Students convicted for protesting Israeli ambassador

[TheHammer]

Funny how baying mobs of Teabaggers can disrupt town hall meetings, brandish firearms outside those meetings, make implied threats against government officials and resort to outright violence -all without being prosecuted. But a few college students get together to heckle an agent for a foreign government and they're treated like criminals (thanks to this kangaroo court, they now are in fact criminals).

There is stepping up to the line, and then there is stepping over it. If you play a game of chicken and end up going too far you should expect to be prosecuted, even if you don't go that far over the line. That's what happened here.

And how exactly was this a kangaroo court? They were tried by a jury of their peers. Evidence was presented at the trial, and they were able to mount a defense. Just because you may not like the outcome doesn't mean the trial was unfair. And really, they only got 56 hours community service for this. Lets not act like they are going to prison like hardened criminals.

Finally, while I know laws on this matter vary from state to state, but could you please cite the unprosecuted "outright violence" you spoke of?

[Elfdart]

There is stepping up to the line, and then there is stepping over it. If you play a game of chicken and end up going too far you should expect to be prosecuted, even if you don't go that far over the line. That's what happened here.

How many Teabaggers were arrested and charged for their actions? None of these students threatened to use "Second Amendment Strategies" (i.e. assassination) for dealing with Oren, nor did they bring weapons, nor did they physically attack anyone -things the Teabaggers did repeatedly. Feel free to post examples of Teabagger thugs being arrested, let alone prosecuted for their thuggish behavior.

And how exactly was this a kangaroo court?

LINK

The Israeli ambassador to the United States cut short his appearance at UC Irvine last year not because of disruptions by Muslim students but because he wanted to attend a Lakers game, a defense attorney for the students said Tuesday.

The so-called Irvine 11 are accused of interfering with Michael Oren’s right to free speech by constantly interrupting his appearance as the students took turns reading statements as the ambassador tried to speak.

Those in the audience, prosecutors said, were in turn deprived of listening and interacting with Oren.

Ultimately, prosecutors said, Oren was forced to cancel a question-and-answer session because of the disruption.

But defense attorney Lisa Holder said that Oren could have stayed for a question-and-answer session after the protesters were led away but instead opted to go to Staples Center.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Paul Wilson denied Holder’s request to show jurors a photo of Oren posing with Kobe Bryant at the game.

Of the 11 UCI and UC Riverside students originally charged in the case, 10 are standing trial. The 11th student is performing community service that will lead to the charges against him being dropped upon completion.

The case had drawn attention because of its 1st Amendment overtones and the long history of student protests at universities.

Defense attorney Jacqueline Goodman said that student protesters did not break the law but instead exercised free speech in the manner of Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the very figures they learned about in their classrooms.

“It was disruptive,” Goodman said, “but not so substantial in a controversial political speech as to constitute a crime.”

Finally, while I know laws on this matter vary from state to state, but could you please cite the unprosecuted "outright violence" you spoke of?

LINK

Another link

[Questor]

LINK

The Israeli ambassador to the United States cut short his appearance at UC Irvine last year not because of disruptions by Muslim students but because he wanted to attend a Lakers game, a defense attorney for the students said Tuesday.

The so-called Irvine 11 are accused of interfering with Michael Oren’s right to free speech by constantly interrupting his appearance as the students took turns reading statements as the ambassador tried to speak.

Those in the audience, prosecutors said, were in turn deprived of listening and interacting with Oren.

Ultimately, prosecutors said, Oren was forced to cancel a question-and-answer session because of the disruption.

But defense attorney Lisa Holder said that Oren could have stayed for a question-and-answer session after the protesters were led away but instead opted to go to Staples Center.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Paul Wilson denied Holder’s request to show jurors a photo of Oren posing with Kobe Bryant at the game.

Of the 11 UCI and UC Riverside students originally charged in the case, 10 are standing trial. The 11th student is performing community service that will lead to the charges against him being dropped upon completion.

The case had drawn attention because of its 1st Amendment overtones and the long history of student protests at universities.

Defense attorney Jacqueline Goodman said that student protesters did not break the law but instead exercised free speech in the manner of Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the very figures they learned about in their classrooms.

“It was disruptive,” Goodman said, “but not so substantial in a controversial political speech as to constitute a crime.”

Did you forget to engage your brain cells this morning? That article doesn't say he refused to allow them to say the ambassador went to a Laker game that night, but that he refused to allow a picture of the ambassador posing with Kobe Bryant.

Can you tell me which you find incredulous and need photographic proof for?

1. After canceling, the ambassador decided to go to a Laker game.
2. He was able to make it from UCI to Staples Center on game night before the game started.
3. The LA Lakers management was able to find a foreign ambassador seats.
4. The ambassador would be willing to be photographed with Kobe Bryant.

I admit that #1 and #4 are stretches, but there are plenty of people in SoCal deranged enough to like the Lakers. Why should I automatically grant the ambassador better taste?

Also, if something this small makes a court a kangaroo court, are you ever able to stop being outraged? I'm pretty sure that the the judge in Jackson's doctor's trial made some evidentiary decisions today, perhaps you should go protest outside the LA Superior Court building?

[Kanastrous]

I think what's at issue with that is the argument that the disruption was so severe that it constituted suppression of Oren's speech.

When Oren had the opportunity to stay and continue on with the Q&A (with the disruptive people removed), but elected instead to attend a sports event, that doesn't particularly support the argument that he wanted to speak but was prevented by the actions of others.

Since the picture is photographic evidence substantiating the argument that he chose to go do something fun instead of completing his presentation (or at least the Q&A segment of it) - as opposed to having been unfairly driven from the venue and *prevented* from completing it - I think I understand why the defense wanted the jury to view it.

[TheHammer]

There is stepping up to the line, and then there is stepping over it. If you play a game of chicken and end up going too far you should expect to be prosecuted, even if you don't go that far over the line. That's what happened here.

How many Teabaggers were arrested and charged for their actions? None of these students threatened to use "Second Amendment Strategies" (i.e. assassination) for dealing with Oren, nor did they bring weapons, nor did they physically attack anyone -things the Teabaggers did repeatedly. Feel free to post examples of Teabagger thugs being arrested, let alone prosecuted for their thuggish behavior.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/0 ... Wear-a-Hat

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009 ... police.php

To be clear, I have no sympathy for loud mouth Teabaggers either.

And how exactly was this a kangaroo court?

LINK

The Israeli ambassador to the United States cut short his appearance at UC Irvine last year not because of disruptions by Muslim students but because he wanted to attend a Lakers game, a defense attorney for the students said Tuesday.

The so-called Irvine 11 are accused of interfering with Michael Oren’s right to free speech by constantly interrupting his appearance as the students took turns reading statements as the ambassador tried to speak.

Those in the audience, prosecutors said, were in turn deprived of listening and interacting with Oren.

Ultimately, prosecutors said, Oren was forced to cancel a question-and-answer session because of the disruption.

But defense attorney Lisa Holder said that Oren could have stayed for a question-and-answer session after the protesters were led away but instead opted to go to Staples Center.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Paul Wilson denied Holder’s request to show jurors a photo of Oren posing with Kobe Bryant at the game.

Of the 11 UCI and UC Riverside students originally charged in the case, 10 are standing trial. The 11th student is performing community service that will lead to the charges against him being dropped upon completion.

The case had drawn attention because of its 1st Amendment overtones and the long history of student protests at universities.

Defense attorney Jacqueline Goodman said that student protesters did not break the law but instead exercised free speech in the manner of Rosa Parks, Cesar Chavez and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the very figures they learned about in their classrooms.

“It was disruptive,” Goodman said, “but not so substantial in a controversial political speech as to constitute a crime.”

How does that make it a Kangaroo court? Nothing you bolded made the trial unfair, nor deny any of the accused their due process. The Defense was allowed to make the argument that the disruptions didn't really affect the speech. Just because the jury didn't buy it doesn't mean the trial was unfair. The picture with Kobe Bryant really was immaterial because no one was denying he went to the Lakers game following the event. It is also irrelevent to whether or not the students disrupted said event.

Finally, while I know laws on this matter vary from state to state, but could you please cite the unprosecuted "outright violence" you spoke of?

LINK

Another link

While those articles aren't conclusive that no charges were ever filed, if in fact there weren't any then police and prosecuters really dropped the ball. Arrests most certainly should have been made in both incidents.

[TheHammer]

I think what's at issue with that is the argument that the disruption was so severe that it constituted suppression of Oren's speech.

When Oren had the opportunity to stay and continue on with the Q&A (with the disruptive people removed), but elected instead to attend a sports event, that doesn't particularly support the argument that he wanted to speak but was prevented by the actions of others.

Since the picture is photographic evidence substantiating the argument that he chose to go do something fun instead of completing his presentation (or at least the Q&A segment of it) - as opposed to having been unfairly driven from the venue and *prevented* from completing it - I think I understand why the defense wanted the jury to view it.

Why should he have had to miss the Lakers game because a bunch of douche bags decided to be assholes at his event and try to prevent him from speaking? Sure the ambassador could have chosen to take extra time if he so chose, but it is irrelevent to whether the students disrupted the event. The law on this matter doesn't depend at all on what the participants do after the meeting.

[Kanastrous]

I think that there's a distinction to be made between I was wrongly prevented from speaking and my speech was therefore suppressed and the timing of my event was disrupted, and since going to a sporting event was more important than finishing somewhat behind schedule, I dumped the whole speech thing and went to the game instead of finishing.

Since attending a basketball game is by any rational measure of absolutely zero importance (in the context of international affairs and politics), it's fair to conclude that compared to attending said game finishing the engagement was of less than zero importance. Which makes it a hard sell, to claim that Oren was in some way deprived of an essential right.

[Thanas]

Kanastrous' argument holds merit. If a baseball game was more important than finishing his speech (which as envoy and representative of Israel should be his main duty, nay his job) then I fail to see what was so important. By all accounts media and audience were still there and willing and able to listen.

But I guess convicting people of misdemeanors and burdening them with legal fees (pretty hard for students to pay those) are more of a priority here. Heck, even their dean thought it too much and he stands to loose much more if rich Jewish donor start jumping ship or his university gains an antisemitic reputation in the media.

[Block]

Kanastrous' argument holds merit. If a baseball game was more important than finishing his speech (which as envoy and representative of Israel should be his main duty, nay his job) then I fail to see what was so important. By all accounts media and audience were still there and willing and able to listen.

But I guess convicting people of misdemeanors and burdening them with legal fees (pretty hard for students to pay those) are more of a priority here. Heck, even their dean thought it too much and he stands to loose much more if rich Jewish donor start jumping ship or his university gains an antisemitic reputation in the media.

It holds no merit. They were charged with the conspiracy to commit the act. You don't have to commit murder to be charged with conspiracy to commit, if it can be proven that you had the intent, the law is clear. The victim's actions after mean nothing in the eyes of the law. They could've just planned a normal protest and done that, instead they had to go about it in an illegal manner. Just because you sympathize with them doesn't mean the laws change.

[TheHammer]

Kanastrous' argument holds merit. If a baseball game was more important than finishing his speech (which as envoy and representative of Israel should be his main duty, nay his job) then I fail to see what was so important. By all accounts media and audience were still there and willing and able to listen.

But I guess convicting people of misdemeanors and burdening them with legal fees (pretty hard for students to pay those) are more of a priority here. Heck, even their dean thought it too much and he stands to loose much more if rich Jewish donor start jumping ship or his university gains an antisemitic reputation in the media.

It was a basketball game. They only play half as many games as baseball, therefore it was twice as harmful

In all seriousness, it wasn't the ambassador's decision to bring charges. Further, he isn't the only one "harmed". If the event was in fact cut short because of the interruptions, then the audience members lost out on the chance for legitimate questions and answers. The importance of the meeting is really irrelevent in the eyes of this particular law. Even if they were there discussing pokemon cards, it didn't give the protesters the right to disrupt it.

The prosecutor managed to convince a jury that they broke the law, and I've not heard from the defense about anything improper occuring during the trial. Both sides made their case. As for attorney fees, well as I've said earlier if you're gonna play chicken with the law that's a potential consequence.

[Thanas]

In all seriousness, it wasn't the ambassador's decision to bring charges. Further, he isn't the only one "harmed". If the event was in fact cut short because of the interruptions, then the audience members lost out on the chance for legitimate questions and answers. The importance of the meeting is really irrelevent in the eyes of this particular law. Even if they were there discussing pokemon cards, it didn't give the protesters the right to disrupt it.

That would be a good point if Oren did not finish his speech after all.

Each student briefly stood up, shouting a sentence or two, then walked to the aisle and was arrested by police and escorted out. After four interruptions, Oren took a 20-minute break, according to news reports at the time. He was then interrupted another six times before a group of protesters left the lecture hall. Oren then finished his speech.

So....that sounds utterly trivial by me. 10 very short interruptions?

"If what the Orange County D.A. is doing here is allowed to proceed, then anyone who interrupts a speaker would be guilty of a crime under the California penal code," says Daniel Mayfield, a San Jose criminal defense attorney who has represented many political protesters. "It would be different if the students had come in and set off a stink bomb or come in and grabbed the microphones and started haranguing the audience. But none of that happened," Mayfield adds.

[...]

Whether there was a substantial disruption is likely to be a crucial issue in the case; the phrase comes from Section 403 of the state penal code, under which the Irvine 11 have been charged. That law makes it illegal to disrupt certain kinds of meetings.

There's also a California Supreme Court precedent that may come into play, the 1970 Kay case. According to Mayfield, the court held in Kay that, "if you're having a political meeting and there is a political purpose for it, then you have to accept non-violent disruptive behavior." The Kay case centered on protesters who were calling for a boycott of non-union grapes, disrupting a speech by a congressman at a public July 4 event. They were arrested and charged under Section 403 of the penal code. A 6-1 majority of the state Supreme Court threw out the conviction, arguing in part:

Audience activities, such as heckling, interrupting, harsh questioning, and booing, even though they may be impolite and discourteous, can nonetheless advance the goals of the First Amendment

So another key question in the Irvine case may be whether Oren's speech was a political meeting.

Sounds pretty clear cut to me. Can anybody please explain how they broke the law considering those precedents?

[TheHammer]

In all seriousness, it wasn't the ambassador's decision to bring charges. Further, he isn't the only one "harmed". If the event was in fact cut short because of the interruptions, then the audience members lost out on the chance for legitimate questions and answers. The importance of the meeting is really irrelevent in the eyes of this particular law. Even if they were there discussing pokemon cards, it didn't give the protesters the right to disrupt it.

That would be a good point if Oren did not finish his speech after all.

I don't believe that the ability to finish a speech or not is relevent to this particular law. The Misdemeanor charge centers around whether or not a meeting was disrupted. So the argument then centers around whether or not there was a significant disruption as you alude to below.

Each student briefly stood up, shouting a sentence or two, then walked to the aisle and was arrested by police and escorted out. After four interruptions, Oren took a 20-minute break, according to news reports at the time. He was then interrupted another six times before a group of protesters left the lecture hall. Oren then finished his speech.

So....that sounds utterly trivial by me. 10 very short interruptions?

In addition to the actual interruptions you have the time of admonishment from the meeting hosts, as well as the fact that you can't simply pick up where you left off in a speech that has had its rythym broken. Further, when you have emails essentially stating your game plan centers around disrupting the speech then that is pretty incriminating.

"If what the Orange County D.A. is doing here is allowed to proceed, then anyone who interrupts a speaker would be guilty of a crime under the California penal code," says Daniel Mayfield, a San Jose criminal defense attorney who has represented many political protesters. "It would be different if the students had come in and set off a stink bomb or come in and grabbed the microphones and started haranguing the audience. But none of that happened," Mayfield adds.

[...]

Whether there was a substantial disruption is likely to be a crucial issue in the case; the phrase comes from Section 403 of the state penal code, under which the Irvine 11 have been charged. That law makes it illegal to disrupt certain kinds of meetings.

There's also a California Supreme Court precedent that may come into play, the 1970 Kay case. According to Mayfield, the court held in Kay that, "if you're having a political meeting and there is a political purpose for it, then you have to accept non-violent disruptive behavior." The Kay case centered on protesters who were calling for a boycott of non-union grapes, disrupting a speech by a congressman at a public July 4 event. They were arrested and charged under Section 403 of the penal code. A 6-1 majority of the state Supreme Court threw out the conviction, arguing in part:

Audience activities, such as heckling, interrupting, harsh questioning, and booing, even though they may be impolite and discourteous, can nonetheless advance the goals of the First Amendment

So another key question in the Irvine case may be whether Oren's speech was a political meeting.

Sounds pretty clear cut to me. Can anybody please explain how they broke the law considering those precedents?

I think it all centers around whether or not this was considered to be a "political event". It would seem to me that was the best route for the defense to take, but for some reason they tried to go down the "It wasn't really a disruption" route. So, then I've got to assume that they didn't feel they could make that distinction stick, or if they did then the prosecution was able to convince the jury otherwise. Its also possible that they made a big ass mistake, or wanted to keep that in their back pocket for an appeal.

Additional opinions on the matter can be found here:

http://volokh.com/2011/09/23/uc-irvine- ... h/#contact

[Thanas]

I think it all centers around whether or not this was considered to be a "political event". It would seem to me that was the best route for the defense to take, but for some reason they tried to go down the "It wasn't really a disruption" route. So, then I've got to assume that they didn't feel they could make that distinction stick, or if they did then the prosecution was able to convince the jury otherwise. Its also possible that they made a big ass mistake, or wanted to keep that in their back pocket for an appeal.

I'd agree with that, but I fail to see how this is not a political event. I mean, you got an ambassador speaking about policy issues and shaping public opinion. How much more political can you get?


Regarding the article you linked to, it seems the author makes a few assumptions - for example regarding the actual scale of the disturbance being higher than in the Kay case (but he does not really argue why) and the fact that apparently in Kay the disturbers were told that this was allowed - but I fail to see how that has any bearing on the free speech issue, considering that free speech is not something that exists depending on anybody declaring it valid or not.

So I'll see what the eventual appeal determines things to be.

[Todeswind]

So I'll see what the eventual appeal determines things to be.

[/quote]

To my knowledge they haven't filed for one.

[Questor]

I'd like to clarify what I was saying. I stated no opinion on the outcome of the trial (which I think was ludicrous, but about all I expect from an OC jury), I was saying that Elfdart's evidence of this being a "kangaroo court" was - at best - a jump to a conclusion.

Thanas: As I said, the article did not say that the judge refused to allow the fact of the ambassador's attendance at the game into evidence, he disallowed the photo[\b]. If the prosecution was allowed to say that he retired, devastated and humiliated, to his hotel room, then this photo might have value, but even still, I'm sure there would be other evidence of the ambassador's attendance at the game, making claiming that he didn't go pretty stupid.

[TheHammer]

So I'll see what the eventual appeal determines things to be.

To my knowledge they haven't filed for one.

To be honest, I'd probably be surprised if they wanted to make the effort even if they have a case. After all, 56 hours community service is likely easier to take than lawyer fees and the pains to go through with an appeal.

[Thanas]

They will.