<p>I don’t know how the particular incidents were selected to be highlighted, but if they were random, it is notable that over a year period, they occurred in just about every region of the country:</p>
<p>CA
PA
TX
Michigan
FLA
NY
DC
OH
GA
Illinois
VA
MD
Alabama
NC</p>
<p>Well, someone apparently voiced their concerns about these roommates to the RA, who merely advised them to display their Confederate flag “so that it couldn’t be seen from outside the room.” Despite the report, no other action was taken.</p>
<p>Getting ahead of ourselves just a little bit? It’s conduct that’s at issue, not speech, and the victim himself is a witness, as are the non-complicit roommates.</p>
<p>I live very close to SJSU & am not african american. I however got a first hand account view of what african americans face on an ongoing basis. My neighbor in a drugged/drunken state went on a rant in our street about my family & I ended up calling the cops on him since he was threatening us. In spite of it’s diversity, Silicon Valley has it’s share of bigots and illiterate bumpkins. My heart goes out for this kid. Hopefully the authorities will take corrective action</p>
<p>Note that the police report (page 8, lines 9-13) mentions the victim not initially wanting to involve the police. Is it likely that the victim had grown up in an area where (a) black people generally distrust the police (sometimes based on past poor behavior by the local police), and/or (b) criminal gangs dissuade law abiding citizens from reporting crimes to the police with threats of retaliation?</p>
<p>My point in #25 is that if the defendants fight the charges, free speech claims are always an issue in hate crime prosecutions. Also, if the false imprisonment charge relates to barricading the student in his room, and only the defendants were there to witness it, it will be one victim’s word against those of the 4 defendants.</p>
<p>It doesn’t look like an open and shut case from a prosecutorial standpoint, unless there were other witnesses around. The article seemed to imply that no one else around the dorm knew anything about what was going on.</p>
<p>If you read the statements, several of the suite mates witnessed BOTH times the 3-4 accused suitemates put the lock around the abused student’s neck, witnessed the locking of the abused student in the dorm room, as one of the witnesses also was locked in the dorm room with the abused child and all of the adult accused admitted about the 3/5ths name along with 2 suitemates that were there along with the accused.</p>
<p>There was a lot of witnessing of these crimes or “pranks” as the accused deem their actions. At least one of the accused admitted to putting the lock around the abused child’s neck. Another suitemate stated he watched the 2nd lock incident from the doorway of one of the accused’s dorm room.</p>
<p>So, this is not a he said, she said situation without witnesses. And last time I checked physical acts are not free speech when done to another person. The lock “prank” is what will do all four suspects in, not anything they said.</p>
<p>Ok I couldn’t read the report. The poor quality was too hard on my bad eyes, so I was going off the article. </p>
<p>I don’t know if putting a lock around someone’s neck meets the elements of the crime of false imprisonment. Does it? The hate crime is a separate charge, isn’t it? And that would involve examining the spoken, written and symbolic evidence, which looks pretty strong but would still be challenged on constitutional grounds by the defense. </p>
<p>Yes it is a misdemeanor charge at this point. If it were your S being charged with these crimes, would you be likely to encourage him not to defend against them?</p>
<p>While some parents would pay for lawyers for an aggressive defense against the charges, others might be more inclined to let them learn their lessons in the criminal justice system (or come down much harder on them than the criminal justice system will).</p>
<p>In addition to at least one instance of assault and battery with placing a bike lock around a victim’s neck…which could have had fatal consequences, free speech rights aren’t absolute…even in a public university.</p>
<p>They need to be balanced against the university’s interest in creating a safe educational environment which doesn’t violate EEOC/ADA laws and general public safety*. Unless I’m mistaken, creating and/or allowing a hostile educational environment against those under EEOC/ADA protected classes through institutional inaction does seem to constitute such a violation of such laws.</p>
<ul>
<li>The court decision which ruled yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when non actually exists is NOT covered under free speech rights because public safety is considered the greater concern in such situational contexts.</li>
</ul>