First of all, Tyrell, my apologies to you for referring to you as “Trevor” when your name is 'Tyrell." No offense meant.
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).
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
[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]
Cite? Show me that we have anything to gain by keeping them happy.
Limiting a fundemental right for no real reason is a massive loss to every American.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
