Freedom of speech?

[Chris_Halkides]

Nadine Stossen

Showing up with drums and horns and speakers to drown out speech is lawful on the public square.

"Do you have a right to engage in a heckler's veto and to stop somebody whose ideas you hate from expressing those ideas? The answer to that question is no. The heckler's veto violates the speaker's First Amendment free speech rights. The so-called heckler's veto also violates the First Amendment rights of audience members who want to hear that unpopular message." Link.
EDT
"Simply put, the right to speak does not include a right to use speech to keep others from speaking." link

 

[TurkeysGhost]

"Do you have a right to engage in a heckler's veto and to stop somebody whose ideas you hate from expressing those ideas? The answer to that question is no. The heckler's veto violates the speaker's First Amendment free speech rights. The so-called heckler's veto also violates the First Amendment rights of audience members who want to hear that unpopular message." Link.

The heckler's veto involves an authority figure pulling the plug in response to hecklers or the threat of hecklers.

That didn't happen here. The city allowed them to stay as long as they wanted. They made their silly speeches and left. No veto.

Again, showing up and causing a loud, disruptive scene is not a heckler's veto. Drowning out CHUDs with loud noise in public places remains legal.

In Hentoff's formulation, the heckler him or herself is the party which directly carries out the "veto" and suppresses speech. This runs counter to the legal meaning of the phrase. Note that, to a lawyer familiar with the First Amendment law, the phrase "heckler's veto" means something different from what the plain English interpretation of the words suggests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto#:~:text=In%20First%20Amendment%20law%2C%20a,heckler's%20veto%20is%20unconstitutional.'%22

 

[Meadmaker]

but they also didn't cancel the event.

Actually, they did.

I think they made the right call in doing so, but that's what they did.

Basically, the counterprotestor mob was being sufficiently violent that the police declared it was unsafe, and they were shutting it down.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can stretch and strain as much as you want the "I have a right to an audience" peg will never fit into the "Free Speech" hole.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Actually, they did.

I think they made the right call in doing so, but that's what they did.

Basically, the counterprotestor mob was being sufficiently violent that the police declared it was unsafe, and they were shutting it down.

Do you have a citation for that? I didn't see anything saying the cops shut down the event. Seems like the organizers pissed their pants and ran off, thus ending the day.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you have a citation for that? I didn't see anything saying the cops shut down the event. Seems like the organizers pissed their pants and ran off, thus ending the day.

I looked it up, and I think I was mistaken. I had thought police declared an end to the rally, but a couple of articles I just read said that "organizers" cancelled the rally.


In other news, one of those articles noted that the puncher was identified and arrested yesterday.

 

[Ziggurat]

Acts can be speech.

Having a speech component doesn't negate any nonspeech component. Your comparison was transparent bull ****.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

NBC

I looked it up, and I think I was mistaken. I had thought police declared an end to the rally, but a couple of articles I just read said that "organizers" cancelled the rally.


In other news, one of those articles noted that the puncher was identified and arrested yesterday.

"Anderson and his supporters did take to the stage briefly, but as counter protesters shouted them down the rally ended abruptly after about 10 minutes." From a link I provided in comment #77.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I looked it up, and I think I was mistaken. I had thought police declared an end to the rally, but a couple of articles I just read said that "organizers" cancelled the rally.


In other news, one of those articles noted that the puncher was identified and arrested yesterday.

Indeed. Curious about the "hate crime" component of the charge. I didn't see anything that would indicate toothless was targeted for any of the eligible characteristics in hate crime law.

https://www.ourmidland.com/news/article/San-Francisco-police-arrest-man-in-assault-on-15659337.php

He was booked into the San Francisco jail on charges of mayhem with a hate crime enhancement.

California considers it a hate crime if the victim is targeted because of:

(1) Disability.

(2) Gender.

(3) Nationality.

(4) Race or ethnicity.

(5) Religion.

(6) Sexual orientation.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=422.55.

If he punched him for being a Proud Boy, it's not a hate crime. Maybe there's non-public info to support this charge.

 

[Suddenly]

Having a speech component doesn't negate any nonspeech component. Your comparison was transparent bull ****.

I never said anything to the contrary of this. It is the speech component that makes it speech. It is the manner in which it is expressed that makes it rightfully illegal.

Just as burning the flag has the non-speech component of burning a flag. There can be laws about burning things that apply to flags. Just as there are laws against punching people.

Again, the anger in which my points are restated to me is... I guess somewhere between amusing and interesting?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can burn a flag as an expression of free speech.

You can't burn a flag while standing at the pump at the gas station and, this is the important part, nobody pretends this is a free speech issue.

As much as every argument about freedom of speech is treated the first step on a slippery slope to totalitarianism when people aren't being tryhard edgelords splitting hairs for no reason other than to split hairs we all understand the difference.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Interesting video overall, but especially funny watching the Proud Boys pissing their pants trying to get out of the city. The driver seems to be too scared to pay the parking attendant at the garage they parked at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcIm7PTZ4tw&feature=emb_title


parking garage freakout at 2:15

 

[Darat]

Good luck with that.

He summarized what you said....

 

[Ziggurat]

I never said anything to the contrary of this. It is the speech component that makes it speech. It is the manner in which it is expressed that makes it rightfully illegal.

Just as burning the flag has the non-speech component of burning a flag. There can be laws about burning things that apply to flags. Just as there are laws against punching people.

Again, the anger in which my points are restated to me is... I guess somewhere between amusing and interesting?

Then what the **** was even your point? Nobody in this entire thread has taken the "absolutist" position that anything with even a component of speech can't be restricted. Nobody had to point out that that's an untenable position, because everyone already agrees about that. So if that was your only point, then why did you even post?

It makes no sense.

 

[Darat]

You can burn a flag as an expression of free speech.

You can't burn a flag while standing at the pump at the gas station and, this is the important part, nobody pretends this is a free speech issue.
As much as every argument about freedom of speech is treated the first step on a slippery slope to totalitarianism when people aren't being tryhard edgelords splitting hairs for no reason other than to split hairs we all understand the difference.

SJW!

 

[Darat]

Then what the **** was even your point? Nobody in this entire thread has taken the "absolutist" position that anything with even a component of speech can't be restricted. Nobody had to point out that that's an untenable position, because everyone already agrees about that. So if that was your only point, then why did you even post?

It makes no sense.

What makes no sense is your reaction to Suddenly making the same claims you made.

 

[Meadmaker]

I never said anything to the contrary of this. It is the speech component that makes it speech. It is the manner in which it is expressed that makes it rightfully illegal.

Just as burning the flag has the non-speech component of burning a flag. There can be laws about burning things that apply to flags. Just as there are laws against punching people.

Again, the anger in which my points are restated to me is... I guess somewhere between amusing and interesting?

It's a very subtle distinction. Is the punch an act of speech, but prohibited because the speech causes harm, or would it be said that it is not an act of speech at all, but simply an act that was performed in conjunction with an act of speech. You seemed to be saying it was the former, that it was speech, but inappropriate due to time/place/manner considerations.

I don't think a court would look at it that way. If they looked at it as an act of expression, they would have to apply substantive due process considerations to determine that restriction on that form of speech survived the strict scrutiny test. If they looked at it as not an act of speech at all, they could just say, "It's illegal to punch someone. Go to jail. Go directly to jail." When the defendant appealed on the grounds that it was free speech they could simply say that the "speech" part was perfectly fine, but the "punch" part is still a crime. Go back to jail.

The end result is the same in most, and maybe all, cases, but for those of us who read Supreme Court opinions for fun, I think they would write it up closer to the way I've described it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Public safety hazard

I looked it up, and I think I was mistaken. I had thought police declared an end to the rally, but a couple of articles I just read said that "organizers" cancelled the rally.


In other news, one of those articles noted that the puncher was identified and arrested yesterday.

"The rally turned so violent that it was declared a public safety hazard, police wrote." link

 

[Meadmaker]

"The rally turned so violent that it was declared a public safety hazard, police wrote." link

Thanks.

So I was mistaken about being mistaken. It was indeed cancelled by police.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Thanks.

So I was mistaken about being mistaken. It was indeed cancelled by police.

I suppose the organizers could have stood their ground and refused to be dispersed, but they were probably too busy filling their diapers to care. I don't see anywhere that the organizers objected to their rally being cancelled, so it seems they consented to the cops shutting things down.