The AP reports:
A California jury found 10 Muslim students guilty Friday of disrupting the Israeli ambassador’s university speech about U.S.-Israel relations, a case that stoked a debate about free speech….
They were charged with misdemeanor counts after standing up, one by one, and shouting prepared statements such as “propagating murder is not an expression of free speech.” …
Prosecutors said the students broke the law by interrupting Oren’s speech on U.S.-Israel relations and cutting short the program, despite calls to behave from campus officials. Defense attorneys argued the students had a right to protest….
Prosecutor Dan Wagner … showed video footage of university officials pleading with students to behave, but they kept interrupting the lecture. Wagner also showed emails sent among members of UC Irvine’s Muslim Student Union planning the disruption and calculating who was willing to get arrested….
From press accounts about the incident about the trial, it strikes me that the verdict is sound, and not a First Amendment violation. Here’s what I wrote in February, when the charges were filed, about the California meeting disruption law involved in this case — a law that I think is a constitutionally permissible content-neutral speech restriction:
1. The relevant statute, Cal. Penal Code § 403, says: “Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character … is guilty of a misdemeanor.” In re Kay (1970) held that, to be convicted under the statute, the prosecution must show “that the defendant [1] substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting by intentionally committing acts [2] in violation of implicit customs or usages or of explicit rules for governance of the meeting, of which he knew, or as a reasonable man should have known,” and [3] “the defendant’s activity itself — and not the content of the activity’s expression — substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting.”
2. In re Kay concluded that, in that case, the defendants’ rhythmic clapping and heckling was not punishable:
After Congressman Tunney had given a portion of his speech, a comparatively small part of the total crowd, between 25 and 250 persons, engaged in rhythmical clapping and some shouting for about five or ten minutes. This demonstration did not affect the program. Congressman Tunney, who had been using a microphone, finished his speech despite the protest, pausing to assure those protesting that they had a right to do so and to urge them to be grateful that they live in a country whose Constitution protects their right to demonstrate in that manner. At no time did either the speaker or the police ask the protestors to be silent or to leave. Following the end of the protest and of the congressman’s speech, the fireworks were shown. The police made no arrests during or immediately following the protest; the prosecution filed charges only some two weeks later….
In applying [section 403 as we have interpreted it], the nature of a meeting necessarily plays a major role. The customs and usages at political conventions may countenance prolonged, raucous, boisterous demonstrations as an accepted element of the meeting process; similar behavior would violate the customs and usages of a church service. Audience participation may be enthusiastically welcomed at a bonfire football rally or an athletic contest, but considered taboo at a solemn ceremony of a fraternal order. Explicit rules governing the time and place of permitted nonviolent expressions may in some circumstances fix the limits of permissible conduct. Violation of such customs or rules by one who knew or as a reasonable man should have known of them would justify the application of section 403. Thus, rather than enacting monolithic standards, section 403 draws its content from the implicit customs and usages or explicit rules germane to a given meeting.
In the instant case the application of section 403 must in the first instance be examined in the light of the nature of the meeting involved here: a large, public celebration held outdoors in a public park, featuring, in the course of a political campaign, a public official as the principal speaker. Informality characterized this public rally: people could come and go as they pleased; members of the audience could move at will to other areas of the “meeting.” By custom and usage nonviolent demonstrations of political views are reasonably to be expected at such a gathering. As the evidence at trial disclosed, our history reveals that heckling and disputatious remarks at such affairs are commonplace occurrences. Indeed, the principal speaker at the rally, an elected public official, stated that the relevant custom sanctioned the demonstrative conduct of petitioners as a legitimate means of expression. The prosecution offered no evidence that clapping, flag waving, and sloganeering are not generally accepted and permitted at a public meeting, addressed by controversial elected officials, such as the instant one. Since the nature of that meeting contemplated acceptance of the nonviolent expression of alternative viewpoints, the petitioners’ protest did not impair the conduct of the meeting but instead constituted a legitimate element of it.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to show that the activities substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting. Not every violation of a general custom or of an explicit meeting rule becomes so grave as to warrant application of criminal sanctions; nor does section 403 contemplate such extensive coverage….
Whether a given instance of misconduct substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting depends upon the actual impact of that misconduct on the course of the meeting; the question cannot be resolved merely by asking persons present at the meeting whether they were “disturbed.” In the instant case, the questioned conduct continued for only a few minutes, Congressman Tunney was able to complete his speech, and it does not appear that a large part of the audience could not hear his remarks. We conclude that the state failed to meet its burden of establishing a substantial impairment of the conduct of the meeting.
Finally, we do not believe that there was a sufficient showing that the defendants disturbed the meeting within the constitutionally permissible limits of the statutory term “disturb.” Generally, if disturbances are occasioned by nonviolent exercise of free expression, section 403 will require that defendants be shown to have engaged in such conduct with knowledge, or under circumstances in which they should have known, that they were violating an applicable custom, usage, or rule of the meeting. [Footnote, slightly moved: Meeting rules are rarely carefully spelled out or well known to the audience. In many cases these rules consist of aged and infrequently used by-laws or tacit understandings and habitual practices, or are otherwise cloaked in obscurity and uncertainty. Even if clear rules can be found, the officials of a meeting commonly suspend or simply ignore such rules to expedite the work of the meeting. Silence of meeting officials in the face of unusual or raucous activity necessarily suggests that the rules of the meeting permit the activity or that the officials do not intend to enforce prohibitory rules to the contrary....] In instances in which the appropriate standard of conduct lies in doubt, a warning and a request that defendants curtail their conduct, either by officials or law enforcement agents, should precede arrest or citation.
3. I’m inclined to think that the situation here is quite different from that in In re Kay. First, the customs of presentation at universities seem to me to be much less tolerant of heckling; there is plenty of time for audience participation during Q & A, but shouting during the speech is not at all customary. (Perhaps the California Supreme Court got it wrong in interpreting the statute in a way that requires a determination of the particular customs of a certain kind of event; but that seems to be required under the Kay decision.)
Second, and relatedly, the university administrators repeatedly stressed to students that such interruptions were improper. To the extent that Kay focused on what was said by the authorities during the meeting as evidence of custom (“Indeed, the principal speaker at the rally, an elected public official, stated that the relevant custom sanctioned the demonstrative conduct of petitioners as a legitimate means of expression”), this cuts the other way here.
Third, while it’s hard to tell exactly how disruptive the hecklers were in Kay, it appears from accounts of the Irvine meeting and the court’s account in Kay that the Irvine hecklers were much more disruptive, and did indeed “substantially impair[] the conduct of the meeting.”
For a more recent, but factually rather different, § 403 case, see McMahon v. Albany Unified School Dist. (2002).
Steve says:
I don’t think criminal charges were appropriate here. Student discipline would have been sufficient in my book. Disrupting a public event with protests isn’t particularly civilized, but I don’t think it means you deserve a criminal record. And there’s a little too much potential for the law to be abused in a way that isn’t viewpoint-neutral.
September 23, 2011, 4:51 pmJeff S. says:
TOS violation and possible federal felonies ?
September 23, 2011, 4:56 pmYankev says:
What if not all the protesters are students at that school?
September 23, 2011, 4:57 pmJeff S. says:
Sorry, just a federal misdemeanor unless this is conspiracy to harass persons using a computer. Hmmm… Seems they are getting off easy.
September 23, 2011, 5:04 pmShelbyC says:
I dunno, I think interfering with the free speech rights of others is serious and should be prosecuted more often. But it does seem kinda crappy that this type of thing happens all the time at colleges, and it only happens to be that 10 Muslims get prosecuted.
September 23, 2011, 5:20 pmCharles Epperson says:
Seems that the court is correct here. While shouting down someone is NOT a violation of rights (thoug it is rude)since those rights are confining on the government not on people who also have the same free speech rights; disrupting meetings and refusing to behave or leave when asked can be criminalized and have nothign to do with the content of the speech.
September 23, 2011, 5:27 pmBZ says:
Though not necessary to your point, I think it would have been edifying to compare this to Snyder v Phelps (the church protest case). One distinction seems to be that the church members did not, in fact, disrupt the soldier’s funeral, while here the point of the protest was to disrupt the event.
September 23, 2011, 5:48 pmCahlmee says:
Charles Epperson said:
It’s not a violation of First Amendment rights, unless the government is somehow complicit in it, but in a broader and non–legal sense it is an infringement of rights. As long as government does not restrict all sides from having a say, I’m fine with this sort of criminalization of disruption. We have too much of that. People flatter themselves as speaking truth to power, when in fact they are behaving as thugs.
September 23, 2011, 5:54 pmSteve says:
I dunno, I think the story says they were?
September 23, 2011, 6:26 pmShelbyC says:
right are “confining” on everyone. If you disrupt someone’s non-public forum and prevent them from speaking, you have violated their right to speak, just like if you kill them you have violated their right to life.
September 23, 2011, 6:45 pmZZTop says:
The people of the state of California disagree with you, since they made it a crime in their state.
September 23, 2011, 6:48 pmJ. Aldridge says:
Nothing wrong with defining and punishing the abuse of the freedom of speech. Every state constitution reserves that right.
September 23, 2011, 7:12 pmEventually someone says:
It’s the reverse of free speech to shout down a man’s speech.
September 23, 2011, 7:43 pmSteve says:
Lots of actions violate some law or another. Some of those actions should be charged, some should not, which is why we have prosecutorial discretion. In my opinion, student discipline would have been sufficient to address this particular offense.
September 23, 2011, 8:23 pmDavid Bernstein says:
The Muslim students association was suspended for a year, but on appeal it was reduced to probation. I don’t believe any of the individual students were disciplined by the university.
September 23, 2011, 8:26 pmOwen H says:
And for all those that like to trumpet, “Where is the ACLU now?” on issues they claim show its supposed hypocrisy, F.I.R.E. believes that in this case student protest was correctly punished, even though defended anti-Muslim protests. Makes it pretty clear that they believe in rights for some.
September 23, 2011, 8:50 pmKieth says:
A heckler, moved by some intense reaction to a speaker, is clearly not going to be prosecuted for “shouting down” any speaker, invited or otherwise. That is free speech. In this case, as I understand it, the muslim students conspired to interrupt and effectively silence the invited speaker some time before the event. Big difference. Wimpy discipline.
September 23, 2011, 8:52 pmOwen H says:
Law does not make that distinction.
September 23, 2011, 8:54 pmMr. Mister says:
I’m not satisfied that they were given very light sentences, and I’m disappointed that the people that actually attend this so-called institution of higher learning are letting this behavior occur without sanctions of a different nature; namely getting their asses kicked. We live in a society of wimpy and effeminate politically correct cowards.
September 23, 2011, 8:55 pmMartinned says:
This law does.
September 23, 2011, 9:06 pmTMK75 says:
When will the (usually liberal) idiots learn that freedom of speech means tolerating speech you dislike – whether it is the the Phelps clan or simply Ann Coulter. There is a big difference between protesting and letting your disapproval of the content be known, which is part of the grand American tradition, and preventing someone else from being heard at all. Supposedly tolerant liberals are the least tolerant of anyone with an opposing viewpoint (even though in this particular incident it was Muslims rather than the typical libtards shouting someone down).
I am an Ivy league grad and a lawyer, and the sad truth of it all is that it is precisely people with fancy pedigrees like mine who misunderstand such a basic concept.
September 23, 2011, 9:42 pmThorley Winston says:
It seems to me that FIRE has defended the rights of students and other speakers to voice their opinions but AFAIK they haven’t supported the “right” to try to silence speakers you disagree with by trying to disrupt their planned event. If you have an example in which FIRE has defended students for trying to disrupt an event or silence a speaker they disagree with, I’ll be happy to be reevaluate this.
September 23, 2011, 10:12 pmrpt says:
It is, after all, Orange County. Consider the defendants’ identity and query if this would have been prosecuted anywhere else in the state?
September 23, 2011, 10:43 pmJJ says:
Why? This particular case seems a particularly egregious one- with premeditated advance planning, coordinated group behavior, refusal to abide by repeated requests to stop the objectionable behavior. if THIS one should not be prosecuted, what should be?
September 23, 2011, 11:09 pmInstapundit » Blog Archive » U.C. IRVINE STUDENTS convicted for disrupting speech…. says:
[...] U.C. IRVINE STUDENTS convicted for disrupting speech. [...]
September 24, 2011, 12:01 amAlan K. Henderson says:
Is this the first time someone was ever convicted for engaging in the time-honored collegiate tradition of interrupting speeches?
September 24, 2011, 12:05 amJames says:
Most definitely not,
Chris Hedges’ speech at Rockford College in 2003 questioning the Iraq War in its early stages is an example.
“The college president told Hedges to wrap it up, and he resumed his speech to the sound of boos and foghorns. Some graduates and audience members turned their backs to Hedges. Others rushed up the aisle to protest the remarks; one student tossed his cap and gown to the stage before leaving.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/15982/
You can find video of the speech separated into four parts on YouTube. The event cost Hedges his job with the New York Times.
Why Volokh chose to highlight this event as particularly worthy of prosecution is perplexing if the only reason provided is that the disruption was planned. Hedges received treatment that was more disruptive yet I don’t believe any prosecutions occurred.
Finally, does California have nothing better to do than waste their money and time prosecuting these sorts of petty crimes?
September 24, 2011, 12:27 amLaurieK says:
@rpt – Give it a rest. This is a university where Muslim student associations have hosted pro-Hamas rallies. It was perfectly legal, and went ahead. Their actions this time were not legal, and for this, punishment was handed down. Actions have consequences, and sometimes they hurt. But that’s how rude little people learn.
September 24, 2011, 12:42 amDavidka says:
Several comments.
First, as I understand it, the students, both the ones from UC Irvine and those from UC Riverside, were not disciplined by either college (although the Muslim Students Union, an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood got a slap on the wrist.) Therefore it is fatuous to say “discipline by the school would have been enough.” UC Irvine has refused to act in the face of years of outrageous behavior. It has been ignoring far worse conduct by the Muslims there, including physical intimidation of Jews, and did its best to avoid imposing any discipline in this case as well.
The sentences— summary probation and 56 hours of community service— were disappointingly light. (And the court should have imposed community service on behalf of an Israeli or Jewish cause.)
It is not necessary to get into arguments about the customs of dissent at events like this. Ca. Penal Code sec 403 says “…or in violation of explicit rules for the event…” The rules were clear and publicized before the event, at the beginning of the event, and several times during, and the Muslims knew the rules and conspired to violate them to try to keep the speaker from being heard.
There is no free speech issue here, except for Ambassador Oren whose rights were violated and the audience, whose right to hear his views was violated. The D.A. should be praised for his courage in prosecuting the — let us be frank— haters. The judge should be criticized for the wimpy sentences he imposed.
September 24, 2011, 12:47 amricky says:
If a state looks the other way after a lynching, is that state-sanctioned murder? If a state looks the other way after a mob suppresses free expression, is that state-sanctioned suppression of free expression?
September 24, 2011, 12:50 amJames says:
You are being overly vague by using the term “haters”. Care to clarify what you were attempting to express with this statement?
September 24, 2011, 1:01 amRicardo says:
I’d say it’s specifically up to the people of Orange County. If they disagree with the DA’s use of discretion in this case, they are free to vote the DA out of office in the next election.
If MSU/MSA is like most student groups, each local chapter is entirely run and managed by full-time students on campus. I agree with the prosecution in this case but unless you have evidence that any of the students serving as officers of the local chapter are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, your assertion doesn’t make much sense.
September 24, 2011, 1:06 amMichael says:
I don’t see this as necessarily a free speech issue since this is not a case of government censoring expression. Be that as it may, many activists (usually on the left) believe that the right of free speech means they are protected from the consequences of rude, thuggish, and disruptive behavior — for which “disturbing the peace” statutes I should think would have been more appropriate.
Cheers,
September 24, 2011, 1:09 amBelladonna Rogers says:
If you watch the video of the event, there is no more powerful argument that the jurors reached a fair verdict than what you will witness for yourself here:
September 24, 2011, 1:11 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w96UR79TBw
Estragon says:
What precisely IS “freedom of speech” if it includes the right to disrupt speech one finds objectionable as long as one doesn’t act with the force of the state? Isn’t that a favored tactic of totalitarian “parties” which only seek to use the political process to seize power?
If a group of thugs can show up and shout me down at any public venue, what “freedom of speech” do I have?
September 24, 2011, 1:26 amMicha Elyi says:
Yeah, the of the speaker and those who came to hear him had rights. Those whose intent was to rob them of their right to assemble had no rights.
Try again.
September 24, 2011, 1:27 amkazinski says:
Exactly. You can’t trust most University Administrations, to fairly apply University standards. “Victims” are equal with everybody else, but some victims are more equal.
September 24, 2011, 1:38 amkate says:
I paid for this microphone.
The convicted students were not exercising their right to Freedom of Speech. The group sponsoring this speech owned the space for that particular time, therefore that group could control speech there. No one had a right to preempt what the owners planned.*
IMO the University should have removed the disrupters and the group who had sponsored the event should be able to recoup all costs plus penalties from the individuals who conspired or acted to steal the event.
* Standard disclaimer re illegal acts or those violating the contract which I hope the University had the group/individual they sold/lent the space sign.
September 24, 2011, 1:42 amrpt says:
What punishment has been handed down? Sentencing is a separate event from conviction. How much of your analysis is based on your antipathy for their position? Using the power of the state to punishment criminally those with whom you disagree because they disrupted a speech?
September 24, 2011, 1:46 amkazinski says:
Its a misdemeanor, so it is punishable by less than one year in jail. I think that sentencing them for less than that would belittle their protest and make it seem like their commitment to opposing Israel was tempered by a calculus based on the likelihood of getting punished. I respect them too much to think they should get off scotfree. And I think I would feel the same if it was Obama, or even Ahmadinejad that was speaking. I always think protesters that purposely break the law should get the maximum sentence to honor their commitment.
September 24, 2011, 2:23 amID says:
They’re lucky. In a Muslim country, their punishment would be acute lead poisoning via cranial injection. Thank you for abusing the right to free speech, not that you Muslims give a damn about America anyway…
September 24, 2011, 2:29 amLaurieK says:
@rpt – The punishment handed down is the conviction in a court of law of a misdomeanor, and the notation of such on one’s record. I have no idea what the sentence will be, likely no time served. As to my antipathy for their position, yes, I have contempt for it. How much of my analysis of the situation is based on that? None, really, as I am not a fan doling out/curtailing rights for any reason, including politics. What’s clear as crystal here is that, unlike their Hamas rally, which was perfectly legal, this display was illegal. Again, actions have consequences. Let them deal with whatever comes of what they did.
You seem very fond of ascribing motive where none exists. First, using the location of this case as some kind of proof of pre-determined bias. And second, assuming I’m for denying those with whom I disagree. What’s with that?
September 24, 2011, 2:38 amb9786rdklju5d6j says:
It’s not just interfering with free speech right of the speaker. It is interfering with others who want to hear what the speaker has to say. If they disrupt the speech they are in a sense robbing the listeners of their chance to hear the speaker.
September 24, 2011, 6:34 amegoist says:
In this case, it’s akin to theft. The speaker, school and attendees are engaged in trade. The protesters swiped the product from those that were purchasing it. If they were dissatisfied with the product, they could simply walk out and attempt a refund.
September 24, 2011, 6:52 amMuslim Students Shout Down Israeli Ambassador, Found Guilty of Conspiracy says:
[...] Eugene Volokh sheds some useful light on this ruling. Despite talk of “conspiracy,” here’s [...]
September 24, 2011, 7:23 amAlan K. Henderson says:
In response to my own question, “Don’t tase me bro” completely slipped my mind.
Interrupting speeches on campus is such an old phenomenon I’ve wondered how many people actually get punished for it.
September 24, 2011, 8:20 amOwen H says:
So those who disrupted speeches by Ahmadinejad, both recently and in the past, should have been criminally prosecuted?
September 24, 2011, 8:28 amOwen H says:
When Tea Party activists shout down discussions at town hall meetings, as they have done in Philadelphia and elsewhere, can we send them to jail?
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/teabaggers-try-to-shout-down-health-care-reform-at-town-halls.php
September 24, 2011, 8:34 amArthur Kirkland says:
F.I.R.E.’s acquiescence with respect to most of the most severe censorship policies and practices on American campuses establishes that F.I.R.E.’s flame for freedom burns intermittently.
September 24, 2011, 9:56 amIndependent Patriot says:
I for one am glad that the jury in this case understood the law. I find it reprehensible that the university who sanctioned and supported these actions by the MSA over the years thinks that it somehow is the one who should mete out the only form of punishment. Hubris does come to mind. If there are other laws broken on campus, such as rape and theft, does the university think that it alone can decide punishment? Why should this law be any different? If you live in society and are part and parcel of that society all laws apply to you.
This law may be a misdemeanor but it is a monumental issue. Our nation was built on the premise that ALL persons have a right to speak. That you do not have the right to prevent someone else from voicing their opinion no matter how much you hate what they say. These student violated a basic tenet of our civilization. They should be punished. Their mentors and professors who taught them that their actions were allowable and not reprehensible should be sanctioned. The political correctness of this university and the university system is insulting to the rest of civil society.
Why were these students singled out rather than other political parties or university students members? Honestly I have yet to hear of too many incidences that students have been known to attack liberal or anti-Israel speakers and as far as shouting Tea Parties, these instances do not have the same elements as the Irvine 11 situation for several reasons:
-these students have a history of harassment and violent attacks against pro-Israel operatives on their college campus. The college where they attend school does nothing and infact supports their actions. It is reasonable that the community at large had had enough of the students violations of law, civil discourse and the university’s inaction so they took matters into their own legal hands.
-there was an identifiable conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of another individual. At no time has anyone ever alleged a conspiracy on the part of any other political group across the country to violate someone else’s civil rights.
-there was an identifiable time for question and answers with the Ambassador that would have allowed the students to voice their opinion if they wanted to challenge what the Ambassador said. Their aim was not discourse their aim was to shut down his speech. It is a violation of a basic tenet of our society to deny someone their civil rights. Holmes said , you may swing your fist, but your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. You do not have the right to prevent someone else from expressing their rights under the constitution, if you do so it is a violation.
Lastly but even more importantly, if these students truly feel that they have a right to do what they did even if it is a violation of the law, they should take their punishment and grow up. There is no special class that says “university students” can violate the law and do as they please.
Society has rules and obligations that come along with being a member. These students while they study political science should be taught their obligations in a democratic society and while at it someone should also teach them some basic manners as well.
September 24, 2011, 9:56 amRoberrt says:
A Muslim student claims “…propagating murder is not an expression of free speech.” If any group knows about ‘propagating murder’ it would be radical muslims.
September 24, 2011, 10:00 amRobert says:
Owen–a real hoot when you lefties talk about tolerance and free speech…all while saluting the intolerance towards and the silencing of conservative on college campuses (and every where else).
How about posting one of the hundreds of videos of fascist union thugs disrupting the legislature in Wisconsin or assaulting tea party members in St. Louis or calling for physical violence against conservatives.
September 24, 2011, 10:14 amArthur Kirkland says:
I encourage you to be seated, have some water and aspirin at the ready, place a fan at your side, and ensure smelling salts are handy before you begin to read the censorship codes (or consider the censorship practices) of many prominent conservative and religious colleges.
September 24, 2011, 10:18 amrpt says:
This is a prosecutorial discretion issue. I suggest that your contempt for the protestors disqualifies you from opining on the issue. The Tea Party comparisons are pretty clear.
September 24, 2011, 10:56 amneurodoc says:
IIRC, 7 of them were UCI students, but 3 were UC Riverside students, so not subject to UCI discipline. A private school would be within its rights to discipline students though the conduct took place on another school’s campus, but don’t know whether UC Riverside, another UC school, could/did discipline theirs.
In any event, neurodoc thinks that this was the right outcome and that it is ludicrous to argue, as the students’ supporters have, that they are being punished for the exercise of free speech rights.
What in your opinion would have been an appropriate disciplinary response by the school. Should they have been made to write 1000x something like “I will not try to prevent invited visitors from speaking;” been suspended for a year; made to do some sort of community service; or what?
Not certain, but think you are wrong about that, that they did in fact receive some punishment, perhaps suspension for some period of time. But again, not certain. The problem is that student disciplinary measures are generally cloaked in confidentiality, so we don’t know all the details.
September 24, 2011, 11:06 amneurodoc says:
You must not be a lawyer, because it is a fundamental requirement of the trade that they be able both to analogize and distinguish, and you are remarkably bad at the latter.
No one, let alone a group of conspirators, came to that graduation ceremony prepared to keep the commencement speaker from delivering his remarks. What happened was that as Hedges went on belaboring the graduating students and their proud family and friends with his Leftie anti-war harangue, many in the audience became increasingly irritated and started booing him. The school president had the legal authority to cut Hedges short as he tried to do, like a vaudeville manager using a hook to get someone giving a disasterous performance off-stage, and might have turned off the microphone if Hedges didn’t finally take the “hint” to stop.
30 years or so ago, Joseph Lelyveld, the the NYT’s foreign editor and later its executive editor, spoke at a Smithsonian lecture series. During the Q&A that followed, neurodoc rose to complain about the biased reporting of their Mideast correspondent Christopher Hedges. Lelyveld rejected the complaint, lavishing fulsome praise on their reporter who was extraordinarily qualified, speaking fluent Arabic and being a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. But the expression of Hedges’ bias in his reporting became more and more florid, and while that bias mirrored the NYT’s own bias, it became too florid for even the NYT and they and Hedges parted ways. The fact that Hedges was booed off the stage at Rockford did not cause Hedges to lose his job, as you mistakenly assert. And since then, through magazine articles, books, and his blog, Hedges has left no possible doubt about his anti-Israel, anti-war, far left thinking, which would disqualify him as a reporter for any MSM outlet.
It may be seen that such distinctions don’t impress upon you, and that you are willing to let allow some to deny the free speech rights of others, characterizing it as inconsequential stuff, “petty crime,” and objecting to the money spent on the prosecution of those students.
September 24, 2011, 12:14 pmWow says:
It’s interesting that in 21st-century America, at least when it comes to certain issues, we have less regard for freedom of expression — for the spirit of rebellion, dissent, protest, and controversy — than they did in 19th-century France, where many a play was famously hissed, booed, jeered and shouted off the stage by a portion of the audience on the first night of a theatrical show, leading to complete cancellation of hundreds of scheduled performances. In today’s well-mannered American liberty, a prosecutor’s sense of academic propriety is enough to send a group of protestors to jail for a year.
September 24, 2011, 12:16 pmneurodoc says:
Why don’t you serve up telling examples so we can judge for ourselves?
September 24, 2011, 12:18 pmneurodoc says:
Arthur, you do appreciate, don’t you, the relevant differences between what can be banned or limited on a private campus and what can be banned or limited on a public one? (And what idiot doesn’t know what they have signed up for and agreed to when they enroll at a school like Liberty University?)
September 24, 2011, 12:27 pmBrian Macker says:
Egoist,
Whether or not they were dissatisfied with the product (either before or after) they are not due a refund. How exactly will the refunded ticket be resold at the point?
Besides they knew before they bought it that they weren’t going to like the product. Furthermore they knew they weren’t going to like watching anyone else consuming the product. Hell they don’t like it even when they don’t have to watch.
Owen H,
“And for all those that like to trumpet, “Where is the ACLU now?” on issues they claim show its supposed hypocrisy, F.I.R.E. believes that in this case student protest was correctly punished, even though defended anti-Muslim protests. Makes it pretty clear that they believe in rights for some. ”
It’s not a supposed hypocrisy. It’s a real one. Some rights aren’t important to them even thought they claim to support all. I’ve seen no evidence of your other claim, and you haven’t provided any. So I’ll assume that’s due to a bias on your part until you correct my intuitions. Usually they are pretty good.
An intuition informed in this case because it is obvious who’s rights were being violated and that FIRE is on the correct side. Further informed by the fact this upsets you.
I think these conspirators should all serve the max. Even the ones who weren’t there. Isn’t it a crime to conspire to commit a crime? I’m pretty sure they have such a statute in California.
If not we can always apply the Federal code 18 U.S.C. § 241.
I hope they all get and serve their maximum reasonable time in jail.
BTW, I think they were violating civil rights even without the local statute. I’m wondering how the law would handle a case where the local state hasn’t even passed a law to protect such obvious rights. Would underlying crime be punishable? Could the federal conspiracy law still kick in?
Is gun walker such a conspiracy to deprive me of my 2nd amendment rights? What about the Democratic party? :)
September 24, 2011, 1:00 pmDebrah says:
One wonders if there was a response from that courageous UCI Law “founding Dean” Erwin Chemerinsky to all this.
Or did he cowardly sit on his hands as he did when he was still at the law school at Duke University and just watch while three innocent students’ rights were violated, thwarting due process?
What’s that, Erwin?
Cowering and going-along-to-get-along at Duke kept you in the running for the “Founding Dean” perch at Irvine?
OK, solid.
Now you can go about kibitzing and running your mouth nonstop as you did during the bygone OJ trial.
Erwin’s got his mojo back!
September 24, 2011, 1:00 pmwhit says:
i don’t t hink fire supported the “don’t tase me bro, guy” who also (it turned out) planned his dusruption beforehand and refused to get off the mike so the event could continue
September 24, 2011, 1:17 pmBrian Macker says:
Oh and Owen one example I have for my opinion of the ACLU is their behavior or lack of it on the New Black Panther voters rights issue. Not only does it depend on what civil right is being violated but also on the race of the person who’s having their rights violated. Apparently the Obama administration agrees with this color biased application of the law.
September 24, 2011, 1:21 pmwhit says:
fwiw, for all the people complaining about “i don’t think these kids should get a criminal record”, i can’t speak for cali, but in every other state i have worked (3), it’s ROUTINE for first time offenders to get some kind of “continued w/o a finding” result, such that if they complete their (usually a year) probation w/o incident, the conviction is essentially wiped from their record. iow, they can honestly answer “have you ever been convicted of a crime” with “no” on employment questions. granted, not many employers (ime) even ask about MISdemeanor convictions
shouting down and interrupting speech (vs. a quick disagreement verbally) is nOT free speech.
contrast with what students did at the Evergreen State College when Mumia “spoke” (via broadcast iirc) at commencement. the students who protested having a scumbag cop killer speaking at the graduation, simply stood up and turned away from the stage, expressing their displeasure WITHOUT interrupting the speaker or preventing him from continuing to be heard.
September 24, 2011, 1:22 pmwhit says:
iirc, he continually failed to make this same distinction in another thread. it’s a common ploy. NOBODY and i mean NOBODY goes to liberty U without understanding it places IMMENSE restrictions upon the civil liberties of students. heck, it’s one of those places where premarital sex can get you expelled (iirc, the same is true at BYU).
it’s a silly analogy, because nobody’s rights are violated if these policies are clearly stated to prospective students, and they agree to them.
they are buying a product (a college education) from a provider who makes it clear the limitations and the buyer is aware of same.
iow, caveat emptor.
i can think premarital sex is a GOOD THING and this policy is stupid and yet respect the authority of liberty et al to have such a policy and enforce it
September 24, 2011, 1:29 pmrpt says:
You may be right about the expungement following the completion of probation. I don’t know if it applies to this offense. It turns out the judge did give them a pretty standard misdemeanor sentence following conviction: 3 years probation, community service and fines/costs.
September 24, 2011, 1:31 pmrpt says:
Attention Brian:
There was/is no such “New Black Panthers voters rights issue”, besides the giant post election hype. No intimidated voters. No voters prevented from voting.
September 24, 2011, 1:35 pmneurodoc says:
The statute here, Cal. Penal Code § 403, starts: “Every person who…” Is that as common a way for a criminal statute to begin as “Any person who…” or “a person who…”?
September 24, 2011, 1:42 pmBrian Macker says:
Whit,
What exactly happened in that case that makes your point, which I am also unsure about?
I couldn’t remember what happened so I went to look at a video. He seems to be at the Q&A mike asking a question when his mike is cut and some guards start grabbing at him and Kerry says something like “That’s alright. Let me answer his question.”. So in fact Kerry was calling the guards off. At that point the kid asks, “Are you arresting me”. No verbal instructions are given by the guards and the kid has a reasonable expectation to wait and hear the answer to his question. After all Kerry called the guards off (or police, I’m not sure) and said he’d answer.
From another video angle I didn’t notice anyone telling him to stop his behavior before someone cut the mike and the grabbing begins.
Can you just grab someone in that way before you ask them to leave. I mean, if I notice someone on my land and he starts asking me a question can I just grab him, pull him around, throw him on the ground and then taser him? If I can’t then can somebody I hire to stand around on my property do the same thing?
September 24, 2011, 1:46 pmneurodoc says:
The statute here, Cal. Penal Code § 403, starts: “Every person who…” Is that as common a way for a criminal statute to begin as “Any person who…” or “a person who…”?
Also, this misdemeanor is punishable by up to one years in jail, but the students received 3 years probation. So there is an upper bound on the amount of time of possible jail time is capped, but time on probation is not, so could have been for 10 years if the judge had so ruled? And there was no mention of “probation before judgment” (PBJ) or other sentencing provision that could see the conviction eventually expunged, so we can conclude the convictions will remain a matter of public record or we can’t rely on the news accounts in this regard?
September 24, 2011, 1:52 pmTMK75 says:
Owen H, as usual it is the degree which is relevant. Standing up and shouting your disapproval is a temporary disruption to the speaker. It should get you ejected from the event, and no more. Conduct that prevents the speaker from delivering their address moves beyond that and constitutes an attempt to suppress their speech. That is wholly deserving of sanction.
I did not check your link to the Tea Partiers at a town hall event, but if they engaged in behavior that was a coordinated effort to prevent the speaker from being able to be heard at all, then I would fully support the application of any relevant statutes.
And as usual we have Arthur Kirkland comparing apples to oranges in a futile attempt to make a false equivalence. I am glad to see a few people have already undercut his argument.
September 24, 2011, 2:35 pmDiggs says:
We have no rights unless we are willing to defend those rights. The right to freedom of speech needs to be defended just like every other right, and that included prosecuting those who would take that right away from us. The muslim students were not participating in their “freedom of speech” as recognized by any court or constitution. When the courts fail to protect our rights, we have no government worth keeping.
September 24, 2011, 2:50 pmBrian Macker says:
LOL. RPT, it ain’t just a river in Egypt.
September 24, 2011, 3:09 pmrpt says:
If there are facts to be denied, please recite them for us. Any court findings? One incident or many? Bush administration DOJ determinations? Use all the space you need for your answer.
September 24, 2011, 4:26 pmneurodoc says:
“If MSU/MSA is like most student groups, each local chapter is entirely run and managed by full-time students on campus.” (emphasis added) Do you have anything to show that that is in fact the case where MSU/MSA is concerned generally, and at UCI in particular? Before dismissing/discounting links between MSU/MSA and the Muslim Brother as you have done, did you look for the evidence of links, e.g., http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/31.pdf?
September 24, 2011, 4:45 pmFub says:
Approximate answer — I think the primary exceptions to CA Penal Code Section 1203.4 et seq expungement or certificate of rehabilitation and pardon are driver license revocation or suspensions (for certain vehicle code violations), firearm possession disabilities for certain offenses and prohibitions from holding public office for certain offenses.
I don’t think that a PC 403 conviction would be subject to any of those.
But I could be wrong.
It is worth noting that even expunged offenses can be pleaded and proved as prior offenses in any subsequent criminal indictment.
September 24, 2011, 7:27 pmneurodoc says:
So we think the type of offense does not preclude expungement later, but is the conditionality (e.g., probation before judgment) done upfront at the time of the original sentencing or could it done like a sentence modification later? (Of course, the problem is that we must rely on press accounts that may not get all the details correctly.)
And what about the length of probation? The maximum sentence would be a year in jail, but they are being put on probation for three times as long, that is three years. Any limits on how long a judge can set the probationary term?
September 24, 2011, 7:41 pmCaptDMO says:
Um..without interviewing EVERY person qualified to vote at those polls, how could you possibly avow that with certainty?
Would such a statement stand up in a court of law?
Intimidated people have been know to avoid “official” complaints.
September 24, 2011, 7:47 pmDavid G. Epstein says:
Regardless of whether this prosecution stands up legally, it was poor prosecutorial judgment.
Oren and the government he represents are, morally speaking, the real criminals.
September 24, 2011, 9:52 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Is not a better question whether F.I.R.E. recognizes the distinction, as when it ignores a Liberty or Grove City while excoriating a Harvard or Georgetown?
September 24, 2011, 9:57 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Are you declaring “Mission Accomplished!”?
September 24, 2011, 9:59 pmFub says:
CA law is sufficiently complicated that I’m not going to try to explain it in detail here. Heck, I probably can’t recall all the details from memory.
There are basically two avenues for expungement, three after passage of Prop. 36 some years ago.
1. After serving sentence a convicted person may apply for and receive expungement of the conviction. A court must decide to grant it. Government can object and show cause why not to grant it.
2. A court can offer deferred adjudication conditioned upon a guilty or nolo contendre plea by defendant. Defendant completes probation successfully without violating terms, and his conviction is deemed not to have occurred. Again, government can object and argue against this in court at the time of the offer.
3. Since Prop. 36 a person accused of nonviolent drug possession for first or second offenses is required to be granted something similar to deferred adjudication, participation in and completion of a drug treatment program, and drug testing. Judges can impose other conditions also. Upon third offense a judge can find defendant not amenable to drug treatment, and sentence to 30 days in jail.
There are other exceptions and complications as well, but those are roughly the basics.
Note that expungement is only for limited purposes, primarily for legally answering “no” to non-governmental questions of “have you ever been arrested or convicted…?” by employers, landlords, etc.
Government can plead and prove even expunged convictions when prosecuting for subsequent crimes.
I never encountered misdemeanor probation of more than three years. So I never found need to research longer terms.
However, there are 3 types of probation: informal (sometimes called court probation), formal and intensive. Formal and intensive require regular meetings with probation officers; intensive moreso. Intensive is popularly considered to be a setup for violation of probation and a trip to the slammer.
Informal is whatever supervision the judge decides, such as “stay out of trouble for a year”, or “stay out of trouble and come back in six months and report to me.”
All probation is subject to other terms and conditions imposed by a court as well. For example: abstinence from alcohol, or staying away from specific persons or places, etc. Legal validity of unusual terms of probation is above my pay grade for commenting here.
HTH.
September 25, 2011, 12:03 amRicardo says:
He who makes the assertion has the burden of proof. It’s not my job to fact-check every potentially spurious claim of Muslim Brotherhood association made by some anonymous commenter on the internet.
September 25, 2011, 12:16 amScott from Ohio says:
My freedom of speech ends when it impedes your freedom of speech. It seems clear to me that the point of the students’ speech was to prevent the ambassador’s speech. Freedom of speech here clearly protects the ambassador, not the students.
September 25, 2011, 12:25 amneurodoc says:
It did help. Thanks.
Now, if anyone is clear as to what, if any, academic discipline was imposed in addition to what the court has imposed after conviction on the misdemeanor charges, that would be of interest. Did the UCI (and UC Riverside?) take meaningful disciplinary measures or just give them something like a finger wag? Steve is one of those who has objected to the prosecution of these students, saying as he did, “In my opinion, student discipline would have been sufficient to address this particular offense.” He didn’t say, though, what sort of disciplinary measures he thought appropriate under the circumstances, nor have others like him specified what they think would have been called for by way of punishment, leaving neurodoc to wonder how seriously they take the whole business and whether they would have wished to see the school do anything more than admonish the students that what they did was wrong and they should not do it again.
September 25, 2011, 1:18 amneurodoc says:
If that was your point, you might simply have said something to the effect of “where is your proof for that assertion,” but you didn’t. You offered your tepid rebuttal by way of a counterfactual assertion of your own, though one so general and imprecise as to be effectively unarguable, and hence useless (“If MSU/MSA is like most student groups…”). And to it, you added, “your assertion doesn’t make much sense,” wich doesn’t make much sense. (You think it doesn’t make sense because you don’t understand the charge or in your opinion it is fantastical on its face?)
And it seems your interest in the matter is insufficient for you to bother to follow the link you were given to have a look at the relevant evidence served up to you, as it was. Evidence like that there might be sufficient (or might not) to carry the burden or shift it back onto those who would say otherwise. But if you have no interested in the truthfulness of the assertion you objected to, what is the point?
September 25, 2011, 1:32 amneurodoc says:
So your response to a very straightforward and on-point question is, “I don’t care to answer the question you have put to me, so will ask my own question of myself and ignore yours.”
September 25, 2011, 1:36 amRicardo says:
Which is exactly what I did in my comment.
September 25, 2011, 3:27 amneurodoc says:
No, you didn’t, and certainly not exactly. You stepped up to gainsay the factual assertion tossed out by Davidka (“If MSU/MSA is like most student groups, each local chapter is entirely run and managed by full-time students on campus.”) And albeit a very watery generalization, one not easily scrutinized, it was offered in the form of rebuttal, which is an assumption of a burden of proof. (You don’t think, do you, that that which is asserted by way of rebuttal of another’s factual assertion need not be proven up because it is offered as rebuttal.) If you had offered what you did by way of a generalization apropos of nothing at all, then there would be no reason to expect you to offer proof in support of it.
What is most interesting, however, is that while you were moved to challenge Davidka‘s assertion, when pertinent evidence in support of that assertion is then served up to you, you decline to consider it. Do you think it consequential whether or not the Muslim Students Union/Muslim Student Association, a national (international because it includes Canada?) Or, do you have no opinion to whether it is or isn’t, as well as none as to whether in fact there is a link between the MSU/MSA and the Muslim Brotherhood? (You weren’t expressing personal doubt about the existence of such a link, you were only calling upon Davidka to adduce some proof of one?)
September 25, 2011, 11:01 amArthur Kirkland says:
I recognize the distinction between private and public universities. That distinction has little or no relevance, however, to the precipitating point (whether liberal idiots are the most common practitioners of censorship and therefore should learn to tolerate speech they dislike):
I responded by providing evidence from the reality-based world that indicates that no one else censors like a conservative, particularly a religious conservative.
You, apparently pursuing a tangential-at-best argument concerning UC-Irvine and perhaps desiring to deflect attention from right-wing censors, responded by asking whether I recognize the distinction between private and public universities.
As I wrote, I recognize the distinction.
F.I.R.E., however, does not. It recognizes the distinction between schools its funding and ideological supporters prefer (Liberty, Regent, Grove City) and schools its funding and ideological supporters wish to criticize (Harvard, Georgetown). Playing from this right-wing formation, F.I.R.E. ignores the conduct of the most egregious practitioners of intolerance toward speech those censors dislike. This provides theatrical ammunition to those who believe — or, at least, argue — that liberal idiots are responsible for most censorship.
September 25, 2011, 11:40 amKevin P. says:
Yes, let’s be like 19-th century France, where thuggish behavior by a portion of the audience (your words) led to the deprivation of the free speech rights of the playwright and the rest of the audience.
September 25, 2011, 11:50 amneurodoc says:
Funny, the e-mail notice neurodoc got of your post contained a personalized barb, but he doesn’t see it in the actual post here now. Maybe you thought better of it and edited it out before it was permantently memorialized. If you did, neurodoc appreciates it.
Now, believe it or not, neurodoc isn’t all that familiar with F.I.R.E. He has on a handful of occasions followed links to their website from VC threads, so has a general idea of what they are about, but he doesn’t know enough about them to know whether there is anything to your charge of a bias in who they go after. So, neurodoc was really inviting you to persuade him of your claim. But making your case on the basis of their failure to decry “censorship” at Liberty, Regent, and Grove City is most unpersuasive. As noted before, and many times, those who chose to attend those private institutions enter into expressed or implied contracts requiring them to accept the schools’ values, which don’t allow unfettered free speech. There are no such contracts at private schools like Harvard and Georgetown (Hoya Saxa!), and none anything like those at L, R, and GC are legally permissible at public institutions. So if a private school openly states policies that do not permit unfettered free speech, as L, R, and GC do, openly and proudly, F.I.R.E. is going to ignore them; if a school purports to respect the free speech, though not obliged to do so because they are a private insitutuion, then F.I.R.E. will call them out when in fact they may be seen as not doing so.
If we leave the singular likes of L, R, and GC out, as we should for the just stated reasons, do you have any convincing examples of to offer of what you claim is ideologic bias on F.I.R.E.’s part?
September 25, 2011, 12:07 pmTMK75 says:
Arthur those religious schools you cite such as Liberty are fringe schools, hardly part of even the mainstream conservative movement. Regardless, those schools have clearly written policies that their student body agree to, and as far as I know they apply those policies evenly to their student bodies.
FIRE for the most part concerns itself with public universities, where 1st amendment protections are much greater, and the schools are more within the mainstream of American society. The ACLU already does a fairly admirable job defending free speech rights in most mainstream to liberal areas. FIRE exists in part to fill the gap where the ACLU fails – it is not their job and they certainly do not have the funding to take on every case.
Finally, to go back to my original quote that you cited, I even stated “(usually liberal).” I never denied that some conservatives have censorship issues. I am a libertarian – the religious right disgusts me just as much if not more than the progressive left.
September 25, 2011, 12:11 pmneurodoc says:
You say that the “prosecutor’s sense of academic propriety” was “enough to send a group of protestors to jail for a year.” But of course that wasn’t enough. A judge and jury had to be satisfied that the defendants had breached Cal. Penal Code § 403.
Suppose the event had not taken place on campus, but had instead gone on in an off-campus hall rented for the night. So, no considerations of “academic propriety” and no prospect of academic discipline. If a group conspired to keep the invited speaker from being heard and succeeded in doing so in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 403, would you have objected to their prosecution? Would the identity of the speaker and of the disrupters affect your answer?
(And for the record, none of those convicted were sentenced to any time in jail, let alone one year in jail.)
September 25, 2011, 12:37 pmneurodoc says:
A minor quibble/question, if neurodoc may be permitted:
There is no redundancy in “religous right,” since not everyone on the right is religious, the “religious right” being a particular grouping over on the right. But is there a redundancy in “progressive left”? neurodoc asks because he is genuinely uncertain about the use of the term “progressive” these days to describe where an individual is ideologically positioned. Can one be over on the left and not be “progressive”? Are those who style themselves “socialists” to be counted as “progressives”? How about those who self-identify as “communists”? Does “progressive” apply to everyone to the left of center, no matter how close or far they are from the center? What was until recently referred to as “liberal” has folded into what is now “progressive,” so they are effectdively one and the same, or “progressive” encompasses more than just those who previously would have been labeled “liberal”? When did “liberal” get replaced by “progressive”?
neurodoc realizes that unlike the switch that was made on one day in Scandanavia from right-hand drive to left-hand drive, the switch from “liberal” to “progressive” was not quite so abrupt, and may not be complete even now, but he wonders when others would say the migration was largely achieved. Within the past 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? No one would say it happened longer ago, would they? And what date would they give for the demise of the Progressive movement of the 20th century? Can any paarticular reason be given for the end to the Progressive movement?
September 25, 2011, 12:52 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Your inference is accurate. The aborted homage to Shawshank Redemption was neither amusing nor appropriate. I regret its brief life.
September 25, 2011, 1:13 pmneurodoc says:
You were going to caste neurodoc as the warden and yourself as Andy in your version of the movie? Needless to say, neurodoc thinks that would have lacked altogether in verisimilitude.
September 25, 2011, 1:26 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I believe F.I.R.E. regularly issues “red alerts” with respect to (certain) private institutions that publish or enforce “speech codes.”
What distinguishes a censorious written code or enforcement decision at Liberty or Grove City (apparently motivated by a perception that censorship will advance perceived morality) from a censorious written code or enforcement action issued by Harvard or Tufts (similarly motivated)? All of these schools are private institutions claiming to advance morality through censorship, although from different foundations. All of these schools inform students concerning the institution’s rules (or “speech codes”).
I dislike both forms of censorship, whether grounded in “divine law” or “diversity,” in “Judeo-Christian principles” or “anti-harassment principles,” in “heresy” or “offensiveness,” in “traditional family values” or “respect for all.”
I believe F.I.R.E. diminishes the force of its arguments by advancing them selectively, along a line of demarcation distorted to flatter its donors’ and other supporters’ irrelevant preferences.
September 25, 2011, 1:35 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Do you not customarily align with authority figures, while I identify with the underdog? In the context of this blog, your thinking makes you The Man; mine is that of a prisoner to reality-based, liberal nonsense.
In any event, I agree I should not attempt to take the role of Andy. (Perhaps I was overwhelmed by respect for Andy’s integrity.) Being Arthur Kirkland is not so bad; Andy Dufresne was never nominated for an Academy Award.
September 25, 2011, 1:48 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I share your dislike of censorship regardless of the point along the ideological continuum from which it originates. I also share your lack of support for the religious right.
I believe the censorious conservative schools — Grove City, Regent, Hillsdale, Biola, dozens or even hundreds of Catholic institutions, and others — are part of today’s mainstream conservatism.
September 25, 2011, 1:59 pmTMK75 says:
Interesting point Neurodoc. While I am no great linguist like EV, nor a scholar of American politics like Michael Barone, as I understand things progressive tends to represent the farther left side of the political spectrum. Liberal captures a slightly broader range of the political left, and in many cases is simply synonymous with being a Democrat.
I would say that in today’s political evironment about 1/2 to perhaps 2/3 of the Democratic party qualifies as progressive. As for socialists – I think all socialists could be labeled progressives, but not all progressives are socialists (and the same for communists). They all share the common impulse and desire for an “enlightened elite” to control the lives of the masses.
September 25, 2011, 4:34 pmAlan K. Henderson says:
I’ve been wondering what prompted the passage of Cal. Penal Code § 403. Any property’s authorities reserve the right to kick out people who try to shut down speaking engagements on said property. Evidently someone thought that the problem was serious enough to warrant legal recourse.
September 25, 2011, 5:10 pmBrian Macker says:
I think a videotape of the crime being committed should be enough for the ACLU. Also there was a cover-up so you won’t find much was done about it.
September 25, 2011, 7:01 pmBrian Macker says:
Oh, and in case you are not aware of the nature of that black racist standing outside the polling booths with a billy club, take a look at the other youtube video of him calling for the murder of all “cracker” babies. He’s a member of a group modeled on one that had planted bombs.
Do you think it would be voter intimidation if some member of the “new KKK”, who advocated killing all nigger babies, were to stand outside a polling place to provide “security”.
If you watch the polling place video the black guy asks for “identification” from the guy making the video. You think our hypothetic KKK member asking blacks for identification outside a polling place isn’t intimidating?
Yeah, it’s the same black racist guy who’s advocating genocide on white babies that was standing outside the polling place with a weapon asking a white person for his identification.
You, like this administration, are glaringly hypocritical.
September 26, 2011, 2:24 amBrian Macker says:
Arthur Kirkland,
Do those private religious colleges that FIRE does not criticize receive public funding? Is FIRE criticizing private secular schools that have no public funding for their speech codes?
I think it more complicated than you make it out to be. Also, when does Marxism cross the line into religion? It sure seems like a religion to me, and it certainly touches on religious issues like the existence of god. Wouldn’t teaching Marxism (not teaching about Marxism) and enforcing Marxist rules, count as advocating a religious viewpoint?
In case you don’t know the history. Speech codes came out of a living Marxist ideology.
I’m an atheist BTW.
September 26, 2011, 2:31 amJustice is done « Internet Scofflaw says:
[...] jury has convicted the Muslim students at UC Irvine who organized a disruption that ultimately prevented a speech by [...]
September 26, 2011, 9:59 amyankev says:
Unless you can cite instances of FIRE coming to the defense of those who disrupted pro-Muslim protests, shouting down the pro-Muslim speakers, your analogy is spectacularly inapt. Viva la moral equivalence.
September 26, 2011, 10:44 amBill Alexander says:
Yankev, the first question is are there instances of people shouting down pro-Muslim protests? I am not aware of any, but that doesn’t prove none exist. Also, if there are instances of such, were they organized in advance, or spur of the moment?
September 26, 2011, 10:47 amyankev says:
Some were from UC Irvine, some (including some of the organizers) were from UC Riverside. If UCR had punished its students, the same apologists who are piously bleating in defense of these thugs would be whining how unfair it was for UCR to punish its students for something they did off campus.
Most of those who are asking whether this prosecution would have occurred if the students were not Muslim would probably have no quarrel with the prosecution had the speaker not been pro-Israel or pro-some other unfashionable cause.
September 26, 2011, 10:50 amyankev says:
Appreciate as in “comprehend” or as in “value”? Either way, you seem to be assuming facts not in evidence.
September 26, 2011, 11:08 amrichard40 says:
If they had all risen as a group, shouted their protest for a few minutes, and then left, it would have been a reasonable protest of the speech. But their strategy of having one person at a time shout down the speaker, clearly showed their intent was not to just protest the speaker, but to actually prevent the speech from being delivered. They had no right to interfere with the free speech rights of the speaker or the audience. Charges were appropriate.
September 26, 2011, 11:09 amyankev says:
This emendation seems appropriate given Arthur’s injection of private schools and his inability to distinguish between violation of the right to free speech and private restrictions on speech, lumping both, perhaps accurately, under the term “censorship” but failing to appreciate the legal difference between the two.
September 26, 2011, 11:13 amH Latto says:
A link from a prior poster provided the answer. Chemerinsky disparaged the prosecution, saying of the conduct of the students, “it was so minor.”
Chermerinsky represented the family of Rachel Corrie in its legal action against — the Caterpillar Company!
September 26, 2011, 11:48 amFub says:
A very loose conjecture, based upon only general historical evidence not even approaching definitive:
Sections 403 et seq were passed in the early 20th century (and mostly since repealed), likely in legislative response to the Wobbly wars and other union and anarchist confrontations and strikes.
Section 403a, long since gone the way of the Dodo bird, is the offense in Stromberg v. People of State of California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
If Section 403 raises one’s civil liberties hackles, then Section 403a will cause apoplexy:
Hope the links are well formed. If not, I’ll repost them raw. Live preview doesn’t seem to work well.
September 26, 2011, 1:39 pmJayson Rex says:
Appeasers are trying hard to brush the incident under the rug but … it will not work. We are dealing here with a double assault:
- one is against the American Jewish community organized and carried out by Muslims that try to impose their demented ideas, by force if necessary, upon our nation;
- the other is part of the Islamic War against America, carried out on our soil and abusing the basic rights our country provides to one and all – something unheard of in any Muslim country.
There is no doubt that the government must act against this fifth column, like it did against the Nazis and the Communists.
WE WILL NEVER FORGET 9/11!
September 27, 2011, 5:25 amPro-Tests (I Think They’re Getting Desperate Now,…) » ♆ The Macho Response ♆ says:
[...] UC Irvine Students Convicted for Disrupting Speech [...]
October 3, 2011, 9:42 am