CA judge rules Muslims harassing Jewish students engaging in “protected speech”

by Peter Grady –

A judge has stated that Muslim students who allegedly harassed Jewish students and even assaulted a woman with a cart was engaging in protected political speech.

Jessica Felber claimed in a lawsuit against the University of Berkeley that a leader of a pro-Palestinian group rammed her with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to the anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine in 2010.

Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.

On Thursday U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech and dismissed the case against the university.

Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

“The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit,” Seeborg wrote.  “Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum.”

Seeborg also stated in dismissing the case, that many of the alleged incidents of harassment happened before plaintiffs were enrolled at the university and that the university has worked to mediate conflicts between opposing groups.

Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch, said the judge’s decision basically asserts Muslims assaulting Jewish students is now protected speech.

“This is an outrageous decision. The Muslim students were trying to silence the freedom of speech of the Jewish students. The judge says this is a ruling in favor of free speech, but actually the freedom of speech was being infringed and the judge is saying that is ok to protect the freedom of speech of the Muslim students. Don’t the Jewish students have freedom of speech as well?”

This entry was posted in General News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to CA judge rules Muslims harassing Jewish students engaging in “protected speech”

  1. JoelB says:

    I have lived in CA all my life, and more and more am ashamed for the state of my birth. Political correctness has run amok here.

  2. Mike Wilson says:

    How is assault with a cart considered engaging in protected political speech ? , I thought speech was talking.

  3. Gary Rumain says:

    This is a green light for the koranimals to now attack people at will anywhere in the US.

  4. DonnaB says:

    Physical violence and assult is not speech. The goons run the universities. The judge and admin deserve to be locked up – not to mention the muslims engaging in such atrocious behavior. They are nothing but a branch of the terrorist muslim brotherhood bunch. Disgusting.

  5. David, Thailand says:

    The West, being the most advanced civilisation in the history of the world, is slitting its own wrists in order to placate the most backward and barbaric.

    Future generations will not thanks us for our complacency, or our ‘enlightened’ naivete.

  6. Mo Wazza Ped says:

    Then the reverse is true. If muzzturds who assault Jews (or anyone else) is preotected free speech, then it also means that the muzzturds can also be assaulted because it is protected free speech.

  7. Well, well, well…if it isn’t the old: “What’s good for me is not good for you” train of thought…I guess if a few Jewish guys roughed up a Muslim girl (not advocating doing so of course)…but follow me here…we’d all be reading the following head-lines: “Jewish College Students Brought-Up on Severe Charges of Assault and Racial Hatred…”. But I guess it’s ok when a Jewish girl is assaulted by Muslims…because…G-d forbid we infringe on THEIR rights to express their hatred towards Jews. The logic is just so clear that I barely saw it when I smashed face-first right in to it.

  8. Matthew Moratta says:

    Sounds like the Jews at Berkeley need to practice their freedom of speech and burn some Qurans

  9. KirkB says:

    Modern Liberalism is moral and cultural relativism. Modern Liberalism would say something might be wrong in our society or culture, but if it is not wrong in another society or culture, therefore,we can’t say it is wrong. It would continue on to say that no one society is better than another. It would say that the U.S. is not better than Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Sudan and all actions must be looked at relative to the society or culture that they occurred in.In this case Palestinians are seen as the cultural other and their actions are seen as moral from their point of view so the judge does not condemn them as it is right for them to act in such a way from their cultural and social point of view, but it would be wrong for Non-muslims to act in such a way because it would a violation of our cultural and social norms and morality so the reverse actions would be a punishable offense.

  10. Kali Politeis says:

    So, if the opposite had happened, with a Jewish person ramming into a Muslim, would this judge have ruled in this manner? Or would we have seen the media shrieking about “hate crimes against Muslims” and “anti-Muslim bigotry?”

    The Muslim-pandering is getting really old.

  11. James says:

    Let’s set up “checkpoints” at the US border and ask if people are Muslim. If they are then we refuse entry and send them back. Also we get to ram a shopping cart into them. It’s free speech.

  12. BIKER says:

    Who cares what that Judge says. He is protecting the aggressors. When the Muslims continue to harass and then attack the Jews, the Jews should just start shooting them. People are tired of the Courts defending and protecting the criminals and the victims are going to explode and fight back violently.
    There is a difference in what is right and what is wrong and Just, and these Judges don’t get it.

  13. Leya says:

    Why does every other race or religion have to bow down and kiss the butt of a Muslim? This is completely against what America stands for. California, I am getting very disgusted with your Muslim pandering. This judge needs to be kicked off the bench figuratively and literally. It seems those in power are pushing the average citizen of the U. S. A. to bow down to any and all who would destroy our liberties and faith that this country was based upon. I am becoming more ashamed of our country which seems to be trying to leave God and our faith behind in favor of pandering Muslims and “their rights”.

  14. CraniosGlett says:

    The solution is to sue the Muslims who did the assaulting.

  15. Deray says:

    A couple things I noticed: There was allegedly an assault. There was allegedly harassment. Both of these constitute criminal offenses. There is no report that the students who claim that they were assaulted or harassed filed criminal charges- instead, they sued the university in a civil court.
    The judge here could not really have given any other ruling. It was not a criminal court, so he could not just declare that these actions were criminal. He could not arrest those who performed the assault or harassment. He was there to decide whether the university (and solely the university) was civilly liable for these actions.
    Let’s change the setting. There are allegations that some people have been harassed and assaulted in a WalMart. They do not file a police report. They do not have the people who harassed or assaulted them arrested. They sue WalMart. If you were the judge, would you throw out the case? Or do you think that WalMart is civilly liable for every criminal act on their property?
    These students who felt harassed or were assaulted should have called the police. Period. If somebody assaults me, that’s probably what I’m going to do (if I can’t manage to whip the crap out of them myself), not call a lawyer and sue the person who owns the property where I was assaulted.

  16. Billy says:


    religion is funny.

  17. The US has fallen to it knees in order to let the Muslims to kick us in the face. Now it is time for the US to stand up and take back controll of our country. First of we should get rid of our enemies and the Muslims are one of the biggest enemies that we have.

    For those who can I say buy more guns and ammo you just might need it to use against our enemy.

  18. smitty says:

    Lock and load on the cultists(muslims!).

  19. Carolyn says:

    If the judge actually held that assault and battery is protected speech that is indeed outrageous.

    It’s always hard to tell what a court’s holding actually was from reading a newspaper article on it, but it sounds to me (I’ve snipped and pasted some of the relevant passages below) like Felber sued *the University* (not the students who assaulted and battered her) for failing to protect her, and that the judge said that that wasn’t the University’s job, since she wasn’t engaged in educational pursuits at the time, and in fact wasn’t even enrolled there at the time. And, much as I deplore the battery, I think, if that’s the ruling, that it’s the correct one. She should have gone after the people who assaulted and battered her (and perhaps she did), not the University.

    >>Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights.

    >>“The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit,” Seeborg wrote.

    >>Seeborg also stated in dismissing the case, that many of the alleged incidents of harassment happened before plaintiffs were enrolled at the university. . . .

  20. Lynda summers says:

    And so, if this was the judges daughter or wife, would it still be Protected free speech? I don’t think so, he would be screaming like a cat thrown in boiling water. What an a-s wipe he is. And would throwing a grocery cart thru the doors of a muzbut’s building be “Free Speech”?

  21. Guy Macher says:

    Let’s ram a Muslim barrow with a cart and see if the precedent holds. I’m not serious, of course, because I know ramming a Muslim barrow would be assault– even to this benighted fool, US District Judge Richard Seeborg. No surprise, he was appointed by Obama (pbuh).

  22. rick perl says:

    Judge Richard Seeborg is one of the judges appointed by Obama

    So what else would you expect??


  23. Ray of Light says:

    Then if a Jewish person hits a Muslim on the head with a baseball bat, is that just exercising freedom of speech?

  24. Corinna says:

    You know damn well that if the roles were reversed the Jewish woman would be prosecuted.

    Islam is a cancer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *