Court: Student may be tried for heckling

State Constitution prohibits people from disrupting public speeches, Travis County attorney will argue By David Pasztor

Precisely what former President Bush said that day in November 1998 is lost to memory. But whatever it was roused University of Texas student Thomas Markovich from his seat in the upper gallery of the Texas House.

"At some point, I think Bush made a reference to Nicaragua," said Kenneth Houp, one of Markovich's attorneys. "That's when Markovich stood up and yelled (an expletive) and was hauled off by the gendarmes."

The 'gendarmes' were officers from the Texas Department of Public Safety, who arrested Markovich on a Class B misdemeanor charge of disrupting a meeting. More than three years later, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has decided that Markovich should stand trial for heckling the ex-president.

The 6-3 decision handed down Wednesday raises troublesome constitutional issues, Houp said, particularly in a city where chiding politicians is a well-established form of public discourse.

"Heckling, even if it is rude, is protected by the First Amendment, especially when you have a politician up on the stand," he said.

Bush was speaking at the Texas Book Festival in the House chamber when some audience members began yelling at him. Many more in the packed chamber applauded Bush. Three men were arrested, including Markovich, UT journalism professor Robert Jensen and Michael Corwin.

Charges against Jensen and Corwin were dismissed long ago, but the case against Markovich has lingered.

Initially, a state district judge dismissed the case, finding that the state law Markovich was charged with breaking is too vague to protect a person's right to free speech. But Travis County Attorney Ken Oden pressed on, persuading the Third Court of Appeals to reinstate the charge.

Markovich appealed that ruling to the state's highest criminal court, which agreed with the appeals court. So, for now, the charge stands.

Oden said Markovich might have pushed beyond his First Amendment protections by "substantially impairing" Bush's speech, because Bush stopped talking after Markovich abruptly yelled "bullshit!"

"You cannot intentionally disrupt a public address to the extent that the speaker cannot even speak and then hide behind the First Amendment to avoid accountability for your actions," Oden said. "Civility in public meetings is roughed up from time to time, but it's not completely dead. The speaker has a right to be heard, and the audience has a right to hear him, and those are important First Amendment rights, too."

Oden said a trial is the proper way to determine if Markovich's utterance broke the law.

Houp said he must decide whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or prepare for a trial, which might mean bringing the former president back to town.

"I don't know how the state can make their case without putting Bush on the stand and having him testify that this 'disrupted' his speech," Houp said.

Markovich, meanwhile, is hard to find. He transferred to a California school after the incident, and his lawyers don't know how to contact him. If found, tried and convicted, he could face jail time of up to six months, a fine of up to $2,000, or both, Oden said.

Well, there is another way that is rather more democratic than assigning the responsibility to an un-elected and unrepresentative corps of judges. Its known as having an elected legislature pass a law. Which is apparently what the heckler is being tried under now.

Now you are arguing against an assertion you made earlier about 'how many expletives are allowed'. We already have laws that cover such incidents - disturbing the peace. As I see it, no reasonable law can be formulated because you are forced into a corner by this aspect: If we allow individuals 'some' expression of dissent that by its very nature is disruptive, is it 'first come, first served' with reguard to who is allowed to express dissent?

In other words, an individuals right to dissent when they are excercised in serial form is disruptive also and given the impossibility to formulate a middle ground in terms of law forces us to rely on the remedies offered in civil court where a jury of peers (not judges) decide if social tolerances have been exceeded.

The idea that you can form a law criminalizing dissenting expression simply because one person has the microphone is abhorrent. The speaker may indeed say things that provoke an unscripted reaction - to JAIL people for thier human reaction (as opposed to deliberate, premeditated, malicious disruption - violates one of the primary principles of criminality - INTENT)

”Now you are arguing against an assertion you made earlier about 'how many expletives are allowed'.”

Not at all. I was asking you a logical question when you said that a single shout was OK but 5 minutes of shouting and foot stomping was not. I asked you to cite your sources and to tell me if there was any intermediate point that you would find objectionable.

”We already have laws that cover such incidents - disturbing the peace. As I see it, no reasonable law can be formulated because you are forced into a corner by this aspect: If we allow individuals 'some' expression of dissent that by its very nature is disruptive, is it 'first come, first served' with reguard to who is allowed to express dissent? “

Your expressions are opaque. First you seem to say that there are laws against disturbing the peace followed by a statement that such laws are not reasonable. Finally, you are sugarcoating this event, in which there was a deliberate attempt by several people to shout down the President, as an exercise in “dissent.” Rather, it is an exercise in the stifling of free speech. Even the president has the right to speak freely. Free speech cannot remain free in an atmosphere of disruption and intimidation.

A whole lot of things can be classified under the euphemism of “dissent.” All the way from giving a speech dissenting from orthodoxy, to shouting down speakers with whom you disagree, to physical attacks on your opponents to political assassination. I refuse to characterize the vulgar shouts of “bullshit” (and other thoughtful expressions by the morons on the Left) with the rights that we have to freely disagree with each other in ways that do not threaten the freedoms or safety of those with whom we disagree.

It is a tried and true tactic by the Left to disrupt and break up meetings that they dislike by shouting, heckling, physical intimidations and actual assault. The events at SFSU are a recent case in point. I have had it up to my eyeballs with these goons and their apologists. And, you know what? We’re not going to take it any more.

”The idea that you can form a law criminalizing dissenting expression simply because one person has the microphone is abhorrent. The speaker may indeed say things that provoke an unscripted reaction - to JAIL people for thier human reaction (as opposed to deliberate, premeditated, malicious disruption - violates one of the primary principles of criminality - INTENT)’

You really need to organize your thoughts. No one would have been bothered if the hecklers had given a speech on their own time, on their own turf to shout “Bullshit” all they wanted. That is the essence of free speech. They could have marched with signs and shouted their slogans and no one would have been bothered except the pigeons. But don’t try to tell me that they were there to engage in debate. They were there to stifle the President’s speech. Shouting “bullshit” is not an argument, it is an attempt to shout down the speaker. And if you believe that preventing someone from giving a speech by heckling or intimidation is an exercise in free speech, you and I do not live in the same ethical universe.

My source is myself. In other words, that is how I would vote on a jury in a civil case.

First you seem to say that there are laws against disturbing the peace followed by a statement that such laws are not reasonable. Finally, you are sugarcoating this event, in which there was a deliberate attempt by several people to shout down the President, as an exercise in “dissent.” Rather, it is an exercise in the stifling of free speech. Even the president has the right to speak freely. Free speech cannot remain free in an atmosphere of disruption and intimidation.

So, the people who booed Hillary should be jailed too? My thoughts on the matter are perfectly lucid: This is a case of contending rights and as I said much depends on venue and societal norms for that venue. When this confrontation of rights occurs, the security has the option of kicking people out BUT they also incur the risk of civil suit (to determine if their actions were within reason, you see?)

Using your justifications, a whole demonstation could be outlawed simply because it 'interfered with' some world meeting, such as the WTO. Things arent as black and white as you think in these matters.

Logic like that is too simplistic, someone could get on the microphone and say something outrageous and have everyone jailed who cried out against it.

I refuse to characterize the vulgar shouts of “bullshit” (and other thoughtful expressions by the morons on the Left) with the rights that we have to freely disagree with each other in ways that do not threaten the freedoms or safety of those with whom we disagree.

Funny, but that, IMO, is one of the ugly neccessities of living in a free society - the simple fact that you CAN stand up and express dissent without fear of being jailed - but at the risk of being ejected from the forum.

Another funny thing too is that if this was someone ridiculing the left who was jailed, the consensus on this forum would be far different.

This heckling was done in the Texas House, a forum that has decorum -- I wonder how many Representatives in that house have been jailed for thier outbursts?

I guess no one informed the lad of the conduct expected of peons.

”My source is myself.”

Sorry, you are not a credible source.

”So, the people who booed Hillary should be jailed too? My thoughts on the matter are perfectly lucid:”

Lucidity is in the eye of the beholder. The general audience booed Hillary. There was general agreement that her appearance was inappropriate. If three cops had begun heckling her in order to keep her from speaking to a receptive audience, then even the Hillary should have been protected and the cops arrested. If the general audience had booed Bush, I would have no problem with their actions.

”Using your justifications, a whole demonstation could be outlawed simply because it 'interfered with' some world meeting, such as the WTO.”

Well, yes. If the demonstration threatened the safety of the meeting or interfered with its proceedings, the people involved in this criminal activity should be arrested. One of the reasons for the hooliganism and violence that surrounds certain meetings is that the hooligans know that there is no effective response unless someone is killed … and not even then in some cases. The attitude you exhibit is common among the people who are entrusted with the peace of the community. That is why that peace is so often disrupted and why more and more people are terrified to venture out in highly politicized occasions. Don’t you find that chilling? Are you aware of the similarities between the mob violence today (I won’t allow the euphemism “demonstration”) and the violence that existed in many societies before the ordinary citizen demanded a dictator so that they could live in peace? Hitler was elected, I repeat, ELECTED, in part as the answer to “Demonstrations” in the Weimar Republic.

”I guess no one informed the lad of the conduct expected of peons.”

Ah, we finally get to the psychological basis of your emotional problem: a case of “peon” envy.

This has gone on long enough. Good bye.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.