HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017224.jpg

4.2.12 WC: 191694 in the marketplace of ideas. The ACLU policy has always been to oppose concerted efforts to prevent speakers from delivering their remarks, as evidenced by the brief filed in its name in the Franklin case. While supporting sporadic heckling and jeering that merely demonstrates opposition to the content of the remarks, the ACLU has always condemned type set of concerted efforts to silence invited speakers that occurred at Irvine. Yet signatories of the letter -- which never once criticizes the censoring Muslim Union students while condemning those who wanted to hear the speaker -- include "Chuck Anderson," who identified himself as President ACLU Chapter, Orange County and Chair, The Peace and Freedom Party, Orange County;" (a hard left anti-Israel group), and "Hector Villagro," who identified himself as "Incoming Executive Director, ACLU of Southern California." Dean Chemerinsky, while opposing criminal prosecution, made a point to condemn the censoring students: “The students’ behavior was wrong and deserves punishment. There is no basis for the claim that the disruptive students were just exercising their First Amendment rights. There is no constitutional right to disrupt an event and keep a speaker from being heard. Otherwise, any speaker could be silenced by a heckler's veto. The Muslim students could have expressed their message in many other ways: picketing or handing out leaflets outside the auditortum where Ambassador Oren was speaking, making statements during the question and answer period, holding their own events on campus.” The ACLU leaders, on the other hand, seemed to justify the actions of the censoring students while limiting their condemnation to the pro-Israel students who wanted to hear the speaker. After being criticized for supporting censorship, Villagro sought to justify his signing the letter by the following "logic:" “The district attorney's action 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.” The opposite is true. If these students had been let off with a slap on the wrist from the University, that would encourage other students around the nation and the world to continue with the efforts to prevent pro-Israel speakers from delivering their speeches. Indeed, even after these students were disciplined, other students tried to shut down several Israeli students, who had served in the Israeli Army, from recounting their experiences. Had the school administered appropriate discipline, I could understand an argument against piling on with a misdemeanor prosecution, but the red badge of courage given to them by the college only served to encourage repetition of their censorial conduct. [37 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017224