Free Speech Or Free Battery?
I am all for free speech -- and then some. Free speech is different from free hitting. Obviously, hitting somebody is a form of violence. Saying "You suck, and your views suck," or some maybe more intelligent form of that -- that is free speech. But, not in a California judge's eyes. Absurd, awful ruling that calls violence against Jewish students protected speech. Peter Grady writes for the Greeley Gazette:
A judge has stated that Muslim students who allegedly harassed Jewish students and even assaulted a woman with a cart was engaging in protected political speech.Jessica Felber claimed in a lawsuit against the University of Berkeley that a leader of a pro-Palestinian group rammed her with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to the anti-Israel "Apartheid Week" conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine in 2010.
Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.
On Thursday U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech and dismissed the case against the university.
..."The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit," Seeborg wrote. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."
Now, should school funds be spent for extra policing for protesters? Um, not loving that idea. And I am all for any sort of nasty stuff either side wants to say to each other. But, hitting as protected speech? Even if it's a response to another's speech? Really? Really?
(Nothing yet on this from Volokh.)
UPDATE: Ted Frank calls inaccuracy on this:
The Blaze headline for a Tiffany Gabbay article is "CA JUDGE DEEMS RAMMING JEWISH WOMAN WITH SHOPPING CART 'FREE SPEECH'", but that's simply inaccurate.Jessica Felber sued UC-Berkeley for "discrimination" for an incident where, when she was counter-protesting an anti-Israel demonstration, Muslim students jeered her with anti-Semitic slurs and one hit her with a shopping cart. But Berkeley had the assaulter arrested; the judge simply ruled that Berkeley was not liable for the violence and that free speech protected the two sets of demonstrators.
Ted, I didn't have time to read the ruling. But, this was the part that concerned me:
"The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit," Seeborg wrote. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."
The university had the violent protestor arrested, But the victim still sued the university anyway. No sympathy for the plaintiff trying to blame an innocent third party.
http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012/01/berkeley-anti-israel-protest-litigation.php
Ted at January 6, 2012 8:33 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/free-speech-or.html#comment-2894962">comment from TedThanks, Ted, for bringing out the facts on that.
Amy Alkon
at January 6, 2012 8:34 AM
So what I think this case shows, is how the reporting of it was either totally misunderstood (the kind interpretation) by Jihad Watch and others, or (more cynically I think this is more likely) discussed by Jihad Watch in an intentionally misleading fashion.
If Robert Spencer wants me to take him seriously, well, this is why it's difficult.
jerry at January 6, 2012 8:46 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/free-speech-or.html#comment-2895005">comment from jerryI was wrong to blog it without looking into it further. Apologies. Try to vet everything well and I was in a rush this morning and it wasn't right of me to post this without actually vetting this. Bad Amy! Regrets. I'll be better in the future. (Nothing like a big scoop of "I'm an irresponsible ass" staring at me all day on my blog to encourage that!)
Amy Alkon
at January 6, 2012 8:55 AM
I wouldn't be so quick to defend this judge. Berkeley almost certainly has hate speech provisions in its disciplinary rules, and most likely accepted the Obama Administration's interpretation of Title IX requiring reduced standards of proof for sexual harassment investigations on campus. Berkeley also knew, and approved, Apartheid Week activities knowing that they included outright religious harassment, if not violence.
The conservative ideal on campus is free speech for all. But on campus, where there is an educational mission, limited free speech for all would still be much better than free speech only for leftists and anti-semites. Absolutely, a government school should be liable under discrimination law for supporting the harassment of Jewish students on campus. That the judge ruled otherwise is a travesty and a nonsensical reading of the First Amendment given current case law (which generally does not allow First Amendment exceptions to racial and religious harassment causes of action).
Brian at January 6, 2012 11:12 AM
"A judge has stated that Muslim students ... was engaging in protected political speech."
As an aside, shouldn't a journalist know about subject-verb agreement?
Jean Finet at January 6, 2012 3:48 PM
This is the part that concerns me:
"Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the [Muslim group] checkpoints"
WTF? Did Berkeley fall through a wormhole and come out in Berlin circa 1938? I would love to know why this was tolerated on a campus that must be buried under as many PC speech codes as any place on earth.
Martin at January 6, 2012 8:04 PM
"Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the [Muslim group] checkpoints"
I wonder if Bazerklee administration would be equally tolerant if:
"Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing through the [neo-NAZI} checkpoints"
"Students were asked if they were gay while passing through the [Westboro Church] checkpoints"
"Students were asked if they supported Planned Parenthood while passing through the {anti-abortion} checkpoints"
"Students were asked if they were illegal immigrants while passing through the [Tea Party} checkpoints"
Ken R at January 7, 2012 5:39 PM
The way I see it, parts of this country will eventually fall under Sharia law. Some of us are THAT STUPID! However, other parts of the country will not put up with it, fortunately.
mpetrie98 at January 8, 2012 3:14 PM
Leave a comment