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)
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.