3 ms·

Unsurprisingly, and despite your imaginings, you're wrong. The police will intervene on public property to remove hecklers who are prohibiting others from speak

by mhb 3y ago

Unsurprisingly, and despite your imaginings, you're wrong. The police will intervene on public property to remove hecklers who are prohibiting others from speaking. Today, in the United States. This letter from the dean of Stanford Law School apologizing for the heckling of a speaker there is a good place to start reading: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/letter-stanford-law-school-dean-jenny-martinez-campus-community-march-22-2023 https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/letter-stanford-law-s... "Of course, protests are in some instances protected by the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not give protestors a “heckler’s veto.” As First Amendment scholar Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has written, “Freedom of speech does not protect a right to shout down others so they cannot be heard.” Erwin Chemerinsky & Howard Gillman, Free speech doesn’t mean hecklers get to shut down campus debate, WASH. P OST (Mar. 24, 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/24/free-speech-doesnt-mean-hecklers-get-shut-down-campus-debate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/24/free-spee.... To the contrary, settled First Amendment law allows many governmental restrictions on heckling to preserve the countervailing interest in free speech. As the California Supreme Court stated in In re Kay, 464 P.2d 142, 149 (Cal. 1970), “the state retains a legitimate concern in ensuring that some individuals’ unruly assertion of their rights of free expression does not imperil other citizens’ rights of free association and discussion.” Thus, even in public forums such as the public streets, sidewalks, and parks, where free speech rights have greatest latitude, it is well-settled that the First Amendment allows the imposition of reasonable content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. See, e.g., Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 487-88 (1988)."

smoldesu 3y ago
I've never met someone so dead-set on misinterpreting their own sources. It's kinda shocking! > This letter from the dean of Stanford Law School Okay, now go back through and read it again. > the First Amendment is designed to protect speech from government restriction, and therefore is not directly applicable to Stanford as a private institution This entire letter is based on interpretations of California state law and school policy, which is a fairytale as far as federal jurisdiction is concerned. And they even concede that those interpretations are subject to further scrutiny: > Thus, while the California Supreme Court in In re Kay protected protestors speaking out against an elected official at “a large, public celebration held outdoors in a public park,” the Court noted that “the nature of a meeting necessarily plays a major role,” and that “customs and usages” are central to the analysis. So, as you have so vehemently tried to disprove, there is no federal precedent that limits the lawful protest of public speech. Please don't misconstrue my arguments in the future if you want to have a productive debate.

by mhb 3y ago

smoldesu 3y ago

I've never met someone so dead-set on misinterpreting their own sources. It's kinda shocking! > This letter from the dean of Stanford Law School Okay, now go back through and read it again. > the First Amendment is designed to protect speech from government restriction, and therefore is not directly applicable to Stanford as a private institution This entire letter is based on interpretations of California state law and school policy, which is a fairytale as far as federal jurisdiction is concerned. And they even concede that those interpretations are subject to further scrutiny: > Thus, while the California Supreme Court in In re Kay protected protestors speaking out against an elected official at “a large, public celebration held outdoors in a public park,” the Court noted that “the nature of a meeting necessarily plays a major role,” and that “customs and usages” are central to the analysis. So, as you have so vehemently tried to disprove, there is no federal precedent that limits the lawful protest of public speech. Please don't misconstrue my arguments in the future if you want to have a productive debate.