Posted on 05/30/2002 7:05:09 AM PDT by wkcoop
State Constitution prohibits people from disrupting public speeches, Travis County attorney will argue By David Pasztor
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, May 30, 2002
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.
dpasztor@statesman.com; 445-3631
"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."
A "Right to be heard" -- very fuzzy headed judicial thinking that. Where exactly would *that* right stop?
Bad judgement in this case -- Markovitz DID let the Presdient be heard, but he added his commentary. We DO have free speech and he spoke up -- not to drown out the speaker, but in commentary to that speech.
The rights of everyone who wishes to listen are impaired and to me my right to listen is as much a part of free speech as my right to talk.
If the concealed carry activists had had their way all these years, the heckler's "free speech" would probably have come to a sudden (and permanent) halt, the ushers would drag the corpse outside (buzzards and worms gotta eat, too), the speech would have resumed, and the grand jury would say "he needed killin'."
This anal orifice is getting off very lightly compared to what a truly polite society SHOULD have given him.
How might the participating UT professor feel if I were to attend his class for the sole purpose of disrupting it? He is a public employee, speaking (ostensibly) for a public institution. Would my disruptive behavior be acceptable to him?
As I said, pressing criminal charges seems severe, but if ain't illegal, then it's legal. And if it's legal, we'd have a whole lot of disruption on our hands.
C'mon, this was a outburst not a shouting shutdown of the whole meeting. Ever listen to or watch a session of Parliment? Members are always "outbursting". Doesn't stop the meeting, nor is the meeting order so *fragile* that a few outbursts, even sporadic but continuning ones, shut down the meeting.
Oversensitivity is as much a risk to Liberty as any tyrants action.
Keep your day job.
Free speech is meaningless if anyone who disagrees can shout it down. THAT way is the way of Fascist and Communist bully boys. It's not the way the free discussion of ideas is conducted in a free society. If you don't understand that your elevator doesn't go all the way to the top.
You mis-spelled a word.
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.