Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Student may be tried for heckling
Austin American-Statesman ^ | Thursday, May 30, 2002 | David Pasztor

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freespeech; ghwbush; heckling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

1 posted on 05/30/2002 7:05:09 AM PDT by wkcoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wkcoop
What law exactly has he broken? If such a law exists then Hitlery has a strong case against the NYFD/NYPD members for yelling her off the stage.
2 posted on 05/30/2002 7:19:27 AM PDT by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wkcoop
This is nuts!

Naming GHWB as the victim is only masking a hidden agenda to silence us.

It's perfect for the DEMs, they silence their disenters and get to blame the Republicans for it.

GHWB should be the first one to speak out against the legal proceeding, that would be the smart thing to do.
3 posted on 05/30/2002 7:23:59 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wkcoop
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."

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.

4 posted on 05/30/2002 7:25:06 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw
BTW, Ken Oden is a VERY liberal County Attorney here in the Peoples Republic of Travis County
5 posted on 05/30/2002 7:39:50 AM PDT by wkcoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: bvw
"Commentary" and "heckling" are not synonyms. Let the trial go ahead.
7 posted on 05/30/2002 8:25:22 AM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: moneyrunner
Applauding, coughing, bleching, guffawing, sneezing ... throw him in the docket, baliff -- he's violated someone's "right to be heard"!
8 posted on 05/30/2002 8:28:40 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wkcoop
I can see that there must be some sort of limits. Assume any setting where someone is speaking to a group that mostly wants to listen and a group of hecklers take over via actions and sound. If there were no limits on this behavior then no one could make the hecklers leave or even make them stop.

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.

9 posted on 05/30/2002 8:40:10 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wkcoop
The speaker has a right to be heard, What a blatant LIE! You have a right to speak, you have no right to be heard, unless you are a bush I guess. Blackbird.
10 posted on 05/30/2002 8:42:58 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wkcoop
I come to a speech to hear the speaker, not some dipstick in the gallery uttering obscenities.

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.

11 posted on 05/30/2002 8:45:48 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
What is interesting about this story is not the young fool who mouthed off at a Bush speech but the evil puppet master who was pulling his strings. When you read the article, you see that one of the other 2 people there with him was none other than Dr. Robert Jensen, a professor in the U.T. Journalism Dept. This is the same Jensen who has seriously criticised Bush's War on Terrorism. He is an avowed Marxist and WOBBLY. It is obvious that this idiot was a student and protege of Comrade Jensen. This is par for the course in The Peoples Republic of Austin, Texas.
12 posted on 05/30/2002 9:21:53 AM PDT by MAWG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wkcoop
Criminal charges may be a bit much, but without that threat, how to stop this type of activity from increasing? This doesn't appear, to me, to be a protected form of speech. If it is, then I could attend my local council meeting and scream gibberish for the duration of the meeting until they adjourned out of frustration. This wasn't in the public square, it was in the place that the "public" (i.e. government) does business.

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.

13 posted on 05/30/2002 9:32:03 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Bird
An excellent analysis. Thanks.
14 posted on 05/30/2002 9:34:07 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: drypowder
She was roundly booed but did not leave the stage.
15 posted on 05/30/2002 9:34:44 AM PDT by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rightuvu
Great post!
16 posted on 05/30/2002 9:36:20 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"An excellent anaysis"??

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.

17 posted on 05/30/2002 9:40:00 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bvw
You've obviously never dealt with a full-court leftist press to shut down a meeting.
18 posted on 05/30/2002 9:40:54 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bvw
"Applauding, coughing, bleching, guffawing, sneezing ... throw him in the docket, baliff -- he's violated someone's "right to be heard"!"

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.

19 posted on 05/30/2002 9:41:33 AM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
This anal orifice is getting off very lightly compared to what a truly polite police society SHOULD have given him.

You mis-spelled a word.

20 posted on 05/30/2002 9:47:51 AM PDT by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson