# The Heckler's Veto **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 15, 2010, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845 "2010-09-15T14:05:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/41 "2010-09-16T07:26:31Z")
We are, in theory at least, a nation of laws where everyone is given equal rights and there are protections against a tyranny of the majority. The Heckler’s Veto is, pretty much by definition, a tyranny of the majority. I don’t see anything noble or heroic in violating the law to prevent someone from doing a perfectly legal action. Burning the Koran is a real dickhead move, and it is very offensive. However, this country doesn’t have a right to not encounter dickheads nor is there a right to not be offended. It does have a right to free speech. Someone should give this guy back his Koran and let him flick his bic. Then they can yell as loudly as they want about what an asswad he is. He’d have his say, detractors would have their say, and no one would be violating the law. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/42 "2010-09-16T08:33:58Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The act of stealing or burning a flag or a Koran is not noble. If there is nobility, there must be a noble goal, with a reasonably defined vector between the act and achievement of that goal. And a world where religious fundamentalists no longer hurt innocent people over trivial insults is not a noble goal? You might not feel his method is likely to succeed, but there is a clear vector between showing that threats of violence are no longer effective in stifling free speech, and causing these zealots to turn away from a now-useless tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/43 "2010-09-16T12:57:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It should be noted, since I’m not sure it was entirely clear from the OP, that the “Heckler’s Veto” as a legal concept refers to a reason the government _cannot_ legitimately use to suppress speech. The government cannot end a rally because it might inflame the tempers of opponents. I tried to be very clear about that: > [@Bricker](#): > > In legal parlance, the “Heckler’s Veto,” occurs when the government stops activity that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment – not because of a disagreement with the content, but out of concern for public safety. For example, we might imagine the KKK gearing up to hold a “white pride” rally, a perfectly constitutional activity. But the town, which had granted them a permit, sees a growing crowd of angry anti-Klan demonstrators massing outside the rally grounds, fears that disorder is imminent, and cancels the event. And then distinguish the more loose, lay application of the term: > [@](#): > > The term is also used more loosely to describe non-government action; a speaker who cannot continue his speech because protesters storm the auditorium and shout him down might be said to suffer a heckler’s veto, even though no government action occurred. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/44 "2010-09-16T13:05:58Z")
Hypothetically, if the Koran/Flag/whatever burner resisted Isom’s attempts to take his/her property, is there a limit the law would apply to said resistance? If the burner held tight to his property and Isom suffered an injury as a result could the burner be found criminally liable? What if the burner struck Isom in an attempt to keep his property? What if the burner struck Isom and as a result he died? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/45 "2010-09-16T13:15:25Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Hypothetically, if the Koran/Flag/whatever burner resisted Isom’s attempts to take his/her property, is there a limit the law would apply to said resistance? If the burner held tight to his property and Isom suffered an injury as a result could the burner be found criminally liable? What if the burner struck Isom in an attempt to keep his property? What if the burner struck Isom and as a result he died? The use of deadly force merely to protect property is not justified (possible exception for “Castle Doctrine” situations inside one’s residence). However, in general, you may use reasonable force to defend your personal property from theft. This is generally an affirmative defense to the crime of battery, for instance. That is, if Burner had struck Isom in an effort to defend his property, and was then charged with that battery, he could typically admit to the facts of the battery but offer _defense of property_ as his affirmative defense, meaning the burden would be on him to prove each element of the defense by preponderance of the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/46 "2010-09-16T13:27:34Z")
^Gracias. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/47 "2010-09-16T13:42:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I wonder how many of us would cheer if Isom were a crew-cut National Guardsman, yanking a flag away from a protester wanting to burn it. [Rick Monday](http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2006-04-25-rick-monday_x.htm) did that on a baseball field in 1976 and became an object of near-universal veneration. Of course in that case the protesters were trespassing, and it’s hard to work up much sympathy for somebody who loses their property while trespassing. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/48 "2010-09-16T14:53:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, it simply goes to show how wrong the supposition is that the action of burning a Koran in the park is unprotected by the First Amendment. It is, and can no more be criminalized than the flag burning can be. Well, what is interesting here is that hate speech laws have, in certain situations, withstood judicial scrutiny. A general law banning hate speech wouldn’t survive a First Amendment challenge. However, campus codes at public universities, I believe, have been challenged and upheld. Those decisions are, IMHO, wrong, but I am pretty certain they are out there. Now that begs the question about flag or Koran burning on campus. I agree with you both are speech, and both are presumptively protected by the First Amendment. I would imagine burning a Koran would fall foul of hate speech codes on campus, and would think by the argument I previously made that burning a flag would too. > [@Bricker](#): > > In _Virginia v. Black_, 538 US 343 (2003), the Supreme Court stuck down a Virigina law forbidding cross-burning because it assumed that burning a cross was automatically intended to intimidate. They did say that Virginia was entitled to forbid cross burning if the Commonwealth could prove that the intent was to intimidate, but the law could not make that presumption automatic. Thomas’s dissent in that case, if I am remembering it right, is horrible. He’s normally pretty good on free speech matters, but it shows that everyone has their own button issues where their principled analysis gets twisted to justify a result they clearly want to get to. I can understand why Thomas has a deep seated hatred for cross burning, but under his usual analysis there is no way he could uphold that law. > [@Bricker](#): > > In short: the idea that the Koran-burning at issue here was somehow illegal, and thus the young man was legally entitled to stop it, is hogwash. Well, to be terribly nit-picky (after all, what else are lawyers for), it may well have been illegal, to the extent that burning stuff in public parks usually violates some kind of local ordinance. Though it seems the ‘pastor’ had it in a grill, so it might be a park where public BBQs are allowed. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/49 "2010-09-16T14:57:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In legal parlance, the “Heckler’s Veto,” occurs when the government stops activity that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment – not because of a disagreement with the content, but out of concern for public safety. For example, we might imagine the KKK gearing up to hold a “white pride” rally, a perfectly constitutional activity. But the town, which had granted them a permit, sees a growing crowd of angry anti-Klan demonstrators massing outside the rally grounds, fears that disorder is imminent, and cancels the event. > > The term is also used more loosely to describe non-government action; a speaker who cannot continue his speech because protesters storm the auditorium and shout him down might be said to suffer a heckler’s veto, even though no government action occurred. > > I have this same feeling when I read [Boyo Jim](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=578310)’s ode to Jacob Isom, a young man who snatched the lighter-fluid soaked Koran away from some idiot who was about to torch it. > > I can’t say I disagree with Isom. His simple solution deserves applause. “Yoink!” and the Koran is gone, protected from a truly repulsive act. > > But I wonder how many of us would cheer if Isom were a crew-cut National Guardsman, yanking a flag away from a protester wanting to burn it. I would hazard a guess that more than one person here might express outrage, and point out that the act is theft: the flag burner presumably owned that flag and had every right to burn it. > > My own reaction in that case would have been: flag burner, you’re right. Go find a cop and swear out a complaint. But while I’ll acknowledge the illegal act by the Guardsman, I won’t berate him for doing it. > > Same thing here. I’ll admit Isom committed theft. And if the would-be burner wishes to pursue his remedies, go ahead. But I won’t condemn Isom for his actions. > This thread isn’t about Isom (after all, **Boyo Jim** laready has a thread for that! This thread is about the quasi-heckler’s veto, the aspect of private actors shutting down the speech of others, and about the actual legal heckler’s veto issue, where private actors’ conduct forces the government to shut down speech for reasons of safety. > > There are no good answers here, but I thought discussing some of the ideals placed in tension by these competing goals would make a good debate. > [@](#): > > The term is also used more loosely to describe non-government action; a speaker who cannot continue his speech because protesters storm the auditorium and shout him down might be said to suffer a heckler’s veto, even though no government action occurred…where private actors’ conduct forces the government to shut down speech for reasons of safety I think in the context of your hypothetical above, the heckler, or hecklers, should be removed and the speech permitted to continue. When law enforcement is acting for reasons of safety, discontinuing the speech is but one way to achieve safety. The other way to accomplish safety would be to remove the hecklers. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/50 "2010-09-16T15:32:25Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I’m deeply conflicted about this. On the one hand, I really don’t want free speech being shut down by terrorists. That sets a terrible precedent. [Argumentum ad baculum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum) is completely unacceptable. > > But on the other hand, I don’t want innocent people to get killed. > > If it were purely the Koran burner who was putting himself at risk, I wouldn’t have much problem with it. I might even cheer him on for his bravery. But unfortunately, innocent third parties who had nothing to do with this may very well be murdered in retaliation. > > I’m not sure I can either give praise or blame to either the would be book burner, or the person who snatched the book. :dubious: I understand the concern about “innocent third parties…may very well be murdered in retaltiation,” but I do not think it is wise to predicate the protection of speech on such a tenuous principle. I am not suggesting you did so here. I am merely stating while your concern is valid, I do not think it is a good idea to censor speech on this basis. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/51 "2010-09-16T15:40:34Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Always, \*always \*look for whatever **Bricker** is leaving out, people. > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I can’t say I disagree with Isom. His simple solution deserves applause. “Yoink!” and the Koran is gone, protected from a truly repulsive act. > > > > But I wonder how many of us would cheer if Isom were a crew-cut National Guardsman, yanking a flag away from a protester wanting to burn it. I would hazard a guess that more than one person here might express outrage, and point out that the act is theft: the flag burner presumably owned that flag and had every right to burn it. > > Hmm, I wonder why you’re not mentioning hate speech (illegal in many jurisdictions, I am given to understand), and how that applies to religious groups and not to “patriotic Americans” in general? Why ever would **Bricker** leave out something so critical, hmm, thinkthinkthink … > > Isom interfered with an act of \*hate \*speech. Your hypothetical Guardsman (as hypothetical as the “more than one person here” you go on to disparage) would have interfered with \*political \*speech, as SCOTUS has previously and correctly ruled. One protected, the other not. > > But I know that was already clear to you. Well, you merely presume burning the Koran is hate speech as opposed to political speech. I do not think this assumption is correct. There probably are some contexts where burning the Koran constitutes as hate speech but I do not think Bricker’s opening post includes such a context. So admonishing Bricker for failing to illuminate a fact which is not present does not make a lot of sense. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/52 "2010-09-16T15:56:01Z")
I figure the Koran became political as soon as Islam became a state religion in some places. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/53 "2010-09-16T16:29:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I wonder how many of us would cheer if Isom were a crew-cut National Guardsman, yanking a flag away from a protester wanting to burn it. I would hazard a guess that more than one person here might express outrage, and point out that the act is theft: the flag burner presumably owned that flag and had every right to burn it. I do feel differently about the burnings, and who owns the flag or Koran doesn’t enter into it. The issue is that I’m supportive of protesting a government or its actions in princple while I find that singling out one particular religion for a general protest is stupid. So yes, you’ve identified that people feel differently about burning different stuff. I don’t think that’s surprising and that’s separate from how they should be treated legally. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/54 "2010-09-16T16:37:46Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Well, you merely presume burning the Koran is hate speech as opposed to political speech. I do not think this assumption is correct. Then, instead of simple dismissiveness, perhaps you could explain how it could reasonably be considered “political” rather than as the expression of religion-based (and essentially incoherent) hatred it so damned obviously is. :dubious: > [@](#): > > There probably are some contexts where burning the Koran constitutes as hate speech but I do not think Bricker’s opening post includes such a context. Convenient, that, huh? Yes, if you tack the word “hypothetical” onto anything you would prefer not to discuss, then you can say any damned thing you want, can’t you? > [@](#): > > So admonishing Bricker for failing to illuminate a fact which is not present does not make a lot of sense. No, his hypothetical is, as usual, a cover for a discussion of a real world situation. Failure to mention the real world context, when also considered in the context of the poster’s established behavior pattern is most certainly a basis for admonishment. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/55 "2010-09-16T16:40:02Z")
I agree that legal treatment doesn’t have to (and maybe shouldn’t!) be guided by how we feel. As I said, if I were on the jury, I’d convict the Guardsman of theft. But… > [@Marley23](#): > > I do feel differently about the burnings, and who owns the flag or Koran doesn’t enter into it. The issue is that I’m supportive of protesting a government or its actions in princple while I find that singling out one particular religion for a general protest is stupid. So now it’s a French flag, about to be set afire the day after France announced that they would not let US planes through their airspace to bomb Libya, or the day after the Congressional cafeteria changed to “Freedom Fries,” based on France’s failure to support the US Iraq War. And the flag-stealer is a French exchange student who just doesn’t want to see his country’s flag burned. Still on board with “supportive of protesting a government or its actions?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/56 "2010-09-16T16:43:53Z")
Interestingly enough, it occurs to me that the SDMB may itself be the breeding ground of an informal “heckler’s veto.” Do you, dear reader, ever see a poor argument, or a terrible conclusion, or an unjustified attack, and think to yourself, "No, I’m not going to point that out, because then the offending poster (and others!) will just lay into me. I’ll just leave it alone. Hecklers win, by default. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/57 "2010-09-16T16:49:19Z")
That doesn’t work - it presumes that the poster who is put off from posting is not themselves a heckler. And that their approximation of the post as being itself a heckle is accurate. Neither of which seems particularly necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/58 "2010-09-16T16:53:13Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That doesn’t work - it presumes that the poster who is put off from posting is not themselves a heckler. And that their approximation of the post as being itself a heckle is accurate. Neither of which seems particularly necessary. Good points, both. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/59 "2010-09-16T16:54:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So now it’s a French flag, about to be set afire the day after France announced that they would not let US planes through their airspace to bomb Libya, or the day after the Congressional cafeteria changed to “Freedom Fries,” based on France’s failure to support the US Iraq War. > > And the flag-stealer is a French exchange student who just doesn’t want to see his country’s flag burned. > > Still on board with “supportive of protesting a government or its actions?” I’m a little offended if you think I’m that simple. Yes, I’m supportive of protesting governments and their actions. I reserve the right to decide if I think a specific protest is smart or stupid. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/60 "2010-09-16T17:17:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Interestingly enough, it occurs to me that the SDMB may itself be the breeding ground of an informal “heckler’s veto.” > > Do you, dear reader, ever see a poor argument, or a terrible conclusion, or an unjustified attack, and think to yourself, "No, I’m not going to point that out, because then the offending poster (and others!) will just lay into me. I’ll just leave it alone. > > Hecklers win, by default. Personally: Are you kidding? More targets! 😃 Generally: Is this really a heckler’s veto? There are no hecklers! There are only imagined hecklers, and a person _voluntarily choosing_ not to speak due only to internal conflicts. If the person actually speaks, and then the crowd got so riled at them that the speaker got banned and their posts deleted _specifically_ in response to that outrage (and not other breakages of forum rules), then that would be a heckler’s veto, but I’ve never seen that happen on this board. Heck, even when somebody _does_ successfully get the banhammer for one reason or another, their posts (that is, some portion of their speech) remain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845.md?page=4)