# The anti-heckling law for foreign politicians is nonsense, and wrong. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2006, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715 "2006-04-22T01:18:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/21 "2006-04-22T06:09:04Z")
First of all, **Tyrell** , my apologies to you for referring to you as “Trevor” when your name is 'Tyrell." No offense meant. [QUOTE=Tyrrell McAllister] 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. [/quote] I may have to concede this point–our law library does have a nice American caselaw section, but I do not currently have access to it (not at this hour on a Friday night, anyway). > [@](#): > > 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.) Okay, let me consult my textbook…yes, I see the right to counsel in the Sixth Amendment: “…to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” And I can see the difference between this and the Fifth Amendment. Fair enough. My Miranda analogy is not useful. (I have to add, I’m learning something here. Be patient; I am a law student. Although I’m not American, I’ve already scored some points from my (Canadian) Constitutional Law professor for taking an interest in the American constitution. And I can assure you, we do not study the US constitution at all. My interest is only an interest; I will never be graded on how well I know the US Constitution.) > [@](#): > > 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. It may not. But would the _possibility_ be there? Is it reasonable to assume riots would result? What would the reasonable person think, given this situation and these circumstances? And could that finding “save” this legislation from the First Amendment, as the “shouting Fire” rule does? In the end, it would seem to me, it comes down to a what a court of competent jurisdiction says. If it decides that this is indeed a limitation/restriction of First Amendment rights, then so be it. If not, then, with all due respect, “tough noogies.” Americans will have to deal with it. But from what I understand, this kind of law really means nothing until it is tested in the American courts. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/22 "2006-04-22T07:01:31Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] Um…_what_? You mean Wang Wenyi, right? [/QUOTE] D’oh. Of course I did. I was just brain spazzing, apparently. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tyrrell_mcallister/32/16772_2.png) [@Tyrrell\_McAllister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tyrrell_McAllister)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/23 "2006-04-22T07:10:12Z")
[QUOTE=Spoons] First of all, **Tyrell** , my apologies to you for referring to you as “Trevor” when your name is 'Tyrell." No offense meant. [/quote] Well, you’re getting closer ;). (No offense taken, of course). ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/24 "2006-04-22T08:34:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Foreign politicians should be as equally subject to criticism by U.S. citizens as our own politicians are I disagree. The latter are answerable to U.S. citizens, and it’s a purely internal matter of the U.S. whether or not to protect them from harassment. The former’s protection is a matter of international obligations and the necessary courtesy between states (which the statute in question is a means of implementing, because individual people are neither parties to international law, nor under an obligation not to act contrary to their country’s interest unless specifically forbidden to by law). What’s not to understand about being more polite to foreign politicians than to your own? ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/25 "2006-04-22T16:05:52Z")
[QUOTE=tschild] I disagree. The latter are answerable to U.S. citizens, and it’s a purely internal matter of the U.S. whether or not to protect them from harassment. The former’s protection is a matter of international obligations and the necessary courtesy between states [/QUOTE] Why is that courtesy necessary? It seems to me that countries base their relationships on economic, military, etc factors and not on who sent them the prettiest thank you note. > [@](#): > > What’s not to understand about being more polite to foreign politicians than to your own? Why should we be polite? What would it gain us? What do we lose by being impolite? Last time I checked, China sold us all kinds of stuff that we like buying and cannot be obtained as cheaply or easily anywhere else. The US government ignores China’s horrendous human rights abuses, and granted it Most Favored Nation trade status. China really loves having such a big market here, and making such a big profit from us. They ignore our relationship with Tibet, Taiwan etc. Crowds of people insulting Hu will not change the economic situation. We would lose nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/26 "2006-04-22T16:16:53Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] 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. [/QUOTE] Hmm… Let’s try some permutations: [ul] [li]We’ve far more to gain by keeping this folks in Gitmo then we’ve to lose by giving them speedy trials.[/li][li]We’ve far more to gain by torturing suspected terrorists then we’ve to lose by granting them 8th ammendment rights.[/li][li]We’ve far more to gain by eavesdropping on brown people calling foreign countries then we’ve to lose by respecting their 4th ammendment rights.[/li][/ul] This is fun! ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/27 "2006-04-22T16:23:53Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] We’ve far more to gain by keeping these folks happy when they’re here [/QUOTE] Cite? Show me that we have _anything_ to gain by keeping them happy. > [@](#): > > than we’ve to lose by preventing a few hecklers from exercising free speech on a few very rare occasions. Limiting a fundemental right for no real reason is a massive loss to every American. > [@](#): > > 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. You’ve just proven why we don’t have to “suck it up” and why we do not need “his good graces”. This is a matter of economics. Heckling won’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/28 "2006-04-22T19:13:38Z")
[QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] Oh, well, that makes it okay then. So long as we tack, “This is not to be understood as an abridgement of Constitutional Rights,” I guess we can do anything we want. Let’s outlaw all guns, just make sure to include, “This is not to be understood as an abridgement of Second Amendment rights” at the end, and it’s hunky-dory. Also, Christianity is now the new state religion of the US. It’s okay, we put, “This is not to be understood as an abridgement of First Amendment rights,” which means that it isn’t, so it’s okay. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/29 "2006-04-22T21:54:17Z")
[QUOTE=tschild] What’s not to understand about being more polite to foreign politicians than to your own? [/QUOTE] Freedom of speech, even in this quite narrow situation, is VASTLY more important that politeness. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/30 "2006-04-23T02:42:19Z")
[QUOTE=tschild] What’s not to understand about being more polite to foreign politicians than to your own? [/QUOTE] Politeness is an _entirely_ different issue. I agree, it’s nice to be polite to visiting foreign dignitaries. However, codifying politeness into something that is required by law is wrong, and should be resisted. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/31 "2006-04-23T08:38:16Z")
[QUOTE=tschild] I disagree. The latter are answerable to U.S. citizens, and it’s a purely internal matter of the U.S. whether or not to protect them from harassment. The former’s protection is a matter of international obligations and the necessary courtesy between states (which the statute in question is a means of implementing, because individual people are neither parties to international law, nor under an obligation not to act contrary to their country’s interest unless specifically forbidden to by law). What’s not to understand about being more polite to foreign politicians than to your own? [/QUOTE] why are you equating heckling with harassment. For instance, If I follow you around and every time you attempt to sit down I snatch away the chair from behind, that is harassment. If, per contra, I am fifty feet away from you and yell demands that you (and your craven, morally depraved host) honor the precepts of religious freedom on the occasion of your state visit, that is heckling, not harasment. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/32 "2006-04-23T09:57:30Z")
Weird. When Condi Rice visited Blackburn, England, a few weeks ago with foreign secretary Jack Straw she was met with hundreds of people following her around, many of them Muslims entirely opposed to the war in Iraq, heckling. When asked by the press about her feelings on the protestors, she decribed it as being a wonderful thing that people are able to exercise their right to freedom of speech and that she didn’t mind the protestors. Where’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/33 "2006-04-23T15:42:44Z")
I tried to find more info on this law, but my Googling came up with nothing useful. If somebody has better luck and/or Google-fu than me, please post relevent links/info about this law, the actual full text of it might help debate. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/34 "2006-04-23T16:39:43Z")
[QUOTE=Revtim] If somebody has better luck and/or Google-fu than me, please post relevent links/info about this law, the actual full text of it might help debate. [/QUOTE] See post #15. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/35 "2006-04-23T17:14:29Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] See post #15. [/QUOTE] It was little post, yeah, that must be why I missed that… :smack: Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/36 "2006-04-23T17:23:07Z")
[QUOTE=Dominic Mulligan] Weird. When Condi Rice visited Blackburn, England, a few weeks ago with foreign secretary Jack Straw she was met with hundreds of people following her around, many of them Muslims entirely opposed to the war in Iraq, heckling. When asked by the press about her feelings on the protestors, she decribed it as being a wonderful thing that people are able to exercise their right to freedom of speech and that she didn’t mind the protestors. [/QUOTE] But were these people in the street, or people who were invited to an official function, like a press conference? I think there’s a huge difference. No one is being charged for mere protest here. This was supposed to be a trusted member of the press corps., and we purport to carefully screen these individuals, operating in that capacity, so that if they do have an agenda, they at least try to have their concerns addressed respectfully in such a highly scripted and ceremonious state function. The problem has everything to do with the context, and in such cases, the ability of the foreign dignitary to carry out their official mission in a manner that makes them feel secure. I still argue that is an extremely important arrangement and needs protection, for the sake of our own foreign policy interests. No one is saying Americans can’t protest a foreign dignitary, or that the foreign dignitary must be sheilded completely from such protest. They’re saying people can’t harass a dignitary a fairly well-defined set of circumstances related to the official duties of said dignitary. To me, this incident is terribly humiliating to our own leadership. If they couldn’t assure Ms. Wang’s conduct would be appropriate for the function, what else could they not assure? Why should a foreing leader feel secure here, under the circumstances? Certainly mere protest isn’t harmful, but at such a function as the one in question, _nothing_ of the sort should ever happen. What does that say about our ability to protect other official business? If one can project a slippery slope from enforcement of the law we’re debating to some terrible erosion of our civil liberties, we might consider how others on the outside will interpret these events. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/37 "2006-04-23T19:27:37Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] But were these people in the street, or people who were invited to an official function, like a press conference? I think there’s a huge difference. No one is being charged for mere protest here. This was supposed to be a trusted member of the press corps., and we purport to carefully screen these individuals, operating in that capacity, so that if they do have an agenda, they at least try to have their concerns addressed respectfully in such a highly scripted and ceremonious state function. The problem has everything to do with the context, and in such cases, the ability of the foreign dignitary to carry out their official mission in a manner that makes them feel secure. I still argue that is an extremely important arrangement and needs protection, for the sake of our own foreign policy interests. No one is saying Americans can’t protest a foreign dignitary, or that the foreign dignitary must be sheilded completely from such protest. They’re saying people can’t harass a dignitary a fairly well-defined set of circumstances related to the official duties of said dignitary. To me, this incident is terribly humiliating to our own leadership. If they couldn’t assure Ms. Wang’s conduct would be appropriate for the function, what else could they not assure? Why should a foreing leader feel secure here, under the circumstances? Certainly mere protest isn’t harmful, but at such a function as the one in question, _nothing_ of the sort should ever happen. What does that say about our ability to protect other official business? If one can project a slippery slope from enforcement of the law we’re debating to some terrible erosion of our civil liberties, we might consider how others on the outside will interpret these events. [/QUOTE] After Jeff “Gannon” Guckert gets into the white house press conference ROOM, and is within grenade range of the prez, it seems obvious that the “screening” process needs some tweaking. I don’t think this brave woman posed any international threat… ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/38 "2006-04-23T19:32:21Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Oh, well, that makes it okay then. So long as we tack, “This is not to be understood as an abridgement of Constitutional Rights,” I guess we can do anything we want. Let’s outlaw all guns, just make sure to include, “This is not to be understood as an abridgement of Second Amendment rights” at the end, and it’s hunky-dory. Also, Christianity is now the new state religion of the US. It’s okay, we put, “This is not to be understood as an abridgement of First Amendment rights,” which means that it isn’t, so it’s okay. [/QUOTE] Hmmmm. Signign statements! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/39 "2006-04-23T20:01:33Z")
[QUOTE=alaricthegoth] After Jeff “Gannon” Guckert gets into the white house press conference ROOM, and is within grenade range of the prez, it seems obvious that the “screening” process needs some tweaking. I don’t think this brave woman posed any international threat… [/QUOTE] What seems obvious to you and what you think is largely irrelevant. It’s the concerns of the foreign dignitary and his/her fellow citizens we’re worrying about with this law. If _they_ feel unduly hindered or unsafe, _that_ is the difficult diplomatic issue. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715/40 "2006-04-23T20:32:38Z")
[QUOTE=Loopydude] What seems obvious to you and what you think is largely irrelevant. It’s the concerns of the foreign dignitary and his/her fellow citizens we’re worrying about with this law. If _they_ feel unduly hindered or unsafe, _that_ is the difficult diplomatic issue. [/QUOTE] I believe the diplomatic emotion that is apprehended by this law is “embarassment”, not a concern in re:safety. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-anti-heckling-law-for-foreign-politicians-is-nonsense-and-wrong/353715.md?page=3)