Eric Langborgh

     "Nazi!" and "fascist! were among the cacophony of protests that drowned out Flynn as he attempted to deliver his speech. Demonstrators vehemently objected to his right to express his views regarding leftist icon Abu-Jamal, who currently sits on death row in a Pennsylvania prison for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. One protestor even dropped his pants and "mooned" Flynn from only a few yards away. Later, the same activist tried to rip the microphone cord from the socket. Hundreds of times the talk was interrupted and the speech was drowned out among a hail of shouts and profanity. Despite the speaker’s attempt to lay out the facts supporting the guilty verdict against murderer Abu-Jamal, it was Flynn who was targeted with angry shouts such as, "You’re a f—ing murderer! Don’t tell me you’re not a murderer! You have blood on your hands!"

     After Flynn was compelled to halt the program, demonstrators removed the remaining copies of his monograph that he had on display, Cop Killer: How Mumia Abu-Jamal Conned Millions Into Believing He Was Framed, which they then used as bonfire material. Ironically, several book-burners held up anti-censorship signs telling others to "Fight Racist Censorship."

     The heckler’s veto used on September 27 was presaged during the week leading up to the event by numerous instances of censorship. Hundreds of flyers hung around campus were ripped down, sidewalk chalkings were scribbled over, and a banner promoting the speech in the student union was seized.

     "It doesn’t surprise me that the apostles of a murderer would employ such tactics," Flynn divulged. "I mean, Mumia Abu-Jamal’s gun containing fired shell casings was found by his side, he was wearing an empty shoulder holster, five eyewitnesses saw him do it, he was hit with a return round from the policeman, and numerous people report that he confessed. It’s not like his followers can debate based on the evidence."

     Despite requests to the many campus security officers present to return peace to the event and halt the destruction of property, no effort was made by authorities to protect Flynn’s rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. One protestor even suggested that it was Flynn who should be arrested. "If they’re going to arrest the people, they might as well arrest the speaker," remarked Student Senator Evora Griffith to the school newspaper. The organizers, she said, "knew this was going to happen."

     "We think it’s hypocritical that for a campus that prides itself on free speech, there’s only free speech for certain groups," opined Ivan Jen, a member of the school’s College Republicans and an event organizer. Jen’s group, as well as the Leadership Institute, were among the sponsors of the lecture.

     Jen explained he wouldn’t have minded a dialogue from the protestors, but "instead of bringing facts, they burned facts," he said. "If forums are allowed to be shutdown because they present a dissenting opinion, what becomes of free assembly?"

     Flynn complained about the lack of security response to the disruptions and book-burning, stating that not only did campus protocols necessitate action to protect the speech of invited speakers, but so do basic rules of society. "It became clear very quickly that the police were there not to ensure our right to free speech," he explained, "but to reinforce the obstructionists’ ‘right’ to silence speech."

     Captain Bill Cooper of the UC-Berkeley Police Department told Campus Report that they rely on the sponsors of events "to determine when something has crossed the line, unless it is a very gross or flagrant case." There was no request for help or report of the book theft, he claimed, that would have prompted the security at the speech to act. Flynn, however, contends that they did indeed ask for assistance, but received no response. Further, before the speech the event’s organizers were informed by the police that if they were asked to control the protestors, the speech would be shut down, thus achieving the desire of the pro-Mumia activists to halt Flynn’s talk.

     The protestors violated many campus ordinances. According to the University of California Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations, and Students, "The University has a special obligation to protect free inquiry and free expression (Section 311)."

     In addition, Section 321 states that "no person on University property or at official University functions may … obstruct or disrupt campus activities; engage in the production of amplified or non-amplified sound that disrupts campus activities; … engage in physically abusive, threatening or intimidating conduct toward any person; exhibit disorderly or lewd conduct," or engage in the theft of property. Critics suggest that "mooning" the speaker, attempting to disconnect the microphone, shouting such abusive slogans as "Racist!" "Murderer!" "White Mother-f—er" and "You’re f—ing David Duke, mother-f—er," fit in these categories.

     The many threats of physical harm targeted toward Flynn and those who supported him are prohibited under the University Policies, as well. "I asked Mr. [Chuck] McNally to be quiet during the forum so I could hear the speaker, and he threatened to ‘f—ing kick my ass,’" Chris Gray gave as an example to the student senate during deliberations following the event. Protestor McNally said he was merely responding to the violent speech already being promoted by Flynn.

     On February 3 of this year, Berkeley Chancellor Robert Berdahl offered an eloquent defense of free speech in his dedication of the campus’s new Free Speech Café. "No party to any debate—no matter the number of people on any side—has the right to exclude speech they disagree with…. I speak of the barriers imposed by an angry crowd’s behavior which make it impossible for a speaker to present his or her viewpoint."

     Speaking for the Chancellor’s office and the University, Spokeswoman Janet Gilmore told Campus Report, "Free speech is a much cherished right on the UC-Berkeley campus. It is unfortunate that in this case both groups did not treat each other with the kind of civility that allows for a free and open exchange of ideas," she stated, passing blame on both the speech sponsors and the disrupters of the event.

     Gilmore said that no disciplinary actions have been taken against the protestors since "there was not any sort of charges sought by the group involved" to the Office of Student Conduct. However, Flynn contends that officers present at the book burning took video of the culprits destroying the literature and assured him action would be taken later based on the video tape.

     "I keep coming back to civility," offered Gilmore as a solution to free speech violations. "There has to be an atmosphere that promotes the free and open exchange of ideas." Gilmore defended the school by saying the measures to promote this "civility" are already in place. When asked why they failed to work in this instance, she retorted, "That’s your opinion," and said the event organizers could have asked for police to remove unruly activists. She offered no comment when the counterproductive result of such a move was pointed out.

     Berdahl’s office has yet to offer a public statement condemning the protestors’ actions, leading critics to surmise that the Chancellor’s comments in favor of free speech apply only to speech that he favors.

     The student senate hasn’t been silent, though, passing a bill in effect condemning the disruption caused by the protestors by denouncing book burning and giving vague endorsement of a "peaceful exchange of ideas" between the two sides of the debate over Abu-Jamal’s innocence.

     The protestors’ supporters, though, are up in arms over this rebuke. "People in demonstrations can yell at each other without violating free speech rights," dissented Senator Catherine Ahn during debate on the resolution.

     Student Aman Gill declared that it was "obscene" that the senate was "now charging the outraged students who protested this bigot’s talk with violating their ‘free speech.’"

     The lack of administrative reprisals on those who disrupted the speech, physically threatened Flynn and others, and destroyed books by setting them aflame, has convinced many that Berkeley’s rich tradition of defending free speech is dead when it comes to conservative perspectives.

     "UC-Berkeley is no longer a place of free speech, but a place of yelling contests," asserted Jen. "One side dominates this yelling contest and oppresses the free exchange of ideas. As a result of this tyranny, UC-Berkeley has become a place where dissension is not allowed and those who don’t adhere are persecuted."