Walker handles hecklers at the Iowa State Fair

[theIowaHawk]

Wrestling fan:

Let me approach this differently because you seem to be intelligent and you posted a statute, which imo immediately rises you above many posters on here.

In your opinion and your reading of the statute:

Does a person yelling, "Go Scott Walker, POTUS 2016!" commit disorderly conduct?

 

[naturalmwa]

Wrestling fan:

Let me approach this differently because you seem to be intelligent and you posted a statute, which imo immediately rises you above many posters on here.

In your opinion and your reading of the statute:

Does a person yelling, "Go Scott Walker, POTUS 2016!" commit disorderly conduct?

Is this person at a Walker event or a Hillary event or just standing outside my bedroom window on a Sunday morning video taping me? Because that would reasonably play into the concept of the shouting being disturbing.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Protected speech is specifically a defense to that crime. Just FYI.

Also, statutes don't override the Constitution nor prove its scope.

Well then we might be in a "deadly embrace" or "chicken and egg" argument here. But I do not see how this statute would override the constitution. Of course, I am not on the Supreme Court or anything like that, but I do not make the same connection here that you do. What is your legal basis for saying what I bolded above?

 

[Lone Clone]

Protected speech is specifically a defense to that crime. Just FYI.

Also, statutes don't override the Constitution nor prove its scope.

Yada and yada again. People get arrested for disrupting public events all the time. The charges -- if any are filed -- stick. We couldn't have a civilized society otherwise.

People who claim to care about the 1st Amendment should be leading the charge against today's universities, many of whom blatantly disregard the amendment. But since they are liberal organizations, the only complaints one hears come from the Right.....and as such, are generally ignored by the media.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Wrestling fan:

Let me approach this differently because you seem to be intelligent and you posted a statute, which imo immediately rises you above many posters on here.

In your opinion and your reading of the statute:

Does a person yelling, "Go Scott Walker, POTUS 2016!" commit disorderly conduct?

Even in a well regulated society there are going to be gray areas in the law and judgement calls necessary, etc. If some jerk yells something one time at a meeting...no, I do not expect the police to descend immediately and take him away in the paddy wagon. However, if people are intentionally disrupting an otherwise organized meeting that they happen not to agree with...and after a reasonable attempt or two to quiet them down, they persist...then yes, I would call the police and report them as disorderly. Reasonable people will likely disagree as to where on that spectrum it really crosses over into disorderly conduct...hence the gray area I mention.

I will also say that we will all go blind and crazy together if we allow ourselves to have to legally define every nuance of every situation and human interaction that there could be, etc. Somewhere along the line, a polite, mature society has to be able to regulate themselves to respect others, even when there are disagreements.

My main point here is that there are first class jerks out there that only seek to disrupt the plans and speeches of others...and then throw up a lame excuse that they are protected by the 1st amendment, etc. (Understatement alert) I am very unlikely to support Hillary Clinton in 2016...but I would never go to one of her meetings and then seek to disrupt it...because I respect her right, and the rights of the others in the audience, however daft they may be , to describe her plans to them, etc.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yada and yada again. People get arrested for disrupting public events all the time. The charges -- if any are filed -- stick. We couldn't have a civilized society otherwise.

People who claim to care about the 1st Amendment should be leading the charge against today's universities, many of whom blatantly disregard the amendment. But since they are liberal organizations, the only complaints one hears come from the Right.....and as such, are generally ignored by the media.

What on earth are you talking about? Please give examples.

 

[22*43*51]

If only Bernie's crowd would have done him the same solid with the BLM hooligans.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Well then we might be in a "deadly embrace" or "chicken and egg" argument here. But I do not see how this statute would override the constitution. Of course, I am not on the Supreme Court or anything like that, but I do not make the same connection here that you do. What is your legal basis for saying what I bolded above?

A) it's the Constitution which overrules conflicting statutes, that is the simple answer, but B) I'll be happy to answer in detail later.

I'm not sure what your first sentence means, of course it doesn't override.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

OK, fair enough. I would point out that shouting at a politician on a soapbox platform specifically set up for public interaction is a little different than that same protester shouting down that same politician while conducting official business and very much different from that protester interrupting other private citizens conducting their private business which is what I imagine is the actual aim of the law you cited. In short, this is what is supposed to happen at this event.

Maybe this is why Rs are so mad all the time and so enamored by Trump finally calling politicians stupid. Rs are just too damn polite and it is building up your rage level. Find a candidate and rant on him a while. You will feel better and Trump wont seem so amazing.

Maybe we are differing over the semantics of the word "heckle". A random, infrequent comment from the crowd that otherwise does not stop the event from proceeding is not how I took the OP's point. A continual, perhaps organized and preconceived "shout down" so as to disrupt the event and frustrate and prevent the organizers from accomplishing their goals is what I perceived...and if that is heckling, then I don't think it is protected speech.

BTW, I am about as likely to vote for Trump as I am for Hillary. Although I do like the aspect of the Donald where he just calls out politically correct BS as opposed to acting like a scared rabbit, etc.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Even in a well regulated society there are going to be gray areas in the law and judgement calls necessary, etc. If some jerk yells something one time at a meeting...no, I do not expect the police to descend immediately and take him away in the paddy wagon. However, if people are intentionally disrupting an otherwise organized meeting that they happen not to agree with...and after a reasonable attempt or two to quiet them down, they persist...then yes, I would call the police and report them as disorderly. Reasonable people will likely disagree as to where on that spectrum it really crosses over into disorderly conduct...hence the gray area I mention.

I will also say that we will all go blind and crazy together if we allow ourselves to have to legally define every nuance of every situation and human interaction that there could be, etc. Somewhere along the line, a polite, mature society has to be able to regulate themselves to respect others, even when there are disagreements.

My main point here is that there are first class jerks out there that only seek to disrupt the plans and speeches of others...and then throw up a lame excuse that they are protected by the 1st amendment, etc. (Understatement alert) I am very unlikely to support Hillary Clinton in 2016...but I would never go to one of her meetings and then seek to disrupt it...because I respect her right, and the rights of the others in the audience, however daft they may be , to describe her plans to them, etc.

A whole lot of words responding to a yes or no question. I'll take it as a No, which is precisely my point, it is the viewpoint of the speech you take issue with.

Someone shouting "Political Speech A" is ok, because it shares viewpoint with the group but shouting "Political Speech B" you call illegal because it doesn't.

What were they saying that you think wasn't protected speech?

 

[moral_victory]

And how many times have you seen a heckler at a democrat candidates speech get treated nicely by supporters?

Really?

Oh you.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Now your posts seem to want to discuss what is political, protected speech, not how/when/where it is spoken. So let's discuss some easy limitations:

Yelling Ba Ba Booey! Over and over is hardly protected speech. Turning on a megaphone siren to constantly excrete noise isn't political speech.

Yelling, "Scott Walker hates teachers" is definitely protected. Yelling, "why do you hate gays," is definitely protected.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm starting to wonder what some posters think a protest is...and why they think protestors aren't summarily arrested.

Also, I feel like I still need to clarify this:

THIS OCCURRED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STATE FAIR.

Does that mean nothing?

 

[JRHawk2003]

Forget free speech for a minute. Walker basically sets out to strip the middle class and organized labor. How does he propose to get more high paying jobs? Let me guess; Give the well off more tax cuts and it will just magically happen.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

A) it's the Constitution which overrules conflicting statutes, that is the simple answer, but B) I'll be happy to answer in detail later.

I'm not sure what your first sentence means, of course it doesn't override.

I see that I said that backwards...I should have said..."But I do not see how the constitution would override the statute."

 

[Lone Clone]

What on earth are you talking about? Please give examples.

You can't be serious. You are unfamiliar with incidents when protesters are escorted from meetings them have disrupted? Or did you misunderstand my statement? Laws like those mentioned earlier that prohibit disruptions are definitely constitutional.

I don't know what the underlying principle is. Possibly it's the fact that by disrupting and shouting down a speaker, the perps are depriving the speaker of the right to expression. As I said, I don't know. But I do know it's both common and perfectly legal to have such restrictions.

Ye Gods, man, have you never been to a public meeting? City Countil? School board? Have you never watched C-SPAN?

Meanwhile, here's a link to a very, very long piece on freedom of speech and how it's under attack in this country, especially at liberal colleges. The piece is a rebuttal to another article, but it stands by itself in the points it makes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/a-dozen-things-the-new-yo_b_8021046.html

 

[theIowaHawk]

I see that I said that backwards...I should have said..."But I do not see how the constitution would override the statute."

Wait, what?

 

[theIowaHawk]

You can't be serious. You are unfamiliar with incidents when protesters are escorted from meetings them have disrupted? Or did you misunderstand my statement? Laws like those mentioned earlier that prohibit disruptions are definitely constitutional.

I don't know what the underlying principle is. Possibly it's the fact that by disrupting and shouting down a speaker, the perps are depriving the speaker of the right to expression. As I said, I don't know. But I do know it's both common and perfectly legal to have such restrictions.

Ye Gods, man, have you never been to a public meeting? City Countil? School board? Have you never watched C-SPAN?

Meanwhile, here's a link to a very, very long piece on freedom of speech and how it's under attack in this country, especially at liberal colleges. The piece is a rebuttal to another article, but it stands by itself in the points it makes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/a-dozen-things-the-new-yo_b_8021046.html

I didn't say the statute was unconstitutional, the use of the statute to suppress protected speech would be unconstitutional.

I'll wait for you to give me some actual examples I can look at, that way we can make sure we are discussing the same thing.

 

[naturalmwa]

Maybe we are differing over the semantics of the word "heckle". A random, infrequent comment from the crowd that otherwise does not stop the event from proceeding is not how I took the OP's point. A continual, perhaps organized and preconceived "shout down" so as to disrupt the event and frustrate and prevent the organizers from accomplishing their goals is what I perceived...and if that is heckling, then I don't think it is protected speech.

BTW, I am about as likely to vote for Trump as I am for Hillary. Although I do like the aspect of the Donald where he just calls out politically correct BS as opposed to acting like a scared rabbit, etc.

Not that its a big deal in my mind, as a shutdown that stops the event or a short interruption would both be lawful at this type of thing in my opinion, but there is a video and the event clearly wasn't halted.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Wait, what?

I don't see the 1st amendment as applicable in this situation. I do not think the 1st amendment has any language that would prohibit a state or municipality from making a constitutionally safe law that prohibits people from disrupting the meetings and gatherings of others. I don't know what else to say.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I don't see the 1st amendment as applicable in this situation. I do not think the 1st amendment has any language that would prohibit a state or municipality from making a constitutionally safe law that prohibits people from disrupting the meetings and gatherings of others. I don't know what else to say.

Let me ask again:

Do you realize that this occurred outside, on public ground, at the Iowa STATE fair?

 

[WhiteSoxClone]

A) it's the Constitution which overrules conflicting statutes, that is the simple answer, but B) I'll be happy to answer in detail later.

I'm not sure what your first sentence means, of course it doesn't override.

You seem to be presenting heckling as an absolute Constitutional right. It is not. When the heckling is severe enough to prevent a speaker from exercising their own First Amendment rights, it is no longer protected speech. Even Chemerinsky agrees with that, once observing with respect to the Irvine 11 who were convicted for disrupting a speech by the Israeli ambassador that, "The students' activity is not protected speech under the First Amendment; there is no First Amendment right to disturb a meeting or a speaker."

Obviously, some level of heckling is protected, but you seem to think that all heckling is protected. It is not.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Let me ask again:

Do you realize that this occurred outside, on public ground, at the Iowa STATE fair?

Yes, I realize it was at the State Fair, yes, I realize it was outside...but was it not an otherwise organized political rally with Walker as one of the featured speakers? Was it not also held in any area that was in some way set aside for this event? To me, it is not material that it was outside or at the Fair, if it was, and I am under this impression, an organized event with an agenda and invited speakers, etc. AFAIK, it was publicized in advance with an agenda/schedule and communicated as a public speech/appearance. In other words, it was organized. It was not a haphazard meeting that occurred on the Midway, etc.

As I alluded to earlier...there is probably a spectrum where reasonable can disagree as to what qualifies as an organized event and we will all go crazy if we try to split hairs to the nth degree as to what is, and what isn't, an organized, public event. To me, AFAIK right now, this one was and as such, should enjoy the protection of the statute that I referenced earlier.

 

[markfromj]

Why do you think this?

I guess two reasons: 1) The strict wording of the amendment, and 2) Just what I consider to be a reasonable and logical interpretation of the amendment. "Freedom of speech" means to me the freedom to convey what one wants to convey without threat of retaliation from the government. It does not provide one person (the heckler) the right to trample the first amendment rights of another person (Walker), who further is a person the Fair has authorized to be on that stump, and has given a microphone. The Fair has not authorized the heckler.

 

[markfromj]

You are ok with government choosing sides in politics, i.e. GOP speaker, Democrat heckler, so we remove the democrat?

No, of course not. What I am in favor of is the government maintaining some order so that we can have useful discourse.

I agree with later posts that stated infrequent, short heckling outbursts are tolerable. Efforts to seize the microphone (figuratively (Fair) or literally (Sanders/Seattle)) are not tolerable. The latter is chaos.

 

[BlazinHawk]

No, of course not. What I am in favor of is the government maintaining some order so that we can have useful discourse.

I agree with later posts that stated infrequent, short heckling outbursts are tolerable. Efforts to seize the microphone (figuratively (Fair) or literally (Sanders/Seattle)) are not tolerable. The latter is chaos.

I would simply shout down said heckler, without being physical. As loud as I can make my voice. That would be the end of it. It was probably a union thug, of course. They need shouted down at events like this.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Its interesting that someone in a union who just wants to make a decent wage is viewed as a thug, but a hedge fund manager who literally creates nothing is held in such high esteem.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

This thread is awesome.

A possible presidential candidate from probably less than 10 feet away watches as his supporters physically attack someone who has pissed him off.

What does he do?
Does he tell his supporters to stop?
Does he call state fair security to have the man removed?

 

[tumorboy]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...nt-of-union-battle-b99561565z1-322531831.html

Own party calling him a liar

 

[Lone Clone]

I didn't say the statute was unconstitutional, the use of the statute to suppress protected speech would be unconstitutional.

I'll wait for you to give me some actual examples I can look at, that way we can make sure we are discussing the same thing.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. Not being a smart-ass there. What I'm talking about happens all the time, at levels ranging from school board meetings to joint sessions of Congress. Just Google "Code Pink" or "Black Lives Matter" for starters.

Did you read the blog I linked? I think you would find it interesting, whether you agreed with all of it or not. And it's from HuffPo, so you don't need to fear being infected by the far right

One of the points the author makes is the way authorities -- primarily universities -- define "protected speech" in order to ban the voicing of ideas they don't like. Obviously, that's the huge Catch-22 in this aspect of the issue. Just look at the reaction to Citizens United.

Another aspect is the venue. You (or somebody) cited the Walker case as being at the State Fair. Well, yes.....but it was part of a sanctioned, sponsored, highly organized program. It wasn't just a case of Walker going to the fair and deciding to spout off to anybody who would listen.

 

[joelbc1]

That amendment does not grant a citizen the right to interupt an invited speaker.

It doesn't deny them that right, either.

 

[Lone Clone]

Its interesting that someone in a union who just wants to make a decent wage is viewed as a thug, but a hedge fund manager who literally creates nothing is held in such high esteem.

Which one breaks legs to get his way? That may have some bearing on the way they are viewed.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Should Santorum,Joe Scarborrough and John Roberts et al been physically thrown out of the hallway/room when they physically tried to break into the room where votes were being counted in Florida in the 2000 presidential election?

 

[theIowaHawk]

You seem to be presenting heckling as an absolute Constitutional right. It is not. When the heckling is severe enough to prevent a speaker from exercising their own First Amendment rights, it is no longer protected speech. Even Chemerinsky agrees with that, once observing with respect to the Irvine 11 who were convicted for disrupting a speech by the Israeli ambassador that, "The students' activity is not protected speech under the First Amendment; there is no First Amendment right to disturb a meeting or a speaker."

Obviously, some level of heckling is protected, but you seem to think that all heckling is protected. It is not.

I am absolutely not saying that.

This thread delved in to claiming the people at the fair could be legally arrested for their interruptions.

That is what I've been discussing this entire time, why I pointed out this was at the fair so many times.

Appreciate the input though, it adds to the discussion.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. Not being a smart-ass there. What I'm talking about happens all the time, at levels ranging from school board meetings to joint sessions of Congress. Just Google "Code Pink" or "Black Lives Matter" for starters.

Did you read the blog I linked? I think you would find it interesting, whether you agreed with all of it or not. And it's from HuffPo, so you don't need to fear being infected by the far right

One of the points the author makes is the way authorities -- primarily universities -- define "protected speech" in order to ban the voicing of ideas they don't like. Obviously, that's the huge Catch-22 in this aspect of the issue. Just look at the reaction to Citizens United.

Another aspect is the venue. You (or somebody) cited the Walker case as being at the State Fair. Well, yes.....but it was part of a sanctioned, sponsored, highly organized program. It wasn't just a case of Walker going to the fair and deciding to spout off to anybody who would listen.

Sanctioned and sponsored as a "soapbox", not a GOP invite-only event.

And by highly organized, you mean that it was smack in the middle of the main fair thoroughfare for anyone to walk up to and attend.

I think we've turned to discussing hypothetical situations instead of this one...I can't imagine you believe these people should have, could have been arrested.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I guess two reasons: 1) The strict wording of the amendment, and 2) Just what I consider to be a reasonable and logical interpretation of the amendment. "Freedom of speech" means to me the freedom to convey what one wants to convey without threat of retaliation from the government. It does not provide one person (the heckler) the right to trample the first amendment rights of another person (Walker), who further is a person the Fair has authorized to be on that stump, and has given a microphone. The Fair has not authorized the heckler.

Strange, because you are in fact siding with one speaker over the other, allowing Walker to trample over the other persons, and why? Because he's more famous?

Lol at the reasoning that the government (fair) authorizing one political speaker is somehow the defensible position.

 

[SIXERS24]

Hillary would have ran away crying or had her people attack the man. Then again Hillary wouldnt have the guts to talk in front of crowds she cant control anymore!

 

[markfromj]

It doesn't deny them that right, either.

True.

 

[markfromj]

Strange, because you are in fact siding with one speaker over the other, allowing Walker to trample over the other persons, and why? Because he's more famous?

No. Because he is the one given the microphone.

Let's try this: Suppose we have Walker up there and, say, a crowd of 50 people, all of whom wish to speak. How is that going to work?

 

[Lone Clone]

Should Santorum,Joe Scarborrough and John Roberts et al been physically thrown out of the hallway/room when they physically tried to break into the room where votes were being counted in Florida in the 2000 presidential election?

That didn't happen.

If you are talking about the Penny Loafer Protest, you need to get some information, then decide whether your question is relevant.