The anti-heckling law for foreign politicians is nonsense, and wrong.

[Frank]

Ms. Wang has been charged: CNN

I have no idea which Congress passed this law, nor which President signed it.

The federal law is designed to protect foreign dignitaries and official guests, and prohibits attempts to “intimidate, threaten, coerce or harass a foreign official or an official guest or obstruct a foreign official in the performance of his duties.”

This law, as it is being applied, is asinine and idiotic, and should be overturned by the courts forthwith. Foreign politicians should be as equally subject to criticism by U.S. citizens as our own politicians are. Despite the (extremely successfull) efforts of U.S. politicians to limit heckling at public events, it is still the right of every American to speak up. If foreign politicians can’t stand the heat of the U.S. kitchen, they should stay out of it.

[Loopydude]

They probably would. Hence the law.

[Frank]

@Loopydude

They probably would. Hence the law.

Yeah? So?

[Frank]

@Frank

Yeah? So?

In other words, so what? President Hu has complete authority to run his country however he likes. This is not his country. If he comes here, and a U.S. citizen chooses to give him a hard time, too bad.

Please explain to me why an American citizen in her own country should be charged with a federal crime for exercizing her right to harass a politician.

[Loopydude]

Well, visits from foreign dignitaries tend to be rather essential for conducting international affairs and diplomacy. If leaders of other nations felt they couldn’t or shouldn’t come here because they would be vulnerable to harrassment, or perhaps even other forms of harm, our interest abroad may not be well served.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Loopydude

Well, visits from foreign dignitaries tend to be rather essential for conducting international affairs and diplomacy. If leaders of other nations felt they couldn’t or shouldn’t come here because they would be vulnerable to harrassment, or perhaps even other forms of harm, our interest abroad may not be well served.

I think they should just have to suck it up. I realize that in most countries, the loudmouth can simply be hauled away and shot, and this has made your modern dictator soft and spoiled, but they’ll never learn if they keep being coddled.

[Frank]

@Loopydude

If leaders of other nations felt they couldn’t or shouldn’t come here because they would be vulnerable to harrassment, or perhaps even other forms of harm, our interest abroad may not be well served.

Oh, piffle. If a leader of another nation can’t handle criticism, that’s just tough.

Ms. Wang made no physical threat; she was merely speaking.

I absolutely agree with the law as it applies to physical threats or obstruction, or intimidation, but heckling a politician of any stripe or country is a complete “freedom of speech” issue.

[Spoons]

[QUOTE=Frank]

“…obstruct a foreign official in the performance of his duties.”

If this is indeed a part of the legislation, isn’t it just included to reinforce the diplomatic immunity of the foreign official?

Foreign politicians should be as equally subject to criticism by U.S. citizens as our own politicians are. Despite the (extremely successfull) efforts of U.S. politicians to limit heckling at public events, it is still the right of every American to speak up. If foreign politicians can’t stand the heat of the U.S. kitchen, they should stay out of it.

You are absolutely right. You, as an American, have your First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. You can exercise them in a number of ways: through letters to the editor, through radio call-in shows, through publishing pamphlets and books and articles denouncing the foreign official and the policies of his or her home nation, and so on.

Remember, while the First Amendment does grant you the right of freedom of speech, you do not have the freedom to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. So it would seem that there are limits to freedom of speech.

So by this legislation, you do not have the right to attend at the foreign official’s speech or talk, and heckle. (Though, again by the US Constitution, you can assemble and protest outside the venue where the talk is held.) But you have other avenues–constitutional and legal–where you can disagree with the foreign official.

Seems to me to be reasonable compromise. Your First Amendment rights are minimally (very minimally) impaired, and the foreign official is diplomatically protected.

[Frank]

@Spoons

So it would seem that there are limits to freedom of speech.

This is true. The limits of freedom of speech apply to very defined and limited circumstances. Ms. Wang’s protest is not in any way comparable to shouting “fire!” in a theatre. Do you disagree?

Seems to me to be reasonable compromise. Your First Amendment rights are minimally (very minimally) impaired, and the foreign official is diplomatically protected.

For my rights to be even minimally impaired, I must accept that the reason is good. I do not accept that the stopping of heckling of foreign dignitaries is a good reason. In what way do the Diplomatic Conventions address protection of the dignitary from verbal statements by citizens of the host country?

[Tyrrell_McAllister]

@Loopydude

Well, visits from foreign dignitaries tend to be rather essential for conducting international affairs and diplomacy. If leaders of other nations felt they couldn’t or shouldn’t come here because they would be vulnerable to harrassment, or perhaps even other forms of harm, our interest abroad may not be well served.

A very similar case can be made for American politicians. Should that guy who said “Go fuck yourself, Cheney” in Louisiana have been charged with a crime? What if national politicians felt so intimidated that they were afraid to lend their valuable services in disaster areas ;)?

I don’t see foreign dignitaries letting a little heckling scare them so much that they refuse to visit. At worst, they might not want to give public speeches, but that doesn’t seem like a great loss. Those things are just for show anyway. At any rate, I seem to recall reading about Bush facing some pretty loud protesters during his visits abroad. If he can take it, fan of the pre-screened town hall that he is, certainly anyone can.

@Spoons

If this is indeed a part of the legislation, isn’t it just included to reinforce the diplomatic immunity of the foreign official?

I have never heard of this interpretation of diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from prosecution themselves; it doesn’t increase the vulnerability of others to prosecution.

[Spoons]

@Frank

This is true. The limits of freedom of speech apply to very defined and limited circumstances. Ms. Wang’s protest is not in any way comparable to shouting “fire!” in a theatre. Do you disagree?

It is not like shouting “Fire” in a theatre. But if shouting “Fire” can be a minimal impairment of freedom of speech rights, why can’t the situation at hand be? Okay, it’s a slippery slope argument. But because it is a slippery slope, other arguments are possible, especially if public peace and order is the objective.

I’m also looking at the impairment issue here. If a speech is made in, say, Chicago, and you live in, New York, is your inability to get to Chicago (assuming you can’t get there) to heckle in person an abridgment of your First Amendment rights? Is it? Who do you complain to then? Amtrak, because their schedules are not in line with what you want? American Airlines, because they cost too much? Your employer, who won’t let you have the time off? Technically, these are not (or are not supposed to be) government entities, so the Constitution may not apply to them. But they are barriers to your ability to use your First Amendment rights to heckle in person in Chicago.

But…under the First Amendment, you can state your case from New York. You can use any method (and more) that I outlined above. How does this differ? Is it so important to you to be present to heckle? Or could you do a better job from you desk, using your computer to draft a letter or a speech that you are constitutionally and legally permitted to deliver?

I guess what I’m getting at here is that “not being able to heckle a foreign dignitary in person” does not seem to me to be a violation of your freedom of speech. If the “Fire!” limitation is in place, then even the First Amendment has limitations. With one, there can be others–the right is thus not absolute. Maybe this can be another limitation. But regardless, it does not impair your First Amendment rights to address the issue in ways that do not involve heckling in person.

For my rights to be even minimally impaired, I must accept that the reason is good.

No, your courts must accept that the reason is good. Your opinions or feelings don’t enter into it, unless you are willing to start a Constitution challenge in an appropriate court, and agree to abide by what it says. In the US Constitution, I see lots of mention of “due process” and “redress of grievances,” but I do not see “Any citizen can take the law into his or her own hands and change it.” I also see mentions of “without due process of law.” Does this not mean that if you want a change, it can only come from a court; or from your House, Senate, and President?

Of course, my interpretation may be wrong. I am not an American, nor do I live in the US, and I’m going off a textbook version of the US Constitution.

I do not accept that the stopping of heckling of foreign dignitaries is a good reason.

That’s your opinion. It is not necessarily your right. To find out if it is indeed a violation of your First Amendment right, apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an answer.

In what way do the Diplomatic Conventions address protection of the dignitary from verbal statements by citizens of the host country?

They don’t. And I admit that I have not fully read the Vienna Conventions, so I am unsure what protections they have under that convention. But I presume that foreign dignitaries in the US are protected by US authorities, plus whatever security they themselves bring. I base this assumption on the protection US dignitaries receive in my own country. Yes, we can shout at them. And yes, they are at a distance. We can’t get close, and there are too many US Secret Service personnel and Mounties in the way. Shouting doesn’t do much good. Even if it did, the text of their speech is often reprinted later in the papers.

Certainly, if the crowd turns ugly, as it can, the foreign dignitary will be protected by all security forces. Their speech may be cancelled due to the ugliness–but theres a better-than-average chance that the high points will be reported tomorrow in the media. Their message will get out there anyway; your efforts at shouting them down will have come to naught.

But (and this is my opinion), I think you can get a helluva lot farther with carefully-planned, well-stated, reasonable, rational, arguments placed through other media that you can through shouting at somebody speaking. A comment in the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune reaches a wider audience than a shout at a speech–which the networks may or may not choose to air.

In other words, forget the Constitution. Work the system that the Constitution must allow: the media.

[Spoons]

@Tyrrell McAllister

I have never heard of this interpretation of diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from prosecution themselves; it doesn’t increase the vulnerability of others to prosecution.

I’m looking at it in the sense of “We owe a duty of care to Diplomat X, to make sure that he or she comes to no harm at the hands of citizens of our country.” I’m basing this on the experience of someone I knew some years ago, who travelled on a Phillipines diplomatic passport. An anecdote is not data, of course, so if my Filipino friend was wrong, then so am I.

[Tyrrell_McAllister]

@Spoons

I’m also looking at the impairment issue here. If a speech is made in, say, Chicago, and you live in, New York, is your inability to get to Chicago (assuming you can’t get there) to heckle in person an abridgment of your First Amendment rights? Is it? Who do you complain to then? Amtrak, because their schedules are not in line with what you want? American Airlines, because they cost too much? Your employer, who won’t let you have the time off? Technically, these are not (or are not supposed to be) government entities, so the Constitution may not apply to them. But they are barriers to your ability to use your First Amendment rights to heckle in person in Chicago.

I don’t think that this analogy helps your case, because most will agree that if the government were to stop someone from traveling from New York to Chicago specifically to prevent that person from merely heckling a national politician, then that would be an abridgment of constitutionally protected speech. Naturally, Amtrak is not required to provide any and all means for the would-be heckler to do this, but the government cannot stop the heckler simply to prevent the heckling. (I’m assuming here that the heckling would not involve a violation of a non-speech-related law, such as trespassing or intimidation, and that the politician could not reasonably be thought in physical danger).

I’m looking at it in the sense of “We owe a duty of care to Diplomat X, to make sure that he or she comes to no harm at the hands of citizens of our country.”

This is not a special privilege of diplomats. The law prevents me from harming others whether they are citizens of the US or not. Again, I have only heard “diplomatic immunity” used to refer to the restraint that a nation places on its own legal system (not its citizens in general) to keep it from acting towards foreign diplomats as it does towards others.

[Spoons]

@Tyrrell McAllister

I don’t think that this analogy helps your case, because most will agree that if the government were to stop someone from traveling from New York to Chicago specifically to prevent that person from merely heckling a national politician, then that would be an abridgment of constitutionally protected speech. Naturally, Amtrak is not required to provide any and all means for the would-be heckler to do this, but the government cannot stop the heckler simply to prevent the heckling. (I’m assuming here that the heckling would not involve a violation of a non-speech-related law, such as trespassing or intimidation, and that the politician could not reasonably be thought in physical danger).

I think you have a good point here, Trevor but humour me for a moment. You are correct in that if the government prevented you from travelling to Chicago to heckle in person, it would be a constitutional violation. But what if the corollary of such a right stated that if you wanted to go to Chicago for the purpose of heckling, the government was obligated to provide you with transportation to Chicago?

This is the harder part to deal with. If (assuming I have been arrested) I have the right to an attorney during questioning, and cannot afford one, the government is obligated to provide one. This protects my Fifth Amendment rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 344 U.S. 436; 86 S.Ct. 1602). Why can’t the government, in the form of Amtrak, protect my First Amendments rights by providing me with passage to Chicago to exercise my First Amendment rights to free speech?

(Just as an aside, I always find it interesting that Canadians insist that government-supplied health care is a right, while government-supplied legal aid, including public defenders, is an abhorrent concept. This means that Canadians prosecuting or defending an action may possibly end up in bankruptcy. But that’s OK in Canada, as long as you’re healthy. Go figure!)

Anyway. As I said, humour me for a moment, and the moment’s over. Of course, Amtrak would not do such a thing, and nobody (least of all, me) would think any less of them for it. However the heckler arrived in Chicago (or not), he or she should have the right to speak…

…within limits. And this is where we may need to disagree. I have no problem (as I have said) with the heckler going to the papers or TV, or publishing whatever he or she wishes, using any media. What I do have a problem with is with speech on the spot that may incite a crowd to riot, or to endanger others (including the speaker). I find this to be a reasonable limit. You may disagree, and that’s fine.

This is not a special privilege of diplomats. The law prevents me from harming others whether they are citizens of the US or not. Again, I have only heard “diplomatic immunity” used to refer to the restraint that a nation places on its own legal system (not its citizens in general) to keep it from acting towards foreign diplomats as it does towards others.

Fair enough. The “diplomatic immunity” principle does not apply in this case.

[Squink]

US Code: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 7 > § 112
Protection of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons

[Loopydude]

@Bryan Ekers

I think they should just have to suck it up. I realize that in most countries, the loudmouth can simply be hauled away and shot, and this has made your modern dictator soft and spoiled, but they’ll never learn if they keep being coddled.

Fine and dandy, and completely unrealistic. We’ve far more to gain by keeping these folks happy when they’re here than we’ve to lose by preventing a few hecklers from exercising free speech on a few very rare occasions. I doubt very much folks like Hu Jintao are ever in much of a mood to “learn”, and in his particular case, I’d say we have to suck it up and acknowledge we need his good graces as much he needs ours, for purely economic reasons. Besides, the US doesn’t have a hell of a lot of credibility left as a bastion of freedom and justice anymore, in case you hadn’t noticed. “Inhospitable” isn’t going to win us any international goodwill points, either.

[Leaper]

I read an article on the incident that mentioned two disturbing things:

1. Hu Jintao had a history of, uh, speaking out like this to Chinese leaders, which the White House folks who vetted the press utterly missed, and

2. It took THREE MINUTES for the Secret Service to do anything to Hu.

I think a lot of people are lucky that Hu was just a protester and nothing more violent.

[Loopydude]

Um…what? You mean Wang Wenyi, right?

[Tyrrell_McAllister]

@Spoons

But what if the corollary of such a right stated that if you wanted to go to Chicago for the purpose of heckling, the government was obligated to provide you with transportation to Chicago?

This is the harder part to deal with. If (assuming I have been arrested) I have the right to an attorney during questioning, and cannot afford one, the government is obligated to provide one. This protects my Fifth Amendment rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 344 U.S. 436; 86 S.Ct. 1602). Why can’t the government, in the form of Amtrak, protect my First Amendments rights by providing me with passage to Chicago to exercise my First Amendment rights to free speech?

I’m not sure I see where you are going with this line of argument. The case law is unambiguous: the government has no obligation to provide the means of speech. That slope appears to be quite unslippery in practice. There is no danger that the government will find itself forced to provide free transportation to people in New York wishing to heckle in Chicago. If, however, you are just asking for a theoretical reason to justify why this slope is not slippery, I think that this is provided by the language of the first amendment. To say that a freedom shall not be abridged only places a negative obligation on the government, not a positive obligation. This is in contradistinction to the sixth amendment, which grants a right to representation by counsel. That is, the government has a positive obligation to provide counsel. (It would be different if the amendment said that the freedom to counsel would not be abridged.)

…within limits. And this is where we may need to disagree. I have no problem (as I have said) with the heckler going to the papers or TV, or publishing whatever he or she wishes, using any media. What I do have a problem with is with speech on the spot that may incite a crowd to riot, or to endanger others (including the speaker). I find this to be a reasonable limit. You may disagree, and that’s fine.

If I believed that there were a significant risk of riot or danger to the speaker, then I would be inclined to agree with you (though the status of the speaker as foreign would be irrelevant.) But that does not appear to be the case here.

[Loopydude]

The law says you can’t “harass” the foreign dignitary. Then it says it is not to be understood as an abridgement of First Amendment rights.

I take it to mean I can ask Hu Jintao in a reasonably respectful manner as a member of the press if he thinks it is just to oppress memebers of Falun Gong, but I can’t shout insults at him and cause a disturbance in a manner that overly discomfits him or in any way interferes with his duties as a foreign dignitary. I imagine it will depend on the Judge whether or not what Ms. Wang did constitutes “harassment”.