‘Irvine 11’ students rightly exercised their free speech
Posted September 14, 2011 at 9:05 pm in Opinion
In recent years especially, the First Amendment has been nothing but trouble. In 2010, for example, free speech largely excused the nationally humiliating WikiLeaks intelligence leak; Last March, citing free speech, the Supreme Court roundly approved the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket the funerals of homosexual soldiers.
And now, as if we hadn’t had enough, new armies are gathering on another free speech battlefield that is manifesting itself in a trial that began Sept. 8, just shy of a year since a public outcry led to the arrest of 11 students who came to be known as the “Irvine 11.” Their prosecution could cast doubt among the most vocal collegiate students about whether it is appropriate to speak out at all.
Eleven UCI students, all Muslim, expressed discontent with the Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at a February 2010 event.
The reason for their discontent was largely because of the 2008 Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip.
One of the 11 went so far as to yell at Oren, “How many Palestinians did you kill?”
The students were then arrested for their involvement in the protest and charged with conspiracy to disturb a meeting. Their story amassed media attention and the caterwauling collective “Irvine 11” hit the mainstream media.
The wrongful arrest of the 11 students could potentially cause severe repercussions among college students who might see this as reason to avoid protest if there’s a chance of arrest.
Furthermore, it is dishonest for the “Irvine 11” case’s prosecution to claim to be acting in the interest of free speech because it inhibited the free speech of the 11 students by arresting them even though no acts of violence were committed.
Moreover, this infringement of free speech can have additional adverse effects on college students because it could lead to distrust of the government if it continues to allow the violation of free speech.
It’s true that these students violated certain social norms. They broke etiquette by interrupting Oren, whose turn it was to talk.
They also violated UC Irvine policy by disrupting a university-sponsored event, and for this, they perhaps deserve some form of academic discipline.
But as American citizens the 11 students were well within their rights to perform such an act of peaceful protest, and therefore don’t deserve to be punished for voicing their opinions.
Now the “11” defendants are finally on trial at the Orange County Courthouse, each charged with dual misdemeanors and facing up to one year in jail if found guilty.
The prosecution has accused the defendants of trampling Oren’s right to free speech.
“They didn’t want to have an exchange of ideas,” District Attorney Dan Wagner told the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 8.
There is fault in the prosecution’s argument because, if anything, the attempt on behalf of the student’s to voice their opinions could have been the beginning of a conversation.
The defense rightfully responded that the “11” were peacefully and lawfully protesting, and that arresting them constituted as an affront to free speech.
When we talk about “free speech,” we are talking about speech free from government-imposed impediments.
Free speech is a headache, yes — but it’s worth the trouble. Here’s hoping that the “Irvine 11” trial acquits its defendants, that it affirms our beautiful right to make noise as students.
Most importantly, one can only hope that the 11 UCI students will be acquitted to show we still have the inalienable right to speak out as college students.
Ryan Kindel is a sophomore majoring in creative writing.
Also in the Daily Trojan:
Tags
This article is tagged: Irvine 11, michael oren, westboro baptist church, wikileaks
Loading ...
If the Supreme Court allows hateful, disgusting speech towards our marines as freedom of speech, then shouting facts and non-violent words at someone who is considered a war criminal and violator of UN resolutions AROUND THE world SHOULD also be freedom of speech.
Calling these students “extremists” justifies that you are pretty much a racist and is stereotyping them for their race/religion.
The Westboro Church does say things I do find offensive but they have the right to be offensive. They do not enter churches or go to the actual funeral and interfere with the proceedings. In the Supreme Court case they were 1000 feet away from the funeral area.
The students could have protested outside the lecture hall and said all the hateful or disgusting things they wished. They didn’t do that. They went inside to repeatedly disrupt the lecture and prevent to prevent Michael Oren from being heard. Pretty significant difference.
There is no such thing as “Freedom of Speech” That is misnoma
What a terribly thought out article- either this kid has an ill-thought agenda or he didn’t take more than 2 minutes to research the incident or he just decided to scream “free speech!!” because of course that always sounds right.
Nothing to see here folks.
They must have meant to run this in the Onion right?
hahhahahahahaha
This is an incredibly poorly written opinion. As one of the responders posted, Erwin Chemerinsky, the country’s foremost constitutional law expert, this is not a First Amendment right case. The students were disruptive and essentially committed a crime.
Stick to creative writing, fren.
This obviously isn’t your thing.
Memo to writer Ryan Kindel:
The Westboro Baptist Church did not picket the funerals of homosexual soldiers. The fallen soldiers and Marines were not homosexuals. They were unfortunate war dead whose funerals happened to be used by the Westboro Baptist Church fanatics as a podium for their hatred.
Please take Journalism 101 over again. A real journalist gets the facts straight.
Jim Gilchrist, President, The Minuteman Project (Class of ’73, Univ. of R. I. School of Journalism)
This is grossly poor analysis.
I don’t know if you know much about the incident and the emails between the studnts. You sure don’t know much about the First Admendment.
Erwin Chermerinksy, the dean of the UC Irvine Law School, is an expert on the First Admentment.
I suggest you get educated and read his piece on the incident.
“The government, including public universities, always can impose time, place and manner restrictions on speech. A person who comes into my classroom and shouts so that I cannot teach surely can be punished without offending the 1st Amendment. Likewise, those who yelled to keep the ambassador from being heard were not engaged in constitutionally protected behavior.
**Freedom of speech, on campuses and elsewhere, is rendered meaningless if speakers can be shouted down by those who disagree.**
The law is well established that the government can act to prevent a heckler’s veto — to prevent the reaction of the audience from silencing the speaker. There is simply no 1st Amendment right to go into an auditorium and prevent a speaker from being heard, no matter who the speaker is or how strongly one disagrees with his or her message.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky18-2010feb18
There is a major flaw in the argument made here an that is that the students “peacefully” protested. There was nothing peaceful about them. They each stood up and screamed at Michael Oren, which video of the event shows very clearly. They did so in an effort to stop him from speaking, infringing on Oren’s right to free speech. If they wanted to engage in a discussion they could have done so during the Q&A portion of the event. Unfortunately that was never their intention, they wanted to stop Oren from being able to speak. The students deserve to be punished.
You are right that free speech is “a headache”, but while you are quick to jump to the defense of the students, you forget that Michael Oren has a right to free speech too.
The students were not exercising their right to free speech and they did not peacefully protest, they conspired to infringe on the rights of another American…that is why they are on trial, and I hope that they receive proper punishment.
Come out and support free speech by attending the trial: Santa Ana Courthouse – 700 West Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana CA 92701 Courtroom C1 – 2nd Floor
I’ll be there to support the prosecution of these extremists. Thanks for the info!
Westboro Baptist Church spreads its hate through picketing in our streets, provoking attacks, with abusive language and flag desecration, attempting to create a confrontation. This is not a church, this is a hate group. This is not about protesting, freedom, or God. They are in it for the money and the press; this is a family law firm. They are not a “church.” It is a scam. They go after anything that can get them in the news. This is a family of lawyers using this “god hates you” thing to make money. It is time for this scam to end.