I agree; he wasn’t arrested for obscenity. I was interested in the (hypothetical) question of whether punishing him for the question alone would be constitutional.
Maybe not as vociferously, but yeah, I’d question it.
But there’s a limit and a context too. As I said Coulter is a provocateur by her own admission. If she doesn’t expect heckling then she’s stupid. Just as should Moore expect heckling – and from reading some of his comments, I think he does.
This student was essentially disruptive during the processes, along with others, but that’s not what he was arrested for apparently. He was arrested for asking his lewd question. Maybe that was a “straw that broke the camel’s back” sort of deal, but I still don’t think he committed a crime anyway. And why should someone be detained if no crime has been committed.
If a person got up during a Hillary Clinton speech (which isn’t really on a par with a Coulter speech, but I’ll play along) and spouted Bricker’s example of a heckle, then, yes, I would expect them to get kicked out, but if they got arrested I’d raise an eye-brow. I’m not going to go completely bullshit noble and say I’d scream from the mountaintops how unfair it is, because frankly, I wouldn’t really give a shit about someone like that.
However, if someone got arrested at a Michael Moore rally (which is closer to being on a par with a Coulter speech), for calling him a fat communist bin Laden fucker, I would be a little more up in arms.
I’m not bullshitting about my views on free speech and nonviolent dissent – I’m all for it from either side.
As I remember from reading the story when it happened, he was asked to leave (or at least STFU), he refused and was more obstreporous, told to desist or be arrested, refused to so so, and, gee, whiz…got arrested. This isn’t a case of free speech, this is a case of a young punk-ass being a dick and getting busted for it. Plain and simple. The “Do Not Be A Jerk” rule applies to real life too, sometimes.
While I normally wouldn’t say this, I am square with Bricker on this one.
But I still think Ann Coulter is a hate-mongering idiotic attention-whore.
So. Ann Coulter’s a dick too. She has openly advocated violence against people who disagree with her.
By your “don’t be a jerk” rule as it stands in real life, Ann Coulter should be arrested every time she opens her pie hole.
That kind of tactic doesn’t really serve the politial interest of the protester very much. All it does is give the other side an excuse to play the victim and roll their eyes and smugly lament the “desperation” and “lack of civility” by the other side.
There are plenty of legitimate and tough questions which could be asked of Coulter which would serve very well to highlight her own hypocrisy, fraudulence and bigotry. That’s the way it should be approached. Shouting the F word is just surrendering the fight and giving ammunition to Coulter.
Still, I admire that kid’s spirit and Ann Coulter is still a cunt of the highest order.
By the way, [bv]Dr. KN**, how about a cite that it’s obscene to talk about men fucking their wives in the ass?
Where do you get that he was arrested for asking his question? It seems to me he was arrested for his disorderly conduct.
Acoording to bizzwire, he was asked to leave, or at least stop interfering with Coulter’s speech, and he refused.
Well, you seem to be more tolerant of conduct that disrupts others’ free speech rights than the law is. You also seem more willing to extend government power to protect certain kinds of speech… if someone is a provocateur, they deserve less protection than if they are… a New York Senator, I guess? It’s unclear to me where you draw the line, except that Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are on one side of it and Hillary Clinton is on the other. Assuming you’d give Rick Santorum or Tom Delay the same leeway you’d give Hillary Clinton, I think your views are self-consistent, but do not track with the actual state of the law.
And, obviously, if you’d give Ms. Clinton more leeway than you’d give Mr. Santorum, then you’re NOT self-consistent.
Well, i can’t speak for anyone else, but i would strongly oppose an arrest. I would support, as i would in this case, the ejection of the person from the venue. That’s all that was necessary to restore order.
Something very similar happened when Coulter spoke at my school. A few idiots tried to disrupt her by yelling out during the speech. They were removed from the hall, and everything went on as before. That’s all that was needed here.
I love how you ascribe my opinions for me.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. I believe that Clinton should never be heckled and anyone who heckles Santorum should get a medal.
I said I’m all in favor of dissent and disorder. If you are so thick as to not recognize the context of certain situations then just crawl back into your little black and white world.
Different behaviors are tolerated at different events. An Ann Coulter speech is not some genteel discourse with free flow of ideas. It’s a comedy show. A speech by a senator, especially is at some official function, might hold with a different standard of decorum … even if it is Santorum.
In the end, I actually think this kid getting arrested is a good thing, as it goes to show how much of a pussy Coulter is when she gets shit slung back at her.
If someone stands at a podium and sayd, “Liberals should all be shot as traitors,” I would expect someone to respond with a hearty, “Fuck you!”
I said IF – and I preceeded that IF with this:
I think obstreperous heckling violates the freedom of assembly, because its intent is obstructive. It is behavior that seeks to deny the right of people to assemble and give an ear to a point of view, regardless of the leprous vileness of the speaker.
I would entirely support anyone’s right to stand outside the meeting area and urge prospective audience members to avoid such a meeting, or, better still, to offer information and propaganda antithetical to the speaker’s agenda. That’s fair play, and 100% kosher.
But once citizens have assembled for a purpose, to seek to obstruct that purpose violates the rights of the assembled. And if the conduct of the assembled is orderly, then to disrupt that order is, well, disorderly conduct. Said disruptor should be removed and be subject to prosecution to the full extent of the law. I suggest that the full extent of the law should be pretty minimal, no more than petty disdemeanor, or, better still, simply hold the miscreant until the event is concluded, and release him.
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are mutually dependent.
I agree with you luci, but don’t you think that simply ejecting the guy would have been sufficient?
elucidator is 100% on the mark. Not often you’ll hear such a sentiment coming from me, but when the man’s right, he’s right!
(Er… maybe better to say, "When the man’s correct, he’s correct!) 
Sure. The penalty should be minimal. But the power to eject is pretty much the power to arrest, and requires a legal offense has been committed. Which is to say, there are potential penalties, but they are minimal enough to be discretionary.
(Aside to friend Bricker: Indeed, I am correct. You could be correct as well, and we are bending every effort to assist you in that progression. If the Vast Liberal Conspiracy didn’t accept converts, I wouldn’t be here myself.)
Has any Phelps ever been arrested for yelling “AIDS cures fags” or holding posters depicting anal sex and screaming insane pronouncements to passersby whether at an AIDS funeral, a production of The Laramie Project or any of countless other things they love to picket?
This was most definitely not a violation of this man’s 1st Amendment rights as some of you have already mentioned. The SCOTUS clearly explained in the 60s and 70s that not all speech is protected, there are certain types of speech you cannot engage in without expecting some sanction (shouting fire in a crowded theatre) and more specifically works that are of a completely prurient nature. The definition has changed a little bit, but ultimately we get the laughable response of, “you know it when you see it” is what we get from our SCOTUS on issues of pornography and such.
And the SCOTUS has never come down on laws prohibiting public indecency (like yelling profanities) but has to the contrary supported such laws.
We have the right to practice religion as well, that doesn’t mean we can perform human sacrifices. Every right has to have a logical end point, and free speech tends to be restrained if it causes direct harm to people or if it is “of a prurient” nature.
The content of the speech had nothing to do with it. Coulter herself could have expounded as graphically and as crudely as she wanted upon the subject of marital ass-fucking and not been arrested. There isn’t any issue of “obscenity.” The issue is that the guy was disruptive. It’s really no different than if he had been heckling a ballet or a piano recital.
Guess this proves my point, all liberals are complete asshats. Good luck in the next general election assholes.
Well, it goes a long way towards proving that posters called ‘Citoloco’ are complete asshats.
But we knew that already, didn’t we?
Diogenes, do we know whether Raj had been recognized when he asked his question? Were questions being taken from the floor? I think you’re being hasty in suggesting that his merely asking the question, rather than the content of it, was out of line. The content of his question, to me, seems to raise a valid and appropriate question, given Coulter’s expressed views.
I think this is dead on - but the key word is ‘obstreperous’. Heckling can be used to make a point, which, if done sparingly and intelligently, is not necessarily disorderly.
When the heckling becomes an obvious attempt to simply shut down the speaker, then a line has been crossed. This guy crossed it. He was asked to leave, and refused. Therefore, he was arrested. I don’t see the problem.
If he had limited himself to shouting the odd pointed barb, he probably would have been fine.