<![CDATA[pro-palestine - Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo]]> https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/tags/pro-palestine/ Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:45:39 GMT en-us <![CDATA[Orange County “Irvine 11” Convicted of All Counts]]> https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/orange-county-irvine-11-convicted-of-all-counts/ https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/orange-county-irvine-11-convicted-of-all-counts/ Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:47:00 GMT Last Friday, September 23, 2011, in the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana, 10 UC Irvine students (Irvine 11) were found guilty by a jury (the eleventh Defendant worked out a deal with prosecutors prior to trial). Each was found guilty of one count of disturbing a public meeting and for conspiring to do the…

]]> Last Friday, September 23, 2011, in the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana, 10 UC Irvine students (Irvine 11) were found guilty by a jury (the eleventh Defendant worked out a deal with prosecutors prior to trial). Each was found guilty of one count of disturbing a public meeting and for conspiring to do the same for their actions during Israeli ambassador Michael Oren’s speech at UC Irvine. Prosecutors told the jury that these students attempted to stop Oren’s speech and that it went beyond expressing their disagreement about the speaker’s position. The defense took the opposite stance. They explained that the UC Riverside and Irvine students involved were expressing their freedom of speech and were being targeted for the pro-Palestinian content of their argument. The DA’s office explained that by using a “heckler’s veto” the students had planned to use their disruptions to end the presentation. An e-mail used during the trial revealed a plan on how to disrupt the speech regardless of how officials might react. The DA used the defense argument in reverse: the students were suppressing Oren’s freedom of speech and that is against the law. As far as the Prosecutor was concerned it did not matter what the students were saying during the speech; it was the way they went about it. For the students it was about being targeted for their beliefs and because they are Muslim and had they been anyone else, this would not have happened in their opinion. Their attorneys argued that the students had conducted themselves in a lawful peaceful manner, but in the end the jury did not agree.

]]> <![CDATA[Irvine 11 are Charged by Orange County District Attorney]]> https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/irvine-11-are-charged-by-orange-county-district-attorney/ https://www.bruzzolaw.com/blog/irvine-11-are-charged-by-orange-county-district-attorney/ Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:17:00 GMT Last year 11 students were detained by authorities after disrupting a speech by the Ambassador from Israel, Ambassador Oren, at the University of California, Irvine. These students, since referred to as the Irvine 11, have now been formally charged with the crime of disturbing the peace. The eleven students, some of whom attended the University of…

]]> Last year 11 students were detained by authorities after disrupting a speech by the Ambassador from Israel, Ambassador Oren, at the University of California, Irvine. These students, since referred to as the Irvine 11, have now been formally charged with the crime of disturbing the peace. The eleven students, some of whom attended the University of California at Irvine and others the University of California at Riverside, disrupted the Ambassador’s speech shouting anti-Israel messages or pro-Palestine messages. The Orange County District Attorney’s office deliberated over whether to charge them because of the free speech issues and probably also because a judicial prosecution will set a showdown for free speech issues. While Free Speech is a cornerstone of American Democracy it does not permit another individual to “shout down” another. Also, through precedent the United States Supreme Court has laid out certain time and place restrictions that limit free speech, mainly for practical reasons. For example, holding a noisy demonstration in the middle of the night in a sleepy town might cause a court to legally restrict such a demonstration despite the Free Speech argument.

So while the Orange County District Attorney’s decision to charge the Irvine 11 is controversial it appears to be supported by the law in this area and not an infringement of the 1st Amendment right to Free Speech. See, Penal Code Sections 415, 415.5, 416.

]]>