HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017225.jpg
2.2 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Manuscript page / evidence document (house oversight committee)
File Size:
2.2 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the style and context of House Oversight documents) dated April 2, 2012. It discusses the legal and ethical implications of the 'Irvine Ten' case, where students were prosecuted for disrupting a speech by Ambassador Michael Oren at the University of California. The author argues that prosecuting the students was necessary to protect First Amendment rights and the open marketplace of ideas, criticizing the ACLU's stance on the matter.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ambassador Oren | Speaker / Victim |
An invited speaker who was censored/shouted down by students.
|
| The Author (Implied: Alan Dershowitz) | Narrator / Potential Expert Witness |
Discusses being asked to testify for the prosecution but declining due to personal involvement; defends the prosecuti...
|
| The Irvine Ten | Defendants / Students |
Ten students prosecuted for disrupting Ambassador Oren's speech.
|
| The Prosecutors | Legal Authority |
Asked the author to testify; prosecuted the students.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| ACLU |
Criticized by the author for being on the 'wrong side' regarding the censorship issue.
|
|
| University of California |
State-run institution where the incident occurred; subject to First Amendment laws.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (via Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Prior to 4.2.12)
Disruption of Ambassador Oren's speech by students.
University of California campus
Unknown (Prior to 4.2.12)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Campus where the speech and subsequent disruption took place.
|
Relationships (2)
Author defends the prosecution of those who silenced Oren.
Prosecutors asked author to be an expert witness.
Key Quotes (5)
"The ACLU leaders who signed the letter are on the wrong side of that line and should not be speaking for the ACLU."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017225.jpg
Quote #1
"The jury convicted the students and they were sentenced to probation and a fine."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017225.jpg
Quote #2
"Moreover, these students must be made to understand that their conduct is not only morally indefensible; it is criminal."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017225.jpg
Quote #3
"The successful prosecution of the Irvine Ten will not 'chill' free speech rights of hecklers."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017225.jpg
Quote #4
"It was these young criminals who were trying to chill, indeed freeze, the constitutional rights of the speaker and those who came to hear him."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017225.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,873 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
The ACLU should be supporting a clear line between occasional heckling and outright censorship.
The ACLU leaders who signed the letter are on the wrong side of that line and should not be
speaking for the ACLU.
The ACLU leaders who signed the letter are on the wrong side of that line and should not be
speaking for the ACLU.
The prosecution of those who tried to censor Ambassador Oren proceeded. The prosecutors
asked me to testify on their behalf as an expert witness on the issues relating to freedom of
expression in the campus context. I was tempted but ultimately decided it would be better for
them to use a witness with less personal involvement in the matter: I too had been shouted down
by anti-Israel groups—on that very campus and on others. The jury convicted the students and
they were sentenced to probation and a fine.
asked me to testify on their behalf as an expert witness on the issues relating to freedom of
expression in the campus context. I was tempted but ultimately decided it would be better for
them to use a witness with less personal involvement in the matter: I too had been shouted down
by anti-Israel groups—on that very campus and on others. The jury convicted the students and
they were sentenced to probation and a fine.
There were some who criticized the prosecutor for bringing these charges, but I defended him on
the ground that prosecuting these student censors was his duty in protecting the First
Amendment:
the ground that prosecuting these student censors was his duty in protecting the First
Amendment:
It was imperative…that a public prosecutor apply the law to these students, because to do
otherwise would be to tolerate, if not encourage, conduct that would undercut the
constitutional rights of an invited speaker. This is especially true because the University of
California is a state-run institution to which the First Amendment applies in full force. A
prosecutor has the obligation to protect the First Amendment, especially if the university
has imposed discipline that is inadequate to assure that censorial conduct will be deterred.
Moreover, these students must be made to understand that their conduct is not only
morally indefensible; it is criminal.
otherwise would be to tolerate, if not encourage, conduct that would undercut the
constitutional rights of an invited speaker. This is especially true because the University of
California is a state-run institution to which the First Amendment applies in full force. A
prosecutor has the obligation to protect the First Amendment, especially if the university
has imposed discipline that is inadequate to assure that censorial conduct will be deterred.
Moreover, these students must be made to understand that their conduct is not only
morally indefensible; it is criminal.
The same would be true if Jewish students were to try to prevent an anti-Israel speaker
from presenting the case against Israel. No student, no matter how strongly they feel that
their view is the only correct one, has the right to prevent the open marketplace of ideas
from operating on a university campus, as these ten students tried to do.
from presenting the case against Israel. No student, no matter how strongly they feel that
their view is the only correct one, has the right to prevent the open marketplace of ideas
from operating on a university campus, as these ten students tried to do.
The successful prosecution of the Irvine Ten will not “chill” free speech rights of hecklers.
No one should or would be prosecuted for simply booing the content of a speech,
leafleting a speaker, holding up signs in the back of the auditorium, conducting a counter
event or demonstration. It was these young criminals who were trying to chill, indeed
freeze, the constitutional rights of the speaker and those who came to hear him. They
should not be treated as heroes by anyone who loves freedom and supports the First
Amendment.
No one should or would be prosecuted for simply booing the content of a speech,
leafleting a speaker, holding up signs in the back of the auditorium, conducting a counter
event or demonstration. It was these young criminals who were trying to chill, indeed
freeze, the constitutional rights of the speaker and those who came to hear him. They
should not be treated as heroes by anyone who loves freedom and supports the First
Amendment.
It was a good day for the First Amendment when the prosecutor decided to apply the law to their
censorial conduct. It was another good day for the First Amendment when the jury appropriately
convicted them. Sometimes it takes tough measures to enforce the First Amendment against
extremists who believe they own the only “truth” and who seek to silence other views.
censorial conduct. It was another good day for the First Amendment when the jury appropriately
convicted them. Sometimes it takes tough measures to enforce the First Amendment against
extremists who believe they own the only “truth” and who seek to silence other views.
138
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017225
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document