Free speech just got trampled, again

[Quantum Windbag]

I hope they appeal this because they will win, especially in CA and the 9th.

The defendants showed little reaction to the verdict, but some people in the courtroom gasped and started crying when the verdict was read, according to AP. The Law Blog has sought comment from defense attorney Reem Salahi.
“This is yet another reaffirmation that Islamophobia is intensely and extensively alive and thriving in Orange County,” Shakeel Syed, of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, told AP. “I believe this will be used as precedent now to suppress speech and dissent throughout the country. This is the beginning of the death of democracy.”
Prosecutors had claimed that the men had acted as censors and interfered with Oren’s freedom of speech.

Muslim Students Found Guilty of Disrupting Speech - Law Blog - WSJ

Funny how the prosecutor thinks censorship is wrong, unless he is doing it.

 

[William Joyce]

If you're shouting down a Jew, you'll be prosecuted.

If you're shouting down a white nationalist, nobody will notice.

Free speech indeed. Free speech for the JEWS. Everyone else better keep their mouth shut.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good. Orchestrated attempt to silence the Ambassador should be a crime.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

He hired the hall and tried to shut him up. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to gag someone else.

 

[Intense]

Prosecutors had claimed that the men had acted as censors and interfered with Oren’s freedom of speech.

Salahi has contended that the men, who were college students at the time, never intended to halt Oren’s speech entirely but wanted to express their views on the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, AP reports

Muslim Students Found Guilty of Disrupting Speech - Law Blog - WSJ
It was a Planned Event. All Politics aside, this is wrong.
They did not have a Right to Disrupt. They should have taken it Elsewhere or outside.

 

[Iridescence]

Apparently this depends on who's reporting as to what is known about what happened, as with most anything else.

 

[manifold]

Anybody know what the actual criminal charge was?

All it says in the article is "convicted of criminal charges for shouting".

I'm ok with showing them the door, but criminal charges, really?

 

[Trajan]

theres a lot of questions I have the article doesn't cover- were the students asked to stop, did they stop, was their any threats etc.?

 

[ladyliberal]

This is a case where both sides have competing speech rights. Since the speech was on private property, the protesters probably don't have much of a first amendment case. They also don't have a huge motivation to appeal-- the AP story cited in the WSJ blogpost said they were sentenced to probation and 56 hours of community service. Unless they think there's some precedent they could establish, that's probably not worth litigating.

I should say I have no problem with peaceful civil disobedience as a tactic, but it can result in criminal charges and is not always Constitutionally protected.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anybody know what the actual criminal charge was?

The charges were ‘conspiracy to disturb a meeting’ and ‘disturbing a meeting,’ both misdemeanors.

Any appeal would be for the criminal convictions alone; a claim of free speech preemption would be a separate civil matter.

The courts have followed a ‘captive audience’ doctrine for a little over the last 20 years, where it’s unreasonable to expect those subject to objectionable speech avoid such speech:

The First Amendment permits the government to prohibit offensive speech as intrusive when the "captive" audience cannot avoid the objectionable speech.

Frisby v. Schultz (1988)

Given the circumstances it wold seem the free speech exemption applies.

The politics of the case are another matter altogether.

 

[daveman]

If you're shouting down a Jew, you'll be prosecuted.

If you're shouting down a white nationalist, nobody will notice.

Free speech indeed. Free speech for the JEWS. Everyone else better keep their mouth shut.

 

[DiAnna]

The protestors had every right to protest outside of the hall. They had the right to express themselves completely, and freely.

What they didn't have a right to do was to shut down the free speech of someone else, someone whose speech they didn't wish to hear, inside a university-owned hall where he had been invited to speak.

Their "protest" was nothing more than a shout-down with insults and harassment of a Jewish speaker, organized on-line as such. Folks have a constitutional right to express their own opinions; they don't have a constitutional right to prevent others from expressing theirs.

 

[jillian]

Prosecutors had claimed that the men had acted as censors and interfered with Oren’s freedom of speech.

Salahi has contended that the men, who were college students at the time, never intended to halt Oren’s speech entirely but wanted to express their views on the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, AP reports

Muslim Students Found Guilty of Disrupting Speech - Law Blog - WSJ
It was a Planned Event. All Politics aside, this is wrong.
They did not have a Right to Disrupt. They should have taken it Elsewhere or outside.

freedom of speech means they have the right to protest... OUTSIDE.

it does not mean they have the right to keep someone from speaking. THAT is NOT freedom of speech. at least that is what i'm told whenever the mentally deranged ahmadinejad speaks... whether it is at columbia university or at the UN.

same rules...

suck it up.

i was wondering why QW was crying about this... but it makes perfect sense.

 

[William Joyce]

same rules...

But not the same application.

They shout down Ann Coulter, no prosecution.

They shout down Roger Clegg, no prosecution.

They shout down Jared Taylor, no prosecution.

They shout down Ward Connerly, no prosecution.

But an Israeli ambassador? Oh, heavens! We can't have that.

See, what the A-rabs in this little drama don't seem to grasp is the American political victim food chain. They're higher than whites on it, for sure. If they were shutting down a talk by a white Republican, they'd have been fine. Grouped together with blacks and Hispanics to knock out a speech by Newt Gingrich, hey, groovy.

But they are most definitely LOWER than the tippy-top of the chain, the Jews. So, they lose. Whites v. blacks, blacks win. Blacks v. Jews, Jews win. Jews v. anyone else = Jews win.

Just apply this formula, and you will predict political outcomes in America with 100 percent accuracy. I promise.