# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/121 "2010-09-20T15:12:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They aren’t talking about charging for exercising a right, but for the securiry they had to provode. Did the church have any say in the decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security? You can’t just do your own thing and rack up expenses, then claim after the fact, “We were doing this _for you_, so pay up!” > [@](#): > > two questions: > > 1. Should law enforcement provide security during an event like this? > 2. If so, who should pay for it? 1. That’s what we pay taxes for, isn’t it? So that they’ll protect our rights? 2. If you want to recoup the cost of preventing a crime, I’d suggest taking your pound of flesh from the criminal rather than the victim. Obviously this isn’t an option here, so perhaps the police should look on this as a learning experience. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/122 "2010-09-20T15:16:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So why make him a Guardsman at all? My intent was to evoke an opposite archtype from the sk8ter dude in the video. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/123 "2010-09-20T15:30:08Z")
So make him a teabagger. Making him a Guardsman unnecessarily clouds the comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/124 "2010-09-20T15:33:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So make him a teabagger. Making him a Guardsman unnecessarily clouds the comparison. OK. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/125 "2010-09-20T15:39:29Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > They aren’t talking about charging for exercising a right, but for the securiry they had to provode. > > Did the church have any say in the decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security? You can’t just do your own thing and rack up expenses, then claim after the fact, “We were doing this _for you_, so pay up!” Do you think they would have called the cops if there was any trouble or violence? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > two questions: > > > > 1. Should law enforcement provide security during an event like this? > > 2. If so, who should pay for it? > > 1. That’s what we pay taxes for, isn’t it? So that they’ll protect our rights? > 2. If you want to recoup the cost of preventing a crime, I’d suggest taking your pound of flesh from the criminal rather than the victim. Obviously this isn’t an option here, so perhaps the police should look on this as a learning experience. A learning experience. What do you imagine they learned, exactly? By the way, criminals typically don’t have money, so that’s not a realstic option in general. Basically, you’re saying that the taxpayers should have to pay for the security of trolls. You should also be aware that Sheriff’s Departments have budgets, and every penny they have to spend protecting idiots like this is money taken away from other protections. In any case, my point is that Law Enforcement in this case was not imposing some kind of tariff for speech, but was trying to recoup expenses that it normally isn’t budgeted for. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/126 "2010-09-20T15:44:50Z")
> [@](#): > > In any case, my point is that Law Enforcement in this case was not imposing some kind of tariff for speech, but was trying to recoup expenses that it normally isn’t budgeted for. Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? It still means that you are out of pocket for exercising your freedom of expression. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/127 "2010-09-20T16:06:56Z")
The article suggests that the church asked for help with crowd control. > [@](#): > > At times, Hanna [a police supervisor] said, Jones wanted the property open to anyone who wanted to attend the burning; at times he wanted it closed to all but church members; sometimes he wanted media on the property; sometimes he didn’t. If that is the case, this is no precedent. It is very common for police to provide manpower at large private events and to bill the sponsors. Though it also appears they are jacking up the bill: > [@](#): > > Police Maj. Rick Hanna said the expenses were high because so much territory had to be covered — the area around the church, the University of Florida football game and “soft targets” such as The Oaks Mall. It seems they were concerned about a bunch of wild Muslims showing up and torching the whole town. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/128 "2010-09-20T16:15:26Z")
That does sound like overkill. The church shouldn’t have to fund runaway paranoia. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/129 "2010-09-20T16:19:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That does sound like overkill. The church shouldn’t have to fund runaway paranoia. I dunno – they certainly generate more than their share of it. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/130 "2010-09-20T16:48:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A learning experience. What do you imagine they learned, exactly? The costs imposed by people like Isom and religious fundamentalists who would commit crimes to suppress free speech? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/131 "2010-09-20T17:13:54Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In any case, my point is that Law Enforcement in this case was not imposing some kind of tariff for speech, but was trying to recoup expenses that it normally isn’t budgeted for. > > Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? It still means that you are out of pocket for exercising your freedom of expression. It sounds like in this case Law Enforcement has a limited legal basis to require payment. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. I wonder if the media that created the hype could be held accountable as well. In the case of this preacher, he appeared to be calling for a public gathering. Since that seems to be something the state can regulate, shouldn’t he be required to pay the security costs associated with that gathering? I am of the opinion that this was actually commercial speech, where this ‘church’ was intending to enrich itself through it’s actions. If that were the case, do you think it would make a difference? Could a party be held responsible for the costs of security if it announces a free give-away that attracts an unruly crowd? ---
**Author:** ![Mozart1220](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/132 "2010-09-20T17:20:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > > > I wonder that we don’t hear about people in the Middle East threatening to retaliate against the bible. I guess they’re just not that crazy. 😉 > > Why burn a bible when you can [burn a Christian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/02/christians-burned-alive-pakistan). When did Pakistan become part of the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/133 "2010-09-20T17:59:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The police and sheriff’s offices [involved with the original Koran burning in Florida](http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100917/ARTICLES/100919540/1118?p=1&tc=pg) say their costs for the event (even though it didn’t actually happen) were about $200,000. > > And the police, at least – and perhaps the sheriff as well – plan to bill the church for those costs. > [@Grumman](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > They aren’t talking about charging for exercising a right, but for the securiry they had to provode. > > Did the church have any say in the decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security? You can’t just do your own thing and rack up expenses, then claim after the fact, “We were doing this _for you_, so pay up!” It wasn’t after the fact. The Alachua County Sheriff’s Office warned the church long enough ago for it to have been in the first couple pages of the original Koran-burning thread that it would charge the church for the cost of security for the event. Obviously, if they are attempting to charge the church for the cost of guarding the whole city of Gainesville that’s a bit much, but $200,000 seems like a rather small sum if that’s what they’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/134 "2010-09-20T18:17:54Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > A learning experience. What do you imagine they learned, exactly? > > The costs imposed by people like Isom and religious fundamentalists who would commit crimes to suppress free speech? This makes no sense at all. One guy grabbed a Koran. No religious fundmentalists committed any crimes at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/135 "2010-09-20T18:57:11Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > > [@acsenray](#): > > > > Isn’t that a distinction without a difference? It still means that you are out of pocket for exercising your freedom of expression. > > It sounds like in this case Law Enforcement has a limited legal basis to require payment. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. I wonder if the media that created the hype could be held accountable as well. > > In the case of this preacher, he appeared to be calling for a public gathering. Since that seems to be something the state can regulate, shouldn’t he be required to pay the security costs associated with that gathering? > > I am of the opinion that this was actually commercial speech, where this ‘church’ was intending to enrich itself through it’s actions. If that were the case, do you think it would make a difference? Could a party be held responsible for the costs of security if it announces a free give-away that attracts an unruly crowd? In overturning a similar fee imposed by Forsyth County, Georgia, after demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, the court said: > [@](#): > > The costs to which petitioner refers are those associated with the public’s reaction to the speech. Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. See id., at 321 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); id., at 334 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 55-56 (1988); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 116 (1943); cf. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 162 (1939) (fact that city is financially burdened when listeners throw leaflets on the street does not justify restriction on distribution of leaflets). Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob… (_Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement_, 505 US 123 (1992)). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/136 "2010-09-20T21:54:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@TriPolar](#): > > > > It sounds like in this case Law Enforcement has a limited legal basis to require payment. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. I wonder if the media that created the hype could be held accountable as well. > > > > In the case of this preacher, he appeared to be calling for a public gathering. Since that seems to be something the state can regulate, shouldn’t he be required to pay the security costs associated with that gathering? > > > > I am of the opinion that this was actually commercial speech, where this ‘church’ was intending to enrich itself through it’s actions. If that were the case, do you think it would make a difference? Could a party be held responsible for the costs of security if it announces a free give-away that attracts an unruly crowd? > > In overturning a similar fee imposed by Forsyth County, Georgia, after demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, the court said: > > > [@](#): > > > > The costs to which petitioner refers are those associated with the public’s reaction to the speech. Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. See id., at 321 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); id., at 334 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 55-56 (1988); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 116 (1943); cf. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 162 (1939) (fact that city is financially burdened when listeners throw leaflets on the street does not justify restriction on distribution of leaflets). Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob… > > (_Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement_, 505 US 123 (1992)). Out of curiosity, do you know if contentious groups like the KKK have to pay for security by the police when they march or have a rally? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/137 "2010-09-20T22:29:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In overturning a similar fee imposed by Forsyth County, Georgia, after demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, the court said: > > > [@](#): > > > > The costs to which petitioner refers are those associated with the public’s reaction to the speech. Listeners’ reaction to speech is not a content-neutral basis for regulation. See id., at 321 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); id., at 334 (opinion of Brennan, J.); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 55-56 (1988); Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 116 (1943); cf. Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U. S. 147, 162 (1939) (fact that city is financially burdened when listeners throw leaflets on the street does not justify restriction on distribution of leaflets). Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob… > > (_Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement_, 505 US 123 (1992)). How would calling people to listen to your speech differ from a parade or rally which requires a permit? I’m guessing that the terms for obtaining a permit would be content neutral to allow this. Which leads me to wonder if past experiences would allow the terms of a permit to be varied based on the costs of previous events. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/138 "2010-09-20T22:34:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Basically, you’re saying that the taxpayers should have to pay for the security of trolls. I find the alternative to be utterly repellent. Trolls are assholes, sure, but they’re assholes in a manner guaranteed by the first amendment, and they’re entitled to equal protection of the law by the fourteenth amendment. I almost wrote that “as such” they’re entitled to equal protection, but even that’s not true. Taxpayers have to pay for the security of thieves, drug dealers, and rapists; of COURSE we have to pay for the security of trolls. What kind of fucked-up society would try to remove the protection of the law from those whose expression violates societal norms? I still like my previous idea: whenever someone burns a Koran, get someone to burn a flag, someone to burn the Constitution, and someone to burn the Bible in solidarity with the Koran burner. “Hey,” you’d say: “They’re just plant fibers. And this is the United States, where you can make any asshole fucked-up political statement you want. Go go Team America!” You could even make it something like a burnathon: get people to pledge to burn one Bible/Flag/Constitution for every Koran that’s burned at the event. Alternate idea that would’ve been truly beautiful: the skaterpunk gave the Koran to the local Imam, right? I wonder what would have happened if the Imam had returned the Koran politely to the asshole Christian, saying something like, “I believe this is yours, and I believe the relevant scripture is Matthew 5:39.” ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/139 "2010-09-21T15:25:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > The Fox sponsored shouting down of the health care town halls is another example, though not at all noble as is stopping the burning of a flag or a Koran. > > Sure. Any “exercise of free speech,” that is intended to simply make it impossible for your opponent to exercise HIS free speech is, I think, suspect. I know some protesters who have encountered a sneaky version of this. Police, frequently hired by the shopping center as part-time security guards (I am implying a possible conflict of interest), get called to the shopping center when protesters appear to protest a business there. One police officer calls over the person (or several persons) leading/organizing the protest and talks about rights, where they can stand, the weather, the protest topic, and anything and everything else, until it becomes clear that the police purpose is to occupy the protester(s) during the entire scheduled protest time and keep them from getting their own message across. Of course refusing to talk to the police or ending the interview is risky and angers the police. This is like the heckler’s veto in that the cop is talking (quietly, though) solely to make it difficult or impossible for the protester(s) to continue with their mission. Pretty sneaky and possibly even legal! I guess they showed _us_ who’s free. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845/140 "2010-09-21T19:04:09Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > Sure. Any “exercise of free speech,” that is intended to simply make it impossible for your opponent to exercise HIS free speech is, I think, suspect. > > I know some protesters who have encountered a sneaky version of this. Police, frequently hired by the shopping center as part-time security guards (I am implying a possible conflict of interest), get called to the shopping center when protesters appear to protest a business there. > > One police officer calls over the person (or several persons) leading/organizing the protest and talks about rights, where they can stand, the weather, the protest topic, and anything and everything else, until it becomes clear that the police purpose is to occupy the protester(s) during the entire scheduled protest time and keep them from getting their own message across. Of course refusing to talk to the police or ending the interview is risky and angers the police. > > This is like the heckler’s veto in that the cop is talking (quietly, though) solely to make it difficult or impossible for the protester(s) to continue with their mission. Pretty sneaky and possibly even legal! I guess they showed _us_ who’s free. Huh? How does the fact that you might have to stand ten or twenty feet in one direction or another get in the way of a group’s _message_? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hecklers-veto/553845.md?page=8)