Replies

I don't think this applies at all. You don't have a right to be heard in a specific way. Nor do you have a right to select the message that others send.

In #66 I showed how it applies, and I did not assert a right to be heard nor a right to select messages for others to send. Did you read it?

It should not matter if a collective or an individual drowns out a rightful message. But yes, if the community standard includes a winter solstice and excludes Christmas, then Winter Solstice rules; but that standard needs to develop organically out of individual preferences and expectations -- it needs to become a tradition.

If a message is being squeezed out by lack of bandwidth, that is not disruption. Disruption that is of interest to us is when the content of the message disrupts. For example, those distributing condoms outside the church have plenty of room to do so elsewhere, but their proximity to the church disrupts the message put out by the church. That is cultural disruption, not technical limitation of bandwidth.

In #66 I showed how it applies, and I did not assert a right to be heard nor a right to select messages for others to send. Did you read it?

I did read it. But I disagree that it applies, even if you can make it work for isolated cases. The general problem is one of sharing coordination. You can't fit the general problem into a rights issue.

It should not matter if a collective or an individual drowns out a rightful message.

The collective drowns it out because of bandwidth limitations. See my example of muliple displays above. There is no specific action by any one individual to drown out a message.

If a message is being squeezed out by lack of bandwidth, that is not disruption.

It's a disruption of the message, of course, but I agree that it isn't always the type of cultural/religious disturbance that you are talking about. It can be, however, when the disruption results in no message or so much noise. A lack of message (see lack of school prayer) can be very culturally/religiously disturbing to some.

Disruption that is of interest to us is when the content of the message disrupts.

You seem to be trying to use rights principles to make a case that disruption of access to message with a particular content warrants special protection and that speech of a particular offensive content has greater disruptive effect. I think there is a case to be made for this on the basis of community standards, but I don't see a basis in rights principles.