Respect the Authority!

Recently, a few people attempted to heckle New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Should people be allowed to boo, jeer, and heckle elected officials in Western countries? I am of the opinion they should because it shows the spirit of liberal democracy. Individuals can dissent and let it be known without being attacked, ostracized, or killed like in many societies historically.

Tophatdoc: I think it depends on how they are doing it.
If, say Occupy Wall Street, is booing and jeering so loudly that it interferes with the actual business of the event/speech, that is not democratic.
However, if at a pause for laughter or applause in a speech, or before/after the speaker takes the stage, by all means interject criticism.

Khaos: I think they should be allowed to do it. Whether I think they should do it is another matter altogether.

In your scenario, Occupy Wall Street would be engaging in mob rule. Their intention is to shut up the speech altogether by chanting in that case.

I don't agree with this because it is excessive and not genuine. Booing is one thing but chanting is disruptive when it is entire group doing it.

Tophatdoc: I think they should have the right to protest, so yes. They should.

Pinkie: Do you think there is a limit to the amount and means of protesting that can be done?
Keeping in mind, that a speech to the public by a public official is part of their job, and by hindering that, you are (in theory) hurting the public.

Khaos: But protest could well be doing a public service.

There was literally one single public appearance by Hitler where this happened to him. In the middle of the war, Hitler was jeered at by the crowd over his action T4, to kill incurable medical patients (reportedly including war heroes among others, in the name of racial purity). The result was Hitler backing down on action T4, which saved the lives of thousands.

There are limits, for example, I'd support the right of people to deliver speeches in your legislatures without being interrupted by anyone but the speaker of the house. But at a public appearance, I'd say protest is justified. Christie could always publish the speech if he wanted to make sure it was publicized.

admin: And if the newspapers/websites all decided to protest, too?

I get jeering and the throwing of fruit (did that ever actually happen?), and general protests.
However, one must let the public official speak, and uninterrupted is preferable (with the occasional applause or boo).
Is it fair if you want to protest a speech, and I want to hear, that I can't hear over your shouting that he is ignoring? Where does your right to protest impede my right to assemble?

Plus, it is a matter of respect and civility to let the opposition speak, when he is speaking.

Khaos: "However, one must let the public official speak, and uninterrupted is preferable (with the occasional applause or boo)."

Khaos: "If, say Occupy Wall Street, is booing and jeering so loudly that it interferes with the actual business of the event/speech, that is not democratic."

Disagree. We don't have an obligation to let public officials speak. They are beholden to the citizenry, not the other way around. Furthermore, if their are so unpopular and so inept to the point the people are so frustrated that the level of their protests is disruptive, then that is a problem with the system, not the protestors. Indeed, it is the height of democracy for the people to rise up and take direct control when their needs are not met. It's how this democracy got started, in fact.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Whenever there is ambiguity here, it is imperative that the ruling should favor the people and not the state. We are already in a situation where officials are trying to curb the exercising of rights based on the flawed notions of harassment or interference:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/03/04/leave-houston-city-attorney-david-m-feldman-alone/

If the operation of the government is deemed insufficient, then you're damned right that the people have a right (if not an obligation) to "disrupt" it. We are given these rights explicitly for the purposes of being able to influence the government.

So, to answer the question: " Should people be allowed to boo, jeer, and heckle elected officials in Western countries?"

Most assuredly yes. I'd even suggest that some degree of heckling should be mandatory. As a rule, state officials are pompous, condescending, entitled and need to be kept in line.

Khaos: It's got nothing to do with the right to assemble. The issue is about government needing to be able to fulfill its obligations. Sometimes that will mean communicating stuff to people, like in the example I gave where a lawmaker should have the right to speak on a law. In this case the speeches were of little public importance. Very important stuff in a public forum would likely be communicated by more than just a controversial governor anyway.

I'm a big fan of hearing both sides of the argument, but I'm a bigger fan of free speech. You can't force people to listen to both sides of the argument, so forcing them to shut up is illogical. Instead the focus should be on getting the message across to those who want to hear it. If the crowd won't listen, that proves the crowd is stupid, not that laws need changing. Law changes won't actually make them care any more or less, but merely take away their freedom. You'd be surprise how many profane things have been done in the name of "civility". Nor should being governor automatically entitle anyone to respect - that kind of thing needs to be earned.

The great thing about the internet is that you can't protest it. You can't even censor it really - China makes a good effort but this thing was designed to be redundant. For every exchange in the world that's just another way to access every website in the world. Historically, such newspaper boycotts as you describe have never happened so far as I know in the US, despite freedom of the press being a constitutional right.

admin: I think Khaos is referring to where people chant or boo so much that the person is unable to speak. I think you are referring to people who are genuinely are shocked and started heckling. It is a different story when people go to a lecture or speech to destroy it.

For example, former NYC police commissioner Ray Kelly at Brown University booed and jeered so much that his lecture was cut short. Was that fair to the member of the audience who came to listen to Ray Kelly? The hecklers came there to be intentionally disruptive. I think they have the right to heckle in a public places and public events. Whether they should do it as I told Khaos is another matter.

There has to be a point where one separates the genuine sincere heckling of people who are upset and people who came to destroy a speech or lecture. When people are trying to destroy a speech , they are just trying to shut up their rivals.

Plus, it is a matter of respect and civility to let the opposition speak, when he is speaking.

Khaos: Hmmmm, don't refresh pages, or it resubmits posts, I guess....

Who gets to decide what is too disruptive? The speaker? Any heckling could be perceived as being destructive or disruptive. And, well, protesting - by design - isn't respectful and is not necessarily civil. Sometimes you need to be disrespectful and uncivil. That right should be protected. God knows that the government protects its own in this regard.

The issue here is that, heckling doesn't prevent the other person from speaking. It prevents them from being heard. But you don't have a right to be heard. No one does. So heckling isn't violating anyone's rights, yet you are suggesting that the hecklers need to be restrained, limited, which means them shutting up and taking away their right to speak.

You can't justify the limitation of a right to protect something that isn't a right.

drafterman: Do you have an issue with permits for protests?
Do you think the same rules apply to shareholder meetings, courtrooms, and anything else where speech is often limited?
What about my rights, Drafter? Can a protest barricade me in my home, or impede traffic, and that should be allowed? Should a heckler not be removed, since it is his right, and impede my ability to hear the speech? Whose rights trump whose?

The issue isn't heckling, per se, it is the amount. Stand in line for a turn to speak, then let them have it is very different that charging the stage and taking the microphone. Booing while others are applauding is fine. Booing at the end of a statement is generally fine. Booing the entire time, effectively silencing the speaker is not fine.
Are you suggesting that the GOP should have been allowed to shout down and talk over Obama during the last State of the Union speech? Maybe sit by the microphones and chatter away so the public couldn't hear it at home?

Let's take this to its logical conclusion, that hecklers ought to ruin peace talks and other formal functions of government, or should they be separated from the action (i.e. not allowed in the white house)? Or, should protesters be allowed to form a human barricade to prevent the speaker from reaching their destination?

For the record, I don't think protesting isn't necessarily disrespectful. You disagree with me, so you let me know it whenever I show up to speak.

admin: I meant respect as in civility, not admiration.
But, it sounds like you agree, that if there is official government business in an otherwise public area, they must be able to conduct said business.

Let's say freedom of speech, then? If nobody is letting the speaker speak, due to the CONSTANT heckling and booing so loud they cannot speak effectively (i.e. be heard), that limits their speech because of you. Further, what if It was my turn to speak, and not being allowed.

Khaos: "Do you have an issue with permits for protests?"

- Yes. Would you have an issue with being required to file a permit in order to speak?

"Do you think the same rules apply to shareholder meetings"

- No. Those are a private affair that do not involve the government.

"courtrooms"

- No, because you are infringing upon another person's right to a fair and speedy trial.

"and anything else where speech is often limited?"

- That would depend on the circumstances of the limited speech.

"What about my rights, Drafter? Can a protest barricade me in my home, or impede traffic, and that should be allowed?"

I'm not sure I get this line of questioning. I ask you to justify limiting a right (speech, protest) in order to protect something that ISN'T a right, and you response is to invoke situations where it would infringe upon other rights? Are you deliberately trying to derail the conversation? In the cases you mention here, you are invoking a conflict of rights, in which hard and discretionary choices must be made. To answer these, no, people don't have a right to barricade you in your home or impede traffic, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about infringing people's right to protest to protect a government official's non-right to an audience.

"The issue isn't heckling, per se, it is the amount."

Yeah, and you don't see a slippery slope issue with a vague, arbitrary, and unquantifiable limit on this? Who gets to decide? Who gets to validate that decision?

"Booing the entire time, effectively silencing the speaker is not fine."

Except you're not silencing the speaker. The speaker can still talk. They may not be heard, but they can still speak. The remedy to free speech is MORE speech. If a speaker feels that they aren't being heard, then they need to speak louder and more often, not call for the actual silencing of their hecklers. What's ironic is that you are making false accusations of silencing speech, and then calling for the actual silencing of speech as a remedy.

"Are you suggesting that the GOP should have been allowed to shout down and talk over Obama during the last State of the Union speech?"

That's a different situation, involving communication between different branches of government. Government employees, acting in an official capacity, waive some rights. The regulations and protocols of Congress may override their ability. In any event, the State of the Union is for the benefit of Congress, not the people.

"Let's take this to its logical conclusion, that hecklers ought to ruin peace talks and other formal functions of government, or should they be separated from the action (i.e. not allowed in the white house)? Or, should protesters be allowed to form a human barricade to prevent the speaker from reaching their destination?"

First, that someone should be "allowed" to do something does not "logically conclude" that they should do that thing. And, you are just bringing issues of conflicting rights, which is not what is in discussion here.

So, the question stands. What is the justification for limiting one person's right to protest to protect another person's non-right to be heard or have an audience?

drafterman: ""Are you suggesting that the GOP should have been allowed to shout down and talk over Obama during the last State of the Union speech?""

"That's a different situation, involving communication between different branches of government. Government employees, acting in an official capacity, waive some rights. The regulations and protocols of Congress may override their ability. In any event, the State of the Union is for the benefit of Congress, not the people."

I wasn't aware the CEO of Punch Pizza (guest of Michelle Obama's) was a public official...
I also wasn't aware the targeted audience was a factor.

"So, the question stands. What is the justification for limiting one person's right to protest to protect another person's non-right to be heard or have an audience?"
How does the public official not have an audience? His audience is to those he represents. Whether people want to hear him or not is irrelevant. His duty is to address something, which is why he has a speech. If you don't want to hear it, don't listen, but don't prevent me from hearing.

Is this the hang-up? Because I equivocate his speaking and my hearing?


""Do you have an issue with permits for protests?""

"- Yes. Would you have an issue with being required to file a permit in order to speak?"
Not if there is merit in it requirement. (and by protest, I meant one that impedes traffic and/or public space, like a courtyard or plaza)
A protest by definition precludes others from protesting, as they cannot occupy the same spot. This is why there is no flyers allowed on government buildings.
A flat definition which is not arbitrary or subjective is the only fair way.

Khaos: "I wasn't aware the CEO of Punch Pizza (guest of Michelle Obama's) was a public official...
I also wasn't aware the targeted audience was a factor."

- I'm confused. You were talking about the "GOP" disrupting the President during his State of the Union. I don't know what this stuff is referring to.

"Is this the hang-up? Because I equivocate his speaking and my hearing?"

- Yeah. Why would you equivocate the two? You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to an audience.

"Not if there is merit in it requirement. (and by protest, I meant one that impedes traffic and/or public space, like a courtyard or plaza)
A protest by definition precludes others from protesting, as they cannot occupy the same spot. This is why there is no flyers allowed on government buildings.
A flat definition which is not arbitrary or subjective is the only fair way."

- Again, you are invoking a conflict of rights which isn't the discussion here. For the third time:

*** What is the justification for limiting one person's right to protest to protect another person's non-right to be heard or have an audience? ****

drafterman: Don't you work? Geez, you're fast...

Okay, now the issue is clear to me.
I treat the ability to hear someone speak as a freedom to assemble. Thus, you're protesting is violating my right to associate/assemble, since you are disrupting with your speech the very speech I came to hear.

Obviously, one does not have a right to an audience in the sense that one should be supplied or if it is too large some won't hear, but one has a right to speak to them, if they exist and are present. We are in agreement here.

I see it as limiting my actual speech. Take this scenario:
Speaker is being heckled throughout the entire speech, guy with megaphone is right next to me, so I cannot hear the speaker. The speaker ignores the megaphone, and continues speaking, at times there is applause, while the megaphone boos. How is my speech not limited, as I cannot react and show my support (or disapproval) due to the actions of the man next to me?