Students convicted for protesting Israeli ambassador

[Darth Yan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/0 ... 52207.html

This is honestly disgusting. It's like if you criticize Israel you go to jail.

[mr friendly guy]

Hang on a minute. Each student shouts out their catch cry lasting no more than 8 seconds tops, a total of one minute combined. This is somehow "shouting down" the Israeli ambassador and preventing him from completing his speech, er I mean "shut him down". What did his speech run a few minutes too long?

Now I expect Molyneux some posters to ask can't we boycott America or something. In the interest of fairness of course.

[Irbis]

But defense attorneys said the students planned their protest within the boundaries of the law and their combined statements lasted no longer than five minutes.

How exactly 10 students shouting '8 seconds long' sentences produce ~5 minute long message?

And besides, free speech isn't about vandalizing someone else's speech with verbal vandalism and things that bordered on hate speech. Free speech right ends when it interrupts someone else's ability to say things freely. Had they said their message calmly, say, when the moderator asked for questions, I'd agree with them, but verbal equivalent of throwing eggs on the disputants isn't the way to go.

[Thanas]

^By that definition, any kind of political protest would not be protected by free speech.

[Irbis]

Well, there is a bit of difference between civil protest as allowed by law, and explicitly trying to disrupt and shut up any activity you don't like. Who forbid them to show a banner, for example? Take voice in civilized manner? Why we're supposed to support vandalism just because it might have 'acceptable' target? Should we agree to people vandalizing Israel's embassy to make a statement, too?

Really, what they did is little different, IMHO, than the case of someone in say, Germany throwing a brick at Angela Merkel for disagreeing with her policy, and then claiming he should be acquitted because: he did not hit, was just using his free speech rights, and 'nothing bad happened'. Would you agree with that line of reasoning?

Plus, regardless of above, there's the matter of hate speech against concrete individual/ethnicity, not a nation (which would be more acceptable). Can someone disagree with Merkel's policy in Germany by calling her 'dirty Jew' and 'go inhale a gas'? Would that 'free speech' be acceptable? I sincerely hope it is not.

[TheFeniX]

Well, there is a bit of difference between civil protest as allowed by law, and explicitly trying to disrupt and shut up any activity you don't like. Who forbid them to show a banner, for example? Take voice in civilized manner? Why we're supposed to support vandalism just because it might have 'acceptable' target? Should we agree to people vandalizing Israel's embassy to make a statement, too?

Because "Fuck you" and your "civilized speech" bullshit. The content of the message or how it is said should be irrelevant, provided the person isn't trying to incite violence. Physically damaging property != yelling.

Really, what they did is little different, IMHO, than the case of someone in say, Germany throwing a brick at Angela Merkel for disagreeing with her policy, and then claiming he should be acquitted because: he did not hit, was just using his free speech rights, and 'nothing bad happened'. Would you agree with that line of reasoning?

Protip: Thrown bricks can injure/kill people, words cannot.

Plus, regardless of above, there's the matter of hate speech against concrete individual/ethnicity, not a nation (which would be more acceptable). Can someone disagree with Merkel's policy in Germany by calling her 'dirty Jew' and 'go inhale a gas'? Would that 'free speech' be acceptable? I sincerely hope it is not.

I'll get called on this, but I say no: the 1st amendment allows a person to be a bigot as long as they aren't being violent about it. And that's a good thing.

This bullshit about arresting people for "disruption" is just that: bullshit. If people are causing as scene, they should be told to leave. If they don't leave, they should be arrested for trespassing. So, fuck people who cry because they got yelled at during a speech. Grow some thicker skin.

[TheHammer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/0 ... 52207.html

This is honestly disgusting. It's like if you criticize Israel you go to jail.

Firstly, its a misleading thread title since no one has been convicted of anything per the article you posted. Secondly they aren't being charged because they "criticized Israel" they are being charged with conspiring to disrupt a meeting.

While such a law may seem like it infringes on free speech, I can see it as a neccessity in order to prevent others from infringing on free speech themselves. Say for example the KKK could infiltrate a meeting on race relations and simply shout at the top of their lungs any time someone tried to speak. Whose rights are being trampled on there?

In opening statements Wednesday, Assistant District Attorney Dan Wagner said emails from the leader of UC Irvine's Muslim Student Union show that students drafted a detailed game plan to disrupt Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren's talk on U.S.-Israel relations.

If that statement is indeed true, then the prosecutor could have a case. I'd need to know more about the nature of the event, and specifics of the law they supposedly broke. If they did really only should for about 8 seconds each, then this does seem rather petty to prosecute. In any event, they'll have their day in court.

[Thanas]

Well, there is a bit of difference between civil protest as allowed by law, and explicitly trying to disrupt and shut up any activity you don't like. Who forbid them to show a banner, for example? Take voice in civilized manner? Why we're supposed to support vandalism just because it might have 'acceptable' target? Should we agree to people vandalizing Israel's embassy to make a statement, too?

Really, what they did is little different, IMHO, than the case of someone in say, Germany throwing a brick at Angela Merkel for disagreeing with her policy, and then claiming he should be acquitted because: he did not hit, was just using his free speech rights, and 'nothing bad happened'. Would you agree with that line of reasoning?

Plus, regardless of above, there's the matter of hate speech against concrete individual/ethnicity, not a nation (which would be more acceptable). Can someone disagree with Merkel's policy in Germany by calling her 'dirty Jew' and 'go inhale a gas'? Would that 'free speech' be acceptable? I sincerely hope it is not.

A) You are apparently incapable of distinguishing between words and destruction of property/harm to a person.
B) Your ridiculous strawman of the various Merkel scenarios are not worth addressing either, as throwing a brick at somebody leads us right back to Point A)

[TheHammer]

Well, there is a bit of difference between civil protest as allowed by law, and explicitly trying to disrupt and shut up any activity you don't like. Who forbid them to show a banner, for example? Take voice in civilized manner? Why we're supposed to support vandalism just because it might have 'acceptable' target? Should we agree to people vandalizing Israel's embassy to make a statement, too?

Its not what they said that is the issue. The issue is that their apparent goal - Allegedly - was to prevent the Israeli ambassador from being heard by shouting him down. They are in essence being charged with infringing upon someone else's right to free speech, and the rights of people to hear that speach.

Really, what they did is little different, IMHO, than the case of someone in say, Germany throwing a brick at Angela Merkel for disagreeing with her policy, and then claiming he should be acquitted because: he did not hit, was just using his free speech rights, and 'nothing bad happened'. Would you agree with that line of reasoning?

As others noted, that's a bad argument to make. Same with your vandalism argument. Threats of violence and damage to property have traditionally not been protected as free speech for obvious reasons.

Plus, regardless of above, there's the matter of hate speech against concrete individual/ethnicity, not a nation (which would be more acceptable). Can someone disagree with Merkel's policy in Germany by calling her 'dirty Jew' and 'go inhale a gas'? Would that 'free speech' be acceptable? I sincerely hope it is not.

Well, "Acceptable" is matter of personal choice, however that speech WOULD be protected speech in the United States (although I think some places in Europe that can get you charged with hate crimes). But Again, its not their message that is the issue. Its the manner in which it was delivered.

As noted in the article:

"It is just maddening and outrageous that they think they have a free speech right to shut everybody else up," Shapiro said. "That's not the way the First Amendment works."

[TheFeniX]

While such a law may seem like it infringes on free speech, I can see it as a neccessity in order to prevent others from infringing on free speech themselves.

You're telling me private property owners and public institutions have no other recourse than to wait 1-year to file "disruption" charges against an organized protest? Laws like this only exist so overzealous prosecutors can find ways to punish people they don't like. They want to spank these guys a year after the fact, probably because they couldn't find any other way to fuck them over legally.

Say for example the KKK could infiltrate a meeting on race relations and simply shout at the top of their lungs any time someone tried to speak. Whose rights are being trampled on there?

A private citizen is hard pressed to violate anothers Freedom of Speech because that's not what the protection is there for. There's nothing illegal about two blow-hards arguing in public or private about the state of race relations, shouting each other down. (Otherwise, most Fox programs would be off the air). Any criminal charges filed would be for disrupting the peace, not used to show who is right or wrong. There's nothing illegal (or, there shouldn't be) about me crashing a speech or just generally making an ass out of myself on private property.

Public Schools present a different problem because they are sometimes owned privately, but take public funding. So the administration itself has to be careful when it comes to the bill of rights, but individual citizens don't have that problem.

On how to handle ninja bigots in your speech: "Leave now, you're trespassing." No extra feelgood laws needed. As the property owner (or the renter of say a meeting hall in a hotel or other forum), I have the right to revoke anyone's permission to be on the premises at any time. If they refuse to leave, we have trespassing laws to handle that. But I guess it's hard living in a world where you can't just have everyone you don't like arrested.

[TheHammer]

While such a law may seem like it infringes on free speech, I can see it as a neccessity in order to prevent others from infringing on free speech themselves.

You're telling me private property owners and public institutions have no other recourse than to wait 1-year to file "disruption" charges against an organized protest? Laws like this only exist so overzealous prosecutors can find ways to punish people they don't like. They want to spank these guys a year after the fact, probably because they couldn't find any other way to fuck them over legally.

The prosecutor specifically makes note of emails he had that implicate the group. That may have been the key piece of evidence in bringing "conspiracy" charges against the group, and it may not have come to light until much more recently. It may well have been that he was going to let the issue go, but when new evidence came to light that this was in fact a coordinated effort to disrupt the Ambassador's event, he may have decided to go ahead with charges.

But speculation is a wasted endeavor for both of us...

Say for example the KKK could infiltrate a meeting on race relations and simply shout at the top of their lungs any time someone tried to speak. Whose rights are being trampled on there?

A private citizen is hard pressed to violate anothers Freedom of Speech because that's not what the protection is there for. There's nothing illegal about two blow-hards arguing in public or private about the state of race relations, shouting each other down. (Otherwise, most Fox programs would be off the air). Any criminal charges filed would be for disrupting the peace, not used to show who is right or wrong. There's nothing illegal (or, there shouldn't be) about me crashing a speech or just generally making an ass out of myself on private property.

You are partially correct. The first amendment doesn't explicity protect the infringement of right of free speech from other private citizens. But that doesn't mean other laws, such as the one about disrupting a meeting, weren't drafted to do exactly that. Two blow hards arguing in public does not constitute a meeting. Two or more bloehards arguing on Fox news doesn't constitute a meeting either. They aren't really relevent to the discussion here.

And I've got to disagree with you on our statement that there is "nothing illegal (or there shouldn't be) about me crashing a speech or just making an ass out of myself on private property". Unless that property is your own, or you have some right to be there I'd consider it to be more illegal than disrupting a public event - with tresspassing in addition to other charges.

Public Schools present a different problem because they are sometimes owned privately, but take public funding. So the administration itself has to be careful when it comes to the bill of rights, but individual citizens don't have that problem.

On how to handle ninja bigots in your speech: "Leave now, you're trespassing." No extra feelgood laws needed. As the property owner (or the renter of say a meeting hall in a hotel or other forum), I have the right to revoke anyone's permission to be on the premises at any time. If they refuse to leave, we have trespassing laws to handle that. But I guess it's hard living in a world where you can't just have everyone you don't like arrested.

It's all well and good to ask people to leave, but that doesn't mean that they haven't already disrupted the event. Even if they said "Ok, we'll go" they've already accomplished their mission. Again, and this is key here, the prosecution is saying that this was a conspiracy to disrupt the event. That this group went there with the intention not of simply being heard themselves, but the intent to prevent the ambassador be heard himself. The question then becomes do they have the evidence to prove it? That's what we will see at the trial.

[Simon_Jester]

On how to handle ninja bigots in your speech: "Leave now, you're trespassing." No extra feelgood laws needed. As the property owner (or the renter of say a meeting hall in a hotel or other forum), I have the right to revoke anyone's permission to be on the premises at any time. If they refuse to leave, we have trespassing laws to handle that. But I guess it's hard living in a world where you can't just have everyone you don't like arrested.

Well, the school originally did pretty much that- "leave now, you're trespassing."

I'm not sure how the prosecutors came into that, aside from reflexive authoritarian "hurt troublemakers!" instincts.

I don't have a right to disrupt other people's meetings, but I see your point in that I should be pretty secure from prosecution as long as the disruptions are... 'reasonable.' For some definition of reasonable- there has to be a limit, as illustrated by the infamous "fire in a crowded theater" example.

It's all well and good to ask people to leave, but that doesn't mean that they haven't already disrupted the event. Even if they said "Ok, we'll go" they've already accomplished their mission. Again, and this is key here, the prosecution is saying that this was a conspiracy to disrupt the event. That this group went there with the intention not of simply being heard themselves, but the intent to prevent the ambassador be heard himself. The question then becomes do they have the evidence to prove it? That's what we will see at the trial.

If an act is not itself a crime, can conspiracy to commit it be a crime? Does that not raise other First Amendment issues by limiting the freedom of assembly? If the people cannot assemble to agree to engage in lawful political activity, then the political activity itself is effectively banned.

[TheHammer]

It's all well and good to ask people to leave, but that doesn't mean that they haven't already disrupted the event. Even if they said "Ok, we'll go" they've already accomplished their mission. Again, and this is key here, the prosecution is saying that this was a conspiracy to disrupt the event. That this group went there with the intention not of simply being heard themselves, but the intent to prevent the ambassador be heard himself. The question then becomes do they have the evidence to prove it? That's what we will see at the trial.

If an act is not itself a crime, can conspiracy to commit it be a crime? Does that not raise other First Amendment issues by limiting the freedom of assembly? If the people cannot assemble to agree to engage in lawful political activity, then the political activity itself is effectively banned.

Well, I don't have specifics on the law handy, but the article states: "The students face misdemeanor charges of conspiring to disrupt a meeting and disrupting a meeting", so it would seem that "disrupting a meeting" is in fact against the law. It may be that the conspiracy charge carries a lot more weight because it signifies intent.

I'm not really sure where you are going with your second point. This law has no effect that prevents freedom of assembly. No one prevented these students from having their own event, or peacefully protesting outside of this one. However, allegedly they went in to the Ambassador's event, with the sole intention of disrupting it. But again, the its up to the prosecutor to prove they did this. I'm definitely curious to see the evidence.

[TheFeniX]

The prosecutor specifically makes note of emails he had that implicate the group. That may have been the key piece of evidence in bringing "conspiracy" charges against the group, and it may not have come to light until much more recently. It may well have been that he was going to let the issue go, but when new evidence came to light that this was in fact a coordinated effort to disrupt the Ambassador's event, he may have decided to go ahead with charges.

This is no more a conspiracy than the Westboro Church idiots grouping up to trash solider funerals. A conspiracy exists because the law exists. Period. It's just another example of whiny fucks demanding more stupid laws when current laws would have handled the situation fine. But we need more ways to waste tax-dollars by throwing people in jail because public figures have thin skin.

It's like the "I understand the Viginia Tech shooters motivations" kid who got arrested at his university a few years ago. They popped him for a stupid catch-all "inciting unrest law" or some other bullshit. He never made any threats, so they couldn't go the sane route. But they had to punish him for daring to state an opinion they didn't like during an open discussion at a place of learning....

The problem is these laws themselves: it supersedes sane laws like "trespassing." And it gives authority carte blanc to decide who they want to go to jail and when.

You are partially correct. The first amendment doesn't explicity protect the infringement of right of free speech from other private citizens. But that doesn't mean other laws, such as the one about disrupting a meeting, weren't drafted to do exactly that. Two blow hards arguing in public does not constitute a meeting. Two or more bloehards arguing on Fox news doesn't constitute a meeting either. They aren't really relevent to the discussion here.

It is relevant. They can't invite someone to the show, then have them arrested for shouting down a host, because that would be a stupid law to have.

And I've got to disagree with you on our statement that there is "nothing illegal (or there shouldn't be) about me crashing a speech or just making an ass out of myself on private property". Unless that property is your own, or you have some right to be there I'd consider it to be more illegal than disrupting a public event - with tresspassing in addition to other charges.

IF they were let in, they weren't trespassing. If you invite someone in, you can't charge them with trespass without first revoking their right to be there (by stating so) then giving them a reasonable amount of time to leave on their own.

You know, how sane laws are written?

It's all well and good to ask people to leave, but that doesn't mean that they haven't already disrupted the event.

Tough fucking shit. That's the problem you have when you either invite anyone in or don't do background checks. I can't invite a bunch of people over for drinks then have them arrested because they got stupid drunk. I can however tell them to leave and have them arrested for trespassing if they don't.

Jesus, in your world we could all be arrested for civil rights violations for booing at a fucking rock concert.

Even if they said "Ok, we'll go" they've already accomplished their mission. Again, and this is key here, the prosecution is saying that this was a conspiracy to disrupt the event. That this group went there with the intention not of simply being heard themselves, but the intent to prevent the ambassador be heard himself. The question then becomes do they have the evidence to prove it? That's what we will see at the trial.

Boo hoo, screen attendees next time or learn to deal with people whose opinion differ from yours without resorting to having them arrested.

This is the crux of the issue: these guys were smart enough (or the organizers too lazy to catch them) to get away with this. So we use stupid laws to nail them after the fact rather than accepting 1. people have different opinions and 2. our lack of security (you know, removing all discourse so only our message gets out, no double standard... right?) allowed it to happen.

[TheHammer]

The prosecutor specifically makes note of emails he had that implicate the group. That may have been the key piece of evidence in bringing "conspiracy" charges against the group, and it may not have come to light until much more recently. It may well have been that he was going to let the issue go, but when new evidence came to light that this was in fact a coordinated effort to disrupt the Ambassador's event, he may have decided to go ahead with charges.

This is no more a conspiracy than the Westboro Church idiots grouping up to trash solider funerals. A conspiracy exists because the law exists. Period. It's just another example of whiny fucks demanding more stupid laws when current laws would have handled the situation fine. But we need more ways to waste tax-dollars by throwing people in jail because public figures have thin skin.

The Westboro church holds its protests at the distance designated by law. That's the only way they've managed to avoid arrest despite being despised. If they snuck into the funerals and at an appropriate time started shouting about "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", aside from likely being beaten senseless, they would almost certainly be charged.

It's like the "I understand the Viginia Tech shooters motivations" kid who got arrested at his university a few years ago. They popped him for a stupid catch-all "inciting unrest law" or some other bullshit. He never made any threats, so they couldn't go the sane route. But they had to punish him for daring to state an opinion they didn't like during an open discussion at a place of learning....

I'm sure that's an oversimplification of what happened. And irrelevent to this particular discussion.

The problem is these laws themselves: it supersedes sane laws like "trespassing." And it gives authority carte blanc to decide who they want to go to jail and when.

No, they don't.

You are partially correct. The first amendment doesn't explicity protect the infringement of right of free speech from other private citizens. But that doesn't mean other laws, such as the one about disrupting a meeting, weren't drafted to do exactly that. Two blow hards arguing in public does not constitute a meeting. Two or more bloehards arguing on Fox news doesn't constitute a meeting either. They aren't really relevent to the discussion here.

It is relevant. They can't invite someone to the show, then have them arrested for shouting down a host, because that would be a stupid law to have.

The difference is they are an invited guest for the purpose of a debate. If someone just showed up at the studio and started hollering at Bill O'Reilly then they'd obviously have him arrested.

And I've got to disagree with you on our statement that there is "nothing illegal (or there shouldn't be) about me crashing a speech or just making an ass out of myself on private property". Unless that property is your own, or you have some right to be there I'd consider it to be more illegal than disrupting a public event - with tresspassing in addition to other charges.

IF they were let in, they weren't trespassing. If you invite someone in, you can't charge them with trespass without first revoking their right to be there (by stating so) then giving them a reasonable amount of time to leave on their own.

You know, how sane laws are written?

They weren't charged with tresspassing. And I clearly stated that the "right to be there" would be key. It doesn't apply in this case, so moving on...

It's all well and good to ask people to leave, but that doesn't mean that they haven't already disrupted the event.

Tough fucking shit. That's the problem you have when you either invite anyone in or don't do background checks. I can't invite a bunch of people over for drinks then have them arrested because they got stupid drunk. I can however tell them to leave and have them arrested for trespassing if they don't.

Obviously if you invite them over for drinks, you take the inherent risk that they get "stupid drunk". If you invited them over for tea and they showed up "stupid drunk" and causing problems then yeah you could have them arrested.

Jesus, in your world we could all be arrested for civil rights violations for booing at a fucking rock concert.

Even if they said "Ok, we'll go" they've already accomplished their mission. Again, and this is key here, the prosecution is saying that this was a conspiracy to disrupt the event. That this group went there with the intention not of simply being heard themselves, but the intent to prevent the ambassador be heard himself. The question then becomes do they have the evidence to prove it? That's what we will see at the trial.

Boo hoo, screen attendees next time or learn to deal with people whose opinion differ from yours without resorting to having them arrested.

You may not LIKE the fact that disrupting a meeting is a crime, but that doesn't change the law. The law exists so that the event DOESNT have to screen attendees. In short, just because you may not like an event someone else is having doesn't give you the right to crash it.

This is the crux of the issue: these guys were smart enough (or the organizers too lazy to catch them) to get away with this. So we use stupid laws to nail them after the fact rather than accepting 1. people have different opinions and 2. our lack of security (you know, removing all discourse so only our message gets out, no double standard... right?) allowed it to happen.

Obviously they didn't get away with it. They left an electronic trail with emails detailing their plans to try and ruin the event. Emails that later fell into the hands of the prosecutor. Doesn't seem very smart to me. Again, nothing stopped these guys from holding their own event, or protesting outside of this one. Maybe some community service (which is what they are likely to get at MOST) would do them some good.

[TheFeniX]

The Westboro church holds its protests at the distance designated by law. That's the only way they've managed to avoid arrest despite being despised. If they snuck into the funerals and at an appropriate time started shouting about "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", aside from likely being beaten senseless, they would almost certainly be charged.

Except neither group "snuck in" anywhere, so it's irrelevant. These guys tried to stay within the law, but the prosecutor is basically saying he's better at nit-picking than they are.

No, they don't.

When a law is so vague, you could arrest a group of people for eating a full meal at Taco Bell, then literally farting the place full of gas: you're doing it wrong.

The difference is they are an invited guest for the purpose of a debate. If someone just showed up at the studio and started hollering at Bill O'Reilly then they'd obviously have him arrested.

Please point out in the story where they trespassed to attend the meeting. Quit dodging my point.

They weren't charged with tresspassing. And I clearly stated that the "right to be there" would be key. It doesn't apply in this case, so moving on...

Only because they couldn't be charged with it because there was nothing illegal about them being there. So keep "moving on" when you just made two references to trespassing in the above post....

Obviously if you invite them over for drinks, you take the inherent risk that they get "stupid drunk". If you invited them over for tea and they showed up "stupid drunk" and causing problems then yeah you could have them arrested.

Are you fucking crazy? First off, the accused were either invited or it was open-attendance (so open invitation), so they couldn't be trespassing.

Second, what fucking shit-hole do you live in where what you stated is true? You can't arbitrarily have people arrested for showing up to your place in a manner you don't like. You can only revoke their ability to be there. At least, that's how it is in most sane places.

You may not LIKE the fact that disrupting a meeting is a crime, but that doesn't change the law. The law exists so that the event DOESNT have to screen attendees. In short, just because you may not like an event someone else is having doesn't give you the right to crash it.

Let me rephrase your comment: "You may not like that homosexuals can't get married, but that doesn't change law."

Something being a law doesn't make it just. The only justification you have for this law is basically "Waa, big meanies attended an open event and said mean things. They have to be punished and it's a good thing we have this law sitting around to do it." My whole point is that this law is stupid because it's vague and superfluous because we have better laws to handle shit like this. Well, maybe not better because other laws allow people to say things without being arrested for them.

Was there an applause at any time during this meeting? I'm sure that would have disrupted the speech. Throw them all in jail, damn rights violators!

Obviously they didn't get away with it. They left an electronic trail with emails detailing their plans to try and ruin the event. Emails that later fell into the hands of the prosecutor. Doesn't seem very smart to me. Again, nothing stopped these guys from holding their own event, or protesting outside of this one. Maybe some community service (which is what they are likely to get at MOST) would do them some good.

Maybe they could be tasked with teaching thin-skinned shits like you to grow the fuck up and do society a favor without your kids-gloves bullshit annoying us.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A couple points.

1) It is highly unlikely they will face any jail time if convicted.

2) Yes, even if you're invited you can be arrested for being stupid drunk as long as your definition for stupid drunk actually meets a criminal code which would most likely be public intoxication. For example, in Utah you meet the elements for public intoxication if you are intoxicated and a danger to yourself or others - and it doesn't actually have to be in public.

3) Your right to free speech does not give you the right to take away others free speech. That's why people who are lawfully protesting use signs and protest zones are designated. Freedom of speech and your right to protest also don't give you the right to disrupt others. That's why people were getting arrested on Wall Street. They were disrupting operations.

Oh here's another Utah code for reference...other states likely have similar codes;
76-9-103. Disrupting a meeting or procession.
(1) A person is guilty of disrupting a meeting or procession if, intending to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action, verbal utterance, or any other means.
(2) Disrupting a meeting or procession is a class B misdemeanor.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Let me rephrase your comment: "You may not like that homosexuals can't get married, but that doesn't change law."

Hardly a fair comparison. Don't be a dishonest douche. The law "disrupting a meeting" is intended to protect the time invested by people expecting to hear someone speak. They didn't come there to listen to you speak. They came to listen to the VIP speak. When you interupt that meeting you're wasting their time when they didn't come to have it wasted and perhaps even their money. That's why it is a meeting held in a private location.

The law not allowing homosexuals to marry isn't protecting anyone's time...just their beliefs.

[TheHammer]

The Westboro church holds its protests at the distance designated by law. That's the only way they've managed to avoid arrest despite being despised. If they snuck into the funerals and at an appropriate time started shouting about "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", aside from likely being beaten senseless, they would almost certainly be charged.

Except neither group "snuck in" anywhere, so it's irrelevant. These guys tried to stay within the law, but the prosecutor is basically saying he's better at nit-picking than they are.

And the same would happen to anyone else who tried to bend the law, and went too far and broke it.

No, they don't.

When a law is so vague, you could arrest a group of people for eating a full meal at Taco Bell, then literally farting the place full of gas: you're doing it wrong.

Please cite where you feel the law is vague.

The difference is they are an invited guest for the purpose of a debate. If someone just showed up at the studio and started hollering at Bill O'Reilly then they'd obviously have him arrested.

Please point out in the story where they trespassed to attend the meeting. Quit dodging my point.

You don't have a point. Its an entirely different situation, thus a different set of laws would apply.

They weren't charged with tresspassing. And I clearly stated that the "right to be there" would be key. It doesn't apply in this case, so moving on...

Only because they couldn't be charged with it because there was nothing illegal about them being there. So keep "moving on" when you just made two references to trespassing in the above post....

The only references to tresspassing I made where in reference to your unrelated hypothetical scenarios. However, I will duly ignore such non-relevent tangents in the future so as to avoid confusing you.

Obviously if you invite them over for drinks, you take the inherent risk that they get "stupid drunk". If you invited them over for tea and they showed up "stupid drunk" and causing problems then yeah you could have them arrested.

Are you fucking crazy? First off, the accused were either invited or it was open-attendance (so open invitation), so they couldn't be trespassing.

Where are you going with this? Somehow you've got a "tresspassing brain bug" when its completely a non fucking issue. They were perfectly welcome to be at the event. They were NOT welcome to disrupt it by shouting down the event speaker.

Second, what fucking shit-hole do you live in where what you stated is true? You can't arbitrarily have people arrested for showing up to your place in a manner you don't like. You can only revoke their ability to be there. At least, that's how it is in most sane places.

Do you just skim the things I write? Because it sure seems like it. Which part of "causing problems" didn't you get? Drunk and disorderly would be the charge in this case, but quite frankly I'm tired of going down these irrelevent hypotheticals with you.

You may not LIKE the fact that disrupting a meeting is a crime, but that doesn't change the law. The law exists so that the event DOESNT have to screen attendees. In short, just because you may not like an event someone else is having doesn't give you the right to crash it.

Let me rephrase your comment: "You may not like that homosexuals can't get married, but that doesn't change law."

< - That's all that comment deserves.

Something being a law doesn't make it just. The only justification you have for this law is basically "Waa, big meanies attended an open event and said mean things. They have to be punished and it's a good thing we have this law sitting around to do it." My whole point is that this law is stupid because it's vague and superfluous because we have better laws to handle shit like this. Well, maybe not better because other laws allow people to say things without being arrested for them.

Was there an applause at any time during this meeting? I'm sure that would have disrupted the speech. Throw them all in jail, damn rights violators!

"Law Concerning Disturbance of a Meeting or Assembly (Penal Code § 403)
Penal Code § 403, entitled, “Disturbance of assembly or meeting other than religious or political,” states: “Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character … is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The California Supreme Court stated (In re Kay, supra, 1 Cal. 3rd 930, 946) that the section required that the defendant substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting by intentionally committing acts in violation of implicit customs or usages or of explicit rules for governance of the meeting, of which he knew, or as a reasonable man should have known. “Substantial impairment” was determined by the “actual impact” on the course of the meeting, such activity, when it is intentional and when it “substantially impairs the conduct of a meeting, violates section 403.” Finally, a violation of Penal Code § 403 does not require that a defendant’s conduct create a clear and present danger of violent conduct on the part of the defendant or of others or that it endangered public safety and order."

Applause at a speech is an implicit custom. Shouting down the speaker is not. Additional information on what exactly they were charged with can be found here:
http://orangecountyda.com/home/index.as ... ordid=2182. It includes what exactly the students did, and the circumstances under which they planned it.

Obviously they didn't get away with it. They left an electronic trail with emails detailing their plans to try and ruin the event. Emails that later fell into the hands of the prosecutor. Doesn't seem very smart to me. Again, nothing stopped these guys from holding their own event, or protesting outside of this one. Maybe some community service (which is what they are likely to get at MOST) would do them some good.

Maybe they could be tasked with teaching thin-skinned shits like you to grow the fuck up and do society a favor without your kids-gloves bullshit annoying us.

Actually you are too short sighted to see that laws like this actually protect speech from loud mouthed bullies who think they have the right to come in and shout down someone elses speech because they disagree with it. No one is saying the accused students are wrong for having their beliefs. No one is saying they would have been wrong in having their own event or protesting outside of this one in order to express them. The issue is the manner in which they behaved at the event itself that is at issue.

And as a final note, it does appear that these students were found guilty and sentenced to 56 hours community service. The original article didn't have this information because it was written prior to the conviction.

Excerpt from the above article regarding the trial:

Prosecutor Dan Wagner told jurors the students acted as censors to block the free flow of ideas and infringed upon the rights of 700 people who had gone to the Irvine campus to hear Oren.

Wagner showed video footage of university officials pleading with students to behave but said they kept interrupting the lecture. Wagner also showed emails sent among members of UC Irvine's Muslim Student Union planning the disruption and calculating who was willing to get arrested.

[Elfdart]

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).

[Darth Fanboy]

Firstly, its a misleading thread title since no one has been convicted of anything per the article you posted. Secondly they aren't being charged because they "criticized Israel" they are being charged with conspiring to disrupt a meeting.

10 of the 11 were found guilty, the verdict came in days ago. So lets not pretend like this is still up in the air.

[Block]

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).

In California?

[Kamakazie Sith]

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).

A town meeting is a different situation, Elfdart. In town meetings debate is expected... However, even in those situations Tea Party members were arrested. And no, disrupting a meeting does not make you a criminal in the eyes of anyone so you can stop the "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" drama now. Nobody would look at a conviction for disrupting a meeting and say "omg this person is a criminal".

And carrying firearms is a 2nd amendment right. What is the government suppose to do? Violate that right? You're arguing apples and oranges. However, in several cases people that did carry firearms to town meetings were arrested when they did so in a manner that was considered illegal.

Source

[HMS Conqueror]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/0 ... 52207.html

This is honestly disgusting. It's like if you criticize Israel you go to jail.

When are they going to come for Obama?

In seriousness, this incident seems wrong. I don't understand why it is a criminal offence to disrupt a meeting. You get kicked out, fine, but that should surely be it. However, people of all political persuasions have been arrested at political rallies for doing this in the past, so it isn't some Jewish Israeli conspiracy in particular.

[TheHammer]

Firstly, its a misleading thread title since no one has been convicted of anything per the article you posted. Secondly they aren't being charged because they "criticized Israel" they are being charged with conspiring to disrupt a meeting.

10 of the 11 were found guilty, the verdict came in days ago. So lets not pretend like this is still up in the air.

You're late to the party bucko. I acknowledged two posts up that a verdict came in. However this was not acknowledged in the original article posted.

Surprsingly enough, they were NOT convicted of "criticizing Israel"... Go figure!