Gonzalez dismissed the notion of being held accountable for damages estimated to run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars: “This is all just a distraction from the very real property destruction and crimes that are occurring in Gaza every day because of Stanford University’s investments and actions.”
Defense counsel Leah Gillis justified spray painting “genocide” on buildings by saying, “Using the word genocide is the same as saying the sky is blue.”
The comments before a criminal trial show a continued sense of entitlement to commit crimes. These students did not adopt such views in isolation.
It is now common in higher education to hear inflammatory language from professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. One professor who declared that there is “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted.
A student last year published a column asking “when must we kill them?” Even high school teachers are calling upon the Secret Service to kill Trump and his supporters.
It is no wonder that students believe that occupying and trashing university buildings is justified and commendable. The students in the protest spray-painted messages such as “kill cops” and “death to Israel.”
What is most striking is how these defendants and their counsel are making such statements before a criminal trial. Usually, defense teams are circumspect in making inflammatory or incriminating statements. Perhaps these defendants are simply hoping for jury nullification given the liberal jury pool.
Earlier accounts indicate that at least one protester is now a cooperating witness who will testify against others.
In this coverage, one member of Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Amanda Campos ‘26, explained that
“Students acted to break through indifference, to force attention on an injustice that holding signs outside an office could never achieve. DA Rosen is wasting judicial resources to score points in a Trumpian attack on free speech and dissent, consistent with his history of overcharging.”
It reflects the same absurd claim that attacking people or buildings is a form of protected speech. It is not.
Drawing the line on free speech rights is often a difficult one. In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I argue for universities to focus on conduct rather than the content of speech. Occupying buildings, harassing students, destroying property, and shouting down speakers are forms of conduct that should be subject to suspension or expulsion.
This case is an important effort to maintain that line between speech and conduct. The “ridiculous” element is the notion of these defendants that they have a license to commit criminal acts so long as they view their cause as righteous.