Irvine 10 found guilty - good for them.

It took the law an year and a half to get to that, but the outcome is clear:

A California jury found 10 Muslim students guilty of misdemeanors for disrupting a 2010 campus speech by Israel's ambassador to the United States.

Pity it took so long, but better late than never. Now to the entertaining part:

The charges created a fierce debate on campuses about the line between student activism and illegal behavior.

A layman like I would naturally ask why? After all, when 11 hooligans prevent an invited speaker from doing what he came to do, you would think it's a clear-cut case. To put it in a legal language:

Arguments at the trial largely revolved around two differing views of freedom of speech. Prosecutor Dan Wagner described the students as "censors" who utilized the "heckler's veto." "This is about freedom of speech," Wagner said in his closing statement. "That's why were all here."

Two different views? Surprising, ain't it? Apparently, freedom of speech is understood differently by some parties:

Defense attorneys described the charges as an attempt to chill political speech on campus.

When a person thinks that freedom of speech includes not only an assurance that he/she will be able to talk freely but also a right to prevent other-minded people's free speech, we have what is popularly called in anti-Israeli circles "Muzzle watch" situation.

Too bad.