students also had no right to do under the law as it currently stands) because of our incivility, of which he disapproves, he would be doing something ironically similar. He even put us on notice – like the University posting the police around the students in the assembly – by anticipatorily(a word?) letting us know he may shut-it-down.
February 12, 2010, 3:43 pmAJK says:
I’d say that there’s a difference between speech that’s intended to contribute to a dialogue or discussion, and speech that’s intended to disrupt the discussion. Obviously, it may be difficult to distinguish the two in some cases, but I don’t think that’s an issue here.
February 12, 2010, 3:44 pmARCraig says:
Not terribly satisfying? That’s basic etiquette, and I think a perfect summation of how free speech works in a given public forum (aside from whatever limitations are imposed on length as part of the forum itself).
February 12, 2010, 3:44 pmtroll_dc2 says:
When I read the posts claiming that one has a free-speech right to shut up someone with whom he disagrees, I think of Orwell. If he were still alive, he would have some interesting raw material here for a revised version of “Politics and the English Language.”
February 12, 2010, 3:46 pmAnonsters says:
And someone is going to have to decide, in the difficult and in the non-difficult cases. Who decides?
Since when does “basic etiquette” (whatever, exactly, that means) determine the substance of one’s rights?
February 12, 2010, 3:49 pmMalvolio says:
Hmmm. So, if some private individual, unaffiliated with the government, started shooting at black people who tried to vote, that would not be a civil rights issue?
February 12, 2010, 3:50 pmBama 1L says:
1. Please learn about Stand With Us, which edited and posted the video, before reaching any conclusions about the “uncivilized” language. I don’t mean to say that the editing was a trick or anything; I just mean that Stand With Us, which advocates a particular position, chose to call this activity “uncivilized.” I am certain that the ambassador tried to give a speech and kept his cool even though he was disrupted repeatedly and rudely. The ambassador himself called the behavior inhospitable, which I think is a better description.
2. I think the remarkable free speech here is the protestors’, not the favored speaker’s–right? In any country in the world, you will see a dignitary afforded a platform. It is only in a speech-valuing country that you will see the dignitary confronted in this manner.
3. I don’t think the protestors came off looking good and they probably injured their cause. But that’s how the marketplace of ideas works. Because trust it, we generally let people say what they want to.
4. I think that the First Amendment should be read to protect counterspeech of this type. If government provides the forum and chooses the speaker, it has necessarily selected the viewpoint and all time-manner-place restrictions have ceased to be neutral. So a government forum necessitates the possibility of this type of disruption, which we just have to trust non-legal norms like decorum and propriety to prevent in many cases. A private sponsor and forum would avoid this. I know this is not exactly what the law is.
February 12, 2010, 3:52 pmNobody At All says:
I would think that standing and silently flailing would qualify as speech, and government punishment of this activity would merit First Amendment analysis. Whether the prevention of disruption is content-neutral is the operative fact, not that yelling somehow isn’t recognized as speech under the First Amendment.
I know that content-neutral prior restraints on speech can be accomplished (e.g. parade permits), but I’m not sure whether the university – having found themselves in the situation that they were in – could have constitutionally done anything else. The evidence of who was going to disrupt the event was not strong enough to eliminate the sort of government discretion that normally isn’t allowed when doing things like handing out parade permits.
February 12, 2010, 3:52 pmARCraig says:
It’s the other way around, but we’re beyond etiquette here. The absurdity of your position is in the basic physical nature of reality- two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time. I’m baffled that anyone can genuinely think there’s a “right” to scream and yell at people who are trying to give a speech. So if I show up at Obama’s next public speech and start screaming about socialism and death camps in the middle of his address, the 1st Amendment forbids the police from removing from the room? Seriously?
February 12, 2010, 3:54 pmGeorge Baily says:
Are you all crazy? How is it “free speech” to refuse to let another speak? If a scheduled speaker’s right to speak and the right of others to hear him is nixed by others, haven’t you simply allowed one man’s free speech to be seized by the stronger, more vile or loudest of the two?
Have you not denied free speech to the audience that came to hear him? Would it have been “free speech” for Douglas’s supporters to drown out Lincoln’s speech?
It WAS intellectually thuggish, and a betrayal of US values (let the man have his say), free speech (we want to hear what he wants to say), and a pefect demonstration of paralyzed academia.
Its also a alarming example of what some groups think they are entitled to do in the US: disrupt anyone and everyone with whom they disagree.
Academics once thought it was so cute of students to do this in the 60′s, then to “right wing” speakers and now they’ve lost control of speech on their campuses.
Now no one can speak if one group decides they should not be heard. There are parades of leftist speakers on campus at every event and commencement, no mattter how old and faded: right wing types infinitely less so because small groups of thugs disrupt their events.
The freest speech nowadays is OFF campus. Away from the (primarily leftist) efforts to suppress speech they do not like.
This event at UCI is a perfect example of the LOSS of free speech. There was no free speech value to the disruption.
People are foolish to think this is containable behavior, or an event to be shrugged off.
February 12, 2010, 3:54 pmAnonsters says:
Indeed (Amusing PDF Warning).
February 12, 2010, 3:57 pmern says:
Anonsters, you’re being purposefully obtuse. It’s not about who was speaking first, but whose forum. This was a forum specifically set up for someone in particular to speak. The protesters could have actually listened, but instead they disturbed the forum. Their freedom of speech was not violated at all. They could have spoken outside the forum, even shouted and ranted, and they would have been protected. No one was preventing them from speaking. The students chose an inappropriate time, which was beyond their right to demand. Rights have limits, and in the real world we respect those limits in order to maximize freedom. The University was not violating anyone’s right to speech, but defending the rules by which all groups are held accountable in order to provide space for all people to speak.
If we take you seriously (and I doubt you really want us to) there would be no free speech at all, just people shouting at and over each other. There is a point to which any principle is taken to which the principle is violated in spirit. Good citizens respect those rights and those boundaries. These students were bad citizens, and violated the spirit of free speech.
February 12, 2010, 3:58 pmAnonsters says:
Remember, we’re not talking about the 1st Amendment. We’re talking about some abstract right to free speech, not founded in any text or doctrine.
The 1st Amendment wouldn’t prohibit police removing you from the room, no.
February 12, 2010, 3:59 pmARCraig says:
True, there could be semantic content there. I should have stuck with my first example of throwing things at the speaker (which also of course sends a message), but I didn’t want to complicate it by bringing in possible assault.
I agree the evidence probably wasn’t strong enough here to target specific students for refusal to enter the room, but as a hypothetical I don’t see anything wrong with forbidding entry if such evidence of planned disruption does exist. If, for example, a disgruntled whistle-blower within the protest group forwarded the planning e-mails to the university faculty.
February 12, 2010, 4:00 pmSuperSkeptic says:
How do you know? Those students could have argued and discussed with Mr. Oren, that is, if he engaged them. Only protecting “speech that’s intended to contribute to a dialogue or discussion” is an unworkable line. In situations like this, the “power” (University) and “authority” (police officers) gets to decide what is “dialogue” and what is “discussion.”
Such a line doesn’t bode well for unpopular or minority speech, as we frequently see with our current First Amendment “lines” between “protected” and “unprotected” speech.
February 12, 2010, 4:00 pmManju says:
to be able to speak without being subjected to force (physical attacks, shouting down, etc).
I think this goes back to the notion, bought up in other posts, that libertarianism (or claisscal liberalsim) is not actually an anti-govenment philoisphy, thought the libertarin focus on the bill of rights and enumerated power–ie limits on government– makes it appear that way.
but liberalism starts w/ locke’s state of nature, where life is, as hobbes put it, “nasty brutish and short” due to “a war of all agaisnt all.” the fundamental raison d’etre for govt is to end this war, to protect the freedom of man (rights), ie freedom from the initiation of force (and later fraud). man enters into a social contract, gives up his “right” to initiative force to the govt in return for a protection of his “life, liberty , and property.”
this narrative finds its way into our regime via the dec of independence, where it is taken as “self-evident” that we have “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
the students in question committed the crime of initiating force. they returned us to locke’s state of nature. putting aside for a moment the question as to whether or not its a dogwhistle (and to be fair, its more obvious than “professor”) their behavior was indeed literally uncivilized.
February 12, 2010, 4:00 pmFooty Fan says:
I don’t see where the complaints come from about the students disrupting the event.
The analysis, as I see it, should be, as follows:
1) The school (and other school groups) wants to further its mission of providing a open forum for debate etc…
2) Therefore they notify students who may be tempted to disrupt the event that there are consequences to disrupting the event, i.e., prosecution under the statute forbidding disruptions.
3) The crime which the statute addresses is disruption of an event, and the students even if they are using “speech” to disrupt the event, are still violating the statute. Speech which is itself a crime is not protected. (settled law – threats, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, incitement to commit tax fraud, intimidating witnesses etc…).
4) The students decide to break the law. They demonstrate a disrespect a law which is at least partially aimed at protecting free speech. Hence they are punished.
5) Everything works well, as long as the students are punished.
6) The fact that speech was disrupted is unfortunate, but obviously the students felt, rightly or wrongly, that it was so important to them to disrupt the speech that they would violate the law and recieve their punishment.
7) In the future, students who feel this way will see that they will be punished, and will have to weigh their decisions to do disrupt future events against their desire to disrupt an event.
8) The only way to prevent disruptions is to increase punishments (or probably more effectively make sure that the punishments are ALWAYS enforced) or to screen participants. I personally am more concerned with preemptive screening of participants – because this will prevent people who might just want to ask questions or hold different views.
So, basically, my point is – the students were acting criminally and boorishly. That happens sometimes. They face the consequences, we go on with our lives.
February 12, 2010, 4:01 pmChris Travers says:
I completely agree with this point to an extent.
OTOH, there is seldom a more powerful statement than to stand up, violate the law in an expressive activity, to fight the resulting charges on that basis, and then to suffer the sentence with pride. One thing we respect about Nelson Mandela was the time he served in prison for his cause, and the supporters of Marwan Barghouti tend to push the same approach.
I guess the question is whether we want to lend the counterspeech the weight it achieves when punished by law, or whether we want to leave it entirely to the marketplace. In a strange way, the more we value this sort of protest, the more we should punish it.
February 12, 2010, 4:02 pmARCraig says:
The same abstract right that is codified in whole by the 1st Amendment as against state actors, including both the Secret Service and a public university. Since you sidestepped my point, would my “abstract right to free speech” have been violated in the Obama heckler scenario? If not, how is that any different from what happened here? What, exactly, would have been consistent with your idea of free speech at UC Irvine? For the Ambassador to just try to yell louder while the disruptors were allowed to continue?
February 12, 2010, 4:04 pmHyphenated American says:
To all those that claim that those students had a right to shout down the invited speaker – I suggest you imagine if the students start showing up in UC moslem activities and shouting Islamo-phobic slogans. And this includes the classrooms with liberal professors.
Would you consider changing your mind?
February 12, 2010, 4:04 pmDaniel says:
I fail to see what’s so controversial here. The University invited a man to speak. You had a bunch of people who planned to and did attempt to disrupt that speech. I suppose it was wrong to arrest them, but it seems perfectly reasonable to deny them entry if they make it clear what their plans are, or to boot them out once they start yelling cat calls.
And no, it doesn’t matter if it’s some genocidal lunatic or Nelson Mandella. Don’t like the speaker, lobby the university, write an op-ed, protest outside the building, go on a hunger strike if you want to.
Basically, it’s like the scene in the Big Lebowski when Walter and the Dude are at the diner. “Oh dear, for your information the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.” “This isn’t a first amendment issue Walter.”
February 12, 2010, 4:05 pmG. May says:
Well, if you oversimplify the characterization of the situation – as you so disingenuously do here – then the answer is ‘no’. It is not unreasonable however, to expect that a scheduled speech at an institution of higher learning should be allowed to proceed relatively uninterrupted. What you advocate here is utter chaos. This is hardly indicative of civilized behavior, let alone a rational exchange of ideas.
February 12, 2010, 4:05 pmSuperSkeptic says:
That’s more or less what I think – but I see the University as doing the “shutting-up” here.
February 12, 2010, 4:06 pmtroll_dc2 says:
1. I think that the bias of the First Amendment is in favor of the concept of “free exchange of ideas.” When you keep someone from speaking, you are not exchanging ideas; you are keeping someone else from expressing them. Not only that, you are keeping other people from hearing them.
2. The “government” here is a university; the “place” is clearly one designed to promote the free exchange of ideas. Why is that not “neutral”? Why is it not “neutral” to say that you cannot disrupt a speaker, that in the period while he is talking he has the floor exclusively?
3. The event was sponsored by private groups as well as several university departments.
4. Under the quoted analysis, government is powerless to prevent disruption of this sort. In other words, the “hecklers’ veto” takes precedence over the speaker’s right to speak and the university’s right to allow him to speak.
5. How would the people who support the demonstrators deal with the issue if the demonstrators were the Brown Shirts?
February 12, 2010, 4:06 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Nope.
February 12, 2010, 4:06 pmAmerican in Paris says:
Looks to me that the 11 did the speech equivalent of suicide bombing. They each detonated by standing up and yelling despite warnings and pleas, one at a time, knowing they would be evicted, in order to disrupt the event. When even a diplomatic Ambassador will not be heard by the other side, what hope is there ever of peace or a two state solution for the Mid East?
February 12, 2010, 4:07 pmAnonsters says:
Would it help if I admit that I think the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor is bollocks?
February 12, 2010, 4:07 pmARCraig says:
What should they and the Ambassador have done? Just try to yell louder so the audience could still hear what they came to here? If you wanted a dialogue (which the disruptors clearly didn’t), there was a time set aside for Q&A.
If you were a public university professor giving a lecture (let’s say open to the public), and I interrupted your speech by screaming that you were a child rapist, would respect for free speech forbid you from having me removed? Would the only acceptable response for you to be to try to engage me in discussion about the allegations? Can you really not see the absurdity of this position?
February 12, 2010, 4:12 pmShelbyC says:
Well, both private and public actors are entitled to create non-public forms where free speech is limited. You wouldn’t argue that you should be able to walk into, say, a courtroom and disrupt the proceedings, would you?
February 12, 2010, 4:12 pmmatt says:
UCI has a well documented history of the Muslim Student’s Union’s intimidation campaign. The group has faced virtually no disciplinary action for holding clearly anti-Semitic rallys and protests and using hate speech for at least 6-8 years. At the same time, they have played the victim card repeatedly while playing the university administration like a violin.
Do your own research, but with their record, they might as well be wearing brown shirts and armbands.
February 12, 2010, 4:13 pmAnonsters says:
I think the more interesting question is: do you not see that, notwithstanding your obvious and easy cases, it’s not as simple a matter as you’re representing it to be? That when you push the principle in either direction you run up against certain tensions inherent in the very idea of free speech?
February 12, 2010, 4:14 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Anonster, this isn’t ‘speech’, it’s the good old primate tactic of flinging feces at the object of your wrath. Given that college students formerly had some deportment, this regression to the simian is truly degenerate.
February 12, 2010, 4:14 pmQuery says:
Why is this not a conspiracy in violation of Oren’s civil rights, a violation of the relevant section of the U.S. Code, and thus amenable to federal prosecution? Is there any difference between this, and say, a group of individuals who conspire to stop someone from voting, or from getting an abortion?
February 12, 2010, 4:15 pmMike McDougal says:
I think you’re wrong about that. At least as I understand the term, “civil disobedience” entails the violation of a law that itself is reprehensible or at least morally or ethically objectionable. The violation of the law serves (or attempts to serve) as a rejection of the law’s legitimacy.
In this case, the law at issue is a law protecting speech at public events. Thus, if this is civil disobedience, the disobedients are protesting protections of those who wish to speak at public events.
I suspect that’s not the message they were trying to convey (though it might have been). Rather, I suspect they were trying to convey displeasure for Israel, its policies, and that whole bundle of issues. They might have succeeded in conveying that message, but it wasn’t through civil disobedience. The mechanism was simple disruption. And not all illegal disruptions that convey messages are “civil disobedience.”
February 12, 2010, 4:15 pmRPT says:
What strikes me about this incident is how temperate is the behavior compared to the standard tactics of the “tea partiers” of last year at town halls with their representatives. That was much worse. The TP’s received adulation from all areas of the right-center to center, including almost all corporate media (except a portion of MSNBC) because they were expressing alleged legitimate non-astroturfed dissent and dissatisfaction with the [non-existent] “Obama tax increases”, “government takeover of medicare”, “give me back my country”, and so on.
I don’t like this behavior in this circumstance, but I think that anyone who supported or defended the TP’s has no standing to complain.
February 12, 2010, 4:16 pmRuss says:
The students behaved as barbarians… albeit sophisticated barbarians.
February 12, 2010, 4:16 pmFooty Fan says:
troll_dc2: 14. Under the quoted analysis, government is powerless to prevent disruption of this sort. In other words, the “hecklers’ veto” takes precedence over the speaker’s right to speak and the university’s right to allow him to speak. 5. How would the people who support the demonstrators deal with the issue if the demonstrators were the Brown Shirts?
But Trolldc2, consider this –
Criminals always have a “veto” as to peoples rights to live their life free from fear, or interference, or disruption. What are you going to do about it except punish them after the fact? You just cant be too concerned about a “Heckler’s Veto” because there is nothing to do about it except enforce the (content-neutral) law about disruptions. Preemptive attempts to stop a hecklers veto might well end up with a bad, futuristic, tom cruise movie coming to life.
February 12, 2010, 4:16 pmAk Mike says:
There are two issues here, a legal issue and a civilization issue. The legal issue has to do with property rights, not free speech. A property owner (here the university) does not have to tolerate disruptive behavior on its property, and is within its rights to take the steps necessary to have its scheduled presentation go forward. Supressing the disruption is the least it can do for its invited guest speaker and the audience that had gathered to hear him. If Oren were out on a street corner giving a speech, the students would be perfectly within their rights to exercise a heckler’s veto.
The civilization issue is that the student’s behavior in drowning out the speech of their adversary is tyrannical behavior, exactly the same as the behavior of tyrannical governments in jamming radio broadcasts, closing down newspapers, and banning speeches. The students are not as powerful as, say, the government of Iran is in Iran, but their behavior is just as contemptible. They have plenty of chances to make their own speech heard – I’ll wager they can use the very same auditorium at a different time, can publish freely, and can speak all around campus. They were not trying to air their own ideas – they were trying to prevent someone else from airing his.
February 12, 2010, 4:16 pmAnonsters says:
Anyway, I’ll forbear further commentary on this thread.
I apologize to Orin if he thought I was attacking him personally earlier, which was not my intent, and I apologize to those who apparently think I was being purposefully obtuse or disingenuous (neither of which I intended to be).
One finds it much harder to get across one’s ill-formed thoughts when one’s A.D.D. medication has run out. Damn you, Snowpocalypse! :)
February 12, 2010, 4:17 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Interesting way to look at it CT.
February 12, 2010, 4:17 pmARCraig says:
You again didn’t answer the question, and the scenario I described is indistinguishable from what happened at Irvine.
I don’t see any plausible, reasonable reaction to such disruption other than having the fools removed from the room. And I haven’t yet seen anyone propose one. And no, trying to engage in a conversation with the screaming idiots is not even remotely a plausible, reasonable reaction. The only rights-violators here were those who were properly placed in handcuffs.
February 12, 2010, 4:19 pmAJK says:
Did you watch the video?
Of course it’s not a simple matter; of course there are going to be hard cases. But this isn’t one of them.
February 12, 2010, 4:20 pmChris Green says:
Anonsters may, in theory have a point. However, a campus speech (unlike a senate debate) is not a forum in which a speaker is permitted to speak forever. In a campus speech, there is an inherent, built in check again one particular group dominating the agenda indefinitely, namely that the speech is usually required to end after about an hour and that opposing groups can host their own speakers (and if the University tried to prevent this, it could justifiably be accused of derailing free speech).
With the in mind, in the spirit of politeness, civility and free exchange of ideas, the students should have let the speaker finish uninterrupted. They did not technically violate the first amendment, but their actions were contrary to the spirit of the first amendment.
This, of course, produced the opposite of the effect they were trying to achieve. Most people who see the YouTube video will now associate Palestinian students with immaturity, incivility and rudeness, not bravery and principle. The tactic was sophisticated is one sense, but very unsophisticated in a larger sense. The environmental movement learned the same lesson in the 80’s when they realized that chaining yourself to trees and sending Greenpeace vessels to harass oil tankers mostly produced comp tempt from the public. They changed their angle of attached and were much more successful in the 90’s and 00’s. We will wait and see if the Palestinian movement has the astuteness (and rationality) to learn the same lesson.
February 12, 2010, 4:21 pmTomHynes says:
1. Does the First Amendment protect the protesters? No.
2. Should UCI tolerate this behavior? No.
3. Should UCI expel all students who were arrested? Yes.
February 12, 2010, 4:21 pmSuperSkeptic says:
I would deal with it in the same way.
February 12, 2010, 4:22 pmDennis N says:
The action was certainly uncivil. The whole point of inviting speakers onto campus, is to facilitate an exchange of views. You listen to me and I listen to you. So interrupting the speech, offensive as it may be, interrupts the exchange of ideas that is what university is supposed to be about. Shouting down your opponent is a disruption of his free speech, even if it is an expression of your own.
The question is what anyone will do about it, if anything.
If the enough of the student body disagrees with the offered speech, then shouting it down is their answer to it. Boorish perhaps, but it is their counter speech as Anonsters implies (If I understand him properly).
If students disagrees with the disruption, and wish to hear the speech, they need to assert their rights. No one else is going to do so, as has been demonstrated at Irvine. They need to shout down the shouters down. There is a good chance it will escalate to violence. The objectors to the objectors would do well to show up in large numbers and bring their cudgels.
Alternatively, the administration could have security eject the disruptors, the disruptors of the disruptors, and the disrupt… .
Considering that we haven’t had a good political riot in a long time, and the “good guys” (whichever definition of “good guys” you prefer) claim to be in the majority, let’s bring it on. [Spitting on hands.] I suspect that, after a few halls get trashed and a few dozen heads get broken, the idea of shouting down speeches will be discouraged.
February 12, 2010, 4:22 pmMadBuilder says:
Not at all. The person in opposition is not prohibited from speaking his opposition. Even if they are faced with a speaker with the ability to speak eternally without stopping, that does not prohibit them speaking in the hallway, outside the building, in another venue, via a different medium (flyers, banners, etc) or at another time.
Bottom line if what you REALLY want is to voice an opposing view there are a huge number of options open to you that do not require shutting up or drowning out the speech you oppose. Having those options but insisting on using the method that will most disrupt, shut-up or drown out the speech you oppose would indicates that your motive is not REALLY to expand the discourse but to simply shut-up those you disagree with.
February 12, 2010, 4:22 pmMike McDougal says:
I think that’s nonsense. You presuppose the existence of only a dialogue (in the strict, rhetorical sense). But that’s not how any marginally sophisticated (or accurate) model of communication would address this issue, which obviously involves far more than two speakers or parties of speakers.
Additionally, “free speech” isn’t a right to occupy or interrupt another’s speech. Rather, it’s the right to speak. Whether an opposing speaker — or anyone at all –listens is entirely irrelevant. You’re not entitled to any audience, much less a particular one.
That is not to say the students were relegated to silence. Far from it. The students could have protested outside the event to the audience entering and exiting the building.
February 12, 2010, 4:25 pmPatent Lawyer says:
If? Do the anti-semitic guys trying to drown out the Jewish speaker stop counting as Brown Shirts if they’re Muslims?
February 12, 2010, 4:26 pmCory J says:
Do you think this is a particularly difficult case, then?
Pointing out that any rule will have difficulties in respecting some concept like “free speech” at the margins doesn’t seem to get us very far. That’s why we have rules that attempt to strike a balance, no? Otherwise, we have chaos.
If you don’t think this is a difficult case, it’d be like if we were having a discussion of a death penalty sentence for a serial killer, and you object to the notion of criminal sentences as punishment for a crime because the death penalty would be an overreaction to parking tickets.
impose life sentences for murderers because the rule (a sentence)
February 12, 2010, 4:26 pmjackv says:
Anonster,
There is a word for your entire philosophy…..anarchy.
February 12, 2010, 4:26 pmARCraig says:
I think I’m going to start following you around, then, and whenever you try to speak I’ll start screaming “NA NA NA NA NA!” at the top of my lungs, so no one can ever hear you. After all, it’s not criminal, it’s “counterspeech”.
February 12, 2010, 4:26 pmcfbleachers says:
It’s rather interesting how far we go to protect the rights of those who seem uninterested in granting rights to others.
I remember the ACLU defending the rights of Nazi’s to march in Skokie. I watched as Holocaust survivors and their families struggled with the intellectual argument that by protecting the most vile among us, we ensure protection of all.
It may be appealing to the intellect, but it does make the blood boil nonetheless.
Here, the clear intent was not to promote dialogue, but to provoke and incite. It was a tactic to create a spectacle of hate. These things tend to flow in a certain direction. Mark Steyn and Geert Wilders are examples elsewhere, of how free speech…is often costly.
To suggest that the Muslim shouters were engaging in a demonstration would be accurate. The forum they chose was intended to allow them to ask questions, even tough ones. To openly debate points, if they chose…after the initial presentation. Instead, they chose screaming.
Orchestrated and premeditated screaming. In order to shout down a speech.
If I followed you around with my friends and did that in your face every time you opened your mouth to speak, it would be harassment. Maybe even an assault.
Let’s not be disingenuous. It wasn’t intended as speech at all. It was intended as intimidation.
February 12, 2010, 4:27 pmSuperSkeptic says:
AJK, Sure I watched the video – I didn’t say it was likely in this case – but it can happen.
February 12, 2010, 4:27 pmARCraig says:
As a proud Rothbardian I take offense to that. Not even my loopy libertarian fantasies are that absurd!
February 12, 2010, 4:28 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I cannot help but think that the commenters who are posting in favor of the demonstrators support their position toward Israel; I wonder how these commenters would react if a speech by an ambassador from an Arab country were disrupted in the same way by Jewish protesters.
February 12, 2010, 4:28 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Don’t worry, I wouldn’t have you arrested…
You’ll tire…
February 12, 2010, 4:29 pmKristoffer V. Sargent says:
Lots of confusion here about who, if anybody, had a prevailing right to speak at the event. Was it Ambassador Oren, or was it the protesters.
Allow me to clarify the relevant rule of civil discourse. Different speech cannot reverberate through the same place at the same time without interfering into noise; such is a physical constraint on discourse. Thus, a rule: when anybody reserves (with reasonable diligence and advanced publicity) a space-time locus at which to speak, that venue is his and his alone to be enjoyed free and clear of obstruction, interruption, and any other kind of deliberate disturbance.
The speaker has the floor, as it were, just like we used to say in the old days. This is a simple, neutral, civilized rule that we can all buy into. Hope that clears it up, Anonsters.
February 12, 2010, 4:31 pmARCraig says:
Somehow I doubt that’s how the scenario would play out.
February 12, 2010, 4:32 pmShelbyC says:
@SuperSkeptic, nothing wrong with creationists exibiting the same behavior in Biology class?
February 12, 2010, 4:33 pmJay says:
He probably would (and will), just so he could keep getting a rise out of you. This comment thread, actually, is a pretty good example of the heckler’s veto–two nuts wasting everyone’s time and preventing any serious discussion.
February 12, 2010, 4:35 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Would it okay for people who believe that the concept of global warming is a fraud to disrupt a speech by Michael Mann?
February 12, 2010, 4:36 pmSuperSkeptic says:
That might be a good place to have government step in. Rather than just arresting one set of speakers…
February 12, 2010, 4:37 pmMartinned says:
I thought we already covered all this talking about Citizens United recently. Free speech means that everybody gets to shout as loudly as they are able, and if you have money, then all the better for you. In this case, the students didn’t have money, but they had numbers, and that works, too.
February 12, 2010, 4:37 pmChris Travers says:
Nope. No difference.
February 12, 2010, 4:37 pmOren says:
I heartily endorse Mr Oren’s (no relation) right to speak. Now will the ADL (et al.) kindly extend that same consideration to David Irving?
I feel an application of Orin’s Law coming on.
February 12, 2010, 4:38 pmgeokstr says:
I was in college when the leftists were screaming over the VietNam war, shouting down everyone on the right. The left’s behavior has not changed since that time, and they still disrupt many talks, forums and speeches by conservatives on college campuses and elsewhere.
It took us way too long, but we’re finally figuring out the slimy tactics your side has used during your long march through the institutions.
So the right has finally grown a pair and decided to try them on you. How does it feel? Didn’t like it a bit, I reckon. I have a warning for you – get used to it.
February 12, 2010, 4:39 pmJiffy says:
I don’t understand why commenters keep trying to challenge SuperSkeptic with extreme examples like “Brownshirts” or “creationists.” Clearly, he opposes any rules that would prohibit people from interfering with the speech of others in any context. It’s a dopey idea, but I guess that’s what he thinks.
February 12, 2010, 4:39 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I am finding this thread quite useful for a number of reasons. I) It lets me get a better picture of how certain of the commenters here think. 2) It has allowed me to sharpen my thinking on the general subject. 3) It has given me a subject for an essay (but not for this forum).
The only problem is that it is disrupting my afternoon.
February 12, 2010, 4:42 pmguyinadiner says:
This is not a matter of free speech. It is instead a defining event for UC Irvine. It is no more a place where a distinguished individual can speak to a gathering of students and others insterested in what he has to say than, say, the runway at a jetport. That is, of course, unless he should espouse a certain point of view. As this becomes more acknowledged and accepted as the “way it is” as UC Irvine, it will become a bastion of very narrow thought and will whither on the vine.
February 12, 2010, 4:43 pmAnonsters says:
As opposed to, say, a Joint Session of Congress.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
February 12, 2010, 4:47 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Well you’ve kinda got me there. We give our teachers tyrannical powers because of their duties. En loco parentis and all that. Public school makes that relationship more difficult, obviously. My position is basically coming from the ideal free speech zone, e.g., the street corner. I wouldn’t have a problem with the biology teacher kicking a student out of class, or the University here expelling students even (in the extreme – that’s their policy, wise or unwise). The police, that’s different.
In anticipation of the flurry of charges, let me say that this admission is not quite a theoretical admission because its a conflation of mine and currently accepted theory.
February 12, 2010, 4:49 pmShelbyC says:
Martined, I’m absolutely certain that you understand the difference between a public forum and a non-public one.
February 12, 2010, 4:51 pmHugh Jass says:
Does the voicing of fractious noise with the obvious intent of disrupting another’s free speech qualify for protection as “free speech”.
February 12, 2010, 4:53 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Expect someone to claim that that activity qualifies as symbolic speech.
February 12, 2010, 4:56 pmDr. Weevil says:
Let’s not get carried away comparing apples and oranges:
1. Citizens United would be parallel to events at UCI if the Supreme Court had made it legal for corporations (or private citizens, for that matter) to jam the broadcasts of radio and television stations they disagree with. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure it’s still illegal for liberals to jam Fox broadcasts or conservatives to jam NPR.
2. Trollery here would be parallel to events at UCI if (a) this site had one of those comment-rating systems in which comments are deleted if enough readers vote to do so, and (b) those who disagree with OK’s post were systematically voting to delete any comments agreeing with him, whether well-thought-out or not. Even that wouldn’t be totally parallel, unless they could somehow vote to delete the original post.
February 12, 2010, 5:01 pmorca says:
The Muslim Student Union’s tactics seem to have been quite effective and it looks like they accomplished their goal. Wonder if we’ll now see this type of behavior repeated at other controversial speeches?
February 12, 2010, 5:01 pmSchelly says:
In my MBA coursework I began a paper with the following two sentences:
Yankelovich (1999, p. 18) writes “[t]he purpose of dialogue is seeing mutual understanding.” Hyde and Bineham (2000, p. 208) state that the outcome of dialogue “is not the ascendance of one perspective over another, but the fusion of all perspectives to enable a larger, more inclusive view, one which allows the tension of disagreement.” They define three requirements to successfully engage in dialogue.
In my University, we are taught that dialogue is more beneficial than debate. We are taught the distinction between the two. We will emerge as more mature, productive professionals as a result. It’s a pity UC Irvine can’t keep up with my University’s example.
As a free society, we must have the ability to disagree. To remain a free society, we must cultivate within our youth the civility to do so in a productive manner.
February 12, 2010, 5:04 pmOrin Kerr says:
SuperSkeptic:
That’s particularly ironic coming from you, SuperSkeptic. I see you as the university, and myself as the protesters. So I went over to your forum to try to protest, but you denied me that forum. I was never allowed to speak in your forum at all, a complete and total shut-down that you achieved by hiding your forum from me. So while I created a forum and invited you, and you leave many comments in my forum, subject only to a rule on civility, your policy is complete and total censorship of any effort by me to leave any comments of any kind in your forum.
February 12, 2010, 5:08 pmShane says:
I think trying to square a definition of free speech with what the university was trying to accomplish won’t work, you can’t argue legal/illegal where something deeper is at issue. Anonster’s probing of the conundrum leads me to only one conclusion considering that both parties have a “right” to free expression regardless of who got there first. Our founders created a framework recognizing rights that befit a dignified existence – and they believed that only a people religious (humble) could keep it. Why? Because without a common respect for each other, we’re nothing more than a rapacious mob using “rights” as a club against each other – so that no one reaps the reward that is a result of the exercise of that right. It’s about decency, and the Muslim students have none.
And that’s the sad thing here – the Muslim Student Union may not show any respect for the first amendment, but what’s worse – they’re entirely opposed to the prospect that it might lead to better understanding.
February 12, 2010, 5:10 pmgeorge weiss says:
people wondering about the 1st amendment (i.e. its application toward the arrest of the students who disturbed the meeting)
The Supreme Court has routinely said that content neutral restrictions on speech (i.e restrictions on speech that punish speech without regard to its content and restrict all speech falling within some time place and manor restriction get far less scrutiny.
thus the SCOTUS has upheld a statute prohibiting disturbing noise near a school while school is in session Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) as well as a noise regulation requiring use of sound system by city Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).
Furthermore, since id assume the students were arrested and released probably without charge there is no criminal case on which to make 1st amendment arguments.
Of course, they may choose to sue for an unlawful arrest in violation of their 1st amendment rights, (42 USC 1983) but there they would have to overcome the qualified immunity of the officers (by proving that the officers were not only in violation but so clearly in violation that a reasonable officer should have known the arrests were unlawful and in violation of the first amendment) in order to get any money.
so the point is kind of moot.
February 12, 2010, 5:13 pmBama 1L says:
I don’t think it goes that far; the First Amendment protects the right to speak free from government interference but it doesn’t go far enough to shut anyone else up. You have a right to not to be silenced but no right to be heard, let alone listened to.
Because government shouldn’t shut you up if you are just disagreeing loudly. Ever.
State action? Yes. To avoid this, the private groups should host it exclusively next time and hold it on property they control, so they can exclude those who disagree and eject trespassers.
4. Yes. It would result in a shouting match. That’s what the marketplace of ideas is. If people want something else they can exercise self-restraint.
5. I don’t support the demonstrators substantively or tactically, but I do think they should have a right to speak without getting arrested, even if that prevents the favored speaker delivering his message. Armed paramilitaries threatening violence kind of changes the situation, but if you are just talking about content of speech, I would impose the same rule.
This was a net loss for the protestors. Their opponents were able to turn this into a big deal.
February 12, 2010, 5:26 pmMartinned says:
I do, but in the discussions about Citizens United, my argument that the greater good isn’t served by everyone speaking as loudly as they are able wasn’t exactly met with universal approval.
Well, they certainly made it possible to metaphorically drown out the signal.
February 12, 2010, 5:29 pmBaffled says:
While reading all the comments here I can’t help but ask a few questions.
Re: Free speech on campus
Would there be a difference of law between a private college/institution Vs. a city/state funded college?
Re: Free Speech
February 12, 2010, 5:31 pmIf I were go into a movie theater and see a film that disgusted me (pro/anti A/B) would I have a right (according to some on here) to get up and shout out my displeasure throughout the film?
Chris Travers says:
Having been raised as a Quaker (you know, that left-wing fundamnetalist Christian sect started in the mid-17th century), I have a bit of a different perspective.
One thing Quakers are very good at doing is making a point in a way that involves jail time. It has been the experience of the Quakers that nothing makes a point more memorable than the fact that someone went to jail for expressing speaking truth to power.
My father burned a flag in protest of the Vietnam war at a time when that was illegal and when someone else was arrested for that “crime” took credit for his action in court as a witness for the defence as well as being interviewed by a few Seattle-area magazines at the time. His jail time, however, was not for this, but for circumstances surrounding his conversion to Quakerism and the fact he was a First Lieutenant in the army at the time (his applications for religious discharge were denied, and he subsequently refused to serve in Vietnam). His honorable (!) discharge from the Army had a great deal to do with the fact that he served his time in the stockade with honor, courage, and dignity and this made a strong impression on those who were processing his discharge petitions (among other things, he turned his cell into an office for helping others file similar petitions).
When I look at Martin Luther King, one of the important elements of his character was that he went to JAIL for supporting what he believed in. Same with Nelson Mandela. These were the sorts of people and actions I was taught to idolize as a child.
So I don’t really care whether you are on the right or the left. If you are willing to break the law (without directly threatening anyone else, or otherwise acting in gross neglect for the safety of others) to express your belief, you won’t get any objection from me. Indeed I will offer my moral support.
February 12, 2010, 5:33 pmpublic_defender says:
One thing I learned from listening to what my clients have said in court is that if your opposing side is actually in the wrong LET THEM SPEAK. People with bad or stupid ideas will reveal that their ideas are bad or stupid.
February 12, 2010, 5:40 pmjuvat says:
Mr. Kerr
February 12, 2010, 5:40 pm132 posts ago, you were right. After 10 comments, the tediousity of anonster became too much. I suspect that is his method of suppressing free speech. Mind sapping ignorance.
David Govet says:
I gradumacated from UCI and shall never donate to them. That a university, of all institutions, should counter free speech is dismaying and bodes ill for a democracy.
February 12, 2010, 5:43 pmorca says:
So the tactics the right used to deal with the protesters at Kent State were weak compared to their show of strength at UCI? I wasn’t aware the campus police there are employed by Glenn Beck & Co.
February 12, 2010, 5:44 pmAk Mike says:
Free speech rights are important, but have nothing to do with this incident. The protesters had no more right to disrupt the speech then they would to turn up in Prof. Kerr’s class and disrupt it, or to turn up at a concert and disrupt it. Ambassador Oren had no legal right to speak that was interfered with. (Now, if the Irvine police had showed up to haul him away, that would be different). This is all a property rights issue. The protesters were trespassers, exactly as if they had smoked in the lobby or urinated on the steps.
Those who think the hecklers had a right to speak are wrong, but not for free speech reasons. Those who think Oren had a right to speak free of disruption are also wrong. Free speech includes no right to speak free of disruption. However, property rights allow you to eject disrupters, and the University had property rights there just like they do in a classroom.
February 12, 2010, 5:45 pmoMan says:
Is there an economic tort here? If people paid to come to the event, then they were being ripped off by the disrupters. Even if people didn’t pay directly, if they’re students then they are (probably most of them, anyway) getting stuck for student union fees or for general tuition costs that would cover this event. Because it isn’t free. Seems to me that the organizers and funders of the event have a cause of action against those who deliberately (and apparently in a carefully orchestrated way) did their best to damage the event.
Book ‘em and bill ‘em.
February 12, 2010, 5:46 pmThe Drill SGT says:
As I keep telling the pleasant young fund raisers from my B-school @ MerageAlum [meragealum@merage.uci.edu]
They won’t get any more money from me until I see the Chancellor begin to do something about the MSA and its pogrom.
Thus far, he hasn’t paid much attention.
February 12, 2010, 5:47 pmRPT says:
-I’m not the speaker, and didn’t go to any town halls, so I’m not sure what you mean re someone trying tactics on me.
-So the protestors’ tactics in the video are ok with you? Not with me.
February 12, 2010, 5:49 pmBama 1L says:
I don’t think anyone has said that. The theater owner can revoke your permission to be in the theater and eject you, calling upon the police to do so if necessary.
Now if it is some kind of government-run theater, there may be a problem. Maybe the government shouldn’t run theaters.
February 12, 2010, 5:57 pmOCBill says:
If Mr Kerr were to take the same approach as the students who “demonstrated” at Ambassador Oren’s speech, he would break up any post he disagreed with into twelve different pieces and scatter them randomly through the thread. He doesn’t do that because unlike the students, he doesn’t fear the speech of others. He knows the answer to speech is more speech. Only those who are afraid take the actions taken by these students and, generally, only those who share their fear can justify those actions. This isn’t really about free speech, it’s about fear, and it’s about using intimidation to suppress the free exchange of ideas.
February 12, 2010, 5:59 pmgeokstr says:
Oh, and here I thought you were actually going to show a shred of objectivity, by giving a link to this 2005 “Joint Session of Congress“, but no, how silly of me to think that.
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist either. Especially since history is likely going to prove Joe Wilson to be right on about Obama’s lack of acquaintance with the truth.)
February 12, 2010, 6:00 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Bama 1L, I am curious as to what you think of Ak Mike’s assertion that what is involved here is a property-rights issue, not a free-speech issue.
February 12, 2010, 6:04 pmG.R. Mead says:
In a society valuing speech — all speech is SUPPOSED to be deemed equal in public dignity of its expression (even if not equal in its objective truth value). Lapses in truth value are punished after the fact (hopefully).
The problem is that the behavior answers speech with an escalating — or worse, preemptive — counter which is not itself speech — as its primary intent is not to communicate its own message but to debase or dominate the message of another.
This is an aspect of violence — not speech, and once preemption and escalation are the mode of transaction– then res gestae becomes overt act and overt act becomes war … Cultural and theological differences aside — this is no way to run a university.
If the only way for a group to hear from someone is to exclude others who object, because they are not capable of self-restraint to allow BOTH messages to be heard, then what kind of university are we left with? In this setting, the objecting group executed a calculated prior restraint — they have conspired and now declared their intentions to block (vice meaningfully respond to) speech they disagree. So exclude known members of the offending group from ALL university functions since they are manifestly not interested in the purpose of a University.
Summary expulsion, for the actual offenders in this case backs that up with some teeth, I would say, because the alternatives are deeply erosive.
February 12, 2010, 6:04 pmSteve says:
I think there’s a large difference between opposing a speaker’s invitation, or trying to discourage attendance at the presentation, and what happened here.
I don’t see a big difference between trying to get a speaker’s invitation revoked, and trying to shout him down while he’s giving his speech. The latter is probably more likely to lead to violence, but in both cases you’re trying to stop an invited speaker from disseminating his message. Could anyone who sees a big difference tell me what it is?
February 12, 2010, 6:09 pmnot impressed says:
There’s a kind of self-satisfied cleverness that hangs about on serious websites, postures as participating in deep discussion but is in fact a narcissistic display.
That’s on evidence here on the part of Amonsters IMO.
It’s more subtle but not all that different from shutting down Oren in that there is no serious intent to engage in dialogue.
February 12, 2010, 6:12 pmErikZ says:
Nonsense. It is very easy to have stop this if you’re in position of Authority. After the first person is arrested, the host of the event gets up and says “Everyone thank the young man/woman for blocking the freedom of speech. The university paid for the speaker to show up and for this auditorium, and will now place the bill of 10,000$ (Or however much it costs to setup and manage an event like that) on him/or. Note that you cannot receive your diploma from us without settling your debts to the university. Any other people that block the freedom of speech will receive an identical penalty.”
Why would you want to be on an equal level with mindless shouting idiots? You Just have to use your BRAIN.
February 12, 2010, 6:13 pmG. May says:
Well, I trust all of the proponents of this disorderly and chaotic conduct are staunch supporters of very loud disagreement with the POTUS during an address to a joint session of congress or a townhall meeting.
Actually, why don’t we just give everyone microphones at all public forums? I’m sure that will go a long way toward the advancement of human civilization.
Since someone brought up Orwell, the arguments defending these student’s behavior are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
February 12, 2010, 6:13 pmorca says:
At that point, isn’t it the Israeli ambassador who is rudely interrupting a Muslim Student Union gathering? Couldn’t they simply tell him to leave the building? Don’t the cops become their rent-a-thugs?
February 12, 2010, 6:20 pmS says:
Well, I’ve already condemned the protesters but those who call this violence are overwrought, unless what you mean is inciting violence and then I doubt you have a case (especially scince they were not charged with that). Also, those talking about summary explusion, discard another constitutional value – due process.
February 12, 2010, 6:23 pmErikZ says:
Orca, The speaker is not the host.
The host for a University event would be someone in the position of Authority within the university that allows the group to have their event. Otherwise you would get people having dance parties, seduction seminars, and other crazy stuff on university property.
February 12, 2010, 6:25 pmorca says:
I was just pointing out if you bill the Muslim Student Union for the event, it becomes their event. In which case, I presume the cops would have to start rounding up and arresting anyone the Muslim Student Union ordered them to arrest…
February 12, 2010, 6:34 pmDennis N says:
Perhaps I misunderstand you. You think it preferable for the protesters and counter protesters to escalate it to violence before stepping in, then arrest everyone?
Not much speech will get done. We can resolve our differences with a series of street brawls. I like it.
February 12, 2010, 6:34 pmShelbyC says:
No.
February 12, 2010, 6:35 pmChris Travers says:
What I have to laugh about though are similar events from 17th century England.
In particular, George Fox was quite well known for disrupting Church of England gatherings and trying to shout down the preacher. Typically he would be arrested, sentenced to jail time, sentenced to more jail time for contempt of court, released, and start the process over again.
It would be easy to dismiss him as a lone lunatic but the religious sect he founded went on to be a very early driving force against slavery in this country (founding the underground railroad), pushing for and getting prison reform (probably due to spending so much time in prison), and all kinds of other things.
Sometimes there is no difference whatsoever between insanity and inspiration.
February 12, 2010, 6:36 pmDennis N says:
Big difference. The Citizen’s United case dealt primarily with media speech. You can push as much of that out as you want, and it can all exist simultaneously. That is not the case if we are shouting each other down.
February 12, 2010, 6:42 pmDennis N says:
That’s a different venue, and not one where you would expect free speech. If I am an instructor, my job is to teach you stuff. If you disrupt my class, I’ll kick you out.
February 12, 2010, 6:47 pmShelbyC says:
Why would you expect more free speech at an organized event with an invited speaker? Isn’t the venue exactly the same, with one person there to speak, and a bunch of other folks there to listen?
February 12, 2010, 6:54 pmBama 1L says:
How about a political rally? One to speak, many to listen. Still happy silencing protestors?
February 12, 2010, 6:58 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Bama 1L, this was not a political rally.
Please address my 6.04 p.m. post. (I have to leave soon; so any response by me will have to await the morrow if you do not respond quickly.)
February 12, 2010, 7:03 pmShelbyC says:
Back to forum analysis. If the forum is a public one, no. In a non public forum (private property, or public property that is not designated for public use, or available for rental or reservation, sure.) Clearly if the school made the biology classroom open to student groups by reservation after hours, and a bunch of creationists reserved it, the school could (and should) prevent the bio prof from comming to shout them down as well. And if a democratic student group reserves the room, the school should prevent a republican group from shouting them down.
February 12, 2010, 7:06 pmjukeboxgrad says:
dennis:
Actually, it can’t “all exist simultaneously.” Not in the real world. Mass media in the form that has the most impact (i.e., cable and network programming) is a quite finite resource. If my pals and I decide to buy a lot of that commercial time, we can bid up the price and make it effectively impossible for someone with lesser resources to be heard in that venue. Especially if I focus strategically on a certain critical period of time, and/or a certain location.
The message backed by money is the one that’s going to get heard. It’s fundamentally no different than being in a large room where the person with the loudest voice is the one who’s going to get heard.
February 12, 2010, 7:06 pmalbert levy says:
As usual,the Muslims as well as the Palestinians never lose an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot and remind the world how crazy they are.Suicidal is more like it.The school is remiss on not removing them from the hall as soon as they interrupted the speaker from talking.Try doing that in their country and they would have their head or hands cut off.All it will do is convince the American public that we are dealing with irrational and crazy people.
February 12, 2010, 7:09 pmDennis N says:
I would expect no free speech in my class, and I would enforce it.
Class is a contractual situation. Students have, by virtue of attending my class or more broadly the school, agreed to abide by the rules. You have no right, under those rules, to interfere with my delivery of services to the other students.
If we meet in the campus tavern, then you can be as obstreperous as you want until someone gets teed off.
February 12, 2010, 7:10 pmloki says:
Studying for the California Bar, so I can’t read through all the comments.
Besides the law (and on a legal website, I know that’s a stretch)… but, besides the law, if you invite someone to your house, common civility dictates that you don’t insult your guests.
Sort of ashamed to have graduated from UCI today. I’ve never said that before and I hope I never say it again.
February 12, 2010, 7:13 pmShelbyC says:
I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m arguing in favor of free speech in class. I’m arguing that attendees at an organized event in a non-public forum don’t have the right to interupt the speaker, any more than students in class have a right to interupt the teacher. Are you suggesting that the forum in this case was more like a tavern than a classroom?
February 12, 2010, 7:19 pmBama 1L says:
I thought I had in a bunch of other comments, maybe even anticipated it in my first post. I think the government has substantially diminished property rights compared to other owners/occupiers of property, though, in that it can’t ever, ever discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. It can never eject someone because of what the person says or believes.
I think the teacher-in-the-classroom situation is different, because that’s not a public forum. Everyone really is there only to hear the teacher. Yes, that is a blurry line.
So the idea that this speech was not a public forum is interesting, but I don’t think it works. Oddly enough, the way to take it out of that category would be to control access to the site–but I don’t think access to government property can be restricted that way.
February 12, 2010, 7:21 pmlazlo toth says:
I’m reluctant to suggest litigation relating to the First Amendment, but if a group conspires to prohibit someone from exercising his First Amendment rights why shouldn’t they be the targets of a civil action by the speaker for violating his civil rights to speak freely if the university won’t do anything about this? They have the right to make all the noise they want outside of the auditorium but a concerted action designed specifically to quash free exercise of speech is here and quite visible on the video.
February 12, 2010, 7:23 pmChris Travers says:
Which brings up interesting Sherman Act questions. After all, what you describe might be subject to Sherman Act lawsuits either as restraint of trade or collusion. Would the same Supreme Court that issued the Citizens United holding also provide for a first amendment as-applied challenge to antitrust law?
February 12, 2010, 7:27 pmBaffled says:
Then what is the difference between a theater owner and and private college that invites someone to speak?
February 12, 2010, 7:28 pmChris Travers says:
Then you will get a set of indigent, professional protesters who have no economic resources left to lose engaging in these sorts of things.
All this talk about punishment exists to stop casual protests of this sort. However for folks who ultimately decide that it is worth it to engage in such civil disobedience, it makes their case stronger to anyone who sympathizes with them.
Anyone who doubts this last point, consider the opening verse of Jack Warshaw’s “No Time for Love.”
Agree or not, it’s a pretty good description of the mentality of all kinds of groups (IRA, Black Panthers, Hamas, Fatah, etc).
February 12, 2010, 7:30 pmShelbyC says:
I’m not sure why the speech would be a public form. It’s neither a designated public forum nor a traditional public forum, correct? Now if you’ve got some other criteria that determines whether or not something is a public forum, maybe you can spill it :-).
I don’t see why the govt would be able to designate space for a biology class where a teacher can teach without interuption, but not space for an ambassador to give a speech without interuption.
February 12, 2010, 7:30 pmGuy says:
Am I the only one who doesn’t feel that the freedom of speech was seriously implicated one way or the other here? The First Amendment neither gives you an affirmative right to speak at a university undisrupted nor an affirmative right to disrupt such a speech.
As a moral issue, whether one is justified in disrupting a speech and accepting the legal consequences for such disruption depends, I suppose, on the speaker. I don’t think it’s immoral to disrupt a klan rally (or the speech of a grand wizard at a university to be more directly parallel), but it is perhaps childish and inappropriate to disrupt a completely noncontroversial speaker (if such a creature exists). It seems the non-legal issue is inherently subjective, and depends upon your opinion of the sides involved.
Ha! My favorite comment so far.
February 12, 2010, 7:33 pmMark Loewenstein says:
What is disturbing about the reported incident has little to do with the First Amendment and a great to do with the worldview we see in the Muslim world. This is typified by the Iranian suppression — indeed murder — of dissidents and is driven, at least in part, by a super-chauvinistic attitude of superiority derived from the Koran. It is that view that justifies suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism directed against “infidels” and the attempted murder of the Danish cartoonists who had the courage to criticize it. What the MSU did in UCI is just a manifestation of that attitude.
February 12, 2010, 7:33 pmGuy says:
Big difference.The Citizen’s United case dealt primarily with media speech.You can push as much of that out as you want, and it can all exist simultaneously.That is not the case if we are shouting each other down.
Not in the context of broadcast television, where airtime is a scarce commodity belonging to the public, That the Court didn’t much discuss this was odd, though it didn’t really have to.
February 12, 2010, 7:36 pmDavidJ says:
Mark’s comment at 3:36 is also the way I see the whole episode. This isn’t rocket science. The university has allowed the equivalent of verbal “anarchy” to take hold at UCI events like this. If UCI doesn’t want to set consequences for this type of behavior (like suspension), then I would suggest that by default they condone it. Maybe verbal anarchy should be a part of all events at UCI. That might cause the administration to rethink their position.
February 12, 2010, 7:40 pmDennis N says:
It’s a lot less finite than one speaker attempting to talk.
I think the method of interference is important, too. If you bring my disruptors to shout down my speech, I can also bring by protectors to interfere with your disruptors. They’re likely to have ball bats and tire tools. Seriously. The shouting down of speakers is highly likely to incite physical violence.
Bring it on.
February 12, 2010, 7:42 pmcommon_sense says:
I hope all of the protestors are expelled. Their actions are contrary to the academy, and if they haven’t learned that by now, they don’t deserve to be there. And, more importantly, to hinder those students who do know how to behave.
February 12, 2010, 7:43 pmAk Mike says:
Bama1L – Shelby’s right, you’re wrong. The fact that the government owns the auditorium does not force it to allow disruption of events. And by the way, every one is there to hear the speaker, just exactly like the classroom situation.
I’d like to see you head up to your mayor’s office and start berating him as an exercise of your free speech rights in a government venue.
February 12, 2010, 7:43 pmArnold says:
No, that’s not what the marketplace of ideas is. The marketplace of ideas is where ideas are exchanged, and I can choose to “buy” the idea that sounds best to me. In a shouting match no ideas are being exchanged. It’s analogous to a grocery market where every vendor is free to overturn the carts of the other vendors and smash their produce.
If you think that’s how we should run things, fine, I’ll politely disagree with you. But don’t call it the marketplace of ideas. At best, it’s the marketplace of noise.
February 12, 2010, 7:44 pmShelbyC says:
I’m not sure why people keep calling stuff like this civil disobedience. Civil disobedience (like your Dad engaged in) is the manifest disobedience of an unjust law. Breaking some other law to draw attention to your views is not civil disobedience, it is just being an ass. Unless of course, as superskeptic suggested, you have a problem with the law against disrupting events, in which case you’d have a responsibility to disrupt all events.
February 12, 2010, 7:49 pmHarry Eagar says:
BT sez: ‘Regardless, I don’t like these sort of displays, no matter who does them. Let the man speak, if you disagree with him–fine, do so in the Q&A, editorials, pamphlets, etc’
If the goal of the MSU is to show how Muslims are blending successfully into American society and are capable of adopting modern views of civil rights (which I sorta doubt anyway), I don’t think their tactics are productive.
February 12, 2010, 7:50 pmlazlo toth says:
I’m okay with leaving it to the indigent and disorganized to do the interference. If somebody is going to take away my right to speak through organized thuggery it’s really little different than the Klan except that at Irvine there was at least some protection from physical violence. But the rest was little different and the Klan was completely emasculated – albeit with more ease because it committed violent crimes. But bankrupting people who refuse to recognize somebody else’s right to speak is okay with me.
February 12, 2010, 7:51 pmGuy says:
Excessive use of force? That’s an awfully literal example of argumentum ad baculum. Why isn’t ejection with misdemeanor penalties sufficient?
February 12, 2010, 7:55 pmBama 1L says:
None, but UC Irvine isn’t a private college, is it?
February 12, 2010, 7:58 pmzuch says:
People that lie down in front of railroad trains are just as disobedient as those that refuse to stand up on buses.
You might have a point that direct violation of a law thought unethical might have more cogency and immediacy and may help frame the situation better for the public. But I suspect that you’re wrong to limit civil disobedience to just those situations. What do you do if you think a law or policy is immoral, but it is impossible for you to to directly defy that? Think the illegal bombing of Cambodia (and Laos)….
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 7:59 pmGuy says:
What if one believes the non-disruption law is only unjustified when used to protect speakers that, for example, one believes to be lying, or to be an apologist for a morally indefensible position. I don’t think disrupting a speech by a klansman, or by Hitler, is necessarily inconsistent with not disrupting speeches in general as civil disobedience. Like I said earlier, I suspect that for many (most?) people the question of whether the disruptions were justified hinges upon their opinion of the speaker.
February 12, 2010, 8:01 pmBama 1L says:
I don’t think I can go into his office, as in the private room set aside for him to do the work he must do, but I do think I can yell at him the entire time he gives a speech on the steps of city hall.
February 12, 2010, 8:02 pmShelbyC says:
Don’t you refuse to pay taxes to support the unjust war?
February 12, 2010, 8:03 pmChris Travers says:
Our nation survived the influence of the Quakers and became better for all their disruptive outbursts and crimes. We will survive the influence of a small Muslim minority.
February 12, 2010, 8:04 pmGuy says:
But by your rule, that’s only civil disobedience if you object to taxes generally, unless there’s a special civil disobedience rule for taxes saying you’re allowed to look at what policies they are going to support that doesn’t apply to invited speakers.
February 12, 2010, 8:06 pmMark S says:
The students who disrupted the speech did nothing productive for their faith or their cause unless their goal was to generate repulsion for their values.
February 12, 2010, 8:09 pmChris Travers says:
I’m not interested in the question of whether it is a net good. Like all things, the answer to that question is “it depends.” Worse, I doubt that we could even agree on what would constitute a “net good.”
I am interested in the influence that speech disruption has and the impact of punishment on that influence. Personally I think punishment adds to the impact. And I furthermore respect anyone who is willing to go to jail for political advocacy (even if I disagree with the position) provided that this is not an attempt to cause violence, materially harm others, etc.
For example, I am in favor of abortion rights. Nonetheless (absent cases like murdering, assaulting, threatening, etc. abortion providers, their clients, etc). I respect the moral will of anti-abortion protesters who are interested in sufficient civil disobedience so as to be arrested and criminally charged.
I don’t think Mary Dyer would be mentioned in any of our history books had she not been executed, for example.
February 12, 2010, 8:11 pmKevin R.C. O'Brien says:
Most entertaining point in the thread: Orin Kerr asking the troll to contact him offline. A triumph of hope over reality?
Professor, that is not in the nature of trolls.
February 12, 2010, 8:13 pmMartinned says:
So more speech isn’t always better?
And, fyi, as long as there is only a limited number of TV and radio channels, and only a limited number of newspapers, speech through those media is limited. The first two can only broadcast 24 hours in a day, and somewhere in there they’d probably like to broadcast something other than (political or commercial) advertising. While newspapers probably wouldn’t mind having more advertisers than they currently have, they, too, have an upper limit.
February 12, 2010, 8:20 pmMartinned says:
OK, he said it better.
February 12, 2010, 8:22 pmChris Travers says:
In my town we had an interesting problem a while back. The city improperly (and illegally) issued permits for Walmart to build a store in violation of the city’s own zoning laws and then, when the court stated that the permits were not valid, issued an operating permit in violation of a city statute which stated that operating permits could only be issued in such cases if the building permit was valid. They decided to have a town meeting.
Unfortunately I didn’t have enough notice to get pamphlets together, but I wanted to get a nice big table, block the sidewalk leading into the city hall, and hand out pamphlets to those going in (forcing them either off the sidewalk or, if that was impractical, narrow it to slow the entrance of people dramatically).
Such would have been a misdemeanor, but I would have presented a freedom of conscience defence (if the city government has no respect for the law, why shouldn’t I be able to make token violations in protest?) and, had I been convicted and forced to pay a $500 fine, I would have advertised my strong convictions on the subject. Unfortunately 24 hours was not enough to put together things of this sort.
February 12, 2010, 8:24 pmMartinned says:
Huh? How is one person buying up all the rice/advertising space/ice cream/whatever a Sherman Act violation?
February 12, 2010, 8:25 pmChris Travers says:
Well, technically, I don;t see a real limit to the number of advertisements a given newspaper could publish. I suppose there is a practical limit somewhere but it is probably many times the amount of advertising they sell.
With TV it is different though since you have only a set number of advertising spaces in a day. Otherwise The Cartoon Network becomes The Commercials Network….
February 12, 2010, 8:27 pmBoyd says:
Ill say this again there is no reasoning with Muslims there hatred for not only the Israelis but Christians and the West, are very well documented. Its to bad that such hatred comes from such people.
February 12, 2010, 8:29 pmMartinned says:
So why not regulate campaign spending?
February 12, 2010, 8:30 pm(For the record, I’m sympathetic to the idea that the kind of regulation I have in mind would be unconstitutional. It certainly would be given the – correctly decided – ruling in Citizens United and the – less perfect – Buckley v Valeo. But the question of whether and how much campaign finance regulation would be desirable is much more interesting to me, and I think this story here sheds some useful light on it.)
Chris Travers says:
Ok. I am not aware of any such cases, but I would think that if I, as an Ice Cream manufacturer, conspired to prevent my competitors from being able to buy sugar (by entering into contracts with sugar manufacturers which precluded selling that share to my competitors), that would be a violation of the Sherman Act, as I understand it. (Walmart can’t say “If you sell to us, you can’t sell to Safeway.”)
With cable/network tv ads if me and my buddies bid up the price of advertising with the sole intent of preventing competitors from accessing that advertising slot for a specific critical time, I think that would be arguably closely analogous. After all, any contract I get for a specific set of advertising slots can’t go to anyone else, and these are strictly limited. If my buddies get the rest of the slots, denying them to the competition, I would think there might be an arguable violation there, if that was the intent.
If we don’t have laws banning this sort of anti-competitive behavior, I would support them. However, I would be surprised if the current laws wouldn’t extend to cover it.
February 12, 2010, 8:33 pmMartinned says:
Every added page of advertising reduces the value of the whole thing to the reader. Adding advertising space, while holding the amount of news content constant, means increased income from advertisers and reduced income from newspaper sales. That must even out somewhere, and I’m not so sure that isn’t pretty close to where they are today. Instead, newspapers simply charge more if they are faced with increased demand for advertising space, which was my point.
February 12, 2010, 8:37 pmChris Travers says:
I think the difference you are drawing is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Is the Occupation of the Territories an unjust war? Certainly America is involved by donating large amounts of weapons to Israel. I would expect Palestinians however to have very, very strong ideas on whether the war against their political parties was just or not.
Can you provide me an objective place to draw the line?
I draw the line where violence occurs, or where the individual is not willing to accept some legal consequences of the action. I can’t find any other objective place to draw the line.
February 12, 2010, 8:38 pmorca says:
Wonder if this obvious piece of racism will get deleted or not?
Interesting test.
February 12, 2010, 8:42 pmjukeboxgrad says:
chris:
Yes, I suppose maybe it would.
As usual, you’re making an intelligent and creative point. I also appreciate what you’ve said in this thread about your father and other committed protesters. And I agree with you that we can learn a lot about politics and culture by paying attention to music.
Something else I agree with.
=============
dennis:
So what? Who cares? It is nevertheless quite finite. You said “it can all exist simultaneously.” That’s wrong. It can’t.
You’re making it hard to not notice your fascination with violence. Let me guess: the number of guns in your household exceeds the number of humans. Yes?
=============
martinnned:
Thanks. I like the way you said it. And the issue only came up at all because you had the insight to raise it in the first place.
February 12, 2010, 8:46 pmTed Ray Gee, Ph.D. says:
Muslims worldwide “demand” that we respect them…and what do we get in return?: this kind of verbal abuse and abuse of the system that permits them to be here in the first place. There is a vast difference in ‘civil’ protests and being just plain rude…these “Diaper-Heads” need to learn what civility really is…Not holding my breath…What kind of “prophet” needs the killing of innocent people to “defend” himself? Is their prophet so “thin-skinned” that he can’t take public ridicule? Mohammed was a pelophilic, immoral, bigomist, racist, and immature tyrant who “thought” he was “sent by Allah.” He was NOT a prophet, and he sure as hell was NOT sent by a “god” named “allah”, whoever that might be, and the ‘religion’ he was supposed to have espoused, Islam, is perceived worldwide as a religion of murder, terrorism, ignorance, thugs, and anti-God extremists…Respect the Muslims?? Not in my lifetime…
February 12, 2010, 8:47 pmTRG
Bama 1L says:
Sure, the cart-smashing marketplace sucks, but one hopes that all these non-state-created, non-state-enforced norms of civil society will result in a better marketplace. If I saw someone smashing your cart, I probably wouldn’t buy his fruit because he’s just communicated to me that yours was better. The point is that you have a marketplace, not the church-state monopoly all those Enlightenment types were struggling against.
Society can’t function very well if people aren’t polite, but the state shouldn’t force people to be polite. If people have given up on having a functioning society, the state isn’t going to save them.
February 12, 2010, 8:49 pmBoyd says:
Protect the whales………..
February 12, 2010, 8:52 pmAk Mike says:
Bama 1L – wrong again. “Private office” has nothing to do with it. Please show me some law that says that all government property is open season for “free speech.” Think you can go into a concert in the high school auditorium (or public college auditorium) and disrupt it?
Anyway, you’re obviously spinning in circles trying to somehow separate a class where everyone is there to hear the instructor from an auditorium where everyone is there to hear the speaker.
Unless it’s a public forum (which this was not) there is simply no right of the public to speak on government property, any more than on private property.
February 12, 2010, 8:52 pmMartinned says:
What you’re talking about is exclusive dealing, which can be in violation of the Sherman Act.
February 12, 2010, 8:53 pmzuch says:
That isn’t directly defying the policy. That would be refusing to pilot the bombers or such. Refusing to pay taxes is much more indirect (and violates quite different laws).
Cheers,
February 12, 2010, 8:55 pmBama 1L says:
They do, but these kids aren’t doing a very good idea translating their ideas into action.
Young Arab Muslims who are well-off enough to be studying in this country feel the need to do something about what their governments back home have been telling them is the defining problem of the age. But what? Certainly not go to Palestine and struggle against the Zionist occupier. Mom and dad would be furious and it would definitely not be fun. A constructive engagement would probably also be boring and take, like, forever.
So instead you see this sort of meaningless stunt by immature kids. You can see that they were playing to a very small crowd: themselves. All it did was embarrass the school that welcomed them and give their archenemies at Stand With Us a good piece of video. They might as well have titled it “Not one Palestinian was aided by the heckling of this ambassador.”
February 12, 2010, 8:58 pmSwan trumpet says:
I agree but would like to point out that there are many Christian Zionist students as well. The uncivilized Muslim students deprived Christian and Jewish students of hearing Michael Oren’s speech.
February 12, 2010, 9:01 pmBama 1L says:
Now I get it! Mike, I know I am wrong as a matter of existing law. I said that in the last sentence of my post at 3:52. I thought we were evaluating different free speech regimes. This situation raises no interesting issues as regards actual law. They disrupt the speech and they take a ride. Really everyone’s behavior was close to optimal under the existing rules, except that the protestors didn’t realize how dumb they would look. They should have shut up or waited for some sort of question period.
Under my rule, the protestors would have all gotten to yell at the speaker. The speaker and the rest of the audience would have yelled back or not as they chose (more likely not), and the police wouldn’t have done a thing unless it got violent. Is the result that different? Under my rule there is actually less claimed victimhood for the protestors and the video would make them look even worse.
I think the ambassador’s speech should have been considered to take place in a public forum because it is speech in favor of a particular position on public property to which admission was not restricted. (That’s not a list of necessary elements.)
February 12, 2010, 9:10 pmDavid Nieporent says:
There already are first amendment exceptions to antitrust law. Look up “Noerr-Pennington.” Not exactly identical to the fact pattern you’re discussing, but it shows that the first amendment does provide a defense.
February 12, 2010, 9:22 pmalbert levy says:
When a group of people or culture does not think or reason in rational ways,when they do not even know the meaning of logic,there is no reason to talk to people who don’t abide by the rules of reason.In other words,forget all the legalistic arguments by pre-law or law students,they are crazy.Psychotic if you like that term better.
The existence of an unprecedentedly large groups of people wishing to destroy decent civilization as we know it-and who celebrate their own deaths–poses a threat the likes of which NO civilization in history has had to confront.A cancer has been loosed upon Western Civilization.
February 12, 2010, 9:25 pmBaffled says:
Then let me rephrase.
If the city of NY (where I currently reside in) puts on the play “The Merchant Of Venice” in Central or Prospect Park during the summer time, free of charge and one happens to find the play anti-semitic would he/she be allowed to shout the actors down and not get penalized because of “Free Speech”?
(Or a concert etc…, though admittedly it would be hard to shout down massive loudspeakers.)
February 12, 2010, 9:28 pmNoesis Noeseos says:
Would it help to observe that Muslims who adhere strictly to the koran do not believe that non Muslim’s have any rights at all, especially those “sons of dogs and pigs,”* the Jews. Any appeal such a Muslim makes to the First Amendment is hypocritical and opportunistic and completely self-serving. Even though in America these same Muslims do enjoy the protections they would overturn if they had the power, I think we should all be highly skeptical when they assert that the First Amendment sanctions their “right” to disrupt a gathering like the one under discussion.
*Perhaps it’s “apes and pigs,” but the hatred and disdain is the same in either case.
February 12, 2010, 9:33 pmTatil says:
I remember UC police at Berkeley campus quite violently dispersing and arresting non-violent students camping outside a building on campus in the middle of the night back in the late 1990s. They were not even blocking the entrance except their tents may have been “constricting” access and it was a mostly administrative building if not wholly, so it is not like it was a safety issue. A few years before then, there was a case where the UC police members were videotaped repeatedly hitting students with batons who were lying on the ground and not even resisting, although the students were admittedly blocking one of the entrances to access to a relatively high traffic administrative building. (Hence the possible reason for that later “camp-out” to avoid blocking access or staging the protest inside the building.) Don’t make UC police to be a passive group. My impression of them has been a large group of people with guns who are seriously bored most of the time, as they don’t have to attend to much violent crime etc and very inclined to overreact once they get together as a group. Of course, that was during the tenure of a Chancellor who seemed to be going out of his way to get students ticked off. This is coming from a person who finds most vocal people on that campus to be overly sensitive.
February 12, 2010, 9:37 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Interesting, Professor Kerr. I very much enjoy participating in your forum (That’s why I didn’t want you to shut it down. Like Troll_dc2, I very much enjoy hearing others’ points-of-view. I want to hear them all and lament the use of the criminal law to stifle even those as “uncivilized” or uncouth as this one was. Chris Travers has given me an alternative way of thinking about the free speech issue, and the property rights issues give me great pause, but I’ve definitely profited off of this exchange today.), and regret that I cannot reciprocate in kind.
* * *
Chris Travers,
As to your point regarding the “value” of criminal punishment (and what many others have pointed out about how the muslim protesters were actually counter-productive to their cause): It didn’t even seem like they believed in their cause to the degree where such value can be attributed. Yeah, they “went to jail”, but it wasn’t the kind of principled protesting that “going to jail” vindicates. If they actually went down fighting for it…but these kids shouted a word or two and then, if you watch the video, they start walking towards the Officers! If you really believe in something like that, shouldn’t you remain speaking until you are dragged off? That would be more of George Fox value, no?
* * *
No, my position is simply that the police should be there to prevent/halt violence (like they always should do), not arrest speakers. Further, I do not equate what the one group of speakers here did to “force” as some others do.
February 12, 2010, 9:39 pmShelbyC says:
Yeah, I just mentioned that because it was kinda the seminal act of civil disobdience. But not all complaints can be properly addressed via civil disobedience.
February 12, 2010, 9:41 pmTatil says:
According to which interpretation of it? Are you saying there are not any Christian or Hindu groups that don’t mind violating the rights of “infidels” or “enemies”? Should we be skeptical about all religious groups?
February 12, 2010, 9:42 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
orca,
[boyd:]Ill say this again there is no reasoning with Muslims there hatred for not only the Israelis but Christians and the West, are very well documented. Its to bad that such hatred comes from such people.
[orca:]Wonder if this obvious piece of racism will get deleted or not?
Interesting test.
Oh, indeed, very interesting. Interesting that “boyd” found his/her way here; this is hardly a congenial environment for people who write like that. Doubly interesting that you find an attack (however ignorant and misspelled) on a religion “racist.”
February 12, 2010, 9:44 pmTatil says:
You can try moving to Serbia or Gujarat. There must be many like-minded individuals there.
February 12, 2010, 9:46 pmBama 1L says:
In the real world, I think not; there would be a public disturbance charge or something just for talking loudly during the performance, let alone protesting it. (Trying to be more conscious of thought experiments.)
In my made-up world, yes. All that prevents this is the social norm against being a jerk and alienating others. But if the protestor feels strongly enough, then the play’s going to become very interesting or very boring, depending on your perspective. Now I think a tort might lie; the other audience members have had to endure a nuisance.
As your choice of hypo indicates, a private impresario charging admission to a closed theater wouldn’t have this problem. (I thought incapacitating government relative to private actors would endear my theory to the VC community, but I can’t tell if it’s working.)
February 12, 2010, 9:51 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Tatil,
What were these particular Berkeley protests about? I was a doctoral student at Cal in the late 90s, but don’t remember the tent city. (Then again, I had been at UCB since 1984, and started tuning out Cal student protests pretty soon after.)
February 12, 2010, 9:54 pmNoesis Noeseos says:
I believe the discussion is about the MSU. Why don’t we talk about other groups when Orin Kerr opens a thread about them?
Alas, I am not quite so learned in the various schools of hadithic interpretation. Perhaps you could enlighten me and the others. I’d be interested in seeing a legitimate quotation from the Muslim cannon that asserts that non Muslims enjoy the same rights as Muslims.
February 12, 2010, 9:57 pmBaffled says:
Bama,I truly do appreciate your responses. I guess I was simply attempting to figure out if according to your ideas/understanding/interpretation of “free speech” if there were any lines (re: a public forum)that could be crossed.
re: last comment
February 12, 2010, 10:01 pmIt’s working, I assure you. I just happen to be a bit slow on the uptake on many occasions. :)
Butternut says:
It was a staged show. Oren knew what was going to happen and I was frankly impressed with the kids. They are kids, by the way. And they will learn and ameliorate over time.
Mr. Chris Travers:
Quakers are Quakers, aint they? They foment, they prod and they lambast. Then they let others bleed for their piousness. Without the Quakers, there would have been no Civil War in this country.
February 12, 2010, 10:03 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Butternut,
They are kids, by the way.
When do they get to be adults?
Without the Quakers, there would have been no Civil War in this country.
Now there’s a historical counterfactual just waiting to have a novel written about it. Look, see how nice American history would’ve been without William Penn?
February 12, 2010, 10:08 pmSuperSkeptic says:
I’m curious as to why you think that…
February 12, 2010, 10:09 pmChris Travers says:
I dunno. Plenty of Quakers went to prison for trafficking of
stolen propertyslaves in the underground railroad.Bear in mind that when I grew up I knew a lot of people who were involved in trafficking, not slaves, but illegal aliens who were seeking asylum in Canada but were from countries the US strongly supported (El Salvador, for example) and so couldn’t get asylum here. Sometimes they went to jail for acting out their beliefs (participating in the Sanctuary Movement, which was basically a modern Underground Railroad). Sometimes they were acquitted.
Bottom line: If someone is willing to go to jail in a non-violent act to score a point or live out an ideal, that person has my moral support. I would rather live around 500 people of moral courage who disagreed with me than 100000 who accepted my views as absolutely correct.
February 12, 2010, 10:12 pmNoesis Noeseos says:
Ah, Butternut, your name displays your sympathies, but soldier on. I have heard it said that never were there men so valorous in a cause so wrong.
February 12, 2010, 10:13 pmorca says:
I disagree. Other posters have noted that VC has become a safe haven for virulent anti-Muslim hatred.
I’ll be pleasantly surprised if this thread is purged of the numerous examples of it
February 12, 2010, 10:20 pmRicardo says:
I understand the point of view. At the same time, there is something very odious about these campaigns to disrupt controversial speakers. The right to speak and the right to hear go together. I’d prefer to live in a society where people are equally free to hear either the Israeli Ambassador or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak. People can protest outside the venue all they want — inside, people are obligated to let the person speak.
February 12, 2010, 10:24 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
I am going to hazard a guess that Butternut is thinking of Richard Nixon, and indeed has been thinking continuously of Richard Nixon for the last, oh, 35 years. Otherwise it’s very difficult indeed to work up much bile about Quakers.
Chris Travers,
Bottom line: If someone is willing to go to jail in a non-violent act to score a point or live out an ideal, that person has my moral support. I would rather live around 500 people of moral courage who disagreed with me than 100000 who accepted my views as absolutely correct.
Amen to that. Provided that “go to jail” means actually go to jail, rather than getting symbolically “arrested” for the cameras and then released, which is pretty much the celebrity-protester protocol. People who are willing to endure hardship for their beliefs may at least be assumed to believe them. That means that at least you know where you are.
February 12, 2010, 10:25 pmThe Rational Fool says:
If this is proven a conspiracy by the members of the MSU to violate the free speech rights of the organizers of the event, is MSA culpable (as Operation Rescue would be if its members physically prevented abortion seekers from entering a Planned Parenthood clinic)? A RICO lawsuit against MSA, as in NOW vs Scheidler, perhaps? Seek a restraining order on MSA and its members from future events? At the very least, could UCI withdraw it recognition of MSA?
February 12, 2010, 10:30 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
orca,
I disagree. Other posters have noted that VC has become a safe haven for virulent anti-Muslim hatred.
I’ll be pleasantly surprised if this thread is purged of the numerous
examples of it[.]
It’d be kind, from the standpoint of the site owners, if you were to note the numerous examples, to facilitate their prompt removal.
Meanwhile, where is this “racism” of which you spoke?
February 12, 2010, 10:31 pmG. May says:
This is just insane. Inviting a speaker to speak for educational purposes, then creating an environment that will be non-productive at best, or have a significant chance to promote violence at worst. As has been pointed out numerous times, this is just promoting chaos and irresponsibility. Sanctioned shouting matches? Really?? Has our higher education system “progressed” to the point where an educational speech has the academic value of attending a basketball game?
Why would any university bother wasting money for speakers in the future? Is the purpose of the event (or the university for that matter) to educate and provoke thought? Or is it simply to justify absurd rationalizations of disruptive, tyrannical behavior?
“Yes Mr. Ambassador, we’d love to pay you to come stand at the podium while our students shout at you.”
I would think the university could just save money by coming up with a topic and letting the students have a free-for-all in a gymnasium.
February 12, 2010, 10:33 pmorca says:
February 12, 2010, 10:33 pmorca says:
Will the NRA and its supporters be charged with assisting a terrorist for today’s attack on the Atlanta faculty
February 12, 2010, 10:36 pmButternut says:
Noesis, thank you for noticing but your inference is not quite right. It is a geographical reference. I am sure you have heard lots o things. As have I.
Mr. Travers,
When you have a secret spot in your basement where fleeing slaves sought refuge you reflect. You reflect on ALL of it and finally decide you must learn what it was all about. Try it sometime. Errors were made and the Quaker’s hubris was right in the middle of it.
In the meantime, I probably shouldn’t have said that. My apologies.
February 12, 2010, 10:37 pmChris Travers says:
Minimally, getting arrested, charged, and tried.
I won’t hold it against folks who if they are acquitted by a jury. Part of the point of the trial from the perpetrator’s perspective is to try to argue freedom of conscience and hence turn the trial into a political statement as well.
February 12, 2010, 10:39 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Chris Travers,
I won’t hold it against folks if they are acquitted by a jury. Part of the point of the trial from the perpetrator’s perspective is to try to argue freedom of conscience and hence turn the trial into a political statement as well.
I’m not happy with this, mainly because I think jury nullification is a terrible idea in the larger scheme of things. Gandhi’s request for the maximum penalty for the laws he violated is, to me, the real essence of civil disobedience. You break the unjust law, but acknowledge that it is law and that you are subject to it. Anything far short of that comes into the moral grandstanding category.
I mean, there’s not much you can do if juries positively refuse to punish you. But you shouldn’t invite that sort of leniency.
February 12, 2010, 10:49 pmButternut says:
Excuse me, Chris, a wee bit more than 500,000 to get that giddy feeling for the 500.
February 12, 2010, 10:55 pmNobody At All says:
Isn’t this sort of event – public university grounds opened for a speech to its students – a paradigmatic example of a “limited public forum”? e.g. Widmar?
February 12, 2010, 11:04 pmThe Rational Fool says:
@Orca:
Apples and oranges!
February 12, 2010, 11:06 pmorca says:
Racism is an easy way to describe anti-Muslim tripe. But, seeing as many Arabs are also Semites, I can more accurately start calling it anti-Semitism if you prefer.
February 12, 2010, 11:08 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Butternut,
Excuse me, Chris, a wee bit more than 500,000 to get that giddy feeling for the 500.
Ah. The half million are the dead of the Civil War. (It’s actually rather more than that, but as a guesstimate, not bad.) And the 500 with the “giddy feeling”? Who are they? The Quakers? The freed slaves? (I think you’ll acknowledge that that number, at least, is a lot larger.) Or the slaves that left via the Underground Railroad? So war could have been averted if only the Northerners had been kind enough to hand over absconded “property” when it traversed their own territory. Stupid Quakers!
February 12, 2010, 11:17 pmNoesis Noeseos says:
Butternut, I crave pardon for my overreaching. Perhaps, however, you and I share memories of times and situations wherein men who might disagree profoundly still recognized each other’s integrity and virtue. I am not saying that cheap political posturing is something new under the sun, but it does seem that nowadays, with the advanced ascendancy of the Gramscian Left in this country, intolerance for the expression of opposing views has become increasingly sickening, the journalist’s Callender’s accusations about Dusky Sally in Jefferson’s time notwithstanding.
Bottom line: we could all do with a return to a healthy civility, an ethical disposition other-regarding but personally internalized, instead of relying, like serfs on the lord’s estate, upon the reeves with sinecures in his bureaucracy to dictate our demeanours.
February 12, 2010, 11:23 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
orca,
Racism is an easy way to describe anti-Muslim tripe. But, seeing as many Arabs are also Semites, I can more accurately start calling it anti-Semitism if you prefer.
“Racism is an easy way to describe anti-Muslim tripe,” if you imagine that Arabs and Persians and Pakistanis and Nigerians and Indonesians all constitute a “race,” easily distinguished in racial terms from (say) Christian Arabs and animist Nigerians and Christian Indonesians and Hindus and Sikhs on the Indian subcontinent. Oh, and Persian Jews, of whom there are a decent number — more than there are in any Arab country, I think.
If you can make a “race” out of the worldwide Muslim population, more power to ya. You might also find that the Anglican Church is now majority-Black, and I welcome the first time someone disses an Episcopalian and is accused of racism.
February 12, 2010, 11:39 pmAndy Bolen says:
How embarrassing for the university, and for its Muslim community.
February 12, 2010, 11:43 pmButternut says:
Michelle,
Very simply, slavery was dying of its own weight. Far fewer of everyone would have died (slaves included) had the martyr from Illinois had his way. He did not because the political pressures could not be assuaged, if for but awhile.
Kindly restrain your smug, research is pointing to twice that 500 passing thru the basement under my chair. I do not regret that. I wonder why your relatives, Mr. Traver’s relatives (oh, my error there) and my relatives died grisly deaths. And yes, many slaves died in the war.
February 12, 2010, 11:48 pmChris Travers says:
I don’t disagree with you entirely, but I am looking about it differently.
When I lived in Utah, I knew an old Quaker woman who, in open protest (against nuclear weapons programs), walked onto Hill Air Force Base and was promptly arrested and charged with trespassing. She raised a freedom of conscience defence as per the Utah state Constitution and was eventually acquitted. In essence she was acquitted because, according to the Utah state Constitution, she wasn’t guilty of a crime.
I think she would have been OK with jail time if that had happened though. The goal wasn’t to get jury notification, but to call PUBLIC attention to the issues. This brings attention to the issues and accentuates the result of a guilty sentence.
There is a long tradition of this. See the bit about William Penn’s Hat on this blog some time ago…..
February 12, 2010, 11:55 pmDavid Sucher says:
256 comments in less than 12 hours.
Is that a record?
As to the kids, arrest ‘em. Jail ‘em. That’s what they want, anyway. And anyone who does civil disobedience (right or wrong) knows and accepts that he will go to jail. They want jail.
February 12, 2010, 11:58 pmChris Travers says:
Quakers as a whole were opposed to the civil war, as they are to all wars. There are notable exceptions, but on the whole Quakers would rather see work towards reconciliation than bloodshed.
February 12, 2010, 11:58 pmShakespeare101 says:
It is ironic that if these disruptive students controlled this blog’s comments section, all opposing comments to their views would be **** out and this would be seen as acceptable by their supporters.
If you inherently are blocking opposing speech than your own cannot be free.
February 13, 2010, 12:13 amButternut says:
neosis,
I took no offense and if I seemed a bit quick, I am sorry.
Original research does appear to be passe. Spent my entire day in “The Bugle” researching this very subject. Mr. Travers got my ire up when I should have squelched it.
Thank you for your words.
February 13, 2010, 12:14 amorca says:
Racism is just a handy way to reference anti-Muslim hatred. It makes about as much sense as the term “anti-Semitism,” but it works.
February 13, 2010, 12:21 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Butternut,
I honestly don’t know who your “500″ are. Or why they are giddy.
I wonder why your relatives, Mr. Traver’s relatives (oh, my error there) and my relatives died grisly deaths. And yes, many slaves died in the war.
Well, actually, my relatives pretty much came here after the Civil War. My parents were children of children of German and Slavic immigrants; my husband’s, children of Irish immigrants last century.
February 13, 2010, 12:22 amMike McDougal says:
Write your senator, make a movie, persuade your neighbors, vote for a different president, dodge the draft.
Only the last one would be civil disobedience.
February 13, 2010, 12:28 amButternut says:
Michelle,
Oh, okay.
Never mind and have a nice evening.
February 13, 2010, 12:31 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
orca,
Racism is just a handy way to reference anti-Muslim hatred. It makes about as much sense as the term “anti-Semitism,” but it works.
It “works” the way a sledgehammer “works” as the key to a door.
If you cannot see any difference between hating a creed and hating a skin color, I really don’t know what to say.
February 13, 2010, 12:32 amchiMaxx says:
Chris Green:
Perhaps the Muslim group was not taking as their model some events that happened before they were born, but this summer’s FreedomWorks-inspired protests in health care townhalls like this one against Kathy Castor, which have apparently were very effective both in the short-term goal of shutting down the speech of the proponents of health care reform and those who had come to hear about it, and in the longer-term goal of derailing health care reform.
Harry Eagar:
cfbleachers notes some other conditions that this event also has in common with the Kathy Castor town hall:
I think Freedomworks would disagree–perhaps not on the blending (though they’d be being dishonest there), but certainly on the productivity of the tactics.
Such intimidation tactics are despicable no matter who does them, but they are also, sadly often effective.
February 13, 2010, 12:35 amChris Travers says:
Butternut:
My parents converted to Quakerism after they were married.
I would however ask whether we would have as strong a freedom of religion in this country if the Boston Martyrs hadn’t died grisly deaths for preaching Quakerism in that city.
Eventually we should all realize there is enough death to go around.
From my current religion (not Quakerism):
Cattle die
Kinsmen die
You too, will die
One thing I know that does not die
The judgement on the dead man
When I die, I would just as soon it be doing something important or at least exciting.
February 13, 2010, 12:35 amChris Travers says:
As a side note, one thing I love about this blog is how generally civil really heated debates are.
I don’t know how many uncivil comments Orin has deleted but I haven’t seen any on this thread. If questions of how honorable Quakers are turn out to be the most uncivil comments on a thread about such a divisive issue, we should all stand proud of this community and most particularly the moderators and bloggers who have built it.
February 13, 2010, 12:39 amorca says:
I can’t see any difference, for the most part, both are something you’re born with…something your parents force upon you.
February 13, 2010, 1:03 amG Carson says:
That is entirely the point of the story. Most leftists who lean on Muslim organizations like CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations which has ties to al-Qaeda) to fight the Judeo-Christian establishment have no idea that once in power, Muslim groups would be far more right-wing than anything on the US political landscape today. Sharia law would be established, women would be silenced and become the property of their male relatives, gay people would be executed and education would be reserved for males only, with women relegated to the traditional role of wife/mother/housekeeper. I cringe whenever leftists support Islamic terrorist suspects as they believe they are fighting against the right-wing. They are actually supporting it!
February 13, 2010, 1:05 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
orca,
I can’t see any difference, for the most part, both are something you’re born with…something your parents force upon you.
This is insulting to people of any creed or no creed. Thinking people can choose to believe whatever portrayal of reality seems compelling to them.
I’m an adult Christian convert, who grew up with no notion of that faith or any other. There are many, many adult Muslim converts. I’m responsible for my beliefs; they are responsible for their beliefs. And I would say furthermore that people who grew up in a faith are also responsible for their beliefs. A child of Muslims is no more compelled, intellectually, to believe the Islamic faith than I am compelled to be agnostic because my parents are. The will is free.
Whereas I am not (thank God) “responsible” in the same way for my skin, or my hair.
February 13, 2010, 1:22 amorca says:
If you reread my post, you’ll see I was talking about hatred.
If you hate Muslims or someone that has a different skin color than you…chances are you learned your hatred from your parents…and these hatreds are all the same.
February 13, 2010, 1:34 amJohn Pack Lambert says:
The big problem with speaking of “the Israeli occupation” is that speaking of it in such terms is a lie.
February 13, 2010, 2:18 amThe fact of the matter is that Israel withdrew 100% from the Gaza Strip and they withdrew 100% from Lebanon. What did they get for it? Rockets sent at civilians.
The problem is Hamas and Hezbollah DO NOT respect ISrael’s right to exist, and Fatah only vaguely does. Fatah still looks on Haj Al-Amin Husseni as a hero. Husseni was wanted for trial on war crimes in Yugoslavia for having recruited for the SS Bosnian Muslims who massively slaughtered Jews, Gypsies and Serbs.
There is a certain level of civility needed in society. It is only civil disobeidience if you are opposing an unjust law. Israel has on multiple occasions tried to withdraw, and all they get is death.
When they act to protect themselves, they are called evil and awful things.
Jimmy Carter’s hate mongering is bad enough, especially since even he admits that Israeli Arabs have full rights, that Israeli Jews are multi-racial and if he gave any thought to his claimed support of the two state solution he would recognize that returning displaced people to their pre-1948 homes would be as disruptive to the Middle East as it would be to “Greater India”.
The real problem in the Middle East is that Israel accepted their displaced people, gave them jobs and made them citizens. The Arab countries, with the lone exception of Jordan, kept the Palestinians as marginalized refugees. Jordan however is a true monarchy, so its integration of the Palestinians was not as helpful as it would have been in a democracy, and was still more political than economic.
Then there is the case of the murdering and expulsion of the “Palestians” from Kuwait after the Gulf War. The problem is that many of the 50,000 or so Palestinians murdered and 300,000 exciled had been born in Kuwait.
There was less argument for removing the Sudenten Germans in 1945 than the Palestinian Arabs in 1948, yet if Israel had followed the example of Czehslovakia there would not be Israeli Arabs at all, yet today there are thousands of them.
Thus, unless someone can explain how the world majically changed in less than five years, or unless there protestors will also call for de-investment from the Czech Republic until it allows the return to their homoseland of the Sudeten Germans, than they are a bunch of liars and hypocrits.
The fact that Arab Christians are migrating into Israel tells us that Islamic extremism has killed Palestinian nationalism in any true sense.
Boyd says:
“Stop the Jihad on Campus.” “Stop the Islamic-fascist.”
February 13, 2010, 3:08 amThe Rational Fool says:
I suppose that this thread is not about Israel-Palestine conflict, Islam, racism, or anything of that sort.
The issue at hand is simple. A group of people – in this case, certain members of the Muslim Students Union; it could have been Ku Klux Klan, Zen Buddhists, NOW, whatever – took a premeditated, well planned, course of action to physically prevent another from exercising their freedom of expression (shouting down, and not raising point-counterpoint, is a physical act, much as snatching the microphone from or muzzling the speaker).
The question is how best to ensure the free exchange of ideas, without infringing on anyone’s constitutional rights. Nothing more, nothing less.
February 13, 2010, 3:19 amNoesis Noeseos_ says:
Butternut, let’s open an “online” bottle of Gentleman Jack and let the Muslim-apologists, Quakers, and other wannabe Puritans stew in their juices, hey?
Probably slavery _strictu sensu_ would have ended in the South even absent the terrible War between the States–it’s hard to say whether–or, more precisely, when–economic sense would have prevailed over fire-breathing stubbornness–but under the Constitution as it stood in 1860, the legality of slavery was indeed an issue that belonged to the States.* Although I am not a lawyer, my sense is that Taney in Dread Scott overreached**; and that in the Federal Congress, which legitimately held dominion over the territories, resided the power to say yea or nay to the expansion of involuntary servitude.
No doubt many in the Conspiracy will find my conjectures risible, but Butternut may find something worthy in their contemplation.
*Of course, if the South had avoided going to war and had instead transited the blacks from slavery to peonage, as occurred anyway post Reconstruction, the Federal system would have persisted much longer. Imagine Wilson and the Progressives getting a foot up without the toehold of the Fourteenth Amendment.
**My admittedly layman’s understanding of Dread Scott is that the majority went too far in deciding to what degree a state may decide upon the status of a putative slave who resided in its own boundaries.
We laymen must not reckon that we know more than lawyers who study the details of court decisions, at least with respect to these details; but we are nevertheless citizens who are obliged to form, within our comprehensions, opinions on these matters based on a general appreciation of the spirit of our Constitution, so that when we enter the voting booth, we may decide more wisely than if we had remained totally ignorant.
February 13, 2010, 3:20 amDavid Nieporent says:
That story doesn’t make sense; what you describe is a federal crime. She would have been charged in federal court under federal law, and the Utah constitution would be irrelevant.
(Nor does it seem likely, though I’m not a Utah law expert, that “freedom of conscience” would be a defense in this context.)
February 13, 2010, 4:38 amBob Policy says:
I’d be interested in a definition of “civil disobedience.”
February 13, 2010, 8:58 amThe term is used widely. Does it have a legal definition?
Does it have an agreed definition?
Does disruption of someone’s invited speech count as civil disobedience?
S.Munn says:
Sounds to me they need to go to jail for a short time. We still have freedom on speech in this nation, but to be delibrate in rebellion is obvious. Things like should not be allowed, anymore “than Pants on the ground”, this why there are laws in this country!! It is the small foxes that spoil the lot.
February 13, 2010, 9:30 amBama 1L says:
Under my rule, I don’t think a public university department sponsoring someone to speak makes the event “educational” and subject to the teacher-in-the-classroom exception. If the ambassador had actually been teaching a class, that’s one thing. But–and here’s where hearing the whole speech would have been helpful (not that the protestors were going to let that happen)–I get the feeling he was really making a presentation aimed at convincing listeners of a political point. I don’t think the government should prevent others yelling back against that point.
Of course, if people don’t like that type of discourse, they don’t have to engage in it. But society, not the state, provides those rules and enforces them.
You said what I was suggesting was “insane.” Most of the world thinks the free speech regime we actually have is something close to “insane,” so I guess I don’t take that as dispositive. Maybe the Constitution should be a suicide pact?
February 13, 2010, 9:48 amDennis N says:
I’m not arguing that solving free speech interference with violence is preferable, but that it is likely if official action is not taken to protect the speaker from interference. Actually, I consider that arresting the “perps” to have been a bit excessive. They should have been kicked out of the hall, perhaps written up on campus charges,m and sent home to cool off.
But if you’re going to use force, use enough.
February 13, 2010, 10:03 amDennis N says:
Shouting down a speaker is not more speech, it is less. Veto by the noisy is a risky way to carry out politics, because it escalates to mob violence.
Ok, but I’ve never seen that limit exceeded. It is a large number. The number of physical speakers, guys on soap boxes, who can be listened to at one time, is one. Shouting him down disrupts that one speaker. Running a newspaper ad does not shut down all the other ads.
February 13, 2010, 10:10 amDennis N says:
jukeboxgrad
: dennis:So what? Who cares? It is nevertheless quite finite. You said “it can all exist simultaneously.” That’s wrong. It can’t.
Nothing is absolute. I have never seen political ads occupy all the available broadcast or media space, or even come to a tiny fraction of the available space. (Although during campaign season, it sure seems that way, sometimes.) So the practical difference between my “infinite” and “a very large number” has no significance. The impact on a single speaker, is that he is shut down.
If you tolerate veto by the noisy, I am completely free to raise a mob to counter your mob. That is not a particularly fruitful way to run society. There are some pretty simple ways to accomplish that. Kicking the Irvine obstructors out of the hall would have been sufficient.
I’ll not respond to your ad hominems, which are irrelevant.
February 13, 2010, 10:24 amDennis N says:
Then I misunderstood you completely, and apologize.
February 13, 2010, 10:33 amDennis N says:
The problem with that, and the argument for not allowing the disruption, is that under your rule, violence is far more likely, and no meaningful speech gets accomplished.
February 13, 2010, 10:39 amDennis N says:
Would that have been a good thing or a bad thing?
February 13, 2010, 10:47 amDennis N says:
Kinda hard to shout someone down in a blog.
February 13, 2010, 10:57 amAlbertE. says:
This Oren is the Ambassador of a foreign power. NOT just your typical speaker. The man and his very person are covered by international protocols and his dignity must not be offended in any manner!
I have looked over in a quick manner all the posts regarding this “incident” and NO ONE seems to realize this.
There is a famous event from over 200 years ago where the cane of the French Ambassador to the U.S. was slightly touched by an over-zealous American and this lead to a diplomatic protest being lodged. Persons in the presence of a foreign ambassador by international agreement are supposed to be respectful at all times – - NO matter what!!
February 13, 2010, 10:59 amButternut says:
Neosis,
Drank my half of the bottle blogging last night. Thanks.
Without pounding it too hard:
Chris, I was not really trying to broadstroke dishonor on Quakerism, though I admit it does look that way. One “sect” of Quakerism, however, was warning another sect that their “militant” passive-aggresiveness about slavery was going to come to a bad end, which it did. It took another 100 years (if indeed we have reached that point) for the animosity to subside to civility over the war. In the meantime, as Neosis has pointed out, our society, our law and our culture have rotted in no small measure because of the war.
As for Boston, well, they learned their lesson. Notice they did not have anti-slavery rallies in Charleston, did they?
Neosis, lawyers are here to dismantle well thought out law. It is good that they have that role because man gets to revisit law and remind himself what good law is.
February 13, 2010, 11:01 amButternut says:
Albert,
Using the French as an example doesnt go far.
The Ambassador had to absolutely know what he was walking into. Notice that when the kids all got up and walked out he stated that he was sorry because it was them he most wanted to speak.
Was is it rude and disrespectful? Yes. It was also pressure release.
Dont believe for one minute that an address to UC Irvine is truly an international forum. It was simply one of the dirty little jobs ambassadors get to do.
February 13, 2010, 11:14 amMartinned says:
Actually, it’s surprisingly easy.
February 13, 2010, 11:29 amButternut says:
Dennis,
It would have been a very good thing had there been no civil war. Slavery was, is and shall always be a very bad thing. Personal freedom is an inherent right of man. No law should be needed to insure it.
I believe our country could have eradicated slavery within 15 years of the start of the war had the war not taken place. The totality of the suffering of the slaves, I believe, would have been less than they were with the war.
February 13, 2010, 11:31 amG. May says:
I’ll expand this time – “Please Mr. Ambassador, we’d like you to speak, but actually you won’t be able to speak because our stances on ‘free speech’ simply promote chaos and violence, therefore what you’ll ultimately end up doing is standing on stage while our students scream at you. If you’re interested in screaming back, we can provide you with ample water and throat lozenges to ensure your comfort. What’s your going rate?”
I’ll ask again – what is the purpose of having the speaker in the first place? What is the purpose of an institution of higher learning?
The fact that you think hearing the whole speech would have been helpful, but acknowledge that the students weren’t going to allow him to exercise his right to speak freely, seems to torpedo the position you’re trying to defend. Then you offer hunches to strengthen your argument. Are you actually serious??
February 13, 2010, 11:49 amDennis N says:
I think that’s a bit much. Nations have become a lot less sensitive in the past 200 years. Why I remember a certain US President who had shoes thrown at him. Hardly an international incident worthy of protests, more like an international farce. Everyone there recognized it as a private act, not a State act. Hell, there have even been mobs organized, semi officially, to insult heads of state, with no particular ramifications.
February 13, 2010, 12:11 pmDennis N says:
Actually, you can’t shout me down in a blog. You can irritate me and insult me, and the moderator can kick me out. But short of being kicked out and my posts deleted, my words will remain on record for my wisdom or stupidity to be seen. This is very different from generating sufficient disruption that a speaker can literally not be heard.
February 13, 2010, 12:19 pmtaxmule4u says:
The actions of the Muslim students are inexcusable and should not have been allowed by university authorities. Once it was clear what their plan was, all of them should have been forcible removed from the room. As to their rights to free speech, your rights end where mine begin! As the invited speaker the ambassador had a right to speak, uninterrupted. The other attendees had a right to hear the speech uninterrupted. The Muslim radicals only rights were to remain silent or quietly leave. This entire event is a prime example of how closed minded people are always the most intolerant of the views of others and their right to express them. I think the reason they use such tactics is a fear, deep down, that they are the ones that are wrong and the one speaking is right.
February 13, 2010, 12:25 pmMartinned says:
Actually, the blog comment equivalent of shouting someone down is making so many obnoxious comments that nobody reads the comment section anymore. That is exactly what happened on Balkinization. During a speech, the sound made by the actual speaker doesn’t actually disappear. It just becomes impossible for your ears to make it out between the noise. All you need to hear it is one of those police parabolic microphones.
February 13, 2010, 12:35 pmDennis N says:
Martinned: We’re starting to quibble. I’ll back out of this part, and go off to find a beer. You want one?
February 13, 2010, 12:50 pmDavid Sucher says:
Oren,
February 13, 2010, 1:03 pmI’ll send this off-line as well as you can’t still be reading comments :) but I’d like to hear a ‘thought-experiment’ in which you provide the exact same facts with minor exceptions — Chomsky is the speaker and Young Republicans are in the audience.
What result?
Martinned says:
Sure. I’d just like to note that the difference of opinion between us does matter. If things like advertising space on TV/radio/newspapers, and even comment space on the internet, are scarce in the way the attention of people in the room when Michael Owen spoke at Irvine is, then it doesn’t make sense to argue for intervention by the authorities at Irvine while simultaneously supporting the ruling in Citizens United on policy grounds. As far as I’m concerned, the fact that all political campaigning in the US seems to revolve around money allows those with money – both private citizens and corporations profit and non-profit – to crowd out the speech of those without money, the same way theses students attempted to overshout the ambassador.
If money is speech, it must be possible to use money to silence someone you do not like by making sure they can’t be heard, the same way these students did.
February 13, 2010, 1:09 pmDennis N says:
My point is that it is exceedingly hard to crowd someone out of the media or the Internet. We’ve never even seen anyone come close. By barring people from using money to buy media space, we leave a monopoly of speech to the government and to those who own the media space, e.g. the newspaper editorialists.
I have seen 3-D speech drowned out.
Speaking hypothetically, as I am not a speechifyer, if I thought I would have competition from disruptors, I’d have my agents on hand to disrupt the disruptors. I don’t have qualms against political violence, I just think it’s a crappy way to run a country and would rather do it the civilized way.
February 13, 2010, 1:36 pmNoesis Noeseos_ says:
Butternut:
Glad you enjoyed your half. My head is staggering a bit this morning, but I am not totally hors de combat. My Mom, who was born in Arkansas, worked on the family tree. She found some Quakers who were read out of the church because they fought for the colony/state of North Carolina during the Revolutionary War. One ancestor was chased to an island and killed by Tory irregulars. Apparently the situation in North Carolina was more like civil war than rebellion; very many kept their allegiance to the crown and were quite vehement about demonstrating it.
Apologies to the rest of the conspirators for my wandering from the topic.
February 13, 2010, 2:25 pmThe River Temoc, In Winter says:
I believe that at one point during Mandela’s imprisonment, Umkhonto we Sizwe planned to stage a mass prison break from Robben Island by using helicopters. These plans were eventually abandoned as impractical. But had they proceeded, would it have made the anti-apartheid movement less just?
February 13, 2010, 2:32 pmThe River Temoc, In Winter says:
Lookit, I agree 100% with all those who were dismayed at the protestors’ actions, and who say that removing them is perfectly consistent with free speech.
But what is up with all you folks who see this as some damning indictment of the university? The university police removed the protestors and arrested them. I don’t know whether the protestors were charged or prosecuted, but that’s presumably up to the local district attorney, not the university.
Perhaps your complaint relates more to the culture of the university — that the protestors felt no shame in taking these actions. But lecturing at a university is never going to be as staid as giving the keynote speech at the Podunk Chamber of Commerce annual dinner. That doesn’t excuse the actions of the protestors, of course — but you’re not being realistic if you think you’re going to have a hothead-free environment at a university. It’s not in the nature of the beast.
February 13, 2010, 2:40 pmThe River Temoc, In Winter says:
This is so inaccurate that it deserves comment. Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are not citizens of Israel. As for “giving them jobs,” well, perhaps, but the Emirates also gives expatriates from elsewhere in the Arab world jobs; some are good jobs, some are not. Within the Green Line, things are better, but it would be difficult to argue that Israel’s Arab citizens are fully equal with its Jewish citizens.
February 13, 2010, 2:49 pmChris Travers says:
See my point above about being acquitted by a jury for crimes of conscience.
February 13, 2010, 2:54 pmDavid Nieporent says:
That’s not at all what happened at Balkinization. One commenter routinely dissented from the prevailing ideology over there, but did not post an unusual number of comments. Then five or six regular commenters, who agreed with the party line over there, would post hostile personal attacks on that commenter, serially. (Including one commenter account that existed solely to attack him.) The proprietors of the blog never tried to keep the comments orderly.
February 13, 2010, 3:03 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Even if your theory is hypothetically true, that has nothing to do with Citizens United. The law in question did not attempt to impose some sort of limit on the quantity of speech; it simply tried to control who could speak. It was both overinclusive — in that it banned even small quantities of speech by corporations — and underinclusive — in that it failed to ban large quantities of speech by individuals, even though their speech would have the same “crowding out” effect.
Anyway, trying to turn the Irvine situation into a “scarcity” argument is trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. The problem in Irvine wasn’t that the audience’s attention was “scarce.” It was that it was literally impossible to hear Oren. Shouting over someone is simply not the same thing as speaking so much that the other person doesn’t have an opportunity to speak. (Note a key difference: in a shouting match you can’t hear either side. The goal of shouting isn’t to communicate, but solely to prevent the other side from communicating. It’s the equivalent of buying an advertisement slot and airing a test pattern rather than a commercial in favor of your position/candidate.)
February 13, 2010, 3:12 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Is there any evidence whatsoever for your “belief,” or is it just faith-based?
February 13, 2010, 3:16 pmDavid Nieporent says:
But what if you don’t want to acknowledge that it is law?
February 13, 2010, 3:19 pmToby says:
Actually, that was already aparant…
February 13, 2010, 3:24 pmSteph says:
You are right to make this comparison. Without the concept of property, the idea of free speach is meaningless. The fact is the sponsors of this event were deprived of the use of the facility that they had permission to use for this speach. That is why it was a violation of both property rights and free speach. Say what you want on your own land or at a place were the owner is willing to host you. When you disrupt another persons event that is not free speach.
February 13, 2010, 3:43 pmDennis N says:
I’ve heard arguments to that effect, but the figure quoted was usually 50 or more years. It wouldn’t have lasted forever. As to “totality of suffering,” I won’t touch that calculation with a stick.
February 13, 2010, 3:44 pmSteph says:
As far as I am concerned they should have had the Sgt. Arms remove the fellow who cryed out “you lie” during the president’s first state of the union adress and I agreed with him.
February 13, 2010, 3:51 pmNoesis Noeseos_ says:
Isn’t it curious that the First Amendment does not consider the question of how much money a speaker has? Perhaps those who incorporated it into the constitution were of the opinion that such an issue was irrelevant.
February 13, 2010, 3:56 pmSteph says:
But Chris the diference was that Mr. Fox could at least aregue that it was illegal for him to rent or build a church of his own. Thus for him to disrupt the CE service which was the state church was diferent. The Students here could and do have their own organization and have speekers come and talk.
February 13, 2010, 4:06 pmSteph says:
Well in that case you don’t think that speach and reason are good methods of dispute resolution, i.e. you don’t believe in free speach.
February 13, 2010, 4:18 pmNoesis Noeseos says:
Sir,
While I cannot speak authoritatively for Butternut, perhaps you will allow me to say that to the extent that economic calculation might have guided the decisions of the powerful in the South, many would have come to the conclusion that holding slaves did not allow them to profit as much as transiting first to a peonage system (sharecropping) and later to an industrial system similar to that which prevailed in the North. Now, I am not a Marxist, so I do not believe that all motivation can be reduced to the economic, and there were sentiments in the South that, quite apart from considerations of profitability, favored a quasi feudal system; but even in the (later) Middle Ages, landowners saw the advantage of freeing serfs from their formal obligations and renting lands to them.
There is also the pressure of–oh, let’s call it–public opinion, which, I believe, contributed to the ending of slavery in Brazil (yes, a Catholic country) in about 1860. On the other hand, since the American Constitution could have been understood to have sanctioned slavery in those states which kept the practice, perhaps a public outcry would have taken more than 15 years to translate into laws of emancipation.
Pardon me if I seem to ramble, but although I am not a lawyer, I marvel that the United States was founded on a principle, the rule of law as established in the Constitution; and I cherish the opinion that even the thorniest of moral dilemmas must be resolved within that framework.
February 13, 2010, 4:19 pmSteph says:
Sure they do NYC has 4 major papers today, their was time when it had more than twice that many. They idea that their is an upper limit on the number of papers is like saying their is an upper limit on the number of blogs. True only in the sense that the amount of matter in the universe is finite. Practicly not so much.
February 13, 2010, 4:25 pmJohn Pack Lambert says:
A few thoughts.
February 13, 2010, 4:44 pmThese are University students, they are ADULTS, and if they are citizens they have to right to vote. Maybe the 26th Admendment was the stupidest ever passed, and this is coming from a guy who voted at 18.
Either they are adults, and responsible, or they are kids and should not have the right to vote.
On the whole issue of Citizens United. The question is, why does the government have a right to prevent certain individuals to form together and participate in the political process the way they choose? The government does not limit what companies can advertise anything else, why do politicians and media corporations get a monopoly on seeking to influence government?
Media corporations have had unrestricted rights to express their view.
Why do we give political notions less say than cars or McDonalds? The basic point of free speech is to be able to express your political opinions, and if you are banned from doing that for a certain period before the election Congress has passed a law that limits your free speech.
The notion that McCain-Feingold was in anyway in compliance with the First Admendment is the stupidest notion ever.
Steph says:
Since Islam is a religion or ideology, it is not racism. I am an atheist, but how often are other religions given a hard time publicly? Islam seems to be good at giving it, but not at taking it.
February 13, 2010, 4:47 pmJohn Pack Lambert says:
Orca,
February 13, 2010, 4:54 pmA very large portion of the population changes religion. Probably in the enighbrohood of one fourth of the Muslim population in the US, and maybe even higher than that, are converts to Islam. So the notion parents “forced” Islama on most Muslims in the US is 100% false.
This ignores the factor that many ardent Muslims in the US were raised in essentially secular homes, and that another group of Muslims in the US are self described “secular Muslims”, which I would say makes them no Muslims at all.
Considering that probably over half of the anti-Mormons, and quite possibly nearly as many of the anti-Catholics are ex-Mormons and ex-Catholics respectively, the notion that bias against a religion and racism are the same is inherently flawed.
Steph says:
Yes but since they were the decendants of cavalires, they come by it honestly. :-)
February 13, 2010, 4:57 pmChris Travers says:
Indeed that was one of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama.
February 13, 2010, 4:59 pmSteph says:
Yes, but only if he hates jews as well otherwise it is anti muslemism or antiIslamism.
February 13, 2010, 5:05 pmSteph says:
But ideas are true or false and the whole point of free expression is to allow the truth to trumph. To call an idea evil is to call people who CHOSE to follow it evil and invite them to defend the truth of their belef. To call a racial groop evil is to call a person evil for something they have no choice over.
February 13, 2010, 5:16 pmJohn Pack Lambert says:
To David in response to Chris,
February 13, 2010, 5:16 pmIt is obvious that Chris is confused since he is reporting the story second hand at best.
The march to the Civil War is much more a result of the Southern Fire-eaters unwillingness to compromise than Northern Abolitionists.
Also, it is arguably a relic of 20th Century racism to make the Quakers the moving force in Aboitionism. John Brown did more to directly bring about the end of slavery in his one raid than all the quakers ever did.
Frederick Douglas was probably the man most responsible for the war, and Harriet Tubman clearly undermined slavery more than any Quaker did.
However it was Tanney and his attempt to take the issue out of Public Discussion that did more than anything else to force the war. All he really did was make it so normal political actions no longer worked.
I fortunantly learned about the Civil War and its origins from Dr. Matthew Mason, a hisotrian who fully understood that Woodrow Wilson was the racist father of the new KKK and that the violators of “states rights” throughout the 1850s were the southern Democrats with their Fugitive Slave Law.
He was centuries removed from my high school teachers who were sure the Civil War was not about slavery, even if it was only three decades different in when he went to college. Of course Mason had had Ira Berlin as his Ph.D. advisor, so he knew of what he spoke.
Even among White Abolitionists, the Quakers were an insignificant fringe, and true Abolitionists did not vote for Lincoln in 1860 while even William Lloyd Garrison opposed giving blacks the vote.
The war was gruesome, but Davis had people executed without trial for bridge disruption in East Tennessee and yet until the 1970s it was Lincoln who was claimed to have disrupted civil rights for suspending Habeus corpus in Maryland.
The Confederacy was no more a truly Democratic form of government than was Taiwan prior to some point in the 1990s. Both of them had a bloted legislature with many people representing districts no longer actual under the control of the government, and at least in the case of the Confederacy several of these districts had never been in the control of the government.
Of course Democrats hated Frederick Douglas as they now hate Clarence Thomas, maybe because both men had the “audacity” to marry white women. Just to make what should be obvius clear, I am a full fledged supporter of inter-racial marriage, who if I was a song writer would write a peace “Son, marry a black women”. Yet I digress.
The point is that Quakers were far outnumbered by the many other protestants of all sorts of denominations throughout the north who were ardent abolitionists.
John Brown was crazy, but if you think the Civil War was a good thing, you must praise him as being the biggest example of the threat of the north in the south and the man who made it so the successionist commissioners claims that the “Black Republicans” in the north would side with the slaves in a war against Souther whites were believed and acted on.
ChrisTS says:
The one person in question posted – and still does – repeatedly, at length, and usually first. I agree that some of the responders – myself included – sometimes become excessive in their irritation.
February 13, 2010, 5:28 pmNoesis Noeseos says:
Steph (Stephanie?), there might be little bit of that Gentleman Jack left over. Would you like a taste? I hear that gentle ladies relish it too.
February 13, 2010, 5:36 pmJohn Pack Lambert says:
To the River,
February 13, 2010, 5:39 pmIsrael’s displaced people ARE NOT the Palestinians. Those are the displaced people for Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan, or at least they were prior to 1967.
Israels displaced people are the thousands of Jews who fled Morocco, Yemen, Iraq and Egypt. In Iraq they renounced their citizenship and feared for their lives.
They were clearly marginalized in Yemen, Egypt was consistently deneying them economic rights, and their situation in Morocco was deteriorating.
Israel granted citizenship to ALL people in its borders in 1948, which is more than we can say for Lebanon, Syria or Egypt.
True, the events of 1967 changed the blance, but this was after 20 years of intentionally fomenting a crisis on the part of the Arab nations.
Anyway, Israel offered Arafat ALL of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank, and he turned them down. So whose fault is it that the “occupation” continues?
The truth is tha most Palestinians consider Jaffa and Acre just as occupied as Nablus and Bethlehem, so you argue with the Western view of who is displaced, but ignore the facts of how Palestinians approach it and how their attitude means that land is not given for peace but so that rockets will hit Israeli civilians, with the only apologies being for when an Arab is “accidentaly” killed, because in the view of Palestinians Jews are not deserving of life.
Al-Huseini was a VERY big supporter of Hitler, recruited for the SS. So who is like the Nazis, their followers or those whose fathers were killed by them?
Tom Bishop says:
I am fed up with “political” correctness. In Texas disrupting a meeting is a Felony. They should be expelled from the university, prosecuted to the full extent of the law, then any that are not U.S. citizens, deported. We cannot let this kind of outrageous conduct continue.
That is my free speech.
February 13, 2010, 5:49 pmNoesis Noeseos says:
John Pack Lambert said (inter alia)
That is how I view the situation too. The whole issue might have been resolved in the public dialectic of the time without recourse to war if Tanney had shown some restraint. But perhaps the Zeitgeist was haunted by a fire-eating spirit. Such things happen now and again.
February 13, 2010, 5:51 pmorca says:
To call someone evil because of their religious beliefs is just as repugnant.
I’m glad my parents never inflicted any primitive hatreds on me…because, judging by some of the posts here, they are very addicting.
February 13, 2010, 5:56 pmgary fouse says:
I was there. I have been teaching part-time at UCI for 11 years and have been going head to head with the MSU and their hate-mongering speakers for about the last 4 or so years. A couple of times a year, the MSU brings speakers to UCI who are anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Semitic. In spite of Jewish students’ complaints, the admin does nothing.
I have been documenting these problems on my blog for some time. I have also publicly criticized the Admin for their weak inaction.
For years, UCI and their apologists have claimed there is no problem of anti-semitism at UCI. This time, several hundred Jewish community members saw it with their own eyes. Nobody can deny it now.
Thank you for covering this disgraceful episode
February 13, 2010, 6:29 pmGary Fouse
adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext
fousesquawk
Dr. Weevil says:
Two questions for orca:
1. Do you include in your condemnation commenters who insist that Sarah Palin speaks in tongues and that doing so is a disqualification for running for president?
2. Are there any religious beliefs you would be willing to call ‘evil’? If Aztecs were cutting out the beating hearts of captives on pyramids, would that be evil? How about if Carthaginians were sacrificing babies to Moloch? Would that be ‘evil’?
February 13, 2010, 7:31 pmorca says:
Dr. Weevil, beliefs don’t equal actions.
Certainly, there are evil actions.
February 13, 2010, 7:34 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Bama 1L, you admit that the law is not what you want it to be. I do not recall your explanation for desiring that the law be something other than what it is. Would you please spell it out (again)? As I type this, there are 337 responses to this topic; I am not going to reread all of them.
February 13, 2010, 8:00 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Do you want the university to prevent these speakers from speaking? If so, then you do not believe in free speech. Instead, you believe in policies that advance your point of view and oppose policies that reject your point of view.
February 13, 2010, 8:10 pmButternut says:
Of tractors and snow and such has been my day.
John Pack Lambert: What on God’s green earth could possibly be a “relic of 20th
century racism?” Whose dialectic you been suckin on?
The true history of the Civil War and interracial marriage in one breath takes the cake.
You truly underestimate the political power the Quakers swung. Read some Niven.
Steph:
He has fine Gentlemen Jack.
February 13, 2010, 9:21 pmButternut says:
I disagree. Tanney did the world a favor and threw up a jump ball. Nobody reached for it. Rather they all shot at it. Hot blood on both sides. Southerners were against an economic wall and dumb as stones. Northerners were up to their ass in hubris and having it pumped up everyday. Simply a tragedy.
February 13, 2010, 9:29 pmChris Travers says:
To be fair, what Israel offered was all of Gaza, most of the West Bank, etc. subject to the condition that Israel control borders in both areas, and be able to maintain security checkpoints and corridors in the West Bank.
I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I think if a foreign government is controlling borders and reserving the right to set up security checkpoints and corridors within a separate territory, I would call that an “occupation.”
The pendulum regarding the end-goal of discussions swung very far in favor of the PA during Bush 43. Indeed this is one thing I think Bush deserves a lot of credit for: cutting through the BS and saying that a Palestinian state with control over its own borders and full self-sovereignty was necessary for peace. That was way beyond what Clinton or Barak was willing to support.
February 13, 2010, 9:31 pmHugh says:
The protesting students should have been warned that protests would be punished by expulsion and deletion of the protestor’s academic records. That would be the ultimate penalty…all the time and money invested in their studies at UC Irvine would be lost. If they want to get their degree, they will have to start from the beginning someplace else.
February 13, 2010, 9:53 pmjukeboxgrad says:
weevil:
If you have a response to something that was said in this thread, you should put your comments where they belong. That would be better than putting them in a thread where they are quite irrelevant.
And if you decide to change your mind about running away from that thread, hopefully you can cite exact text to demonstrate the existence of “commenters who insist that Sarah Palin speaks in tongues and that doing so is a disqualification for running for president.” Because as it is, you seem to be following your regular practice of accusing me of making statements I never made.
February 13, 2010, 10:10 pmButternut says:
Sarah Palin speaks in tongues…
February 13, 2010, 10:24 pmDr. Weevil says:
jukeboxgrad can’t tell the difference between “running away” and declining to argue further with a lying troll who thinks that having the last word means victory rather than mere persistence. He should put his own comments where they belong, somewhere in the dark where the rest of us won’t have to look at them.
February 13, 2010, 10:32 pmButternut says:
…and is hot and smart and oh so cool.
Waiting for some more links to prove me sooo wrong.
Get that walk done yet?
February 13, 2010, 10:38 pmjukeboxgrad says:
weevil:
Responding to what I said in another thread by placing a comment in this thread is an odd way of “declining to argue further.”
The “victory” is not in persistence. It’s in demonstrating that your claims are false.
Speaking of odd notions, you have an odd concept of what you “have to” do. Then again, I have to admit I don’t know for sure whether or not someone is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read and respond to my comments.
February 13, 2010, 11:05 pmThe River Temoc, In Winter says:
I respectfully decline your invitation to turn a thread about the heckler’s veto into a never-ending flamewar over the Arab-Israeli dispute. We’ll have to agree to disagree for now — but thanks for playing.
February 13, 2010, 11:36 pmDr. Weevil says:
Poor jbg just can’t stop misrepresenting what I write. I wasn’t responding to him here: he has demonstrated that that is quite pointless. And my comment was entirely pertinent to this thread. orca wrote (5:56pm) “To call someone evil because of their religious beliefs is just as repugnant” as racism. I wondered whether he applies this to all religions or just Islam, and pointed to an example on this very site where someone (jbg) criticized Sarah Palin’s religion in a vicious and dishonest way, without much objection from orca or anyone else. Of course, they may well have skipped his comments as a matter of policy. I try to read every comment in a thread before commenting, to avoid repeating what others have already said, which makes jbg’s contributions particularly tiresome. I suspect he posts more words here than any two conspirators put together. He really needs to get his own blog.
Of course, this comment is not for jbg, who is quite impervious to rational argument, but for anyone else who might be deceived by what he writes.
February 13, 2010, 11:36 pmGary M says:
It’s not a fight unless the other side pushes back. For years the right attempted to treat the left as though they were civilized, equal parties at the table of political power. The veil is off–ACORN, Rahm, SEIU, ACLU, Soros, CAIR and all their America-hating allies in this country and others–we know who they are and what they want from us (our money and power) and what they’re trying to destroy (our Constitution and our freedom). So pardon us for pushing back, but we’re not backing down this time–not until the left is pushed as far away from the controls as possible.
And by the way, will someone please send those Muslim students home until they learn to play nicely with others?
February 14, 2010, 12:53 amErlon says:
I wonder if professor Kerr ever bothered to post any of the hundreds of the Tea Party protesters disturbing the town hall meetings and label a single blog entry with “Free Speech on Town Halls: Rep. XYZ at Some Town?”
February 14, 2010, 12:56 amjukeboxgrad says:
weevil:
For some strange reason you can’t be bothered to cite text to demonstrate that I actually did what you’re claiming I did. That’s because you’re following your regular practice of accusing me of making statements I never made.
Presumably you’re prepared to show evidence that I said something deceptive. I’ll be waiting patiently. On the other hand, when you make claims like that without lifting a finger to show evidence, you tend to create the impression that the one who is being deceptive is you.
February 14, 2010, 1:24 amGoat says:
I’ve been to many college forums about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I can attest to the fact that disruptive shouting is not peculiar to Irvine, or to Muslims, or to anti-Zionists. In fact, my impression is that it’s more often been Zionists disrupting speakers critical of Israel. Normally the speaker waits until the disruption stops, or else other audience members shout the offender down so the speaker can continue. In one or two cases security has had to escort the disrupter out, but it’s never to my knowledge resulted in arrest or academic discipline, nor should it have.
February 14, 2010, 2:10 amGoat says:
“At least 10,000 Germans formed a human chain in Dresden on Saturday and stopped neo-Nazis staging a funeral march to remember victims of the Allied air raid that flattened the city 65 years ago.” – Washington Post
The article goes on to portray the intended neo-Nazi march as a rallying effort intended to empower the Nazi movement. Should the 10,000 anti-Nazi protesters have been arrested? Note that their intent was more insidious than the Irvine students’: they intended, and succeeded, in actually shutting down the march, not just temporarily disrupting it.
February 14, 2010, 2:21 amtroll_dc2 says:
The police should have protected the neo-Nazi march.
February 14, 2010, 8:24 amGoat says:
Agreed. And if the Muslim students had not left voluntarily, the police should have forcibly removed them. But I don’t think the police should have arrested the 10,000, or the 11, for disruption.
February 14, 2010, 8:49 amPeggy Miller says:
I am 81 years old. I once took some classes at U. C. Irving. I wish I had been there for this speech. I would have gotten up and hit some of those idiots on the head. Where are the defendents of civility?? What a stupid place America is becoming, that we should stand for this stuff from students who are benefiting from our educational facilities, and not even slap their silly, barbarian faces!!
February 14, 2010, 11:17 amS says:
I recently attended a forum on ‘civility and the middle east discussion’ co-sponsored by the JSA and MSU at a state university. Heated at times but well done.
February 14, 2010, 11:49 amEli Rabett says:
Just like the courtesy afforded congress critters this summer and they were not arrested, so it was a free bite. Where were you then? This stuff bites both ways
February 14, 2010, 1:08 pmRob says:
Part of the problem in this particular incident is the nature of the UCI campus. Irvine is a very conservative town, and the local population has a strong influence on the administration. You may remember that the mess they had with their first dean of the law school just a few years ago, who was offered the position, only to have the offer withdrawn when a group of local businessmen put pressure on the university because of his liberal reputation, and finally to have it reinstated when even prominent state and national conservatives called foul.
The student body, especially the undergraduates, however, tends to be far more liberal, made up almost entirely of 1st and 2nd generation immigrants from Asia and Middle Eastern countries, who mostly commute from LA County, instead of being residents of the much more conservative Orange County. Because of the very strong disconnect between the administration, with the strong, extremely conservative influence on it by the local community, and the majority of the student body, it doesn’t surprise me at all that this happened. From my time on the campus, I’d be extremely surprised if the event itself (which was probably for the benefit of the local community more than for the campus community) was balanced in its approach, or if the students had been very receptive of it even if it had been. Neither side on campus seems to have much respect for the other there. That’s my experience at least.
UCI has a history of completely disregarding the points of view of their student body in deference to those of local business leaders. The common view about it when I was there as a faculty member is that, as a young campus, UCI had an inferiority complex, and would do anything to appear from the outside to be on par with UCLA or UC Berkeley, even if it was less than fair or ethical. My time there was well before 9/11, but even then I couldn’t imagine that this would have been either organized or executed in a way conducive to civil discourse given the very open views of the student body. I’m not saying what these students did should be condoned, but given my experience with this campus, I’d have been far more shocked if things had run smoothly.
February 14, 2010, 1:42 pmzuch says:
That was my point, if you check.
Cheers,
February 14, 2010, 5:34 pmepluribus says:
I agree completely. Thoreau made the same point when he said (I’m paraphrasing): when there is an unjust law, the only place for a just man is in jail. Not in court with a high-powered lawyer trying to get him off.
February 14, 2010, 7:31 pmzuch says:
Thread winner (even at this late date).
Cheers,
February 14, 2010, 10:12 pmzuch says:
I think I said something similar … yeah, maybe about the third comment on this thread….
Cheers,
February 14, 2010, 10:17 pmButternut says:
my vote
February 14, 2010, 10:21 pmzuch says:
Not exactly. He kept (and keeps) posting utter garbage and nonsense …. stuff that makes no sense and/or is based of made up (and often demonstrably false) “facts”. He has a track record of such, and had been one of the few to manage to get banned by Glenn Greenwald for such behaviour.
Cheers,
February 14, 2010, 10:32 pmGoat says:
I came across this excerpt from “American Radical,” a documentary about Norman Finkelstein (warning – it’s intense). It shows one strategy for dealing with disruptive audience members – overpowering them, both emotionally and volume-wise. Not always an option, but like simply clearing hecklers out of the room, it’s a lot more appropriate than arrests or academic sanctions (or beatings).
February 14, 2010, 10:55 pmChris Travers says:
Wow. Thanks for sharing.
February 15, 2010, 12:53 amA press release from Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi, and with reference to their own critics, says:
Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.
February 15, 2010, 2:37 amAllahu STFU says:
Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular are enemies of free speech.
February 15, 2010, 3:40 amIt’s too bad he couldn’t finish his talk, yet there’s not much else we need to know from the Israeli ambassador; we’ve learned the most important lesson of all from the Muslims in attendence.
Goat says:
Muslims and Palestinians are great supporters of free speech and other liberties. Anti-Muslim neo-Nazis, on the other hand, are the group most responsible for the erosion of liberties in the United States, Canada, Israel and elsewhere.
February 15, 2010, 6:32 amepluribus says:
zuch:
Well, what do you want–a prize? You have a problem, zuch, which you don’t seem to appreciate. You post way too much. Although I agree with a lot your posts, maybe most of them, I don’t read them all, because there are just too many. Aim for quality instead of quantity and you might get more readers. And don’t get your tater feelings hurt when all of your posts aren’t read.
February 15, 2010, 7:45 amGoat says:
Canada has never had the kind of protection for free speech that the US has had in the last 50-100 years, particularly for hate speech and pornography. So while it is unfortunate that hatemongers like Levant sometimes find their rights infringed, it is not a new development (I’m not familiar with the Steyn case). What is new in Canada, I believe, is ideologically-motivated restrictions on entry into the country, as in the case of George Galloway, which is mostly what I had in mind when I included Canada.
February 15, 2010, 10:51 amYankev says:
Actually, the Neo-Nazis agree with Palestinian terrorists, Islamic militants such as the Muslim Student Association and their apologists on a number of issues.
February 15, 2010, 11:47 amYankev says:
I didn’t realize that was the Carthaginians, but point well taekn. Let me add Hindus burning widows on the husband’s funeral pyre, and Thaggee’s strangling people to death as a sacrifice to Kali.
February 15, 2010, 11:54 amGoat says:
Immigration in its narrower sense (excluding things like visas) isn’t speech, but restricting someone’s temporary entry into the country because of what they say is infringement on free speech.
February 15, 2010, 11:56 amChris Travers says:
It also has a chilling impact on those of us who are citizens who are married to non-citizens.
February 15, 2010, 12:03 pmGoat says:
I don’t think it’s a stretch. If the US didn’t permit Michael Oren to enter the country to talk on college campuses, that would be a much clearer interference with his speech than some audience members heckling him, which seems to be accepted by many here as a genuine case of interference with his speech.
You figure Galloway is odious. I figure he’s one of the few honorable legislators in the western world. Given that Galloway was entering the country in order to give talks, and given that Canada does not generally bar people from entering, I’d say it’s a fair assumption that they don’t want him giving the talks in the country. Far viler people than Galloway have been routinely permitted entry into Canada – Netanyahu comes to mind – but of course, people disagree on who’s vile and who’s not, which is why we have free speech.
As for neo-nazis, in Israel they control policy almost completely. In the United States, much of the policy in the last 10 years is based on their ideology; examples include torture, arbitrary elimination of due process in criminal punishment, and military aggression against Muslim countries.
February 15, 2010, 12:40 pmChris Travers says:
People sometimes tell me I’m an optimist, but really I look at record as opposed to rhetoric. I see Netanyahu’s election in Israel as being a long-term benefit to the peace process because he may be able to finish what he started in his last administration: the return of Golan to Syria and a peace treaty with that country.
To his credit, he lost the Likud chairmanship because of his secret attempts to negotiate peace with Syria and in the process give Golan back to that country. The negotiations were later sabotaged by Ehud Barak.
I don’t see Netanyahu as particularly vile, actually. He postures as a strong man, but he seems willing to make the hard choices in favor of peace that few other Israeli politicians seem to be willing to. Can you imagine any other Israeli PM from the last few decades considering giving Golan, in its entirety (complete with water rights, which was the area sabotaged by Barak), back to Syria in exchange for a peace treaty? Getting Syria away from proxy wars with Israel would also greatly simplify the situation with the Palestinian situation as well as likely solve the problems with Hizbullah.
I am not quite sure how to respond to that except to suggest Godwin’s Law has been fulfilled and we can all go home.
Israeli politics has some fundamental problems and the first thing one has to realize is that rhetoric doesn’t equal action. There are Israeli political parties in Israel I would consider fascist and these exist both on the far-right and the center-left of Israeli politics. These are the groups who talk openly about the “demographic time-bomb” (Ehud Barak did during his part of the Sharon administration. Oddly to your point of view perhaps, Sharon did not).
The problem though is that Israel is on a collision course with itself. Arab-Israelis are still one of the fastest growing demographics within the green line and the demographics are continuing to shift towards an eventual state where the majority of Israeli citizens are Arab. This feeds a lot of very inflammatory rhetoric inside Israel not only from parties like the old National Religious Party, but also from parties like Labor and Kadima. To their credit, top Likud politicians have largely stayed away from that issue.
The fundamental question is: What is hte plan to prevent the Arab-Israelis from taking over and turning Israel into an Arab state?
February 15, 2010, 1:42 pmGoat says:
I don’t know this history. As far as I knew, Barak was the one who initiated peace talks with Syria. I agree with you that he sabotaged them. My belief that Netanyahu is vile comes from the fact that he has made statements supporting mass expulsion of Palestinians, his contributions to the occupation and annexation of Palestine, and his contribution to inflaming religious tensions over Jerusalem. (In comparison, the vilest thing I can think of Galloway having done is participating in the suppression of hate speech). Frankly, I think Syria is a side show – important to the residents of the Golan, but far less central to global affairs than Palestine. I also don’t see how peace with Syria would help the Palestinians.
One of the most aggravating things about internet discourse is the use of Godwin’s Law as a way to shut down discussions. If Godwin’s law is a rule of some stupid game, then it has no place in rational discourse.
I agree. When it comes to race issues, what passes for “center-left” in Israel, such as the Labour party, is far to the right of what passes for right-wing in the United States political scene. That’s why I use terms like “neo-nazi.” Labour actively supports apartheid both in occupied Palestine and in Israel, and like you mentioned speaks of Palestinian Israelis as though they’re a problem to be dealt with, rather than as citizens. If you want to get to parties that would be on the Democrat-Republican spectrum, you’d have to go to the left wing of the Labour party and Meretz, where there is moderate opposition to apartheid. If you want parties that are seriously pro-democracy, you’d have to go to the communist and Arab parties.
If you’re a liberal supporter of liberty, democracy and human rights, this is not a question at all, and the fundamental question is: What’s the best way to promote liberty, democracy and human rights in the region?
February 15, 2010, 2:15 pmYankev says:
This is (choose one):
February 15, 2010, 2:23 pm(a) a Complete misuse of the term neo-nazi.
(b) an example of the Soviet-originated canard that the Jews/Zionists/Israelis are the new nazis.
(c) a complete inversion of reality.
(d) Scurrilous.
(e) a and c.
(f) So absurd as not to deserve the dignity of a substantive response.
(g) All of the above.
leo marvin says:
Those both assume facts not in evidence about how Syria would behave once it regained possession of the Golan. My wildest eyed optimism says it’s an open question.
February 15, 2010, 6:30 pmChris Travers says:
AFAIK, Netanyahu (unlike Barak) never advocated or sought to remove Arab citizens from Israel as a nation. I agree that arguing that Palestinians should be transferred is despicable, but it is an order of magnitude less than the sort of ethnic cleansing programs the Effi Eitams and Ehud Baraks have sought within the Green Line.
Sharon’s disclosure of Netanyahu’s role in this was what caused Netanyahu to lose the chairmanship of the Likud party to Sharon. Netanyahu began the talks but it was a very well kept secret for the rest of his administration.
When calling the Israeli government “neo-Nazis,” Godwin’s law beats allegations of Antisemitism and is more accurate as well. One of my big complaints about the way Prof. Bernstein characterizes Norman Finkelstein is that he trots out the argument that he is Antisemitic and such without really trying to get to the heart of the arguments. Godwin’s law, at least, is viewpoint-neutral.
Agreed. However the answer to that and “allow a Jewish state an unconditional right to exist” are irreconcilable. Unfortunately, most of the population in the US seems to feel that it is more important for Israel to remain Jewish than for Israel to respect human rights.
There is a big problem with this however. If we accept that Israeli Arabs, under current trends, will eventually be a majority in the state then Israel cannot remain democratic and at the same time remain Jewish. The Israeli National Security Council under Sharon published (publicly) a report which showed they understood this problem and indeed it was one of the major reasons for the push for the Gaza disengagement and the West Bank fence. However, reading between the lines of the report, it is clear that these issues don’t go away with these policies and that it is kicking the can a bit further down the road.
The fundamental problem is this. The Israeli government knows that the world will not stand for ethnic cleansing or disenfranchising the Arab citizens. They know the birth rates are far higher for Arabs than for Jews. It is only a matter of time before the Jewish State experiment implodes. The problem is that hostility generated in forestalling this process will likely become the basis for antisemitic programs at the hands of the Israeli Arabs when they eventually become a majority. Consequently, Israeli Arabs are made into very second-class citizens and their court decisions in their favor are frequently ignored. The idea is to forestall the inevitable, but this creates the exact scenario that Israel-supporters most fear.
Really, though, Israel isn’t the only one to blame. The Settlement Issue has a simple resolution: Allow the settlers to stay put and join the PA. Unfortunately the PA has not been supportive of this solution. The PA has been as even worse regarding ethnicity issues than Israel has.
February 15, 2010, 7:12 pmChris Travers says:
My point is that Netanyahu is now generally acknowledged to have had the moral courage to go down this road. This mitigates a lot of criticism regarding his past administration.
If you want to ensure that no new peace deals are ever enacted, try to help ensure that Labor and Kadima win the main elections. That way the whole issue can be how everyone else can be made to seem unreasonable, while Likud has a record for secret negotiations and trying to tackle these questions.
Rabin was a rare exception.
Shamir (the former terrorist who endorsed Zionist-Nazi collaboration efforts even though these eventually never went anywhere), Begin, Netanyahu, etc. have all provided more to the peace process than the whole of Labor minus Rabin.
February 15, 2010, 7:14 pmzuch says:
Yeah, well, I said it early, and then a bunch of people jumped all over me for saying it. Should I just ignore the fact that these people are mistaken? Do I need to just sit back and wait for someone else to say the same damn thing to put the nay-sayers in their place? Perhaps so, but I wouldn’t count on it always….
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 8:38 pmleo marvin says:
Chris,
I disagree with your take on the relative merits and demerits of the Israeli left and right, but that’s a longer discussion, and anyway it’s beside the point. How does it pertain to the reasonableness of your assumption (“Getting Syria away from proxy wars with Israel would also greatly simplify the situation with the Palestinian situation as well as likely solve the problems with Hizbullah”) that Syria would stop supporting Israel’s enemies if it got the Golan back?
February 15, 2010, 8:39 pmgary fouse says:
Goat,
“Do you want the university to prevent these speakers from speaking? If so, then you do not believe in free speech. Instead, you believe in policies that advance your point of view and oppose policies that reject your point of view.”
Perhaps, I did not explain that clearly enough. Jewish students have complained specifically because of harassment, insults, intimidation and on occasion (minor) assault. As to speech, nobody has ever tried to disrupt or shut down an MSU event. Even when speakers like Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who calls for the violent destruction as Israel and calls suicide bombers heroes and martyrs comes, he is allowed to speak. Same when Mohammed al Asi comes and calls Jews, “Low-life ghetto-dwellers and says, “You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew”, he is allowed to speak.I myself have engagewd Ali 5-6 times during the Q&A after he speaks. Our exchanges are spirited but civil. Unfortunately, few others at UCI have the balls to challenge Ali. I too believe in free speech. The fact is no MSU event has been disrupted as was Oren’s speech. MSU tried to take away Oren’s right of free speech and our right to hear him.
You praise George Galloway. On May 21, he came to UCI and collected funds for Viva Palestina. He too spoke without disruption. During the Q&A, I recited to him a list of pro-Palestinian protests in Ft Lauderdale, LA, SF and Toronto (during the Gaza fighting) in which some people shouted, “Long live Hitler”, “Jews back to the ovens”, “Hitler didn’t finish the job” etc. At that point, he broke in and called me a liar as his crowd of some 800 in the hall erupted in cheers. (All of the incidents I mentioned are on Youtube and documented on my blog.)
I do not share your enthusiam for Galloway. He is a demogogue and a liar.
February 15, 2010, 9:43 pmYankev says:
To say nothing of the assumption that the Arabs are entitled to have a state free of Jews, as demanded by the PA, with the apparent acquiescence of the Clinton and Bush administrations. Israeli law permits Arabs to own land. PA law prohibits Jews from owning land and makes it a capital crime for Arabs to sell land to Jews (within the green line as well, if I am not mistaken). Arabs can walk freely in Jewish neighborhoods (yes, there have been isolated assaults, but the Israeli government prosecutes the perpertrators) but Jews take their life in their hands walking through an Arab neighborhood. Two Israelis were arrested by PA police for the “crime” of taking a wrong turn and ending up in an Arab town. The PA police turned them over a lynch mob who beat them to death. But somehow it is Israel that is supposedly the neo-nazi apartheid state.
February 16, 2010, 9:47 amChris Travers says:
Yankev:
I said that later in my post. Keep reading….
My view is that the PA/Israel borders should be fixed at the 48-49 armistice lines, and that Jews who wish to remain in the PA should be allowed to become full citizens of the PA, becoming Jewish Palestinians in the same way that there are Arab Israelis. If the PA won’t accept that, this shows the ethnic cleansing intentions on their side.
(BTW, I want to see Palestinian refugees compensated and helped to move out of the refugee camps, but I want to see Arab nations included in providing that compensation given the number of Jews that were formally expelled in the 1940′s too. To make up for it, they should help solve the refugee problem.)
As I say, write me in as a presidential candidate in 2012 and if I win all our problems will be solved ;-)
February 16, 2010, 12:16 pmChris Travers says:
I think a suitable agreement would greatly help with this, just as peace agreements have helped reduce support for Israel’s enemies by Jordan and Egypt. It might not be perfect, but one can either allow occupation of foreign territory to fuel proxy wars of this kind, or you can given the land back provisionally under an agreement under which Syria agrees to behave. I don’t see any other options.
February 16, 2010, 5:29 pmleo marvin says:
I think the limited extent to which Egypt withholds support from Israel’s enemies is at least as attributable to the strings attached to American aid as it is to the peace treaty. Jordan less so, but Jordan also has its own history with the PLO.
Well, they could annex it and made the residents Israeli citizens, an approach I’d consider both wrong and stupid for the West Bank. I really don’t know which Golan course would be most conducive to peace and security, but I don’t feel Israel is morally constrained to return it to Syria, so long as the residents aren’t kept in perpetual limbo. Countries that repeatedly invade other countries and repeatedly get their asses kicked ought to expect to lose some territory.
February 17, 2010, 3:49 amGoat says:
Netanyahu was talking about the Palestinians in Palestine. The quote: “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.” (Talking about Tiananmen Square.)
Really, I don’t see how this is less despicable than the cases you raise.
Yes, but an allegation of anti-semitism has some substance to it. Well, it’s an unsubstantiated smear 9 times out of 10, but at least is has the property that if it’s true, it’s consequential. Godwin’s law is not consequential. It is a silly game.
I agree with your understanding of the tension between Israel as a democracy and Israel as a Jewish state. Zionists are well aware of it too, and have been since Herzl’s days. Mainstream Zionists have by and large adopted his approach to resolving the issue – genocide – only they’ve found it much more difficult than Herzl anticipated, and are doing it in steps. The next major step is the establishment of a powerless and impoverished Palestinian “state” which would relieve Israel of the problems of occupation, while allowing it to continue to control and dominate the Palestinians, a situation likely to lead to more wars, and therefore more opportunities for mass expulsions.
That’s not a simple resolution. The settlers are well-armed, well-trained, and fanatically committed to Jewish supremacy. They would not submit peacefully to PA rule, and Israel would not permit the PA to deal with them as states deal with armed rebellions. Allowing the settlers to stay is a recipe for prolonged, bloody conflict.
As for the PA’s ethnic issues – they’re a defensive reaction to Israel’s Jewish supremacy, and they’re certainly not worse than Israel’s ethnic issues. The PA has to function in an apartheid framework that it opposes and that it did not establish.
February 18, 2010, 7:02 amIbrahim says:
Only a filthy Arab or a filthy Muslim would do what they did. Arabs are the dirtiest people in the world. They’ll fuck their own mother if they had a chance and they would kill their own brothers and sisters because that’s what they’re all about. Being dirty and being stupid.
February 18, 2010, 8:09 amYankev says:
That must be why Zionists built hospitals, schools and universities for Arabs where there had been none before. It would also account for the dramatic increases in life expectancy, educational level, literacy rate and standard of living and decreases in infant mortality after they came under Israeli rule up until the time of the intifada, when the consequences of prolonged daily violence brought it down again — but still well above the levels it had been under Arab rule. It must also account for the increase among the Arab population. For a people who have accomplished amazing strides in technology, military tactics, and agriculture, the Zionists have to be the most incompetent practitioners of genocide in history.
Goat, is there any lie so scurrilous that you would be unwilling to tell it, so long as it is targetted at the Zionists?
Right, because until the Zionists came along and ruined everything, life was hunk-dory for the millions of Jews who lived in the middle east.
February 18, 2010, 8:59 amchiMaxx says:
Compare and contrast with this silent protest of John Yoo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9DQcqbxxJw&feature=player_embedded
February 18, 2010, 3:59 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Interesting and appropriate comparison, worth watching in full. Thanks.
February 18, 2010, 11:39 pmGoat says:
Yankev,
I wonder what hospitals you’re talking about. A survey of hospitals in Israel reveals no hospitals in Palestinian areas that were established by Israel (http://www.hospitalsworldwide.com/countries/israel.php). The few hospitals that serve Palestinian areas predate the state of Israel and were established by European Christians.
Your universities claim fares slightly better. There is a tiny Palestinian university, which was founded in 2003.
Schools – yes. Israel has many Arab schools as part of its apartheid educational structure. They serve the useful social function of reconciling Palestinians to their third-class status while failing to prepare them for higher education.
Improvements in live birth rate, life expectancy, etc. are fairly universal, worldwide. They are not impressive counterevidence to a long-term genocide plan.
Israel made a political calculation to give citizenship to a small proportion of Palestinians in 1948. This allowed the western world to pretend that it is a democracy, a charade that still goes on, and relieve it from its responsibility for the expulsion of 80% of the Palestinians, the theft of their property and the destruction of their villages. In other words, it allowed Israel to consolidate the gains of its most genocidal act to date.
If Israel is not carrying out a genocidal plan, why has it expelled a million+ Palestinians from the areas under its control? Why destroy their villages? Why suppress the memory of Palestinian history in the land? Why implement apartheid in Israel, and a situation worse than apartheid in occupied territories? Why build the settlements in occupied territory? Why terrorize Palestinian nationalist organizations abroad?
What does that have to do with the PA? And why the snarkiness?
February 20, 2010, 8:21 amZot Zot says:
As an alumni of UC Irvine, I agree with what Gary Frouse wrote on Feb 15th.
The double standard is striking.
The funniest thing is to read the school newspaper. People defending the yellers believe that any respective of Israel should not be allowed to speak at UC Irvine. They do not understand the First Amendment and the role of a university to exchange ideas.
Here is an exert of one published letter:
“the University should and must do to affirm its stance in support of human rights: Immediately release all arrested at the event, pay just compensation for any arrest and detainment and formally apologized from the president of the university and the chief of police; adopt a formal policy against any representative of Israel speaking on campus”
http://www.newuniversity.org/2010/02/opinion/11623/
February 20, 2010, 1:30 pmGoat says:
I might be more inclined to see the treatment of the Irvine 11 as something other than a racist double standard if I saw the same treatment applied to hecklers/disrupters of more unpopular speakers than Michael Oren. Does DC have an equivalent of section 403?
February 21, 2010, 10:34 amLibby says:
Would you even be asking these questions if you were the one interrupted? These students’ outbursts were not even in reaction to what Mr. Oren said; they were simply shouted to disrupt. Whether speech is “offensive” does not make it more or less valuable.
To be civil towards ones’ opponents, one does not need to be censored. However, etiquette does call for not interrupting. Again, these students, who acted uncivilly, were not there to protest. They were there to disrupt. If they truly wanted to be heard as an opposing point, they could have mounted a campaign that included speakers with opposing viewpoints, pamphlet distribution, blogging, etc.
February 21, 2010, 11:25 amLibby says:
ETA:
Their own website http://www.msuuci.com says:
“As people of conscience, we oppose Michael Oren’s invitation to our campus. Propagating murder is not a responsible expression of free speech. Oren and his partners should only be granted a speakers platform in the International Criminal Court and should not be honored on our campus.
The claim that there is responsible and, therefore, irresponsible expression of free speech illustrates that they clearly do not understand what freedom is. When one is silenced, there is no freedom.
I wonder if their consciences are troubled by such rude and unrly behavior; let alone the irony of their allegations.
February 21, 2010, 11:35 amGoat says:
But disruption is a form of protest. It might be a more effective form of protest than pamphletting, presenting speakers, etc. So if it only violates civility and not free speech, why not be disruptive?
February 21, 2010, 11:37 amGoat says:
I don’t get it. Are you saying there’s no such thing as irresponsible exercise of one’s freedoms?
February 21, 2010, 11:44 amAnonnn says:
The truth of the matter, sadly, is that if this was Robert Mugabe giving a speech on human rights, almost everyone here would find nothing wrong with disrupting him. But, because the media and academia hold Israel on such an exalted pedestal that any criticism of them is so alien to most Americans, the action of the students seem so wierd and out of context. I find it amusing that NOT ONE person has commented on the remarkable similarity of the students’ interruptions to Congressman Wilson’s “You lie” interruption of President Obama. Not one person would have suggested Wilson be arrested. If anyone ever watches the British Parliament in seession, speakers get shouted down as a matter of routine. Nobody even considers that rude or offensive, let alone an arrestable offense. As a constitutional scholar and lawyer, I find most of the early comments I read so appallingly lacking in any legal analysis at all as to be dismissable as the braying of the rabble rousers. The real issues here, and the reason why the students staged their protests the way they did–yes, I said protests–is because there is an unconstitutional prior restraint law in the books, a law that threatens to throw a citizen in jail for “disrupting” a speech or “event”. Taken to its logical conclusion, that law will send you to jail if you showed up at a rally of your war mongering congressman’s rally with an anti-war sign, because you are “shouting down his message”. Any American that is not alarmed by the overbreadth of that law, quite frankly, does not believe in the First Amendment at all.
February 23, 2010, 4:28 amAnonnn says:
To GOAT,
February 23, 2010, 4:41 amMost protests involve disruption. If speech was banned because it would “disrupt” the object of that protest, then free speech does not exist at all. In other words, you couldn’t yell “you suck” at Shaquille O’Neal as he lines up a free throw, since your speech is disrupting him. Understand that this was not a church sermon they were disrupting, but a political speech by a foreign government official calling for actions by the US government, actions the students strongly disagreed with, and by someone whose past actions the students strongly opposed. Obviously, one prefers they exercise their disagreement in a more restrained manner, but we’re talking about degree here, not the legality of the act itself. After all, if they booed him for 2 minutes every time he mentioned Iran, they could have been arrested for “disruption”, too. Quite frankly, unless you simply throw out the First Amendment, then the actions of the University in advertizing ahead of time that “disrupters” will be arrested constituted a prior restraint on these students’ exercise of their First Amendment rights.
Anonnn says:
“I was there. I have been teaching part-time at UCI for 11 years and have been going head to head with the MSU and their hate-mongering speakers for about the last 4 or so years. A couple of times a year, the MSU brings speakers to UCI who are anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Semitic. In spite of Jewish students’ complaints, the admin does nothing.”
I don’t get it. The MSU showed up to protest Michael Oren, who is certainly 100% anti-Iran, but got invited to speak anyway. Are you suggesting that speakers should be prevented from speaking on campus because they oppose the policies of a FOREIGN government? Are you suggesting the Dalai Lama be barred because he opposes the policies of the Chinese government?
February 23, 2010, 5:05 amLeah says:
THE EARLIEST “HATE” CRIMINALS
If you can’t guess the people I have in mind, I’ll give you
some clues—clues found in a major world religion that is many
centuries old. I’ll call it Religion X.
Religion X traces its roots back to the First Couple, Adam and
Eve. They were on earth before any other form of worship—before
Islam (appearing 14 centuries ago), before Hinduism or Buddhism
(appearing 25 centuries ago), before even the worship of various
gods in Mesopotamia (60 centuries ago).
Early on, Religion X’ers were told by their God: “Love your
> neighbor—and even the stranger who dwells among you—as much as
> you love yourself.” But it wasn’t long before Religion X began
> rebelling against the laws of the One who had blessed and
> preserved it so much. In response God warned: “All those who hate
> me love death.”
> After centuries of hating their God (which predictably led to
> hatred of fellow humans, God’s creations), Religion X’ers were
> allowed by God to be conquered and transported to ancient Babylon
> where they experienced a 1,600-year-long “vacation.”
> If you haven’t guessed yet, the religion I’m describing is
> Judaism. But don’t stop reading. The
> most shocking stuff is just ahead!
> While in Babylon, the “wise men” among the people began
> formulating new laws which supposedly supplemented and explained
> the time-tested Old Testament writings. But the new rules actually
> contradicted and eventually replaced the original laws!
> The “new and improved” laws are collectively known as the
> Talmud. Even though rabbis are Talmudic experts, probably not one
> Jew in a thousand (and not one non-Jew in ten thousand) knows what
> is in the Talmud. Without further delay, here’s some of the
> Talmud’s “wisdom” (plus sources):
> (I) THE TALMUD HATES SCIENCE:
> Hyenas turn into bats after seven years, and later on turn into
> thorns and demons (Baba Kamma, 16a).
> Being naked in front of a lamp causes epilepsy (Pesahim, 112b).
> There’s medicinal value in dirt found in an outhouse’s shadow,
> also in a white dog’s excrement (Gittin, 69a,b).
> (II) THE TALMUD HATES FEMALES:
> The birth of a girl is an unhappy event (Baba Bathra, 16b).
> It is never good to talk too much to women including one’s own
> wife (Aboth, 1.5).
> All women are “temperamentally light-headed” (Kiddushin, 80b).
> It is okay to divorce your wife if she spoils your food, or if
> you find a more beautiful woman (Gittin, 91a).
> (III) THE TALMUD HATES CHILDREN:
> It is lawful for a girl three years old to have sexual
> intercourse (Abodah Zarah, 37a; Kethuboth, 11b,39a; Sanhedrin,
> 55b,69a,b; Yebamoth, 12a,57b,58a,60b).
> When a man commits sodomy with a boy under nine years of age,
> it “is not deemed as pederasty” (Sanhedrin, 54b,55a).
> Sexual intercourse with a boy under the age of eight is lawful
> since it isn’t fornication (Sanhedrin, 69b).
> (In other words, Religion X became X-rated! Is it any wonder
> that many Jewish persons today are liberally involved with the
> current sexual revolution and are even favorable towards
> legalization of adult-child sex?)
> (IV) THE TALMUD HATES ALL NON-JEWS:
> Since all Gentiles are only animals, all Gentile children are
> bastards (Yebamoth, 98a).
> When a non-Jew robs a Jew, he has to pay him back, but if a Jew
> robs a non-Jew, he doesn’t have to pay him back. Moreover, when a
> Gentile kills a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, but when a Jew
> kills a Gentile, “there is no death penalty” (Sanhedrin, 57a).
> It is okay to “use subterfuges” in a court of law in order to
> cheat a non-Jew (Baba Kamma, 113a).
> (V) THE TALMUD HATES CHRIST AND CHRISTIANS:
> Jesus was born a bastard (Jewish Encyclopedia, “Jesus”;
> Yebamoth, 49b).
> Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a whore and “played the harlot
> with carpenters” (Sanhedrin, 106a,b).
> Jesus “practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy”
> (Sanhedrin, 43a).
> Jesus was punished and sent to Hell where he ended up in
> “boiling hot excrement” (Gittin, 56b,57a).
> Christians will go to Hell “and be punished there for all
> generations” (Rosh Hashanah, 17a).
> Those who read “the works of the Judeo-Christians, i.e., the
> New Testament” will end up in Hell (Sanhedrin, 90a).
> The books of the Christians “may not be saved from a fire, but
> they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names
> occurring in them” (Shabbath, 116a).
> (Now you know what’s been inspiring many of the anti-Christian
> attitudes and actions these days.)
> By roughly 500 A.D. Jewish scribes had completed the voluminous
> Talmud, the written version of what had long been the Jews’ oral
> tradition—the tradition that Jesus condemns in the 23rd chapter
> of Matthew and other parts of the New Testament.
> Whenever anyone claims that for 1500 years the Talmud
> needlessly aggravated Gentiles (who in turn put Jews into ghettos
> and even the Holocaust), Jews can look at even earlier history and
> claim that the “anti-Jewishness” of the New Testament forced Jews
> to hit back with their printed version of the Talmud.
> Actually the New Testament, like a newspaper, merely reflects
> the true condition of Judaism at that time. If someone could prove
> that damaging descriptions of Jews never appeared before the New
> Testament, that would be one thing. But during many centuries
> prior to Jesus or any Christians, Jews were saying and doing the
> same things that we find them still saying and doing during New
> Testament days!
> If the New Testament record of their words and works is
> “anti-Semitic,” is the Old Testament record of the same
> rebelliousness just as “anti-Semitic”?
> A while ago I was talking with a young woman in Los Angeles who
> is training to become a rabbi. I asked her about the Talmud. (She
> seemed shocked I should know so much about it already!) “Oh,” she
> said, “I don’t think it’s as relevant as it once was.” When I told
> her that the “hate” movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” was an
> amazingly accurate reflection of the Talmud—and that more such
> “hate” films are in the works because Hollywood takes the Talmud
> seriously—she had no explanation.
> In the future when “hate” laws are passed, will the incredibly
> hate-filled Talmud and some hate-promoting film studios be swept
> under the rug?
[You are allowed to publish this non-copyrighted article. To avoid the prevalent internet censorship, feel free to change the title to "The Original 'Hate' Criminals" (or Crooks, etc.) or "The Earliest 'Hate' Rebels" (or People, Persons, etc.) or "The History of Hate" (or the Jews, the Hebrews, Judaism, etc.) or any other meaningful title, or no title.]
[Also Google "David Letterman's Hate, Etc."]
February 25, 2010, 2:30 pmZot Zot says:
“Anonnn says:
The truth of the matter, sadly, is that if this was Robert Mugabe giving a speech on human rights, almost everyone here would find nothing wrong with disrupting him.”
This argument is tired. There have been plenty of speakers that the MSU has invited on the campus that many disagree with. As far as I know, you have to go back to 2001 to find anyone disrupting any o