>>If you try to influence the theatre to not have the person speak at all, you are suppressing free speech. >No. This is also free speech. But it is also a th

>>If you try to influence the theatre to not have the person speak at all, you are suppressing free speech. >No. This is also free speech. But it is also a threat. Should threats be covered under free speech? That seems tricky, and certainly undemocratic. If you are a random patron telling the theatre you don't like it they might ignore you, but if you are the owner of the popcorn factory, you suddenly get to decide who speaks and who doesn't. When does a threat cross the line to becoming suppression of someone's rights? Only if it comes from the government? Only when the person with the gun actually pulls the trigger but not when says "if you speak I will shoot?" Free speech is not an easy topic, certainly not today when anyone has free access to mass media as well. I think the founding fathers would have phrased things very differently if they had known about Radio, TV and the internet.