Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Atty: Muslim students' speech rights not absolute

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Atty: Muslim students' speech rights not absolute

    Atty: Muslim students' speech rights not absolute
    APBy AMY TAXIN - Associated Press | AP – 1 hr 28 mins ago
    Related Content

    Atty: Muslim students' speech rights not absolute - Yahoo! News

    SANTA ANA, California (AP) — Ten Muslim students broke the law by shouting down a speech by an Israeli diplomat at the University of California, Irvine in a carefully drafted and executed plan that flouted repeated calls to behave by campus officials, a prosecutor said Monday.

    Defense attorneys countered that students acted within the law when they stood up, one by one, and read from pre-scripted statements and never intended to halt Ambassador Michael Oren from speaking about U.S.-Israel relations.

    Attorneys delivered closing arguments in the case that has stoked a spirited debate about free speech not just in the courtroom but in the affluent suburban community south of Los Angeles.

    Many of the facts of the case are not in dispute: The students carefully planned their February 2010 protest and were escorted out by security officials.

    Jurors in the case will be asked to decide whether students broke the law or were exercising a right to demonstrate freely.

    The students face misdemeanor charges of conspiring to disrupt a meeting and disrupting a meeting. If convicted, they could face sentences ranging from probation with community service and fines to a year in jail.

    The case also raised questions about prosecutorial discretion, with some members of the public calling the trial a waste of taxpayers' money. Other community members have said the defendants were being singled out because they are Muslim.

    In his closing argument, prosecutor Dan Wagner told jurors the students acted as censors to block the free flow of ideas and infringed on the rights of 700 people who had gone to the campus that evening to hear Oren. He said emails among members of the Muslim Student Union showed students were aware they could be arrested before the protest.

    "The right to free speech is not absolute," Wagner said before a packed courtroom of more than 180 people in Orange County, with more observers waiting outside. "If hecklers' vetoes were allowed, then nobody, nobody, none of us would have the right to free speech."

    Defense attorney Reem Salahi said the students followed a series of protests at UC Irvine and elsewhere during which demonstrators shouted during lectures but weren't arrested or sanctioned.

    In this case, UC Irvine officials expressed their displeasure with students' actions during the demonstration but didn't give hard rules on what was or wasn't permitted, she said.

    "This is merely an admonition to be polite," she said. "But in America, we don't prosecute people for being impolite."

    Salahi — who represents two of the defendants — said students never intended to stop Oren from speaking but instead wanted to express their views — perhaps unpopular that evening — on the Israeli government's actions in Gaza.

    On Monday, Wagner and defense attorneys also showed dueling pie charts breaking down how much time the students demonstrated, how much time their supporters cheered, and how much time Oren spoke in an effort to prove whether the meeting suffered a significant disruption.

    Near the end of her argument, Salahi said she wanted to share a personal story related to the trial but Wagner objected and Superior Court Judge Peter J. Wilson said she couldn't proceed.

    She paused for a moment then told the jury, "I can't tell you the story — I got shut down," to thunderous applause from the courtroom.

    That brought an admonition Wilson, who said he would clear the courtroom if there was another outburst from the public.

    Defense attorneys will continue their arguments Tuesday.

    In 2010, the students were initially cited, released and disciplined at UC Irvine, which revoked the Muslim Student Union's charter for a quarter and placed it on two years of probation.

    Nearly a year later, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed criminal charges against 11 students. The move prompted an outcry from the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of Jewish, Muslim and campus groups.

    The filing also sparked a media frenzy, and Wilson eventually issued a gag order to prevent prosecutors and defense attorneys from arguing the case outside the courtroom. The charges against one defendant were later dropped.

    Many of the students have since graduated from UC Irvine and the nearby University of California, Riverside.

    On Monday, Wagner showed video clips of university officials pleading with demonstrators to behave and respect academic freedom. He also showed numerous emails among members of the Muslim Student Union planning the disruption and calculating who was willing to get arrested.

    The correspondence, Wagner said, reveals students knew the risk of their actions and later tried to cover up that the organization was involved in the protest.

    "It was always a plan to break the rules," he said.
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  • #2
    Criminal charges for this are crap. People are free to be d!ckheads and I'm free to think them scumbags as a result.

    -dale

    Comment


    • #3
      Right of speech should not be a right to shut up the other guy by screaming over him. Salahi got "shut down", and I wonder how many people Salahi's clients have "shut down". But ofcourse, singling them out for being assholes is discrimination;

      Other community members have said the defendants were being singled out because they are Muslim.
      Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
      -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dalem View Post
        Criminal charges for this are crap. People are free to be d!ckheads and I'm free to think them scumbags as a result.

        -dale
        Absolutely...If it's thrown out of Court it will open the flood gates for more protests when they don't like what is being said.


        Originally posted by Tronic View Post
        Right of speech should not be a right to shut up the other guy by screaming over him. Salahi got "shut down", and I wonder how many people Salahi's clients have "shut down". But ofcourse, singling them out for being assholes is discrimination;
        I'm suprised she wasn't hit with a Contempt of Court

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that freedom of speech should be absolute; in that these muslims should be allowed to say anything they want about Israel. If they held their own meeting or sent out flyers for instance.

          But I dont see how free speech laws really apply here; when the issue is they tried disrupt a meeting; things would get quite unbearable if hecklers had absolute freedom; I think disorderly conduct laws might apply here.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by InExile View Post
            I think that freedom of speech should be absolute; in that these muslims should be allowed to say anything they want about Israel. If they held their own meeting or sent out flyers for instance.

            But I dont see how free speech laws really apply here; when the issue is they tried disrupt a meeting; things would get quite unbearable if hecklers had absolute freedom; I think disorderly conduct laws might apply here.
            I don't see how they apply either. Despite the misleading headline, the case is about disrupting the assembly, which they clearly did and don't deny.

            If it's thrown out of Court it will open the flood gates for more protests when they don't like what is being said.
            Agreed...except it wouldn't open up the gates for protests, but disruptions that takes away the speakers right to free speech. An organized protest is something different I believe. Basically, if the defense argument holds up, it suggests to me that you would be violating someone's right to free speech by removing them from the assembly. All civil discourse goes right out the window.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's not their freedom that's at question. It's about Ambassador Oren's rights. These people tried to violate Oren's constitutional right to free speech. They should be tried as such. How would they feel if I disrupt their friday services?
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                It's not their freedom that's at question. It's about Ambassador Oren's rights. These people tried to violate Oren's constitutional right to free speech. They should be tried as such. How would they feel if I disrupt their friday services?
                Are you saying non americans in american teritory have constitutional rights? Does that include gitmo?????

                I think they were thuggish but it's hardly unusual. I'd point to some of the shouting and disruptions by the tea party at townhalls last year which was not critized here. Shouting down political speech is always ugly and yes like the muslim thugs and the tea party thugs there are liberal thugs who engage in the same anti democratic practices
                Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                ~Ronald Reagan

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                  It's not their freedom that's at question. It's about Ambassador Oren's rights. These people tried to violate Oren's constitutional right to free speech. They should be tried as such. How would they feel if I disrupt their friday services?
                  They would probably call you a heathen, and demand that you be flogged. Then congratulate themselves on their 'tolerance'. :)
                  Don't listen to me, I'm a wack job.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                    Are you saying non americans in american teritory have constitutional rights? Does that include gitmo?????
                    No. They're terrorists.

                    F*ck 'em.

                    Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                    I think they were thuggish but it's hardly unusual. I'd point to some of the shouting and disruptions by the tea party at townhalls last year which was not critized here. Shouting down political speech is always ugly and yes like the muslim thugs and the tea party thugs there are liberal thugs who engage in the same anti democratic practices
                    ....and once again, Rosie takes the "Oh, yeah, well, Bush did this" variation award....

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                      I don't see how they apply either. Despite the misleading headline, the case is about disrupting the assembly, which they clearly did and don't deny.
                      Agree.

                      Originally posted by InExile
                      I think that freedom of speech should be absolute
                      Can't allow for incitment or calls of death to someone else.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                        No. They're terrorists.

                        F*ck 'em.



                        ....and once again, Rosie takes the "Oh, yeah, well, Bush did this" variation award....
                        Can you explain why some efforts to shout down political speech are good and some not? Otherwise, all I did was universally damn the behavior and took note of the silence on this forum when it was occurring last year at town halls. It's called principles not blame bush. If you don't understand why it's hypocrisy to approve that behavior in one instance and not another or principled to call it thuggish reguardless of who the thugs are well....:bang:
                        Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                        ~Ronald Reagan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I never said some are good and some are bad.

                          I just find you constantly bringing up the "Tea Party thugs" or "Bush is just as bad" theme in almost every single thread you post in hilarious.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                            I never said some are good and some are bad.

                            I just find you constantly bringing up the "Tea Party thugs" or "Bush is just as bad" theme in almost every single thread you post in hilarious.
                            Consider me Jimony cricket reminding you that pov shouldn't be the basis for approving or disapproving conduct. I was pretty specific in my universal comdemnation of the behavior. I wasn't making excuses for anyone just pointing out there may be a double standard in how folks react.
                            Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                            ~Ronald Reagan

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                              I don't see how they apply either. Despite the misleading headline, the case is about disrupting the assembly, which they clearly did and don't deny.
                              That's how it reads to me.

                              Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                              Agreed...except it wouldn't open up the gates for protests, but disruptions that takes away the speakers right to free speech. An organized protest is something different I believe. Basically, if the defense argument holds up, it suggests to me that you would be violating someone's right to free speech by removing them from the assembly. All civil discourse goes right out the window.
                              Protesters are routinely removed from Congresional hearings for disrupting the process. I don't see this as particularly different.

                              As Dale already said, criminal charges are idiotic. Simple removal and restoring order is sufficient.

                              Or don't. Who cares?

                              Not me.

                              It's UC/Irvine matter. If the university thinks that it's okee-dokey, then it's fine by me. If they choose to remove the people disrupting the event, that's okay too. It's a reflection of the sponsors.

                              It's not a first amendment question. The protestors are free to host their own event.

                              Finally. Lol.

                              Leave it to Rosie to annex Cuban territory....
                              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X