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.
”As I said, criminal charges are way out of line here.”
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree here.
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)