Did Texas Police Violate First Amendment Rights of Pro-Palestine Protesters?

posted in: Society | 0

On Wednesday, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) arrested and charged 57 people, including one journalist, with criminal trespassing on the University of Texas at Austin’s campus during a protest against Israel’s ongoing attacks on Gaza and the university’s investments in weapons manufacturing. DPS and Governor Greg Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to an Observer request for comment.

Dr. Amy Sanders is a tenured associate professor at UT-Austin, a licensed attorney, and journalist. She has taught courses on media law, journalism ethics, and global protections on speech, press, and protest. In the aftermath of Wednesday’s arrests, Sanders talked to the Texas Observer about free speech protections and the First Amendment. 

TO: UT is a public university, and the protests yesterday were taking place outdoors. Isn’t that a public forum, fully protected for free assembly and free speech under the First Amendment?

So let’s not even talk about the First Amendment first. If you look at UT’s own policy regarding freedom of expression, they open up public outdoor common areas on campus for these kinds of activities. UT actually has a policy that says assemblies of the public are permitted in outdoor campus spaces. 

The real issue yesterday is whether or not you believe it was a peaceful protest. Universities, of course, have a right to ensure the physical safety of their students, staff and faculty. 

When expressive activities get out of hand and turn violent, or when people begin engaging in speech that is not protected by the First Amendment—true threats, fighting words—the university has the right to step in and stop that kind of protest. I have seen nothing to suggest that is what occurred yesterday.

What kind of speech would constitute a true threat or fighting words? 

There’s been a lot of confusion about anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hate speech against Jewish people—and it is fully protected by the First Amendment. 

Unless we’re getting into actual targeted threats of physical violence, protesters have a right to engage in antisemitic speech. Again, I haven’t seen evidence that that’s what was occurring yesterday. But even if it was, that speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment does not protect any kind of physical action that would harm someone’s safety. You have no First Amendment right to push, shove, kick, hit other people. But, often in the case of peaceful protests, like we saw yesterday, there is of course pushing, and people are moving. Oftentimes, police exercise restraint in allowing some of this movement to happen, understanding that you can be in a crowd and come into contact with someone without intending to hurt them. 

I think the presence of armed riot police always increases the tension in these kinds of situations—and I think it’s the wrong move.

A pro-Palestine rally at the Texas Capitol in February Gus Bova

Does the First Amendment differentiate between journalists and other members of the public? There was a reporter arrested yesterday—he’s a photojournalist for Fox7, and he was arrested and charged with criminal trespassing.

That arrest in my opinion is absolutely unlawful. Police obviously have the right to ask journalists to move to keep them safe. But from the video I have seen, he was doing nothing unlawful, other than engaging in the practice of journalism. The First Amendment protects journalists who are in the process of covering a news story on public property.

Did you see any basis for a dispersal order yesterday?

Obviously, I wasn’t everywhere—I haven’t seen everything. But I suspect that that was a tactic to try to calm the situation. I don’t know that it was lawful. I also don’t think it was effective. 

(Note: The Observer was present on campus when one of the dispersal orders was read out around 6:15 p.m. Wednesday. The crowd of protestors moved off campus, and then police left en masse—and protestors promptly returned to UT’s South Lawn in the heart of campus where many of the arrests took place, according to videos posted on social media by local journalists. The group continued to peacefully protest, while a couple drones buzzed overhead.)

Can police or elected leaders in Texas declare public forums to be criminal trespass zones?

Generally speaking, when members of the public are engaged in a peaceful protest in a public space—assuming they are not obstructing traffic, or disrupting campus activities—there is very little legal basis for law enforcement to demand they leave. 

For the protesters and journalists arrested yesterday, are the charges likely to be dropped? 

Having spent time in a prosecuting attorney’s office, I would anticipate that nearly all of these charges will be dropped. 

(As of mid-morning Thursday, nearly 50 of the charges had been dropped, according to the Austin Chronicle.)

Then what was the point of sending riot police and arresting people?

The point is absolutely to intimidate the students and other protesters into not exercising their First Amendment right to speak. The whole goal of sending in riot police, of making the statements that the governor of Texas made, is to chill freedom of expression. 

It is to make clear that you don’t approve of their views, and that you will attempt to punish them for expressing their views—even if what they’re doing is protected by the First Amendment. It’s an extremely effective tactic.

The fear of getting arrested—the fear of spending a night in jail—without a doubt discourages some people from participating.

A pro-Palestine demonstration in Austin in 2021 Ivan Armando Flores/Texas Observer

Can police arrest protesters on public property when they’ve not broken any laws? And can police arrest protesters on public property if they believe that protesters plan to break laws?

The idea that we would take all of this action preemptively to try to prevent harm is not something that the First Amendment permits. This standard when we’re talking about incitement speech, for example, which is not protected by the First Amendment, is extremely high.

The phrase that the courts use is “imminent, lawless action”—and that has two components to it: lawless action requires unlawful behavior. Imminent means the the threat is real, and it’s happening now. 

I just don’t see, based on the posts from protesters and organizers that I’ve seen, based on what happened yesterday—I just don’t see it rising to the level of incitement speech, where you could attempt to take action preemptively. 

That’s not the way our country works. We don’t allow the government to censor speech before it happens. There are instances where you can be punished for speaking after the fact, but this country has a long history of not allowing the government to preemptively silence people.

Editor’s Note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How does Zendaya tennis film ‘Challengers’ rank with other Hollywood love matches

posted in: News | 0

“Challengers,” a sexy tennis love triangle from acclaimed director Luca Guadagnino and budding superstar Zendaya, has generated enough buzz and rave reviews that it may reach No. 1 in the rankings. 

But even if the story, directing and acting are all aces, to achieve greatness the movie still needs to provide genuine excitement and realistic drama on the court.

To provide an air of credibility, the film hired former pro and veteran analyst Brad Gilbert to consult on the film and to train Zendaya for three months; Guadagnino says she got so good he barely had to use her tennis stunt double in the film.

It should be an improvement over “Wimbledon,” with Kirsten Dunst and Paul Bettany, and not just because of “Wimbledon’s” flimsy dialogue. When Bettany reaches the Wimbledon finals, director Richard Loncraine relies on quick cuts, distracting camera movement, and close-ups of footwork and foreshortened shots from the players’ backs – they feel like shortcuts and drain away any sense that real tennis was played.

By contrast, “Battle of the Sexes,” which is less about tennis and more about Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) and the fight for women’s equality, gives its tennis showdown between King and Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell) its proper due. Directors Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton often shot from above and behind like a typical tennis match on television. This provides a familiar vantage point and allowed them to use tennis doubles, future pro Kaitlyn Christian and former pro Vince Spadea to have real rallies. (Rigg’s former coach and King herself consulted on the grips the players used and other details.) They also trusted the viewer and let points develop, including the moment of triumph where King shrewdly lobs to Riggs’ backhand and then finishes him off with a slice down the line. 

Good tennis cannot save a bad movie like “16-Love,” an insipid 2012 teen romance featuring Lindsey Shaw and Chandler Massey. Massey was cast partly because of his tennis skills and Shaw’s rival was played by Susie Abromeit, who had been a top-ranked junior but a weak script and poor directing renders all that irrelevant. 

On the other hand, good tennis can enhance a stronger movie, like the acclaimed 2020 French drama “Final Set.” Director Quentin Reynaud had played competitively as a youth and the star, Alex Lutz, trained enough to look believable during practice. For Lutz’s opponent in the big match, Reynaud cast French pro Jurgen Briand, who gives the points a thrilling realism, which makes Reynaud’s arty shots – swinging shadows and fancy footwork in the red clay as well as balletic slo-mo close-ups – feel earned, adding to the drama instead of distracting from it. 

There are plenty of movies and TV series that give tennis a cameo, typically for main characters who are amateurs. They frequently play the scenes for laughs – it’s often clichéd as in “Sabrina the Teenage Witch,” which wastes Andy Roddick as a coach in a scene that falls flat. But when done well, or with charming stars, it can still be effective: a brief scene in “Annie Hall” with Diane Keaton’s title character playing with a carefree glee perfectly introduces her “la-di-da” character; on “Seinfeld,” Jerry’s one good forehand launches a ball machine attack that nails Kramer in the head; and “Bachelor Party” is silly and forgettable but watching Tom Hanks childishly launch home runs while playing his future in-laws is still a delight. 

Then there’s the tennis as combat, whether played broadly in “Bridesmaids” to the soundtrack of AC/DC’s “Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap,” or with more nuance as dramatic marital warfare between Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney in Noah Baumbach’s “The Squid and The Whale.” (The cheesiest version of this is “Hart to Hart,” the 1980s crime show that once featured Martina Navratilova as herself playing in a mixed doubles match; the overuse of closeups wasted Navratalova’s talent before the contrived plot devolved into an on-court shooting.) 

The exception is “Red Oaks,” a coming-of-age series that featured tennis prominently, with Craig Roberts as a tennis pro at the club and Paul Reiser, as a wealthy but aging weekend warrior. Set in the 1980s, it was able to capture the game as played at that level in that time. (Reiser’s opponent in the big season finale club match is none other than Brad Gilbert.)

Most movies with tennis as a notable part of the plot focus on elite athletes. Alfred Hitchcock’s 1951 classic, “Strangers on a Train,” depicts a tennis star Guy Haines (Farley Granger) caught up in the murder scheme of a psychopath, Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker). Taut and tense, but with little tennis, Hitchcock starts off the climactic match with long shots that capture the sport’s dramatic potential. But as the tension builds, Hitchcock, intercutting between Guy’s match and Bruno’s escapades, dilutes the tennis with close-ups, odd angles that don’t suit the sport and intrusive music. 

More impressive, tennis-wise, was “Pat and Mike,” the 1952 romcom with Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. While the movie pales compared to their other films like “Adam’s Rib,” it was written to display Hepburn’s tennis and golf skills. Hepburn had no stunt double and in one big match played Gussie Moran, a recent Wimbledon finalist. The rallies are realistic and well shot and there’s also an entertaining section when Hepburn’s character’s controlling fiance shows up and she becomes so distracted that her game falls apart as she hallucinates her fiance in the umpire chair and her racket shrinking while Moran’s grows.

Wimbledon, unsurprisingly, frequently commands center stage… or Centre Court. Beyond “Wimbledon,” there’s “Borg-McEnroe,” about the epic 1980 Wimbledon final. John McEnroe (Shia LaBeouf miraculously pulls out a 20-minute fourth set tiebreaker, 18-16, before Bjorn Borg (Sverrir Gudnason) coolly prevails 8-6 in the final set. 

While the film devotes 20 minutes to the match, it fails to do the tiebreaker justice. It does show dynamite points like McEnroe nailing a leaping backhand volley off a Borg lob, or Borg whipping a passing shot down the line. While the scenes can appear like actors doing impressions of the players in between their tennis doubles hitting the real shots, the rallies have an air of authenticity. But as tension mounts, director Janus Metz Pedersen loses interest in the tennis itself, shifting to close-ups to show emotional and physical strain along with montages that feel cliche. 

In “7 Days in Hell,” the tennis, such as it is, exists outside of criticism. This riotous Andy Samberg mockumentary parodies the longest match in tennis history, a three-day Wimbledon battle between John Isner and Nicholas Mahut that finished with the score of 70-68 in the final set. Samberg’s Aaron Williams ups his game by snorting cocaine he had hidden in his water bottle and the court’s lines. In this never-ending match, Williams and Kit Harrington’s Charles Poole have a lengthy rally at the net while both are prone after diving for shots. It’s as far from realistic as possible but it works perfectly on its own terms.

Ultimately, the greatest tennis film of all time is “King Richard,” directed by Reinaldo Marcus Green. In telling the story of Venus and Serena Williams and their father, Green featured more drilling and match play than any other film. He also frequently shot the tennis shots with a low camera angle from behind the players, allowing the viewer to see the action in a way that, say, “Wimbledon” did not, while still creating a sense of immediacy and urgency.

And in the final match at the end between 14-year-old Venus and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, he repeatedly mixed in mid-range shots with long shots while giving the points time to build dramatically as they would in a real tennis match. While the teen loses that match, it is fitting that when it comes to tennis movies, the undeniable champ features the unsurpassable Williams sisters. 

Related Articles

Movies & TV |


Column: AI moviemaking software ‘so easy an alien could do it.’ But where do visual effects go from here?

Movies & TV |


Two years after filming in St. Paul, ‘Downtown Owl’ released online

Movies & TV |


Review: Lily Gladstone and Riley Keough shine in Hulu’s dark true-crime drama ‘Under the Bridge’

Movies & TV |


Michael Douglas has a knack for unforgettable roles — here are 7 of the best

Movies & TV |


‘Irena’s Vow’ review: Drama a powerful portrait of bravery during World War II

Ashley Judd, #MeToo founders react to ruling overturning Harvey Weinstein’s conviction

posted in: Society | 0

NEW YORK (AP) — A New York appeals court overturned Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction on Thursday, saying the trial judge should not have allowed other women to testify about alleged assaults the movie mogul wasn’t charged with. Here is some of the reaction to the decision:

___

“This is what it’s like to be a woman in America, living with male entitlement to our bodies.” — Ashley Judd, whose on-the-record statement accusing Weinstein of sexually harassing her as a young actor helped launch the case.

——

“Judges throughout this nation are going to scale back what they allow to come into evidence because it’s a constitutional right to tell your side of the story without having so much baggage from your whole life being put on display to a jury .. Harvey will, under this new ruling, be able to take the stand, will be able to tell his side of the story and be very consistent with what he said all along, which is, ‘Yes, there was the sexual encounter … But I never forced her to do anything.’ ” — Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala.

___

“Because the brave women in this case broke their silence, millions and millions and millions of others found the strength to come forward and do the same. That will always be the victory. This doesn’t change that. And the people who abuse their power and privilege to violate and harm others will always be the villain. This doesn’t change that.” — Tarana Burke, who founded the #MeToo movement at large.

___

“A jury was told in California that he was convicted in another state for rape … Turns out he shouldn’t have been convicted, and it wasn’t a fair conviction. … It interfered with his presumption of innocence in a significant way in California.” — Weinstein lawyer Jennifer Bonjean, who is appealing his Los Angeles rape conviction.

___

“Today’s decision does not erase the truth of what happened. It doesn’t alter the reality that Weinstein is a serial sexual abuser who exploited his power for decades.” — Fatima Goss Graves, CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, which runs the Time’s Up Legal Fund, providing legal help and resources for people facing sexual harassment and violence.

___

“Today’s decision reinforces what we already know through our survey of over 13,000 entertainment workers. We have seen a lack of progress in addressing the power imbalances that allow abuse to occur and that sexual assault continues to be a pervasive problem.” — Anita Hill, chair and president of The Hollywood Commission.

Want to cook vegetables better? The new Kismet cookbook shows us how

posted in: News | 0

Betty Hallock | (TNS) Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — Call them the vegetable whisperers. Sarah Hymanson and Sara Kramer are the two produce-obsessed chefs behind Kismet restaurant in Los Feliz, the growing chainlet of Kismet Rotisserie takeout shops (there are three across L.A. now, where the tahini roasted cauliflower is as popular as the chicken) and a new vegetable-forward cookbook to be released at the end of this month.

How is it that Hymanson and Kramer can create seemingly simple dishes of mostly vegetables (and a little meat too) in smart, surprising ways with so much compelling, complex, zingy flavor? It’s the foundation on which they’ve built their restaurants and their careers — spanning New York, where they met, to Los Angeles — and it’s what they set out to show us in “Kismet: Bright, Fresh, Vegetable-Loving Recipes.”

Their approach comes across as casual, breezy even, but it is, in fact, considered and exacting. “I think we’re not very fussy people,” says Kramer. She’s standing in her yellow and orange kitchen, at home on top of a garden-covered hill in Echo Park. “And our food — though fussy on the back end because we are very specific — I think we’ve conveyed in a way that’s also not very fussy.

“It’s through a lot of our own sort of neuroses, how do we get the very best out of this thing in the most efficient way? … that I think then translates into, how is this going to be easy for someone and natural and beautiful and delicious?”

Take broccoli, for example. This is how you should be cooking America’s most popular-but-not-sexy vegetable: Kramer hands over a piece of broccoli that has been blanched in a pot of salted water to jump-start its way to tenderness, then charred briefly in a hot cast-iron skillet .

“Blanching imbues it with flavor already because we’re seasoning it with salt and it’s really permeating,” she says. “And then we’re roasting the broccoli quickly, which gives it another dimension of this toasty, roasty flavor … so already on its own if you try a piece right now, it’s super delicious and took not very long at all, maybe 15 minutes to do that process.”

The broccoli is for a salad from the book, and the dressing is a “jazz” (à la Molly Baz, the food personality who volleys cheery monosyllabic culinary terms). The name is cute, the flavors are serious.

Kramer tops the florets with a mix of pumpkin seeds, olive oil, grated garlic, salt and Aleppo pepper, along with fresh mint and pomegranate seeds — a nod to the Middle Eastern and Mediterranean flavors that Kismet is known for, even if, as Hymanson points out, “we draw a lot of influence from a lot of places.

“What I actually have worked harder to know about is more Asian cuisine,” she says, “kind of broadly a lot of Chinese food, Indian food, Southeast Asian food. Sometimes it will be the same spices in combination that you would find in the Middle East that you’d also find in India or in China or Thailand. So I would say that we’re even less specific than [Middle Eastern]. We both have our own preferences, we come together, and this is where we land.”

For the broccoli with pumpkin seed jazz, flavors, colors and textures collide in its combination of seeds, spices, fresh herbs, tart citrus juice, the pop of pomegranate seeds and — here’s another tip — the grated raw garlic. They suggest adding a whisper of it (always fresh, never pre-peeled) to finished food — roasted vegetables, a pot of cooked beans, aioli, tahini sauce — for bringing “life and depth.”

“We’re always trying to build flavor in different simple ways,” says Hymanson, who’s at Kramer’s stove stirring a big pot of breakfast-lunch-dinner soup, another recipe from the book, an amalgam of egg-drop, minestrone and avgolemono. “We’re also big fans of things feeling fresh, so i would say in almost every dish there is a fresh component that helps our food feel alive.”

And though they’re married to the seasons and micro-seasons of Southern California (for peak combinations such as stone fruit and tomatoes in the warmest months), the two know exactly how to (slightly) bend rules. One of the tastiest salads in the book matches grapefruit with tomatoes. Why a winter citrus with a summer fruit? Across much of the U.S., cherry tomato varieties are available year-round; they’re pretty good flavor-wise but even better when roasted in spiced oil. Scoops of the zesty, creamy marinated feta are arranged with the roasted tomatoes and supremed grapefruit segments, the tangy cheese and spicy fruit juices melding into an addictive dressing. “The combination is Shakespearean,” write Hymanson and Kramer in the book, “a love match for the ages.”

Ideas for combining ingredients are kaleidoscopic: shaved apple with kohlrabi for a root vegetable winter salad; chamomile with caraway in a slightly vinegared honey to dress endive; more marinated feta added to roast squash and anchovy-caramelized onion; their can’t-take-it-off-the-menu cucumber salad with parsley seed za’atar, rosewater labneh, cherries and chervil.

For Kramer and Hymanson, who both worked at Blue Hill at Stone Barns in New York and cooked together at Glasserie in Brooklyn before moving to L.A., the way they eat defines their food as much as how they cook: “We love having lots of small dishes to pick at: a variety of textures, colors and flavors on the table. This snacky style of eating is us in a nutshell,” begins the chapter titled “As Good Tomorrow as It Is Today.” It’s as celebratory as mezze, banchan, tapas or zakuski, honors the abundance of seasonal vegetables in California, and clicks with Angelenos.

“We want things to look delicious, be delicious, not take too much of your time,” says Kramer in her kitchen, “and at the end of the day make it fun.”

____

Find Sarah Hymanson and Sara Kramer at the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books on Saturday, April 20, at Booth 410, where they’ll be answering questions about “Kismet: Bright, Fresh, Vegetable-Loving Recipes,” 10 to 11 a.m.

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.