"GOEBBELS was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."
Noam Chomsky said this in his film "Manufacturing Consent." His absolute definition of free speech strikes many decent people as extreme, but it allows for the most total protection of rights imaginable. This is a right that should be cherished, especially in the midst of several ongoing free speech debates here at the University and the high-profile disappointment of the recently concluded Irvine 11 trial in California.
At the University of California, Irvine, there has been a long-standing tension between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine student groups. The conflict reached a new level last year when Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren came to speak at UC Irvine. Eleven students associated with the Muslim Student Union (MSU) interrupted his presentation, calling him a "mass murderer" and loudly condemning Ambassador Oren in front of his audience. The MSU was punished by the school, but their trouble had only just begun.
The Orange County district attorney filed charges of unlawful disruption against the students, who were to be known as the Irvine 11. The students were not expressing their freedom of speech, the district attorney argued, but rather obstructing that of Ambassador Oren. There was instant outrage from the Muslim community, which felt its viewpoints were being singled out by the prosecution.\nWhat the MSU did was nothing new for young activists in southern California. You can see a discussion panel full of liberal speakers being disrupted by the College Republicans at the University of California, Riverside on YouTube. This footage even was posted by sympathizers of the College Republicans, effectively bragging about preventing people from expressing their differing viewpoints. No charges have been brought against these students, leading many to rightly see the district attorney's intervention against the Irvine 11 as a case of selective prosecution.
The issue does not even boil down to a simple right-left conflict. Also in Orange Country, two non-Muslim women disrupted a speech by former Vice President Dick Cheney the day the Irvine 11 went on trial. Months earlier, former President George W. Bush was disrupted, once again in Orange County, by more non-Muslims. No charges were filed against either group. Thus, one can see the Muslim community's anger is well-grounded.
Additionally, the strange, undesirable pro-Israel dogma of U.S. politics is on display: A former U.S. president can be interrupted without serious repercussions, but if one messes with an Israeli ambassador then he is looking at possible jail time.
Did the Irvine 11 do the right thing? I have a hard time accepting that they did, though I understand their motivation to disrupt someone they saw as "an accomplice to genocide." Shouting at a speaker just strikes me as the verbal equivalent of defacing a message on Beta Bridge. Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Irvine's dean of Law, said that students do not have the right to disrupt a speaker, but can feel free to counter by protesting elsewhere. This answer does seem to offer the maximum liberty possible to all parties. Imagine the tension at the University if Christians shouted at a visiting Richard Dawkins, or if atheists disrupted one of Economics Prof. Kenneth Elzinga's religious presentations. One may find the policies of Israel or Hamas - or, for that matter, the Ku Klux Klan - reprehensible, but the effective response is not to censor their representatives. Rather, it is to highlight the speaker's errors and criticize what one's opposition had the chance to say.
Now, did the district attorney do the right thing by bringing the case to court? Absolutely not. Even though he criticized the students' interruptions, Chemerinsky also condemned the district attorney's case as unnecessary, harmful and a "terrible mistake." This was selective prosecution at its worst. What purpose does this serve other than making young Muslims feel even more unwelcome in the United States' civil society? Of course, this would be understandable if all incidents of disruption were prosecuted, but there is virtually no chance of that happening. Interrupting a powerful or well-connected speaker is now dangerous, and unpopular minorities who lack resources or the loyalty of local district attorneys will just have to hope for no hecklers.
UC Irvine's quarter-long suspension of the MSU was a proportional response. Yet what could have been the school's moment to express commitment to freedom of speech, no matter the speaker, instead became a massive debacle thanks to the district attorney's unnecessary intervention.
The Irvine 11's defense said, with good cause, that the jury stood between "democracy and creeping fascism." Sadly, the jury found the students guilty. This event will be remembered as another stunning blow against the concept of a dispassionate, unbiased justice system.
As our school year merges with a coming election year, passions are likely to grow heated at the University. If you disagree with someone, please let them speak. Write about how your opponent is a no-good liar. Invite him to debate you. Want to shout? Host your own damn event.
Sam Carrigan's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at s.carrigan@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 17 hours agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | YesterdayWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
PARTING SHOT: Asked and answered
By Honor Wood | YesterdayLooking back, the answer has been abundantly clear all along. I did it for the people.
