“heckler’s veto”

[madmusic]

Thought some might find this interesting...

There are a number of freedom of speech issues on the Internet.

* The biggest issue for most people is obscenity, which I discussed in my essay on law & technology.

* There is the possibility of liability for information, which I discussed in my essay on infotorts. A specific example is the liability for instructions on how to kill people.

* Beginning around 1997, hackers trashed many web sites that were posted by organizations that the hackers hated, which I discussed in my essay on computer crime.


In my mistaken notion that these hackers were functioning as hecklers, I searched case law in the USA in May 1999 for a topic known in legal jargon as a "heckler's veto". This essay shares what I learned on that topic.

At the end of this essay, I included some thoughts on the phrase "marketplace of ideas" that the U.S. Supreme Court uses in cases about freedom of speech.

http://www.rbs2.com/heckler.htm

[LeftCoast]

1. Wow, that was really interesting

That gave me a lot to think about. I really learned a lot. Thanks!

[madmusic]

2. It's new to me too, and I'm just learning.

Here's quote just found....

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949):
(A) function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may
indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates
dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often
provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have
profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of
speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (falsely yelling fire in a
crowded theater), is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless
shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises
far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. … (T)here is no room under our
Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization
of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. Id. at 4.

[LeftCoast]

4. The Ignoramus's Veto was the most surprising part for me

It was a great explanation of why my university always let this OBNOXIOUS rw religious nut preach in the center of the quad all the time.

[madmusic]

5. Same here...

Never heard of it before. Sometimes it's a bit shocking to learn there really is some reasoning behind these principles. The reasoning could be wrong or outdated, but there is reasoning.

[madmusic]

3. Guidelines Regarding Free Speech

Here is a more detailed summary of what is and what isn't free speech, including "fighting words."

http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/mayor/speeches/free%20speech%20guidelines.htm

Since this is in Utah, does it vary state to state? Some states could be more lenient that the federal guidelines, but I don't think they can be more restrictive.