Monday, October 23, 2017
Does Disruption Violate Free Speech?
When student protesters prevented President Michael H. Schill of the University of Oregon from delivering his State of the University speech this month, the group explained, "Free speech is the right of individuals and communities to express themselves without repression from the state. The students are not the state nor the repressors. Taking to the stage and using this platform was an act of free speech — not a violation of it."
It’s not a new argument. When a group of students tried to prevent Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador at the time, from delivering a speech at the University of California at Irvine in 2010, one of them explained that "rights can only be trampled upon and censored by the government, not by individuals," and "acts of protest must be judged by their ability to empower marginalized voices to speak out and demand their basic human rights."
Similar sentiments have led to disruptive protests this year at the College of William & Mary, Evergreen State, Middlebury, and Claremont McKenna Colleges — all of which were motivated by an intent to prevent speakers and their sponsors from exercising their rights of free speech. And very controversial speakers on campuses, like Richard Spencer at the University of Florida this week, especially raise the possibility of disruption by students.
Contrary to the view of these protesters, individuals do not have a right to prevent others from speaking. It has long been recognized in constitutional law that the "heckler’s veto" — defined as the suppression of speech in order to appease disruptive, hostile, or threatening members of the audience — can be as much a threat to rights of free expression as government censorship.
If audience members had a general right to engage in disruptive or threatening behavior by using loud, boisterous, or inciting speech, it would give any determined individual or group veto power over the expression of any idea they opposed. Only the most benign or inoffensive ideas would be expressible. It would empower people to believe, "If we can’t get the government to censor the speech, then we’ll do it ourselves."
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Any Campus that allws for a unruly disruptive bunch of Bolshevek slimeballs to disrupt Free Speach needs to have their budgets cut by 100%
A citizen putting a gag on he mouth of another citizen would violate the second citizen's free speech right.
A citizen making loud noises so that he other citizen cannot be heard would not violated the second citizen's free speech right.
The smart response to people disrupting an event by shouting over the invited speaker is to have security officially demand that the shouters leave the premises.
If the person who shouted does not leave at a reasonable pace after being given time to gather his belongings, then the person can be arrested for trespassing.
Anon 6:58,
You know nothing about free speech if you think that one person making it so that another can't be heard isn't violating the others free speech rights.
The whole point of free speech is that everyone gets the right to say what they want, it is those who are listening who are required to use their own personal judgment about that speech. When you substitute your judgment about the speech and deny the speaker the option of being heard you not only deny the speaker the right to be heard you also deny the audience the right to make their own judgment.
I think the issue of disruptive protest is only partly about free speech.
It seems to be me that the better issue is one of trespass.
Whether the address is ticketed or free - the premise (or its lessors) have the right to refuse admission, or withdraw permission, to anyone who is disruptive.
Just kick them out.
They can take their protest outside.
The problem is that these disruptive people are frightened. They fear ideas they do not like, or cannot counter with rational arguments. They, themselves, are immune to the demagoguery - but the "weak willed" who listen will immediately be won over, and become oppressors of the first order. Of course, what do you expect, they are - after all - "weak willed," and must be protected from ideas that might lead them astray!
That being said, the problem is that US Law does not recognize a "right to be heard," only a right to speak, and those who are disruptive remain a thorny problem. Peaceful protest - simply holding a sign or standing and turning your back to a speaker - is always going to be allowed (although props, such as signs and placards can probably be restricted). The question is when does "vocal" cross the line from "peaceful" to "disturbing the peace," and what are the government's involvement in those events?
"A citizen making loud noises so that he other citizen cannot be heard would not violated the second citizen's free speech right."
Anon 7:41 is absolutely correct. Shouting someone down is a method of "putting a gag on he [sic] mouth of another citizen."
Everyone has the right to choose whether or not to listen to any particular speech. But with very few exceptions, no one has the right to make that decision on behalf of someone else. (Parents limiting what their children are exposed to is one example of reasonable exceptions because that is part of the parents' responsibility towards their children.)
Post a Comment