Sara Rubin here, thinking about one of the most painful divisive issues of our day. Opinions on Israel and Palestine differ widely, from extremes on both sides to disagreements in the middle. From whether a two-state solution is possible or even desirable to whether Israel should even exist, people fiercely hold beliefs on the conflict in general, and Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza responding to Hamas’ attack last Oct. 7.
Some of the people who hold divergent views happened across each other last fall on a towering sand dune in Sand City next to the Rec Trail. It’s commonly known as Scribble Hill for the messages it bears—asking someone to prom, endorsing a political candidate—written in pieces of natural debris. The messages, like the material used to write them, are ephemeral. Either wind and falling sand will knock them over, or another person will come along to write another message facing southbound Highway 1 drivers.
The temporary message “Free Gaza,” written on Scribble Hill last Oct. 12, led to a confrontation that is now the subject of a misdemeanor trial that began today with jury selection and also a civil case in Monterey County Superior Court.
Three Muslim women wearing hijabs stood by the sign when a bicyclist, Max Steiner, approached. “I was hoping he wouldn’t ruin the sign, so we stood quietly to see what he would say to us,” Pearl Warrick wrote in court papers. “[Steiner] started shouting things at us and charged up the hill.” While they could not at first hear his words, the three women say his tone and demeanor frightened them; 14-year-old Maryam Khalil began recording.
She documented a debate between the three young women and Steiner, each accusing each other of supporting terrorism. Steiner began to disassemble the letters, grabbing handfuls of debris.
That much is not particularly controversial. The sign-makers said they’d be back tomorrow to rewrite their sign and Steiner said he’d return to tear it apart—free speech facing off against free speech to write and to erase.
What is at issue is whether Steiner put his hands on Khalil, grabbing her and grabbing her phone and throwing it. Those allegations, which Steiner denies, led to misdemeanor charges against him of assault and vandalism.
His alleged conduct also led to Warrick, Khalil and her sister, Sara Khalil, filing a civil lawsuit against Steiner, claiming he subjected the younger Khalil to PTSD which she continues treatment for. He sought to get that suit thrown out with what is known as an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that it was meant to freeze his free speech rights. But as the plaintiffs’ attorneys note: “This case is not about defendant Max Steiner’s constitutionally protected speech; it is about the assault and battery of three Palestinians while they exercise their right to express themselves regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
On July 12, a judge denied Steiner’s motion to strike the lawsuit. Because while it’s acceptable to write a message or tear apart a message, to protest or counter-protest, and to do so rudely or politely, it is not fine to do so violently.
Steiner wrote in court papers that he has suffered as a result of this confrontation, and a video that the Khalils and Warrick posted to TikTok resulted in the Army terminating his participation in a Chinese Mandarin language class at the Defense Language Institute and multiple death threats.
But the consequences Steiner has already faced are not part of the criminal trial, in which he is representing himself—nor, for that matter, are the viewpoints that led to the confrontation to begin with.
The war is not on trial, nor are the perspectives about it. What is on trial is quite limited to the question of whether Steiner did or didn’t commit physical assault and vandalism. This case is not a proxy for jurors’ viewpoints on the conflict—it is a question of evidence, and whether jurors will be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific, narrow crime was committed. Similarly, now that Steiner’s anti-SLAPP motion has been denied, the civil case will focus on harm caused, not his right to oppose the message or to remove it.
This might mean both cases result in unsatisfying answers, but it will offer some clarity about what happened that day.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.