Free Speech Loses Again—Irvine 11 Case Will Not Be Tossed

[Modern School]

A judge last week denied a motion to dismiss charges against the Irvine 11, a group of students from the University of California Irvine and Riverside campuses who disrupted a speech by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at UC Irvine in February, the Daily Pilot reported today. The defense argued the laws cited by the Orange County district attorney's office were not applicable because the law only prohibits disruptions of meetings that are not political or religious in nature. Oren’s speech on U.S.-Israeli relations was clearly political. Judge Peter Wilson, however, disagreed.

The students, members of the Muslim Student Unions at UCI and UC Riverside, had been arrested and were later released. The university administration also temporary suspended the clubs and forced the students to perform community service. The D.A. also filed criminal charges accusing the students of conspiring to disrupt the public meeting. However, the students claim they had not planned on disrupting the meeting.

Modern School
http://modeducation.blogspot.com/

[Riftaxe]

1. What do you think Free speech entails

and what limits do you believe if any are embedded in law?

Judging from the articles author's failure of knowledge to successfully navigate a high school civics course, I am getting my :popcorn:

[happyslug]

2. This is a motion to dismiss BEFORE Trial, not the actual decision after hearing both sides

In any motion to dismiss before trial, the Judge MUST assume every fact alleged by the prosecution to be true and despite those assumed facts, the Defendants still win. Thus the allegation that this was a disruptive event and that the Defendants WANTED to disrupt are assumed to be true. Under that set of "facts" the motion was property denied, the students were present, they did something, the fact that they said they were NOT going to be disruptive is assumed in this motion to be false, thus a Jury could find that the Students had been disruptive.

Now, this is NOT the end of this story, the actual trial has to occur. In that trial, the finder of facts (A jury or the judge setting without a jury) can find that the students were NOT disruptive and dismiss this case.

Given the status of this case, the facts alleged in the story viewed in the best light for the Prosecution, the Judge's decision follows the law and the US Constitution. At Trial, Free Speech will again come into play, but then both sides will present their side and the Judge or Jury, after hearing the evidence, will decide what actually occurred and apply the law to those facts.

The Defense tried to get a ruling of Law that the Speech by the Israeli politician was a political speech and as such the laws being applied in this case does NOT apply and as a matter of law the case should be dismissed. The Judge still had to give the benefit of the doubt to the Prosecution, who apparently claimed that the Speech was NOT political as that term is used in this particular statute. At trial the Judge or Jury may find that the speech was political and as such this law does not apply, the Judge or Jury may believe the Defendants that they were NOT disruptive and as such this law does not apply. Those are decisions to be made after both sides present their side in a trial, this motion had to assume all facts in the best light of the Prosecution and in that case a jury could find the speech non-political and the Students did disrupt the Speech.

If a jury found those two facts, the first amendment does not apply. The First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech, even Speech that you hate. You can NOT claim the right to disrupt someone else's speech on Freedom of Speech grounds. You can state your opposition to what the speakers is saying, but you have to leave his speak. Freedom of speech is a two way street, people we like can speak, so can people we hate.

This case is NOT at that level at the present time, it appears to be a preliminary stage. Lets see what happens at trial.

[Riftaxe]

4. Fairly succinct with the exception

that we can both pull out examples of speech that are not covered by the first amendment, even by stipulating that it would be in a public and not a privately controlled forum such as the details in the blog describe.

As far as disruptive, well surely that will be introduced into evidence and if proven so, rewarded/punished appropriately. Presumably the 11 are sweating their tushes off that no video of the events are in existence or sleeping like angels.

[Lithos]

6. Agreed...

There is a video out and about, so any defense will have to claim it is edited.

I think it will be easy enough for the prosecution to show this was intentional disruption. The main defense will be on whether or not Ambassador Oren's remarks are considered political or not. My guess is that they will not be given the context to which he was invited and his background in academia.

L-

[hack89]

3. Why would the ambassador's speech be considered political?

what was he talking about?

[Igel]

5. US/Israeli relations.

More detail, I don't know.

However, some define "political" as anything to do with politics. If you get up and give a speech on the Tet Offensive, on US economic policy, on Sino-Vietnamese relations, it's political because it has politics as its subject (same for many poli sci, history, sociology classes). As opposed to a speech that's arguing for the listeners to vote or engage in a letter-writing campaign, one which has politics as its objective (so to speak). The first is educational, the second is political sensu stricto.

Same kind of problem with "religious." Does it mean things like sermons, or would a speech by an invited imam on the place of Islam in contemporary society be considered religious because it deals with religion?

Most universities have funding for educational speakers but not for political or religious speeches. Sometimes a speech gets close to the dividing line between them. On rare occasion it crosses it.