Legal statues were created long ago to uphold the justice system and maintain a cohesive method of operation. With millions of citizens and hundreds of governing rules, the complexities of the law can often lead to blurred lines and questionable behaviors. Such is the case for a group of ten Muslim students from the University of California Irvine.
The students have been accused of breaking the law by intentionally disrupting a speech given by U.S. Israeli Ambassador Michael Ore. Since then, they have spent many hours and days in court defending their case. After each individual stood up one after another and announced a pre-rehearsed statement during the Ambassador's oration, the group of young men were accused of illegal disruption.
The act was carefully planned by the students, with an execution of scripted material which they wrote before the time of the speech. While the students believed they were exercising their right to free speech, university officials had a different opinion. Their interpretation of the matter included a much more criminal idea of what happened during the February 2010 oration, and the accused men now face charges of conspiring to disrupt a meeting as well as the actual charge of disrupting a meeting. If found guilty, the group could face probation, fines, community service and jail time.
The students claim that it was never their intention to prohibit Oren from delivering his speech. Rather, the group wanted to express their views regarding the current actions in Gaza taken by Israeli government officials. An individual's time in college has long been said to represent the most politically active time in many people's lives. College campuses across America are notoriously littered with protestors wishing to execute their rights to freedom of expression. Is the Orange County case really any different?
This question is essentially the heart of the current legal debate surrounding the situation. While some university and legal officials are declaring conspiracy and intent to disrupt, the defense is pleading freedom of speech. One event has single-handedly ignited a debate which is calling into question age-old laws that have been in place for hundreds of years. When does free speech become more than just that? In what instances do methods of expression become disruptive or conspiratorial?
The issue has also raised doubt among the public about the discretion of the prosecution. Local and non-locals alike are questioning the actual need for a trial that seems to be a waste of their taxpayer dollars. This concern implies a general feeling among the public that there is no true validity to the case at hand. The students and their defense team no doubt agree. The laws governing the legal system have seemingly become so complex that anything can be called into question, challenged and tried before an ultimate decision is reached. Furthermore, the ultimate ruling is often no more than an interpretation of the law under review, yet it can lead to life-altering circumstances for those involved.
As politically minded individuals, the students claim that they were exercising their right to express their beliefs about the current goings-on in an area of the world under great scrutiny. What better way to do so than in the forum of a campus speech in which the orator is a representative of that particular country? Unfortunately, others failed to see the act as such and instead cried foul of the students' behavior. Some are siding with the prosecution, believing that the written and executed statements of the Muslim men effectively infringe on the rights of the presentation's more than 700 attendees by halting their ability to freely speak their minds or offer up ideas that may have been incited by the Ambassador's lecture.
The lines have clearly become blurred as to what is legal and acceptable and what is not. However, it should not take a trial of this stature to determine whether or not the actions of another are a free expression of their inherent rights or a blatant dismissal of the law.
