Widgets Magazine

Stanford students arraigned for bridge protest

Six Stanford students were arraigned in San Mateo County Superior Court on Monday, Feb. 23, on a single misdemeanor charge of violating Section 647c of the California Penal Code, which prohibits the willful obstruction of any person’s free movement in a public place. The charges stemmed from the San Mateo Bridge protest led by the group Silicon Shutdown on Jan. 19.

The students all pleaded not guilty. A pre-trial hearing date was set for April 21, to be followed by a jury trial on May 26. If found guilty, they may be sentenced to up to one year in county jail or a maximum fine of $1,000, or both.

Four more Stanford students are expected to be arraigned on the same charges on Tuesday.

Contact Arnav Mariwala at arnavm ‘at’ stanford.edu.

  • Me

    So these protestors believe they are following in the footsteps of MLK. Fine, but MLK was brave enough to allow himself to accept the punishments for his actions… as unjust as they might be. If these protestors want to prove they are following in his footsteps, they should be willing to accept their punishments no matter what they might be (fines, arrest, jail time, expulsion, etc.) Otherwise, if you protest-by-breaking-the-law, only to fight against the punishment, you’re not following in his footsteps.

  • With All Due Respect,

    There are actually many instances when King and many activists in the 60’s era of the Civil Rights Movement fought against the punishment. Quite often this punishment was incurred by breaking laws meant to bar protesters, such as the laws that barred “parading without a permit,” or by breaking injunctions against protests, many of them made by state judges.

    Taking the punishment for breaking unjust laws normally meant that the activist should willingly submit to arrest as a result of breaking the law – afterwards the law, injunction, or general charge would be challenged in court.

  • mogden

    It would be hard to argue that the law against “the willful obstruction of any person’s free movement in a public place” is unjust or unjustly applied in this case.