For me this discussion is fairly simple. People get to say what they want in a public place, and cannot be stopped based on the content of what they’re saying. So if your funeral is in or near a public place, you don’t have a right to make the protester shut up. If your funeral is in a private place, you can exclude whomever you want.
Under my definitions, public-square like gathering areas in shopping centers should count as public spaces even if they are wholly privately owned.
For the right of free speech to have any meaning at all, there must be (1) a broad, public realm where it can be exercised where there are likely to be people around (so you can’t get away from it by making all places that look like public spaces be under private ownership), and (2) you must give the highest protection to the speech you consider most obnoxious and offensive, which means the kind of speech that is likely to upset people.
There is no right not to be disturbed or upset by offensive opinions expressed in public, even if you are engaged in a ceremony that’s important to you.
Could I get another example, then? I’m not sure this one is as perfect as all that-- for one thing, the Bill of Rights doesn’t explicitly guarantee ‘freedom of tobacco.’ I also question whether the right to smoke was in fact curtailed for the reason cited above. Was there ever really a time when a smoker* in a public place * would scrupulously canvass the opinions of all others in the vicinity before lighting up, and refrain if there were a chance that a non-smoker within lungshot might be offended by errant fumes? While no doubt such solicitous individuals did and do exist, I have a hard time believing that this was ever a widespread custom that later fell by the wayside. I watch old movies from time to time, and it seems like people back then smoked a lot, unapologetically and often. What other examples come to mind of ‘rights’ that have been taken away due to misuse?
If you’re merely observing that sometimes shitheel totalitarian regimes arise and grind the populace under their boots, then I agree with you. If you’re saying that’s somehow all right with you, then I do not.
You have the right to not have your message censored, but I don’t think that also means that you have the right to deliver your message in any and every imaginable manner. Nobody is suggesting that message X is not “acceptable” but that the chosen method of speech is overly disruptive to the lives of others.
If I’m on my front porch at 3am with a bullhorn reading from my manifesto, the cops are going to come by (once my neighbors complain) and make me stop. I’m not even on public property, I’m on my own property, and they’ll haul my ass away in cuffs if I don’t quit it. This is not an abridgement of my rights, but an affirmation that other people have rights. Society sometimes requires that we act in a civil manner, so that we all can enjoy a peaceful and enjoyable life.
That illustrates the way a lot of people are going wrong in this thread.
There are many different ways speech can be unpopular.
One way it can be unpopular is based on the actual content of the speech.
Another way it can be unpopular is based on the manner of presentation of the speech.
It is possible to prescribe a curtailment of some freedom on manner of presentation of speech, without thereby prescribing curtailment of any freedom on content of speech presented.
In fact, it is already well entrenched in present practice, and almost no one every brings up objections to this practice. I may not (legally) protest your use of fur by pouring animal blood on you. The various laws making this illegal, notice, do not delineate the permissible content of my speech. They delineate the permissible manner of my speaking.
To criticize anything like the proposal I roughly outline in my OP based on an idea that it is wrong to disallow people to say things that aren’t popular, is to fail to engage with my proposal at all, since my proposal does nothing to curtail anyone’s speech along that dimension.
Sure, but the curtailment you’re proposing is so severe that it renders the speech useless. There’s no point in protesting if you’re forbidden to do it within earshot of the people or event you’re protesting against.
Hmmm… Why, exactly? When you protest, you intend to make your opinion known and possibly convince other people that you’re in the right. Why does it need to done within earshot of the people you’re protesting against? The main reasons I can think of to wish such a thing would be that you want to annoy or intimidate these people. And I’m not convinced the right to annoy or intimidate needs to be strictly protected.
A reason for doing so is contained in your own post - the potential to convince other people that you’re in the right. Who better to convince than your opponent?
It could be said that generally people aren’t going to agree with people they disagree with just because of a protest, and that’s fair. But, at the very least, it says to that person “Look, we’re prepared to congregate on mass to disagree with you”, and that may make them rethink their position (or even just realise there’s significant opposition). In an age of spin, it’s very ease to minimize the effects or size of a protest; that’s a lot harder when your opponent is there to see it.
I personally rank this as one of the worst pieces of advice given to anyone everywhere. It doesn’t work for some people so the escalate things until they get the right response (don’t make me draw the PETA card).
Believe it or not, I have expressed my own mildly centrist views and been met with considerable annoyance. Hard to credit, I know, but there you have it. Frankly, I’m hard pressed to think of a political statement that would annoy noone.
And if the protest be pointedly political (ya know, that whole “petition for a redress of grievances” thingy?), by the very fact that it is a protest, its pretty much bound to annoy the focus of that sentiment. If what you got to say won’t annoy anybody, why bother?
As to intimidation? Nah. Behind his phalanx of well-armed, highly-trained paranoids, The Leader quails at the very sight of a terrorist t-shirt? Please.
Well I agree with you in theory, in practice I agree with me.
I never said you have to say what people want to hear, the issue is the event, not the topic. Nobody is saying that you should not be allowed to support terrorsits (how I view these protestors), just a funeral is not the forumn.
Well you could look to almost any law. Before it was law it usually was something that was left up to the individual. You could even take murder, I’m sure in the very early years there was no law against it, but ti was abused and then banned. We can also look at speed limits, if people drove responsibily we would have no need for speed limit laws.
The thing about rights, like in this case, is that you usually will not get introuble for excercizing them, just your actions may cause a governmental review if that right should continue.
If someone feels the need to pen a manifesto and read it aloud to others, that’s probably a good indicator that they aren’t enjoying a peaceful and enjoyable life. Having that person’s ass hauled away in cuffs for the crime of uncivil behavior will also not result in everyone enjoying a peaceful and enjoyable life.
Under what conditions could you read from your manifesto without potentially disturbing the peaceful and enjoyable life that others enjoy?
It seems like some people on this thread concieve of protests as having, as their very purpose, the direct disruption or disturbance of ones’ political enemy’s activities. But that’s simply incorrect. What is protected under Free Speech is not the ability to disrupt/disturb, but rather, the ability to have one’s say. If protests are there to ensure people get to say what they want to say, then protests are protected. If protests are there to directly disrupt enemy’s actions, then protests might not be protected.
What’s the point of “having your say” if you aren’t allowed to do it where your opponents, or people coming to visit them/take part in their events/etc., can hear you?
As an example: Suppose we have a funeral of a soldier. Suppose I liked the fellow, and I show up at the funeral with signs saying “Joe Smith: American Hero”, and big poster-sized pictures of him at ceremonies where he was awarded medals, him helping an Iraqi kid get his pet cat down out of a tree, etc. Nobody would have a problem with this. This sets the precedent that showing up at a funeral with signs and posters is an acceptable mode of speech. If the notion of free speech is to mean anything, this then also means that Fred Phelps is allowed to show up at the funeral with his signs and posters, saying that the guy was struck down by God and is now burning in Hell.
If, by contrast, I were to show up with a thousand-watt sound system and blared out at max volume that Joe Smith was an American hero, then the neighbors would mind, even if they agree with the message, because they’re not getting any sleep. So this mode of expression could be prohibited. Likewise, then, if Phelps shows up with a sound system and keeps folks awake, he can be stopped, too.
A guy is blaring his political manifesto out his porch, right next door to you. Its 3AM. You can’t sleep.
And you just think, “Ah well, it is his right.” And what, read a book til he goes away?
Do you promise me this is how you would react, or at least, think you should react?
To answer your question, go to a street corner in a crowded place, and start reading it out. (Have a permit if required, of course. ) Its very likely no one will be disturbed. This is because it has become a “meme” of sorts that that’s the right time and place for such activity. 3AM from your front porch in a suburban neighborhood is not the right time or place for it.
Now, someone may believe they need to actively protest against the setting of such “appropriate” times and places. Or they may think the nature and severity of the issue they want to protest is such as to render obsolete such conventions. As a moral matter, I think such a one may, and even should, enact their disruptive protests.
But I’d argue there is no way a society can formulate a rule about such protests which succeeds both in allowing them and also in allowing the society to proceed with its business, making whatever political changes it needs to make in a peaceful fashion.
Whatever rule a society is going to formulate about protest speech, I maintain, it’s going to have to involve curbing the times and places appropriate for it. This is because there is not a clear line between speech and action. For a society to function, actions must clearly be curbed. To the extent that protests constitute actions over and beyond mere acts of speech, it is possible that protests are a kind of thing which must be governed by legal limits.
Are you seriously implying that, once upon a time, people had the right to commit murder, but some people abused that right, so the government stepped in and made all murder illegal?
This is the most astounding statement I’ve heard in a long time, even for you, kanicbird.
It’s never really seemed to me that the audience of a protest is the person or group being protested against.
Do you think that’s incorrect though?
Anyway, I didn’t say you can’t do it where they can hear you. So your question is off the mark.
I did acknowledge that I don’t have a full characterization of those activities (very tentatively dubbed by the label “ceremonies”) which should be protected from disturbance. As my OP states, part of the point of this thread is to get assistance (adversarial or otherwise) in developing a more clear criterion. But to simply point out that I haven’t given a full characterization doesn’t help me any…
So, to recapitulate and to clarify: I’m not saying no one should ever feel disturbed by a protest against them. I am saying there are certain activities which should be protected from direct and immediate disturbance. What are those certain activities? I don’t quite know yet. Certainly almost any funeral would count. And that’s pretty much all I got. Anyway, none of this do I take to be particularly radical. I just take it to be an extension of the same principle whereby (most of us) think, for example, that people shouldn’t be allowed to blare a manifesto out a bullhorn of a car through a neighborhood at 3AM.
