In the October 21st Opinion section of the Daily Bruin, In the Know: Irvine 11 Appeal, writer Brittany Chu attempts to contest the charges of the infringement of free speech, for which the Irvine 11 were convicted. Despite her best efforts, she succeeds only in providing a restricted redefinition of that selfsame right.
In February 2010, various UC Irvine students were escorted out of a lecture hall after disrupting a speech given by Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. The students faced criminal charges that were filed by the university and were convicted of willfully disrupting a meeting, later punished with probation and community service hours. Chu argues that conviction for willful disruption is a precedent that diminishes an individual’s right to freedom of speech. I would adversely reason that unqualified right to free speech may be just as frightening as not being able to speak freely at all.
How does one define the right to free speech? Some may argue that it is the ability to express one’s beliefs or opinions when he or she deems necessary. However, are there times when it is necessary to have limitations against free speech? Should students like the Irvine 11 be allowed to interrupt an organized presentation to exercise their freedom of speech?
Chu argues that any limitations on free speech would send us down a slippery slope where, “the rights of future protesters [are] at a disadvantage, as courts might be able to expand the use of this law against them in the future.” She insinuates that the right to free speech is the unconditional ability to speak freely and any re
striction would give an iron-fisted government more legitimacy in that “protesters [wouldn’t] be able to fight for what they believed in if they feared the constant threat of incarceration.”
Although Chu encourages her readers “to differentiate between free speech infringement and true, aggravating disruption,” I would like to make clear the distinction between a necessary restriction and the infringement of a right.
Freedom to express opinions, to publish one’s perspectives, or to assemble in order to debate are all freedoms that are promised to us, the citizens and people of the Unites States of America, as the foundation of our social contract. This contract is established upon the understanding that both the people and their elected government have promised to make sacrifices to ensure that both actors may reap the benefits of this contract. It’s a mutual relationship that requires responsibilities and sacrifices from both sides. In our everyday lives these sacrifices come in the form of restrictions, rules, and bureaucracy – necessary processes that maintain the order of our society to ultimately ensure the rights of each citizen. In this light, there is a time and a place for free speech.
So how, then, is it possible to put limitations on free speech without infringing on the right to this freedom? The answer is that limitations make it possible for free speech to be at the disposal of every citizen.
This freedom wouldn’t be as valuable if it were not guaranteed to the entirety of the population. The restriction on the time and place of the free speech is essential to develop some type of progress in the arena of highly contested issues as well as small-scale disagreements in more intimate settings. This progress is the back and forth of different opinions in the hope that a conviction will be altered, a belief expanded, or a perspective revised. Subconsciously, sharing an opinion is the way in which we hope to change the minds of others. If this weren’t the case, there would be no reason to share an opinion at all.
Freedom to speak your mind, then, is only worthwhile when there is someone listening. In sharing an opinion, you expect that a parallel counterpart is going to listen, which is a demonstration of the social contract we have with one another. Exercising your freedom of speech, when it impedes on the freedom of another, exemplifies a breach in this social contract, as you are not listening. This principle illustrates the fault of the Irvine 11.
It is not the active use of their freedom of speech that was being tried in court, but rather the manner in which they employed this right. These students could have utilized effective alternatives to demonstrate their beliefs without diminishing the ambassador’s right to share his own opinions. The students were more than welcome to ask questions at the end of the presentation to voice their own opinions, after listening to the opinions of Mr. Oren. This method would have provided a more sensible forum to “freely speak” as the ambassador would have been expected to listen to the students’ opinions just as much as they were 
expected to listen to his.
I would hope that society will one day define freedom of speech, not just as the ability to share an opinion, but the expectation that once shared, the progenitor of that opinion is expected to listen to the free speech of another individual.
So when Chu asks whether “peaceful protests count as willful disruption,” I would respond by asking her what it means to protest peacefully. If she defines a peaceful protest as the action of individuals who share their opinions while taking away someone else’s right to the freedom of speech, then yes it is a disruption.
The limitation against disrupting another person’s display of freedom of speech is a necessary restriction to ensure that all individuals are endowed the right to the same freedom. These restrictions are the price we pay to live in an ordered society. Chu might argue that this price is too high, where the freedom to speak your mind should be unconditional. Amidst a society that is drowning in bureaucracy, there is a system that must be followed. Chu suggests that the system must be fought “to avoid infringing on free speech rights as a whole.” Conversely, I’d suggest that the restrictions that come with the system are in place to serve the population, not to jeopardize it. A precious freedom, like the ability to speak one’s mind, is made invaluable by the expectation that when an opinion is voiced it must be listened to as well. So I ask you, where should we draw the line? Do we need to be unconditionally free? Or do the rules and norms that govern society pave the way for a type of freedom that we’ve come to accept to be free? Is this freedom enough?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcaryZbL3gE]
Related articles
- Re: Speakers, Speeches Deserve Respect (haamnews.wordpress.com)
- http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2011/10/_in_the_know_irvine_11_appeal_
Photos
“The Bill of Rights interprets it as the ability ‘to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.’ ”
the bill of rights doesn’t interpret free speech, it establishes it. i don’t know where that language is, but it certainly doesn’t sound like it’s from the 18th century.
PROOFREAD PLZ
Are you sure that text is from this article? I don’t see it here. Anyway, the text comes from the following legal dictionary definition:
Freedom of Speech
Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson
“The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction.”
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech
Thank you for your input.
Good job.
I enjoy my freedom to drive my car. But I understand I must stop at red lights. Signals provide me and others the freedom to drive safely. In a similar way, time, place and manner limitations associated with the First Amendment enhance the freedom to exchange ideas.
I don’t think the University filed criminal charges. The DA did that. The University did discipline the students. The Orange County District Attorney said he would take that into account before he filed charges.
They were not charged for the content of their speech. The content of their statements were not even written by those who read/said the statements. You have to bend this incident more times than a pretzel to make it appear that these students were engaged in a protected right of free speech.
If no disrupted another person’s free speech, then we would be stuck in pre-19th century mentalities. I, as a woman, wouldn’t have the right to vote if it wasn’t for women disrupting speeches which continued limiting the voices of women. These students recognize Israel to be a state of oppression and they made simple statements while the main speaker was talking. No fights broke out and they weren’t jerks, they respectably left the room. But did you see the audience and what they were doing in response?
It’s okay to punish these young college students with permanent marks on the records which will haunt them for the rest of their lives but it is okay to for that audience to make racist gestures without any criticism?
I do not understand how the D.A. spent so much time, other people’s money, and media time on this case when there he is supposed to focus on the county? Some of these students aren’t even from UCI, they’re from UCR. Not all of these young people reside in Irvine nor the OC in general. He selected this group of people without merit, this was the university’s issue and only the university’s issue. They did not harass anybody and they didn’t destroy property, but they got punished with probation while at Harvard only a few years ago did the scenario happen but vice-versa and the students were not punished at all.
There’s probably some truth in what you say about women achieving significant gains by disrupting speakers in the US. This case is altogether different. Those students have zero chance of changing anything in the region. Decisions about what happens between Israel and the Palestinians are made by important people thousands of miles away, not by public opinion on American university campuses. Thus, these students’ interjections accomplished nothing other than restricting the free speech of an invited guest and preventing an audience form hearing what they came there to hear.
And if you would, we would all greatly appreciate an elaboration on what you mean by “racist gestures.” There’s not much you need to know to understand that the primary issues between Israel and Palestine are political, not racial.