Honey Kessler Amado leads opposition of appeal of conviction of the Irvine 11 Honey Kessler Amado is a leader and supporter of many Jewish and Israeli-based organizations and institutions. Just recently she returned from Israel where she dedicated a project in the Pediatric Nephrology Clinic at Shaare Zedek in memory of her husband, Ralph Amado zl. We are very proud to have Honey as one of our leaders and major supporters, and I am honored to call her a personal friend. In February, 2010, 11 students at the Univ. of CA, Irvine campus, repeatedly disrupted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, reducing his speech to minutes and causing a cancellation of the question-and-answer period. They were convicted of both conspiracy to commit a crime and violation of a California Penal Code section which makes it illegal to “willfully disturb . . . a lawful assembly or meeting. They appealed their conviction, claiming vagueness of the statute and violation of their freedom of speech. The American Jewish Committee, Jewish National Fund, and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs entered the appeal as a friend of the court (amicus), and Honey Kessler Amado was lead counsel and lead writer on the brief, which focused on freedom of speech. Their convictions were affirmed, thanks to the outstanding work of the office of Orange County District Attorney, whose attorneys intuitively understood the dangerous impact of shouting down opposing views, and the work of Honey Kessler Amado (who worked pro-bono). Attached is the court decision affirming the conviction. Here is a video of the event when Michael Oren was prevented from speaking: youtube/watch?v=clAhZ8mEfmY Here is a story about the effort to deny their appeal of their conviction: “Jewish groups urge that Irvine 11 convictions be upheld” - articles.dailypilot/2013-07-11/news/tn-dpt-me-0710-jewish-committee-brief-20130711_1_jewish-groups-community-service-uc-irvine From Honey... The Muslim Student Union organized a disturbance of Ambassador Michael Oren’s presentation at the University of California at Irvine in February 2010, in an effort to prevent him from speaking and being heard. According to the minutes of their meetings, as presented to the trial court, “they anticipated that there would not be any legal consequences to their conduct. Eleven participants were arrested and charged with – and convicted of – both conspiracy to commit a crime and violation of a California Penal Code section which makes it illegal to “willfully disturb . . . a lawful assembly or meeting.” (10 of the 11 appealed the conviction.) Years ago the California Supreme Court narrowly construed the statute to mean that a party may not “substantially impair the conduct of the meeting by intentionally committing acts in violation of the implicit customs . . . or explicit rules for the governance of the meeting, which he knew, or as a reasonable man should have known.” The defendants argued that the statute is vague and that their constitutional right of freedom of speech had been violated. My brief argued several points related to freedom of speech. First, that because freedom of speech is also guaranteed to the speaker (Ambassador Oren) and his listeners, the statute was designed to protect these competing rights to speech between a speaker and his detractors. Second, that freedom of speech is not unlimited, and that “content-neutral” limitations to speech are allowed, such as regulations as to where the speech may take place, as long as the regulations are not based on the message, idea, subject matter, or content of the speaker. By such regulations, the government can ensure debate on important issues and assure that “the freedom of speech does not embrace a right to snuff out the speech of others.” Third, that under the California Constitution, which broadly defines freedom of speech, one is liable for an abuse of that right. And, last, that the statute under which the defendants were convicted was designed to protect the “marketplace of ideas,” where ideas will rise or fall on the debate allowed in an open marketplace. The decision of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court (if you want pdf of the ruling please let me know) discussed the facts of the case (pages 2-9), and held that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, that the statute is not a restriction on freedom of speech (page 14-17), that sufficient evidence supported the defendants’ convictions (pages 18-23), and that the jury instructions and the admission of the videos of the event were correct.
Posted on: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:44:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015