1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

'Irvine 11' jury finds all 10 students guilty of censorship against Michael Oren

Discussion in 'Religious News' started by Johnathan, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. Johnathan

    Johnathan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Ratings:
    +6
    From the LA Times:
    'Irvine 11' jury finds all 10 students guilty - latimes.com

    Do you think the sanctions were enough for a disruptive and arguably violent and pre-planned act of this nature?

    Do you think the judge went easy on them because they were Muslim?

    40 hours in a soup kitchen seems remarkably easy seeing as they interrupted an invited speaker and assaulted the ears of the people that wanted to listen to Oren with unwanted words.
     
    #1 Johnathan, Sep 24, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2011
  2. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,091
    Ratings:
    +14,868
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    Violent? Disruptive, for sure, but violent? C'mon.

    Beats me. What would you prefer? 60 days in jail for being obnoxious and rude?

    If is somewhat fascinating that they thought shouting out at an invited guest was reasonable. Oddly, they wanted their voice heard, but not his. Fascinating logic at play, to be sure. It certainly doesn't do much to alter people's image of some Muslims as being raving fanatics who are intolerant of any view but their own.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Johnathan

    Johnathan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Ratings:
    +6
    Violence doesn't have to be physical, it can also take the form of insults, harassment, libel, slander, or what have you.

    These muslim extremists needed to learn a lesson. Free speech means you let people talk in a forum, and you don't shout them down. Somehow I doubt that some community service is going to be impressionable enough on these students or the rest of the muslim community.

    And for the record, yes, I would want fundie xtians or teabaggers to be punished if they interrupted a speech by, say, Joe Biden.

    Hypocrisy. It's what a lot of religionists are good at.

    Attempting to convert the world to your faith by force, then going into a hissy-fit when people tell you to stop it.

    Beating up your daughter or sister for not wanting to wear a tent over her head, then watching porn on the internet.

    Calling homosexuals child rapists, then sticking your hand down a little boy's pants during mass.

    And so on and so forth.
     
  4. Faxecura

    Faxecura Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    71
    Ratings:
    +6
    I think the discipline of the University should have been enough, and the judge gave them an appropriate punishment.

    Hypocrisy is also when you treat actions differently depending on who did the action and who it was done to.

    George Bush was repeatedly interrupted by protestors when he spoke as President of the United States, and such news was rarely heard, far less prosecuted. I cannot imagine that if these were a bunch of leftist/marxist students who protested, say Sarah Palin in a similar manner, that they would have been prosecuted. At most they would get a slap on the wrist and at best a commendation in the school papers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Oneatatime

    Oneatatime Huh?

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    774
    Ratings:
    +43
    Personally I don't understand why this ended up in court. It was a matter for the university to deal with and shouldn't have gone any further than whatever proportional action the university deemed appropriate. All that needed to be done was for the students to be escorted out of the venue and given a verbal slap on the wrist with possibly a temporary curtailment of privilages as punishment, something which any student coul expect.

    If they were atheists shouting down a Muslims speaker and they had ended up in court I suspect that Jonathan would saying that the response was too harsh and that they were supressing the students freedom of speech due in order to protect the religious and Muslim 'extremists' in particular.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Storm

    Storm ThrUU the Looking Glass

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    44,609
    Ratings:
    +2,360
    Religion:
    UU/ panentheist/ neopagan/ process theology
    I was just thinking that....
     
  7. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Oldest Heretic

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    15,271
    Ratings:
    +2,984
    Religion:
    Anglican...heretic
    I find it strange it ever got to court.
    Most such venues have staff available to remove hecklers who exceed their welcome.
    Most controversial speakers expect and welcome a degree of heckling and turn it to their advantage.
    continuous barracking on the other hand is usually dealt with calmly and very swiftly. ( as would bodily violence)
     
  8. Johnathan

    Johnathan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Ratings:
    +6
    George W. Bush is an elected official in the federal executive gov't and was thus liable to criticism, public appraisal, commentary, and the like. Offering a spontaneous, short criticism before he spoke does not disrupt what he is saying, but instead promotes a healthier society by allowing us to speak when our leaders misp-represent us.

    "Leftist" students would be an entirely different matter. More often than not, the individuals protested by students with progressive views are racist and hold fringe views, while the speaker the arab students interrupted was an elected official of a democratic state. Therefore exposing or confronting these views is within the scope of free speech.

    Moreover the students WERE hypocritical; would they have acted the same way if the guest speaker was 'one of them': an Arab Muslim? I think not and I think you know that they wouldn't have, either.
     
  9. Badran

    Badran Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    15,148
    Ratings:
    +944
    So in other words you're reaffirming what has already been said. You're basing your position on whether or not you like the views of the people who interrupted the speech.

    And you still failed to show where has their actions warranted legal action against them. I hope it wasn't the "they were hypocritical" part.
     
  10. Johnathan

    Johnathan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Ratings:
    +6
    There are limits to free speech. Hate speech is not free speech and even free speech is not absolute. It depends on time, place and context.

    They denied the Israeli ambassador's free speech and thus had violated the constitution. They did not have the right to express their views in the manner in which they did.

    If they wanted to express it, they could have done so in the privacy of their own homes, but once you are in public your rights end at the tip of other people's noses, or at within an earshot. But to assault public ears with speech which was unwanted is an illegal act. By doing so they showed they are actually opposed to free speech, not falsely claimed supporters of free speech. Democracy and free speech live, not die, by the correct verdict, and this was the correct verdict to protect democracy. They were seeking to oppress rights of others that they disagree with. It is called hypocrisy and is anti-American.

    Another thing to remember is that the First Amendment applies only to the FEDERAL government. The First Amendment does not apply to speech that can be deemed hateful. Remember, the students were able to communicate their ideas, albeit sick and perverted ones which consisted of maligning and libel that are obviously untrue upon a short introspection.

    Also the 1st amendment says "right of the people peaceably to assemble". The key word in this context is "peaceably". We all know what they did was not peaceful, and they were not calm and when confronted with the facts. Thus the right to defamatory and uncivil blabbering is a nonexistent right.

    There rights were not abridged, and an opposing party, the plantiffs, merely engaged in a legal right to bring legal action against it, as whould be done when confronted with the most venomous of evils upon Earth. Why should one sit quietly and meekly when spat on by the flames of intolerance?

    [youtube]XDk208v1LNo[/youtube]
     
    #10 Johnathan, Sep 26, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2011
  11. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    151,324
    Ratings:
    +42,894
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    If you're speaking of the US, hate speech is protected.

    This is a murky area. To shout down speakers is regularly done without prosecution.
    But they wouldn't be charged with violating the 1st Amendment, but rather under some local ordinance.

    Nah...unwanted speech is generally quite legal.

    This hasn't been true for over a century.....
    Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Au contraire! It's our most important right. If gov't could ban this, then they'd brand all dissenting speech as such.
     
  12. Badran

    Badran Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    15,148
    Ratings:
    +944
    Do you honestly fail to see the contradiction contained within your post here?
     
  13. Faxecura

    Faxecura Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    71
    Ratings:
    +6
  14. DreadFish

    DreadFish Cosmic Vagabond

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,127
    Ratings:
    +507
    Religion:
    Vihangam Marg
    It may have been rude, but it was in no way a crime. I think it's pathetic that this was taken to court. If anything they could have just been reprimanded by the school administration. But they were protesting, and have every right to do so as long as they are being physically violent or threatening people. There is no logical reason that the law should have gotten involved unless they were making threats of harm or something like that.
     
  15. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    55,720
    Ratings:
    +18,535
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    So the WBC can be as loud, vulgar, and disruptive as they want to be and no actions can be taken against them except for making them move to a location x-amount of feet away from a funeral, a several Muslim students get slapped in the face by the long arm of the law for protesting.
    Really I have no doubts the only reason any legal action was taken is because they are Muslim.
     
  16. YmirGF

    YmirGF Bodhisattva

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    29,091
    Ratings:
    +14,868
    Religion:
    Beyond the Light
    You comparison might fly if the group in question was a bunch of law students with a long history of using the courts to attack anyone who stood in their way. Remember, the Phelps and his daughter are both lawyers, who relish the thought of bringing a lawsuit at the faintest scent of any infringements on their rights.

    In my view, it would depend how things went when the police were brought in. If they continued to rant at that point, the police may have been completely justified in taking them into custody. As far as I am aware, once a police officer tells you to cool it, you are on pretty thin ice.

    That said, I haven't heard anything about what happened outside the hall. Anyone know? Did they continue being disruptive? Did they try to go back to their dorms or cars?
     
  17. gnomon

    gnomon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    8,879
    Ratings:
    +1,470
    Religion:
    atheist
    First off, I don't think their free speech rights were violated.

    Second, unless they resisted attempts by security of law enforcement to remove them from the building I don't understand why they would be charged with any crime.

    Third, if they did resist, passively, I don't understand why they would be charged with something as ridiculous as "conspiracy to disrupt". Nor do I agree with the sentence even though it's not particularly horrible. 40 hours of community service, usually to be done in a year's or six months time, is not a big deal.
     
Loading...