In Ohio, university police officer undergo the same trainning and certification as municipal officers. They have the same police powers as any other leo. Their “jurisdiction” for misdemeanors is confined to areas that are owned by the university just as city cops misdemeanor powers end at the city limits. They do have arrest authority for felonies anywhere in the state, again, just like a city officer.
I imagine since this was happening on University property their position was to keep disruptions to a minimum to “keep the peace.” Sometimes there is a very fine line between freedom of speech and disorderly conduct. If you look at the Ohio statute the key words are “inconvenience, annoyance or alarm” in a public place. Since there appeared to be a Q&A as part of the program, the protesters were probably escorted out of the meeting under the D/C disturbance portion of the statute.
I know I’m going to take some hits on this by those who will argue the first amendment issue and I respect their position, but by dirupting the meeting, the rights of those who were there to listen to her BS were also infringed. A classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Hope this helps you understand.
Thank you for your post to the information it contains. You'll get no heat from me, I find your post and your points entirely reasonable. It is good to know that the policemen are thoroughly trained. I agree with you that the ejections were probably under a disorderly persons ordinance or statute.
I do have reservations about a disorderly persons law that can be used to shut down speech, especially political speech, under a test that the speech constitutes disorderly conduct if it causes "inconvenience, annoyance or alarm." I do not much like the idea of being required to modify my speech or my behavior to suit the subjective and highly irrational threshold of annoyance for someone like, for example, Sheila Jackson-Lee or Maxine Walters.
I am surprised that the statute has withstood constitutional test. I would reject it on two grounds: First, is unconstitutional because it is too vague. Second, it is unconstitutional because it is too subjective, it falls into the trap of fixing my constitutional rights on your threshold of tolerance. I suppose it could be dressed up by saying that it must cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm to a reasonable person under the circumstances rather than to the actual parties involved. I just do not like free speech to be dependent on the acting ability of the one objects to it.
I quite agree that the cops are put in a very difficult position in these situations. Whether they behave reasonably I think depends to a large degree on whom they think has a right to set the standard. Is it a reasonable standard applicable to all situations or is it a movable standard depending (and dependent ) the parties involved?
