Prosecution of students for censoring Ambassador Oren cited as First Amendment enforcement

4.2.12 WC: 191694 The ACLU should be supporting a clear line between occasional heckling and outright censorship. The ACLU leaders who signed the letter are on the wrong side of that line and should not be speaking for the ACLU. The prosecution of those who tried to censor Ambassador Oren proceeded. The prosecutors asked me to testify on their behalf as an expert witness on the issues relating to freedom of expression in the campus context. I was tempted but ultimately decided it would be better for them to use a witness with less personal involvement in the matter: I too had been shouted down by anti-Israel groups—on that very campus and on others. The jury convicted the students and they were sentenced to probation and a fine. There were some who criticized the prosecutor for bringing these charges, but I defended him on the ground that prosecuting these student censors was his duty in protecting the First Amendment: It was imperative...that a public prosecutor apply the law to these students, because to do otherwise would be to tolerate, if not encourage, conduct that would undercut the constitutional rights of an invited speaker. This is especially true because the University of California is a state-run institution to which the First Amendment applies in full force. A prosecutor has the obligation to protect the First Amendment, especially if the university has imposed discipline that is inadequate to assure that censorial conduct will be deterred. Moreover, these students must be made to understand that their conduct is not only morally indefensible; it is criminal. The same would be true if Jewish students were to try to prevent an anti-Israel speaker from presenting the case against Israel. No student, no matter how strongly they feel that their view is the only correct one, has the right to prevent the open marketplace of ideas from operating on a university campus, as these ten students tried to do. The successful prosecution of the Irvine Ten will not “chill” free speech rights of hecklers. No one should or would be prosecuted for simply booing the content of a speech, leafleting a speaker, holding up signs in the back of the auditorium, conducting a counter event or demonstration. It was these young criminals who were trying to chill, indeed freeze, the constitutional rights of the speaker and those who came to hear him. They should not be treated as heroes by anyone who loves freedom and supports the First Amendment. It was a good day for the First Amendment when the prosecutor decided to apply the law to their censorial conduct. It was another good day for the First Amendment when the jury appropriately convicted them. Sometimes it takes tough measures to enforce the First Amendment against extremists who believe they own the only “truth” and who seek to silence other views. 138 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017225