Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz Indymedia
Education & Student Activism
Environment & Forest Defense
Police State & Prisons
Tree Sit Media Representative Responds to University's Attempt To Stifle Free Speech
Last Monday, lawyers representing Jennifer Charles requested that the University of California's lawsuit attempting to stifle her free speech be dismissed. Charles, a UCSC alumnus, has been acting as the media contact for tree sitters preventing the University from beginning their plan to destroy 120 acres of forest. The tree sitters have been protecting groves of redwoods since Nov. 7, when over 500 people rallied in opposition to the increased University construction.
TREE SIT MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDS TO UNIVERSITY'S ATTEMPT TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH
Last Monday, lawyers representing Jennifer Charles requested that the University of California's lawsuit attempting to stifle her free speech be dismissed. Charles, a UCSC alumnus, has been acting as the media contact for tree sitters preventing the University from beginning their plan to destroy 120 acres of forest. The tree sitters have been protecting groves of redwoods since Nov. 7, when over 500 people rallied in opposition to the increased University construction.
The UC Regent's lawsuit, filed on Dec. 14, requests that Charles and anyone else who might support the tree sit be banned from any trees on campus. Charles, who is not a tree sitter, apparently is named because of her work to publicize the issues raised by the tree sitters. "I trust that the courts are going to uphold my First Amendment rights to speak out against the University's planned destruction of unique ecosystems," said Charles.
The Santa Cruz campus is the richest and most ecologically diverse of all the schools in the UC system. Precious watershed regions, unique manzanita groves and hundred-year old redwood forests will be destroyed by the University's unfettered construction. The University's plan sacrifices the unique ecosystems, as well as the highly esteemed liberal arts education that attracts many people to Santa Cruz. Following the trend of privatizing public universities, current students are paying more for education and receiving less.
The tree sit is necessary at this time because of the University's failure to meaningfully address the concerns of Santa Cruz city and county officials, community members, environmentalists and UCSC faculty and students. Instead of acting upon the concerns of the thousands of people who have voiced opposition to increased University construction, UCSC has poured their resources into suing people for providing humanitarian aid and media support to the tree sitters.
Ms. Charles' attorney, Dana Scruggs, said "The Regents' lawsuit against Ms. Charles is nothing more than a political lawsuit designed to stop political expression, the exact opposite of what our University system should be promoting. The Regents should be ashamed of themselves, wasting taxpayer dollars hiring lawyers in a futile attempt to silence one of their own alumni."
Email LRDPaction.media [at] gmail.com to request digital copies of the legal motions filed on Charles' behalf.
Last Monday, lawyers representing Jennifer Charles requested that the University of California's lawsuit attempting to stifle her free speech be dismissed. Charles, a UCSC alumnus, has been acting as the media contact for tree sitters preventing the University from beginning their plan to destroy 120 acres of forest. The tree sitters have been protecting groves of redwoods since Nov. 7, when over 500 people rallied in opposition to the increased University construction.
The UC Regent's lawsuit, filed on Dec. 14, requests that Charles and anyone else who might support the tree sit be banned from any trees on campus. Charles, who is not a tree sitter, apparently is named because of her work to publicize the issues raised by the tree sitters. "I trust that the courts are going to uphold my First Amendment rights to speak out against the University's planned destruction of unique ecosystems," said Charles.
The Santa Cruz campus is the richest and most ecologically diverse of all the schools in the UC system. Precious watershed regions, unique manzanita groves and hundred-year old redwood forests will be destroyed by the University's unfettered construction. The University's plan sacrifices the unique ecosystems, as well as the highly esteemed liberal arts education that attracts many people to Santa Cruz. Following the trend of privatizing public universities, current students are paying more for education and receiving less.
The tree sit is necessary at this time because of the University's failure to meaningfully address the concerns of Santa Cruz city and county officials, community members, environmentalists and UCSC faculty and students. Instead of acting upon the concerns of the thousands of people who have voiced opposition to increased University construction, UCSC has poured their resources into suing people for providing humanitarian aid and media support to the tree sitters.
Ms. Charles' attorney, Dana Scruggs, said "The Regents' lawsuit against Ms. Charles is nothing more than a political lawsuit designed to stop political expression, the exact opposite of what our University system should be promoting. The Regents should be ashamed of themselves, wasting taxpayer dollars hiring lawyers in a futile attempt to silence one of their own alumni."
Email LRDPaction.media [at] gmail.com to request digital copies of the legal motions filed on Charles' behalf.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I participated in the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley in 1964-5. That battle was about being able to have information tables on campus to recruit students to work for civil rights in the South and to register Black voters there.
Before that movement's hard-fought battles and ultimate successes, during the 1962 election campaign, not even California gubernatorial candidate Richard Nixon or then California Governor Edmund G. "Pat "Brown could speak on the Berkeley campus. That was almost 44 years ago!
I can't believe the battle for free speech must be fought again on the UC Santa Cruz campus.
Before that movement's hard-fought battles and ultimate successes, during the 1962 election campaign, not even California gubernatorial candidate Richard Nixon or then California Governor Edmund G. "Pat "Brown could speak on the Berkeley campus. That was almost 44 years ago!
I can't believe the battle for free speech must be fought again on the UC Santa Cruz campus.
For more information:
http://www.BuildingEcology.com
I'm unclear on the meaning of the University's request: do they want her to not be on campus at all?
Or is she banned from entering the trees?
There's a real distinction between the two, and in both cases it does little to stifle her free speech rights.
I'd have been much more sympathetic if I didn't feel like I was intentionally misled.
Or is she banned from entering the trees?
There's a real distinction between the two, and in both cases it does little to stifle her free speech rights.
I'd have been much more sympathetic if I didn't feel like I was intentionally misled.
Would like to hear more about what's going on up there. The only thing we've read in the last two months has been from the corpo media.
Please keep up the communication. I've seen zero fliers on campus. I keep hearing people ask, Are the tree sitters still there?
Please keep up the communication. I've seen zero fliers on campus. I keep hearing people ask, Are the tree sitters still there?
If you read the article it clearly states that the university is wanting to keep Charles and other out of the trees. How is that stifling her free speach if she is by her own admission not a trees sitter. They aren't attempting to keep her from speaking out against the LRDP just from doing it 60 feet up in a tree.
Isn't there a hearing on Valentine's Day, Feb 14? Should we who are concerned attend, and and we please get some details as to when, the current issues, etc? Thanks!
It is stifling to her free speech because Jennifer is not being charged with any violation of the law - she is a defendant in this civil suit simply because she has acted as a media liaison for the tree-sitters' campaign against the LRDP. She is being sued by the UC for their expenditures related to the tree-sit, and the UC is also seeking to ban her and her co-defendants from "all trees on campus".
Also, Cruz and David, two first-year students at UCSC, are facing suspension and a series of judicial affairs punishments, all because they were ID'd on the morning of November 7th by police. They are also not being charged with any crime. The University is targeting these people for their alleged association with an on-campus protest, and punishing them using their quasi-legal "judicial affairs" system, in which there is no due process and no right to trial by one's peers.
All of these actions are efforts to intimidate students and discourage their dissent, particularly when it occurs in a inconvenient, image-tarnishing manner, such as a tree-sit. It is an affront to free speech when people are being charged for their words/ press releases and their supposed association with a political cause.
Also, Cruz and David, two first-year students at UCSC, are facing suspension and a series of judicial affairs punishments, all because they were ID'd on the morning of November 7th by police. They are also not being charged with any crime. The University is targeting these people for their alleged association with an on-campus protest, and punishing them using their quasi-legal "judicial affairs" system, in which there is no due process and no right to trial by one's peers.
All of these actions are efforts to intimidate students and discourage their dissent, particularly when it occurs in a inconvenient, image-tarnishing manner, such as a tree-sit. It is an affront to free speech when people are being charged for their words/ press releases and their supposed association with a political cause.
From the articles in the paper the students are being suspended because they were at the first protest and brought before the student discplinary board. They were told to stay away from the protest site and after being caught several times there they are now being suspended. They were given fair warning what would happen if they decided to support the disruptive protest.
But you wouldn't know about this if you didn't read the local papers because no seemed to think it worth posting on Indy Media. The only time anything gets posted here is when the protestors stage an event to create a conflict with the police. For the most part Indy Media has forgotten and ignored the protest, just like the most of us on campus, since the lot was cleared during the break.
But you wouldn't know about this if you didn't read the local papers because no seemed to think it worth posting on Indy Media. The only time anything gets posted here is when the protestors stage an event to create a conflict with the police. For the most part Indy Media has forgotten and ignored the protest, just like the most of us on campus, since the lot was cleared during the break.
Well duh they want to keep them out of all trees. If they sue to get them out of the trees they are in now they can climb another tree and the cycle of lawsuits starts again.
Bear Mountai tree sit dismantled, forest destroyed, everyone arrested
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/14/18479100.php
background
http://treesit.blogspot.com
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/14/18479100.php
background
http://treesit.blogspot.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network