COLUMN: Limits of free speech concerning


Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in this country, so it is no surprise that limitations to it are a hotly contested issue.

Last week, these limitations were tested when 10 Muslim students were found guilty of “disturbing a meeting” when they stood up one-by-one in the middle of a speech by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at the University of California last year and shouted things such as, “You, sir, are an accomplice to genocide!”

The university had warned students that disruptions to the speech would not be tolerated and the speech had to be stopped numerous times to deal with the protestors.

At the heart of the case was California Penal Code section 403 which states, “Every person who, without authority of law, willfull disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character … is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Defense attorneys for the students argued they were simply exercising their freedom of speech by protesting and their shouting was not enough to constitute disturbing a meeting.

A jury of six men and six women disagreed and the students were sentenced to three years’ probation and 56 hours of community service. In response, their attorneys have vowed to appeal the case and challenge the constitutionality of the law.

This appeal has little merit, as the California law is quite acceptable under standards that the Supreme Court has placed on restricting freedom of speech.

It is content-neutral, as it does not single out any viewpoint.

It is narrowly tailored as it only prohibits disruptions of meetings or gatherings. A significant government interest exists, as it is in the government’s best interest to not have situations like this where people are trying to disrupt an otherwise peaceful and educational speech.

Lastly, the law leaves alternative channels for communication — the students easily could have demonstrated outside, written letters to the editor opposing the ambassador’s viewpoints or various other means of expressing their opinions.

A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union reacted to the case by saying, “If allowed to stand, this will undoubtedly intimidate students in Orange County and across the state and discourage them from engaging in any controversial speech or protest for fear of criminal charges.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution protects controversial speech and protests, but not when you perform them in a way that intrudes on the speech of others.

The ambassador had every right to speak at the university, and to disrupt his talk on the basis of “freedom of speech” goes against the very American principle that, for the most part, people have a right to say what they want without interference from others.

Discourse is a healthy part of the American system and instead of trying to inhibit the ambassador from expressing his viewpoints, the students should have supplemented their opinions, not try to substitute them.

Editor's note: Nathan Inks is currently the president of College Republicans.

Share: