No, it’s not a simple “yes” or “no” question.
I agree with KeithCu’s statement to the extent that if the “interruption” meets the threshold for constituting an interruption that keeps the speaker from exercising his right to free speech, then that interruption is not allowed.
That is why-—as happened even in this case-—protestors who continually “interrupt” (to the point of taking away the speaker’s right to speak or to the point of being disorderly) are hauled off by police. This is why the law can require licenses for protesting and can cordon off areas from protestors.
So, to sum up again (and all of the above I explained previously and in the post to which I referred you), if KeithCu was using “interrupt” in the venacular, then what the law calls a “mere” interruption of course would be tolerated. But if the “interruption” reaches the point of taking away the other guy’s right to speak, then it’s not allowed.
The point is that the speaker has a right to speak as well. How his right and the right of the protesters to speak is balanced depends, according to the law, on a whole variety of factors, including the venue, the time, the manner of protest, the audience and so on.
Have you ever noticed that occasionally in the State of the Union speech, for example, protestors in the gallery will “interrupt” and what happens? They are quickly hauled off. Why? Because they do not have the right to interrupt at that time and in that manner.
If you need more detail, ask and I will be glad to provide it.
Finally, however, let me say this: my point has never been about what people have the right to do. It has been about asking ourselves (those who care about the pro-life movement) what is an effective way to protest in these circumstances and what isn’t.
I happen to think this was not an effective protest and, in fact, that it is likely to backfire and actually strengthen Giuliani, not weaken him. Others think it was great.
Yet still others got bogged down, not in reasonably evaluating whether this was a positive or negative event, but in talking about how it was the protestors’ “right” to protest, as if anyone thinks otherwise.
And yet that scenario of "interruption, was not what was described in any of the media reports.
That is why-—as happened even in this case-—protestors who continually “interrupt” (to the point of taking away the speaker’s right to speak or to the point of being disorderly) are hauled off by police.
HUH? Show me that report, would ya? I can't find that he was "interrupted" anywhere, let alone creating an environment where Rudy was unable to speak. The guy was riding in a parade! For every person yelling "baby killer," there were probably dozens more yelling "Go Rudy" (or whatever).
I happen to think this was not an effective protest and, in fact, that it is likely to backfire and actually strengthen Giuliani, not weaken him. Others think it was great.
You're entitled to your opinion, as are those who disagree with you. Frankly, I don't think it helped or hurt the pro-life movement but probably served to enlighten some voters as to Giuliani's support for abortion and funding thereof. I seriously doubt it would "strenghten Giuliani" except maybe he got a few more votes from pro-abortionists. I would guess he lost at least an equal amount from pro-lifers who were not familiar with his positions.