Does free speech allow you to shout down others?

Does free speech allow you to shout down others?

http://www.minutemanproject.com/default.asp?contentID=192

What do you think? Were the protesters practicing free speech or were they preventing it?

 

Depends on a lot of factors.

1. Protesting the gathering is different than storming the stage and disrupting the event by forcing the speaker off. (I.e. You can protest outside an abortion clinic, but you can't prevent people from going in and out).

2. It also depends on where the event was. If the disruptors' actions were not allowed or sanctioned by whoever owned and operated the stage (in this case the University), then that is also illegal. (I.e. You can protest outside the court buidling and it's free speech, but protesting in my backyard is trespassing.)

Either way, their behavior was pretty disgusting. My favorite part: "The Minutemen are not a legitimate part of the debate on immigration."

Hypocrisy . . . overwhelming.

 

Wait a minute, who called that black guy a ******? If it was the protesters, why did they call the minutemen racists?

 

Well, on the general question of whether shouting down others is free speech or not (ignoring the particulars of this incident), you're essentially asking if people have a right to protest a protest...

 

I don't generally agree with such aggressive counter-protests, but I was under the impression that a legal free speech violation could only be perpetrated by a government agency. Thus, they are not guilty of obstructing the free speech rights of others, but may well have violated the Universities rules through this disruption.

I'm no lawyer or legal scholar, so I may well be (and probably am) totally incorrect. :wink2:

 

That's what I was trying to get at. =)

Although the University is funded through public money, so maybe the situation is more hazy than I give it credit for.

 

I think private entities can't restrict free speech either, I remember some case law being quoted about shopping malls being unable to restrict protests inside their premises or something (I imagine the stores themselves would be a different matter). Don't know if the same applies to individuals, maybe not.

 

It seems to me the protesters were wrong.

'nuff said. I guess for them it's okay to resort to strong arm tactics when you don't want someone else's message to get out.

 

Well, we're talking about Columbia University, a private university rather than a public school. It's difficult to claim free speech on someone else's private property. The moment you're on private property, the your right to free speech ends.

Makes sense. It's unreasonable for me to camp in your backyard and tell you how much I dislike your family.

So it's really up to Columbia University to decide what speech it wants on it's own property.

 

It was a poor means (strongarm physical force) to acheive a positive end.

Whether or not th ends justifies the means. Well, I guess that depends on what side you're on, and how strongly you feel.

 

Storming the stage is not a form of speech.

 

I'm awfully curious what "positive end" it is you're talking about.

 

The protesters did the best possible thing for the Minutemen. They showed the pro-illegal immigrant side to be the true racists, hatemongers and violent SOBs. Need I mention the protesters were also all libs? Typical

 

As Dross stated, storming the stage is not free speech nor is trying to assult a speaker.

Perhaps these oh so educated people were thinking of their right to assemble, but even then they got it wrong.

 

Yeah, if you're a hypocrite.

 

"If you can't say things nicely, than shut up" is what my mother always told me.

Of course if you don't agree with something you must voice your opinion, and strongly too, but if you need to fall back on insults, you undermine your whole protest, making it look cheap and poor.

 

The first amendment only applies to the government preventing free speech. Sorry.