Irvine 10 found guilty

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"An Orange County jury found 10 Muslim students guilty of misdemeanors for disrupting a 2010 speech by Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren.

In a case that drew national attention, 11 Muslim students had stood one by one and interrupted a February 2010 speech by Oren at the University of California - Irvine. Oren twice walked off the stage as students shouted "Mass murderer!" and "War criminal!" before being hauled out of the room by campus police. A planned Q&A session after the address was dropped.

The Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine, which organized the heckling, was suspended for a year by the school for violating the school's code of conduct, but four months later got the suspension changed to probation on appeal.

About a year afterward, charges were brought against the students for the disruptions. One later got the charges dismissed for pledging to perform community service.

The charges created a fierce debate on campuses over the line between student activism and uncivil behavior."

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/23/3089564/irvine-11-found

[Jefferson23]

1. What a shame. n/t

[Kurska]

2. Attempting to shout down opposing speakers is political hooliganism.

They got exactly what they deserved, all they do is reflect poorly on their movement when they act in such a manner.

[Jefferson23]

8. It means that to you..I hope they appeal. n/t

[Kurska]

10. So is this in your opinion a proper way to engage in public discourse?

Would you feel the same way if it was a Jewish group shouting down an Arab diplomat? Or does Israel's situation dictate some sort of divergence from the rules of civilized behavior?

[Jefferson23]

12. The move by the prosecutor to criminalize their actions was wrong. n/t

[Kurska]

15. Well perhaps they shouldn't have conspired to maliciously disrupt a private event.

What they did was no better than intellectual vanadalism. I'm not convinced it was criminal myself, but the fact you won't even breathe a word of condemnation sounds low key approval to me.

[Jefferson23]

20. We'll see what is next if appealed. n/t

[Kurska]

22. Are you going to have the intellectual courage to actually answer my questions?

1. So is this, in your opinion, a proper way to engage in public discourse?

2. Would you feel the same way if it was a Jewish group shouting down an Arab diplomat and calling him names?

and if not

3. Is it Israel's unique situation that dictate some sort of divergence from the rules of civilized behavior?

I'm waiting.

[Jefferson23]

30. It doesn't take courage, but you are trying my patience with this

question framed around this one event. I had hoped you understood from my response earlier this criminalizing of their actions is wrong.

Does not matter who is involved in the event.

I don't care how they interrupt, they are responsible for their actions..it was non-violent..no crime was committed.

[Kurska]

33. I'm not asking about the criminal side of this. I'm asking whether you personally approve.

Whether you, as an indiviual, agree with the actions of these students. Do you think what they did was in accordance with the rules of civil discourse? Is this a course of action you would advocate other people take up in other situations? If there is a speaker I don't approve of, should I get 10 friends together and systematically disrupt their speech until it is canceled?

If you can't answer those questions, I don't see why you are wasting everyone's time by commenting on the event in the first place.

[Jefferson23]

35. I don't give a flying fuck what you think of my responses..you don't like them..too bad.

But they were answered.

[Kurska]

38. No you haven't. Do you or do you not APPROVE of their actions? How about a "Yes" or "No"?

Frankly, your refusal to answer a simple question is baffling. As if you're ashamed to admit your position.

[shira]

50. Amazing, isn't it? But typical of a certain mindset here. n/t

[azurnoir]

64. well seems you've finally mastered the technique ask a question and when you do not like the answer

claim no answer was given and add oh and you asked a list of questions which were answered and then ask a non-specific question that no matter how the poster answers can be convoluted into something else

[Kurska]

65. A refusal to answer a question is not an answer.

I really feel like I shouldn't have to explain this.

[azurnoir]

68. really well you are explaining however your 'questions' were answered in comment #30

J23 did not refuse however he also did not treat this as a special case which you seem to feel it is 0can you honestly say that you would feel the same if it was Erdogan or Abbas or Fayyad or Ahmadinejad or any other designated "enemy of Israel" ? I'm thinking not
The students were removed which was could be called marginally proper the criminal charges were over the top IMO and definitely would not have occurred in a reverse situation

[Kurska]

72. No they weren't see my post 56 for why they weren't.

J23 can speak for himself if he so chooses.

If this same event were to happen to Abbas, I think it would be just as wrong.

[azurnoir]

73. I already saw the post you are referring to it in part prompted mine

you did not like J23's answers which were pretty much the same as mine which is quite different from not answering at all

The reason I spoke up is that I have had that particular gambit pulled on me for years here on this forum

[Kurska]

74. Answer the questions you are asked, not the questions you wish to be asked.

This is something most people learn in primary school and is apparently not grasped completely yet here.

[leftynyc]

79. Some people don't have

the courage of their convictions. You're wasting your time.

[King_David]

42. The "flying fuck " meme seems to be a favorite

Among like minded people here . Where's it come from?

( I never heard oberliner pelser or shira say it , for example)

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Flying fuck...

Lot's of people say it. Not sure why yr fixated on who doesn't say it or think that because someone says it they're likeminded to other people who say it. It's just a slang term...

Though used in daily speech, little is actually known about the flying fuck. Native to Africa, this flightless bird tends to be secretive and rarely allows itself to be visible, hence, examining it in it's natural habitat is nearly impossible. Due to their extreme lack of activity within the community, they were considered a rare commodity throughout several African villages. The term "I don't give a flying fuck" Originally meant that you could not put a price on such a item or service, but after translation and over use, the statement now means the exact opposite of this.

Jimmy left his flying fuck in the wagon, and now he has none. He can no longer give a "flying fuck", as he has none.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flying%20fuck

[King_David]

48. The question was not adressed to you nt

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I don't give a flying fuck n/t

[King_David]

66. QED. nt

[azurnoir]

69. I don't think I've used it either nor have several others here

but do go on it's quite entertaining in a simplistic way

[King_David]

75. Are you thinking your in that group ? nt

[Ken Burch]

47. You have no right to treat Jefferson23 as if he's on trial here

This isn't about Jefferson23 as a person, and he doesn't have to "condemn on demand" just to prove himself entitled to speak about this.

[shira]

51. You wouldn't mind if I were to get 10 people to disrupt a private speech....

...you organize that's pro-Palestinian.

Right?

[Kurska]

53. All I did was ask him a question.

He is free to answer it or not answer it. If he however claims to have already answered it when he clearly hasn't, I'm going to call him out on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. And he answered it in post #30...

Last line. He might not have given you an answer you wanted, but he definately answered yr question.

[Kurska]

56. No it isn't, "It isn't criminal" isn't an answer to "is it the right thing to do?"

It is just as much a deflection as "I don't care", clearly he feels strongly enough to have a several multipost debate about the criminal meirts of their action. Am I really to suspect that he has NO FEELINGS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER about whether this was a wise and moral thing to do?

[vminfla]

60. It is, in fact, criminal

A jury of their peers affirmed their actions are criminal. The morality is not in question either, civilized individuals are free to debate. However, when that debate crosses into being disruptive and inciting a riot, the right course of action is arrest.

[Crunchy Frog]

63. When was there any incitement to riot?

There was heckling and disruption. No rioting has been alleged to have occured.

[Riftaxe]

11. On what grounds i wonder?

Seems these 10 people were not thinking very well when they did it in front of cameras, so an appeal on factual grounds is out the window.

[Jefferson23]

18. Depends on a variety of legal variables. The case has interesting history:

Irvine 11 To Court On Disturbance Charges

03/11/11 05:51 PM ET

SANTA ANA, Calif. — Eleven Muslim students charged with disrupting a speech by the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. at a California university sought Friday to have the district attorney pulled from the case.

Prosecutors illegally obtained search warrants and focused on the religion of the defendants by dubbing the case the "UCI Muslim case," said Dan Mayfield, one of the students' attorneys.

"We are asking the attorney general of the state of California to step in and take over the case," Mayfield said during a news conference after the students' arraignment was postponed until April 15. The courtroom was packed with supporters.

Orange County Deputy District Attorney Dan Wagner said the allegations were not grounds to pull his office from the case.

The students are each charged with one count of misdemeanor conspiracy to disturb a meeting and one count of misdemeanor disturbance of a meeting.

The students were arrested on Feb. 8, 2010, after shouting in protest at a speech at the University of California, Irvine, on U.S.-Israeli security, forcing Ambassador Michael Oren to halt his remarks for 20 minutes.

The case has stoked an intense debate about freedom of speech.

District Attorney Tony Rackauckas filed the charges last month, prompting a public outcry by Muslim and civil rights advocates who say prosecutors were discriminating against students exercising their right to dissent, just as many other college-goers do without punishment.

in full: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/11/irvine-11_n_834416.html

[Riftaxe]

23. It would be interesting if the defense attorney had

stated why he thought the search warrants were obtained illegally. Were the search warrants obtained previous to the action of the 10 people involved or do they fall out of line with the charges of conspiracy to disturb?

This should be an interesting one to follow, with the caveat that defense attorneys do have a tendency to throw out a lot of nonsense talk.

[Jefferson23]

26. I don't have links to offer from the beginning, there is quite a bit

of information..why I said a variety of legal variables.

Prosecutors are known to use nonsense talk too, and they sometimes win on it. Appellate courts are interesting for details
/procedures followed etc..so we'll see.

[aranthus]

43. I haven't seen anything that would actually fly, but here are some possibilities.

1. First Amendment.
2. Discriminatory prosecution.
3. Illegally obtained evidence.
4. Prosecutorial misconduct--The "Muslim reference" angle.
5. Improper jury instructions.
6. Insufficient evidence to support the verdict.
7. Inadequate representation.
8. Juror misconduct.
9. Judicial misconduct.

They might make a colorable claim on the first four theories, but I can't see them winning this.

[leftynyc]

77. They'll lose again

and just get deeper in debt to their attorneys.

[Jefferson23]

78. We'll see leftynyc. n/t

[azurnoir]

80. hopefully they have public defenders

:-)

[azurnoir]

3. it is a shame and a blow to free speech n/t

[Kurska]

4. Your right to free speech doesn't include disrupting others free speech

There is a civil way to engage in discourse, than there is what these students did. Hopefully this sends the message as to what should be tolerated.

[azurnoir]

5. aha Mr Oren could have finished his speech he chose not to n/t

[Kurska]

16. Is that what we've reduced ourselves to? Shouting over each other?

I think Oren was perfectly justified in not dignifying such actions by engaging them.

[ArcticFox]

6. I had thought you were wrong.

Guess you're right.

[mike_c]

7. you're utterly incorrect....

If anyone has a right to stand and deliver a speech in a public forum then anyone else has the reciprocal right to stand and deliver dissenting views. The speaker had no right to silence during his speech-- he forfeited that right when he chose to speak before others, whose rights to voice their own views he cannot curtail.

One could make the argument that the university had the right to obtain a speech, since they presumably paid for one and had a contract, and so THEY were correct in dictating the terms under which ALL parties present could speak, but it's a sad day when a university chooses forced silence over free speech. Most especially the free speech of students.

[Kurska]

13. Your assertions are laughable, lets turn every speech into a chorus pitched shrieking.

And the only ones who are allowed to talk are the ones who yell the loudest.

If you think it is proper to stand up and yell your dissent OVER a speaker you're going to be kicked out of a lot of speeches.

[mike_c]

21. and you seem not to know the difference between propriety and legality....

Every American citizen in that room enjoyed the same rights. If the speaker has a right to talk, then so does anyone else (let's not quibble about the speaker's citizenship and actual rights). Do not mistake courtesy, which is earned and accorded by mutual consent of the listeners, for legality. Yes, the Irvine 11 were discourteous. That was the point. They were protesting the speaker, who could have ignored them and given his speech if he chose-- apparently he's both thin skinned AND arrogant.

Note too that the first amendment protects citizens from GOVERNMENT intervention in free speech-- there is no law against citizens interrupting one another. Yes, again-- doing so is discourteous and I do not advocate that everyone conduct their discourse that way. Not much would be accomplished. But the point in this instance was NOT to have a dialog-- it was to protest the speaker's presence and his message. Discourtesy is just the thing, I think.

[King_David]

41. What they did was to deny the speaker his right

To free speech ... They got what they deserved.

[Riftaxe]

17. The article explicitly states it was at UCI

not in a public forum.

[mike_c]

24. I'm faculty at a California university...

...and I assure you that the university considers its open forums and seminars "public events" whenever they're advertised and open, and that it vociferously defends the right of free speech at such events. We've had numerous odious talks, exhibits, and events given on my campus that the university defended by citing the free speech rights of their proponents.

See also:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-irvine-eleven-20110915,0,5421091.story

A UC Irvine professor overstepped his boundaries when he told students that no disruptions were allowed during the Israeli ambassador's visit on campus last year, according to testimony given Wednesday in the so-called Irvine 11 trial in Santa Ana.

UC Irvine professor Rei Terada, an expert on the history and guidelines of free speech, told the Superior Court jury that fellow professor Mark Petracca, the event's emcee, had no authority to set stringent ground rules.

Before bringing Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren to the stage on Feb. 8, 2010, Petracca told the audience that he expected the highest civility.

(snip to comply with DU rules)

Terada said that in her 20-year career she had never seen someone attempt to impose such rules during a politically charged event on a university campus, especially one that had been expected to attract protests.

[Kurska]

25. If you watch the video the students were repeatedly asked to not disrupt and to leave if they

planned to disrupt. Student sat, disrupted one after the other in coordination and had to be escorted off by campus police.

This goes beyond heckling, it was a coordinated malicious attempt to shut down a public function.

[mike_c]

29. that was their RIGHT whether you like it or not....

Their coordination made their protest more effective. Would you prefer anarchy? I mean, what's the point of making a statement unless one makes it effectually? They did an excellent job. Did you see the additional quote I added above? This action is way outside the norm for university campuses in this state.

I protested an appearance and speech by the chancellor of the California State University yesterday DURING HIS SPEECH, along with 25 or so of my colleagues. We chose to protest quietly, standing and holding signs denouncing him while he spoke, because it's a labor dispute and we chose an appropriately moderate level of discourtesy, but we protested his presence during his talk nonetheless. No one interfered with us. We were within our rights, despite the venue being ostensibly "private" (on state property), because it was an open, public event. Universities are not normally in the business of preventing open dissent.

[vminfla]

31. Anarchy is what you are proposing

Shrill, irrational shouting at a presenter is not debate. If they wanted to exercise their free speech rights they could have organized their own event instead of resorting to anarchy and thuggery.

[mike_c]

32. bet you think "free speech zones" are a great idea, too....

That way the powerful and elite need never confront dissenting views.

[Kurska]

34. Being told to wait your turn to speak is authoritarianism apparently.

Are you aware there was a Q&A session originally planned (which never happened because of the disruption)? They could have waited until then to voice their opinion, instead they opted to disrupt the event, the speech and ruin their fellow audience members ability to be heard during the Q&A time.

[shira]

52. They don't want real Q&A. They're not interested in genuine debate.

That's the problem with the anti-Israel participants here.

Ask a question, you get evasion, red herrings, strawmen, ridicule, and ad hominem in response.

It's all they've got.

[mike_c]

61. what part of "protest" don't you understand?

The Irvine 11 did not want to engage the Israeli ambassador in dialog. They were protesting his presence and his message. P. R. O. T. E. S. T. I. N. G. Sheesh.

[Kurska]

67. "The Irvine 11 did not want to engage the Israeli ambassador in dialog" exactly.

They didn't want to engage in meaningful speech or dialog, all they wanted to do was disrupt and prevent the ambassador's message from getting out. The point of a protest is to send a message, the point of this was to shout down someone else trying to spread a message.

That is why I have very little sympathy for these students. It wasn't a valid political message, it was political thuggery designed to shut someone else up at the expense of 500 other people who came to listen to that person speak.

[vminfla]

81. well said

Somewhere along the lines, these kids were taught that if you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger. This sentence should, hopefully, break the cycle of escalation and demonstrate that a civilized society will not tolerate incivility.

[vminfla]

49. Irvine 10 was too cheap to rent their own hall

The intent was not to debate, but to irritate.

[aranthus]

37. I don't think any court in the United States would agree with you.

Certainly not the 4th District of California, where the first appeal will be made. When even Erwin Chemerinsky opines that the students' action was not Consitutionally protected, they don't have a chance.

[Riftaxe]

14. I shudder to actually ask, but exactly

how is this a blow to free speech. Please make an extra notation of the venue, since that is what will kill your argument quickest.

[azurnoir]

19. been workin on this one have ya?

but here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=363926

[Riftaxe]

27. Now that is interesting however Universities

can restrict speech at will, and often do in their student codes of conduct.

However, since this was during an event at campus and not in general on campus I don't think this professor has a leg to stand on.

It would appear that the courts rejected Terada's arguments in this case since the students were found guilty.

[azurnoir]

28. It was a given that they would be considering the the parties involved n/t

[vminfla]

9. Surprised by the outcome

Clearly the individuals had no legitimate 1st Amendment argument. The footage clearly demonstrates that this was not a debate, but a shrill disruption. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsdtafcbqrE&feature=player_embedded

Still, I am surprised that a California Jury acted so responsibly and saw the transparancy of the 10 hooligans.

[aranthus]

36. Not all Californians are air headed fools.

Also, it was an Orange County jury. That's a pretty conservative place. And no the defendants did not have a legitimate First Amendement argument. The First Amendment protects the communication of ideas. It does not protect shouting to prevent someone else from speaking.

[Crunchy Frog]

46. I don't know whether you've ever been a college student before

but that kind of disruptive behavior is very common when there is a controversial speaker like this. It happened at my university when Hanan Ashrawi gave a presentation and on other occasions as well.

I've never heard of criminal charges being brought under those circumstances, but I suppose it's different when the disruptors are Arab and the speaker is defending Israeli policy.

[vminfla]

59. I do not know what kind of college you went to

But in the college that I went to, even if we did not agree with the subject, we did not commit a crime and incite a riot.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. We didn't have riots, and there were no riots in this incident either.

But their was heckling, and I hardly think that the state university I attended was unique in that respect.

And in the example I gave above, the heckling was by right wing supporters of Israel.

[vminfla]

70. Go back to the footage

They clearly did not want to debate. They wanted to shut the man down.

[Crunchy Frog]

71. I watched it. I saw heckling and disruption, not riots.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. It is a deafeat of the hecklers veto, and overall a good thing

The penalties were nothing...certainly will not deter them or others from a repeat performance

[Jefferson23]

40. Muslim students get probation for disrupting speech

Tori Richards | Reuters – 1 hr 28 mins ago..

SANTA ANA, Calif (Reuters) - Ten Muslim college students in California were convicted and sentenced to probation on Friday for disrupting a speech at their university by Israel's ambassador to the United States.

The students, whose case touched off a furor over free speech rights at the University of California at Irvine, were also ordered to perform 56 hours of community service by an Orange County Superior Court judge.

A jury of six men and six women convicted the students of one count each of conspiracy and disturbing an assembly after an eight-day trial -- a verdict that was greeted by wails and sobbing from spectators in a packed courtroom in Santa Ana.

The convicted students were each placed on three years' probation by Superior Court Judge Peter J. Wilson, but could have that reduced to a year if they complete the community service by January 31.

in full: http://news.yahoo.com/muslim-students-probation-disrupting-speech-005720767.html

[aranthus]

44. Seems about right.

It works out to a week's work and then one year probation.

[Jefferson23]

57. Hi aranthus. I 'm sure you read about the appeal, since it has

not been filed, one is not certain of course but I expect they will. Also, I am not sure who will
lead the appeal, or if collaboration will take place with the ACLU chapter out there. We'll see
soon enough I suspect.

[aranthus]

58. Yes, I expect an appeal.

And I do expect the ACLU to be a part of it. I don't think that they have a chance on First Amendment grounds, but illegally obtained evidence could win depending on the facts. They will have to prove illegally search, and also that the supposedly illegally obtained evidence was material to the conviction. Also, discriminatory prosecution. As I have mentioned before, Erwin Chemerinsky believes both that their conduct was not First Amendment protected and a crime. He does, however, believe that they should not have been prosecuted for policy reasons. The DA has discretion in some cases. There is a question as to whether he prosecuted these people for improper reasons (they are Muslim, and they blocked a speech by the Israeli Ambassador come to mind). That is going to be very tough to prove, but the defense team is going to have to try.

[Jefferson23]

76. Behind the scenes with Israel's campus lobby

University administrators squash pro-Palestinian actions to avoid negative publicity and to keep alumni funding.
Yaman Salahi Last Modified: 26 Sep 2011 15:10

Over the past year, I have obtained public records that shed light on how the Israel lobby works on US campuses. At UC Berkeley, my alma mater, as well as at UC Hastings School of Law, the documents reveal how the Israel lobby pressures university administrators to interfere with campus activity - both academic and political - that addresses Israel's policies towards and treatment of the Palestinian people.

My requests were made in the shadow of two high-profile backlash campaigns to counter events at UC Berkeley and UC Hastings School of Law. In March 2011, esteemed legal academics and practitioners attended a conference called "Litigating Palestine" at UC Hastings School of Law.

On the eve of the conference, the UC Hastings Board of Directors voted in a closed emergency meeting to withdraw its sponsorship of the event without explanation. Though the conference was permitted to proceed, the Dean of the Law School was asked not to give opening remarks as planned.

A year earlier, a historic decision by UC Berkeley's student government to divest from companies profiting from Israeli human rights violations and war crimes and occupation was overturned in response to similar pressure. Though the bill initially passed with a 16-4 majority, the student body president vetoed it and, after weeks of intense lobbying, the student senate was one vote short of overcoming the veto.


http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/09/201192384847314840.html