Walker handles hecklers at the Iowa State Fair
- Thread starter 22*43*51
- Start date
Yes I have. Of course, the difference there being that multiple people officially have a figurative microphone.
As I said, you need to get good information. That story isn't. And it doesn't support your post, anyway. Either in what happened, who was involved, or why the incident occurred.
But.....to get to the core of the matter, if protesters are breaking the law -- trespassing, defying a legal order, that kind of thing -- of course they should be held responsible for it. I think that was the gist of your question, nyet?
I was probably a bit overzealous.
Everything is lines, where the lines are drawn. I'm probably much more open to hecklers/interruptions of political speech than most, because I think it is an important part of politics. People huddled around all thinking/saying the exact same things isn't good for politics.
But, sure, a bully yelling for yellings sake doesn't much further speech as well.
This fair stuff is completely on the good side of that line. Hell, it's the reason that it is held there, and not at some small venue downtown.
They just don't know how to wait their turn is all. You know what else is legal....in America?
Not caring about politics.............Do it. It just might save your life one day. (-John Candy, The Great Outdoors)
btw, counterpoint article:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...stie-speech-iowa-state-fair-soapbox/32194967/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...stie-speech-iowa-state-fair-soapbox/32194967/
What you bolded: Protected speech is specifically a defense to that crime.
Really you shouldn't need anything to support that, because, by necessity, it must be true. If speech is protected by the 1st, than it can not be censored by government. That should be obvious. The question, as usual, is what is protected speech vs. what isn't.
One case from the early 1990s was State v. Hardin, where a few guys interrupted a speech by President Bush. It was a $25 event at the Civic Center, to raise funds for re-electing Branstad and a representative, as well as support Bush.
"At the appointed time during the President's speech, one of Hardin's friends stood up and shouted, "Bring the troops home from Saudi Arabia." Then Hardin stood and said, "Mr. President stop the build up." Another friend shouted, "No blood for oil." The trio then continued that chant. After three to five minutes, one of the event coordinators approached Hardin and asked him to sit down. Hardin said he looked at him and then "returned to what I was doing." The organizer repeated his request to no avail. The police were summoned and the three were escorted from the auditorium without further incident. "
Hardin claims that just such content-based regulation was at work here. The record reveals that participants at the rally cheered and waived signs--without restraint--in support of Tauke and Branstad. They stood and applauded wildly as they welcomed the President to the podium. None were arrested for their expressive speech and conduct. Only those expressing a discordant view--like Hardin were stopped.
This is the language I liked from the case, citing to California case:
Under most circumstances, of course, ordinary good taste and decorum would dictate that a person addressing a meeting not be interrupted or otherwise disturbed. The Constitution does not require that any person, however lofty his motives, be permitted to obstruct the convention or continuation of a meeting without regard to the implicit customs and usage or explicit rules governing its conduct. The constitutional guarantees of the free exercise of religious opinion, and of the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances, would be worth little if outsiders could disrupt and prevent such a meeting in disregard of the customs and rules applicable to it. This inhibition does not mean, however, that the state can grant to the police a "roving commission" to enforce Robert's Rules of Order, since other First Amendment interests are likewise at stake.
Audience activities, such as heckling, interrupting, harsh questioning, and booing, even though they may be impolite and discourteous, can nonetheless advance the goals of the First Amendment. . . . An unfavorable reception, such as that given Congressman Tunney in the instant case, represents one important method by which an officeholder's constituents can register disapproval of his conduct and seek redress of grievances. The First Amendment contemplates a debate of important public issues; its protection can hardly be narrowed to the meeting at which the audience must passively listen to a single point of view. The First Amendment does not merely insure a marketplace of ideas in which there is but one seller.
That case led to this three part test: (1) the nature of the meeting involved; (2) whether the activity substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting; and (3) whether the defendants knew, or should have known, that their conduct violated an applicable custom, usage, or rule of the meeting.
Applying this standard to the facts before it, [681] the court in Kay reversed the demonstrator's convictions, noting that the protest occurred in a large public park in a manner appropriate to the occasion; no indication was given to the protesters that they were out of order; and no substantial interference with the program occurred.
Courts in other jurisdictions have applied Kay's balancing test with varying results. In City of Spokane v. McDonough,, the Washington Supreme Court held that a disorderly conduct ordinance could not be enforced to punish an attendee at an outdoor rally who shouted "warmonger" and flashed the "peace sign" at Vice President Spiro Agnew. The court ruled that the conviction could not be upheld without further indication of the protester's intent to break up the meeting or otherwise deprive the speaker and the audience of their rights to hear and speak.
Using all of the above and applying it to Hardin's actions:
First, the nature of the meeting here differs markedly from the open-air setting of Kay and City of Spokane. Hardin's disruptive conduct occurred in an auditorium filled with persons who had paid for the opportunity to sit and listen to an address by the President of the United States. Although earlier parts of the program involved standing and cheering, the portion interrupted by Hardin was otherwise quiet and respectful. Second, the record reveals that the disruption effectively stopped the meeting, if only for a few minutes, while audience members turned to address the commotion, cameras moved in to focus on the hecklers, and at least one citizen shouted at Hardin while another attempted to physically seat him. There is no dispute in this record that Hardin intended to continue the disruption until forced to cease. Finally, Hardin was escorted from the auditorium and arrested only after being asked twice by an event organizer to sit down and remain quiet.
We believe that under these circumstances the State proved that Hardin intentionally disrupted this assembly and that his doing so exceeded any authority he might lawfully claim under the free speech provisions of our state and federal Constitutions. His attack on the constitutionality of section 723.4(4), as applied to him, offers no ground for reversal.
My interpretation: If you are at a public event with a political speaker, "heckling" is protected speech. Obviously that still requires a determination of what "speech" is. As I said before, yelling BABABOOEY over and over furthers no legitimate goal and is hardly considered speech. Physically removing the microphone and pie-ing a guy in the face is more assault than speech. Asking "tough" questions, or bringing up politically-charged comments is an integral part of the process.
Oh, and this happened at the largest state-sponsored event in the state, the STATE FAIR, nothing could be more "open-air". Controlling viewpoints in that scenario is scary to me....unlike being in a venue rented out specifically for one political agenda.
As always, it is a balancing test. No, the people in the OP could not Constitutionally be arrested for their actions.
