Texas Man To Be Tried For Heckling
Is it fair to jail someone because he heckled the President? Is it unconstitutional? Does a guy have a right to be obnoxious? What are your thoughts?
[Edited copyrighted material and added link to complete article. – MEB]
It is crap to say that heckling is permitted by the First Amendment. By definition, it is a variation on disturbing the peace which is also against the law. Should this man also be allowed to crank up a huge car stereo with a tape of himself reading the Communist Manifesto and drive it up and down your street all night long? If not, why not?
I don’t see what the debate is here. Just because he has the right to free speech does not mean that he has the right to a captive audience to his (non)message and it certainly does not mean that he can interrupt others any time that he wants to be heard. Three year olds know better than that and the lawyers do too.
I’m thinking that maybe because it was a political forum, there may be more protection involved. Any lawyers out there that can clear that up? Anyone? Bueller?
If “disrupting a meeting” is a misdemeanor, how in heck can it carry a six-month jail sentence?!
Texas divides its misdemeanors into classes A, B, and C.
Class A is punishable by up to 1 year in a county jail, and a class B is punishable by up to 180 days in a county jail. Class C misdemeanors are only punishable with a fine.
Disrupting Meeting or Procession is a class B misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor doesn’t mean you can’t go to jail. It does mean that you won’t go to jail for as long, and you will only go to a county jail, rather than a penitentiary or state jail.
If someone is truly disrupting a meeting or speech, I also would it under ‘disturbing the peace’. If all this guy did was yell one word, expletive or not, I think they are going a little overboard charging him with anything. Is it his fault “Others joined in the shouting or clapped in support of the former president, making so much noise that Bush stopped talking”?
Hmmm, well, whether or not the charge will result in conviction is totally different from the issue of whether or not the charge is constitutionally valid.
The easy answer is that “freedom of speech” is not “freedom to make an ass of yourself and bother others”. However, given that at least three members of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals were in dissent, one suspects that the issue isn’t open and shut. Absent a reading of what the court said, I’d hesitate to address the issue, especially since the actual factual situation isn’t probably completely fleshed out in the news article.
On my previous post, I was trying to say "I would also file it under ‘disturbing the peace’ ".
The dissent in Texas v. Markovich
The dissenting opinions are a little strange. It sounds like they are simply dissenting based on the broad way that this law is written and it has nothing all to do with this case. They are dissenting based on hypothetical situations in which truly protected speech could be threatened by prosecution under 42.05 although no one has has presented such a case. A more narrowly written, perfectly constitutional law would still be applicable to shouting out obscentities in the middle of a meeting or speech.
I suppose the logic is that the law as written may not be constitutional under all conditions so it cannot be used at all until it is fixed.
<<Appellee filed a pre-trial motion to quash the complaint by attacking the constitutionality of §42.05. The trial court granted appellee’s motion to quash the complaint. >>
Should I be surprised that a mere trial judge made a decision to find this law unconstitutional? I tend to think of the overruling of laws on Consitutionality grounds as happening at a higher level.
A mere trial judge, while unable to set binding precedent, is perfectly able to decide the constitutionality of laws.
In general, a trial finds facts and a trial judge makes conclusions of law. At the appellate level, the findings of fact made at trial are accepted as true, as long as they’re supported by the record: in other words, the higher court won’t substitute its judgement of credibility for the fact-finder’s.
But conclusions of law are reviewed de novo – that is, anew or afresh. They will independently decide issues like the constitutionality of a law.
People are very used to hearing that an appellate court found a law unconstitutional - but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen at trial as well. It’s just that it’s not as newsworthy until an appellate court does it, because only then does the ruling affect everyone, and not just one case.
Freedom of Speech grants Markovich the right to call a press conference and present whatever ideas he wants in whatever manner he wants to whoever chooses to show up.
I don’t know about 6 months for being an ass.
How about the TV station broadcasting the press conference could sue the guy. They could argue that they spent thousands of dollars to broadcast the presidents comments and this guy interfered.
The first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now, there are no conditions attached to “freedom of speech.” Without an amendment to the Constitution, it would seem to me that NO abridgement can take place. Unless, this only applies to Congress. In which case, technically, the states can abridge freedom of speech. Excuse my inexperience, but I really don’t see how, unless the states can ignore the first amendment, an abridgement of any sort isn’t unconstitutional
That’s not the case. The Supreme Court has already ruled on a variety of topics as to what is protected speech and what is not. (Consider the famous example of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre – while not mentioned in the Constitution, it is still not protected speech.)
Freedom of speech does not necessarily permit you to use speech in a way that will deny others their right to speak. Shouting out a person who is speaking would qualify. I don’t think the guy deserves jail time, but that doesn’t mean that heckling should be protected.
I agree that the guy shouldn’t go to jail for being an asshole. But I think bringing back the pillory and holding such people up to a few hours of public ridicule would serve nicely, both as a punishment and as a way to reintroduce a healthy sense of shame into a society (American, not just Texan) that appears to have lost it.
I am aware of such Supreme Court rulings. However, I wonder about their basis. What is written allows for no exceptions to the rule, so how can the Supreme Court conclude otherwise? Without some form of concrete evidence proving that the authors of the Constitution had a specific intent, the only solid evidence of intent is found in the Constitution. Any ruling that does not have some form of solid evidence backing it up is, in a sense, changing the meaning of the Constitution. Would it be constitutional to silence a man manipulating his fellows to act against the federal government? It would be tyranny to do so. As for your latter point, it does hold up to what is written in the first amendment. However, how can one determine who should have the right to interrupt? After all, in one sense, George Bush was interfering with the right of other people to speak. In my mind, this question is not resolved.
Moderator’s Note: I suppose some may find this ironic, given the subject of the thread, but EchoKitty, please don’t post entire copyrighted articles on the SDMB. A short excerpt and a link is acceptable and sufficient; I have edited your OP accordingly.
I think this guy deserves at least six months in jail. In fact, I was at that speech and there was a baby crying that also distracted Bush. The baby and his mother were escorted out, but I think they should have also gotten jail time if only to serve as an example. You just don’t interrupt your superiors!
Oh good lord, where do we begin. George Bush was not interfering with the right for anyone to speak. If the accused had chosen, he could have gone back to his room and printed off 10,000 copies of his diatribe and passed them out on the street or he could have stood in the middle of the quad at his school and preached to his heart’s content. HE CHOSE TO BE THERE. He was disturbing the peace. He chose to be there and interrupt very rudely and in a crass manner. No one can defend that.
BTW, in case you didn’t read the articles closely enough, this was a private speech after George Bush was out of office. It had nothing to do with government.
How can one determine who has the right to interupt? That is easy. No one has the right to interupt. If you do, you are interferring with another’s right to free speech.
I can’t believe that anyone seriously holds this viewpoint. Let’s say that on your wedding day that your crazy uncle decides to stand up and spout off the virtues of the holcaust and Hitler in the middle of the ceremony. If that his right?
Let’s say that a woman goes to a large church ceremony every Sunday and starts swearing at the top of her lungs every time the minister opens his mouth. Should she not be removed?