It is the latter which is irrelevant. U.S. citizens should not be required to restrict their speech to protect the tender sensibilities of every despot who wanders to our shores. If they can’t handle speech, then I say “tough titties” to them, and I say they should stay home.
(And, by the way, Hu’s fellow citizens know nothing of this occurence. Following your reasoning, I can only conclude that President Hu’s government has censored this news for the fear of the Chinese people rising in righteous indignation against America for our shabby treatment of their leader.)
Again, out in public, sure. In a highly scripted official and ceremonial function I’ll have to disagree. I don’t think there’s much more point to debating it. I think the law makes sense, all things considered, and now it’s up to da judge to decide if this incident rose to the level of “harassment”.
OK, we can agree to disagree. My parting shot will be that I will hope the judge decides that heckling is never harassment in this country, scripted event or not.
I would like to add a codicil: leaving the matter to the judge imposes substantial liabilities on the accused, by way of bail, attorney’s fees, and the risk of an adverse jury verdict which leaves her exposed to the extortionate fraternity known as prosecutors…
I look forward to her successful motion to dismiss, but I’m not holding my breath.
This sort of thing has always bothered me. If you go to an event to hear a speaker and a group of chuckleheads heckle the person to such an extent that he can’t give his speech, or get whatever point he is trying to make across to the audience, why does their right to freedom of speech override my right to listen? Yeah, I could probably get the information from another venue, but why should the one I’m at be disrupted at the whim of someone else?
The law makes sense if you’re an idiot. And a protest direct against a politician that involves nothing more than yelling is not harrassment, not matter what a judge says.
there are trespassing and disturbing the peace statutes to cover this. They require, usually, for liability to attach, a refusal to leave once confronted by the persons who rent the hall, etc. The problem here is that she is being punished for pure speech, in a public venue–not for resisting a demand to shut up and leave…
Does it matter about the public venue aspect? If I want to hear the speaker, the reason for the event, why should it be interupted at all? Let the interuptee hold their own meeting to counter what is being said at which I will attend, or not, and if I do I will listen until the time questions are allowed. Do we lose something when we allow the loudest person to determine what we get to hear?
As written I don’t think there is any problem with the law. I don’t believe it is legal to “intimidate, threaten, coerce or harass a foreign official or an official guest or obstruct an official in the performance of his duties” period.
I think the issue is the definition of harass. Is asking a pointed question harassment?
I’ve been thinking about this, and until I made up my own mind, I tried to stay out of it. Now though, I can say what I’ve decided. What we had was a person who yelled something during a “window dressing” or “dog and pony show” between Bush and Doctor Hu (I had to, can’t help it).
This is not harrassment or intimidation or a threat. Bad manners? Sure. Poor form? Sure. However this is supposed to be a land of free speech. It matters not a bit if that speech is pro or anti, popular or despised. There was no threat to the health, safety or well being of anyone. The interruption was merely a distraction. Unless both Bush AND Hu are incredibly immature (they are), this should not ever affect their talks one way or another.
Coupled with “free speech zones”, oaths of allegiance at political rallies, the hassling Sheehan got for wearing a T-shirt, and this, maybe we are seeing an attempt to criminalize or at least inhibit free speech.
This is the USA, where any asshole can tell any other asshole that he is an asshole (for now). That’s free speech. Just because two overblown stuffed shirts had to hear it means not a damn thing.
Somewhat back to the OP, do you believe the law is ‘ok’ and ‘just’, and that this instance is a poor call in the part of those enforcing it? Or do you believe the law itself is at issue?
Just a point, Sheehan was 1 of 2 people asked to change their shirts; one pro one anti. She only got kicked out after refusing and charged after the public rucus. (though it was a silly rule, it seemed to be evenly applied)
we have made a decision, in general, to call the close ones in favor of allowing the first heckle (cf, for instance, a comedy club where hecklers are an occupational hazard and certainly in most cases a pain in the ass for the audience as well as the comic…)
I’d call it a poor call and an overreaction. If anything, this should be nothing more than a misdemeanor. If I’m being incosistent, feel free to say so.
Well, if 6 months in jail & $5000 is what getting media exposure costs, that’s what it costs. But I think the real point is to speak truth to power. At what point does a Chinese official read the Trib or the Times?
If the common man cannot speak directly to those in power, freedom of speech becomes gated, segregated, & …unfree. It’s a short step to “freedom” to speak only to those who want to listen to you–no freedom at all.