One is private action, the other is state action.
I could imagine the defense of a private citizen would go along the grounds of it was dangerous to burn something in public without the fire department present and he wasn’t stealing, he was interfering temporarily with someone else’s property out of necessity for public safety.
Would I vote to convict? Yes, of the tort of trespass. The burner was engaging in free speech. One dollar! Same with flag burning.
Always, *always *look for whatever Bricker is leaving out, people.
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.
I wonder if the desire to burn a book is akin to saying you don’t want it anymore, therefore it is classified as garbage?
What’s the rule on taking someones trash?
Dude, you don’t have a flag.
I don’t really get the distinction. If I burn the Quran, I’m implying I don’t like Islam. If I burn the flag, I’m implying I don’t like the US. How is the one political speech and the other not? I’d certainly legally be able to say both “I don’t like Islam” and “I don’t like the US”.
Which, of course, shows how bloody stupid and counter the First Amendment hate speech laws are.
And also, given that hate speech laws tend to prevent speech based on national origin as well as based on religious affiliation, I think you could make a case that if burning a Koran is hate speech towards Muslims, burning a flag is hate speech towards Americans. Even where you have hate speech legislation, both are still protected speech, I believe (subject to of course all content neutral laws regarding lighting fires in public places).
This just isn’t true at all. Part of the courage of conviction is being prepared to suffer the consequences of your act of civil disobedience.
Whether Tank Man had been set free and awarded a new apartment, or, as was probably the case, taken off an executed doesn’t affect the courage of his action. His action was brave because he was willing to take it regardless of the consequences. Had the consequences been, in fact, ice cream and jello, then his action would still have been just as brave.
That was my intention, but did it was not conveyed accurately. Thank you for pointing that out.
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.
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.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Klan leader for hate speech, after he announced to an armed crowd, “Personally, I believe the (n-word) should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel,” and “The Klan has more members in the State of Ohio than does any other organization. We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.”
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.
As always, anyone claiming a particular act is illegal has the burden of identifying what particular law he believes is being violated. Here, the only law violated is the theft of the Koran, which Texas criminalizes at Penal Code Sec. 31.03: a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. . . .(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if: (1) it is without the owner’s effective consent…
One thing I’ve noticed is that this thread has seemed to leave behind the type of “heckler’s veto” where actual heckling is the attack strategy. Unlike theft, showing up in numbers and shouting over your opponnent is doubtlessly speech - and almost certanly legal, depending on what you’re saying and I suppose whether you manage to violate noise and public disturbance ordinances while doing so. Is there any legal protection against this kind of heckler’s veto, and should there be?
Excellent question.
I suppose a speaker might have recourse to trespass law, ordering people to leave a venue he’d rented. But if that’s not available, I don’t know that there’s a way to stop the hecklers from exercising their veto.
I think there SHOULD be, but I confess to the difficulty in crafting a rule that doesn’t infringe on the hecklers’ speech rights.
Why not?
Similarly, anti-war protests should be broken up. They endanger Our Troops™.
Would ‘disorderly conduct’ or ‘illegal assembly’ come into play? If not on private property, on public? What legally could be done with a person who disrupts a movie or play or concert, even if they have purchased a ticket?
Note: I was illegally assembled once. Proudest moment of my life.
Actually the two cases are spectacularly dissimilar with respect to the topic of this thread - the anti-war protests are not themselves stifling anyone else’s speech.
I suppose if the anti-war protesters were snatching the rifles from the hands of soldiers that were about to exercise their speech by pulling the trigger, that would be different, but I don’t gather that that’s usually the case.
Neither does burning a Koran. Or a flag.
Interesting OP. For me, there is a difference between a crowd drowning out a speaker with their voices and someone taking an action that involves removing an object from another person. The first is one person’s free speech rights competing with another’s, or a groups. The latter gets closer to assault in my book. I think we need to draw a hard line between actions that do not involve physical interaction and those which do.
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.
To my knowledge, with only exceptions related to specific imminent harm, the Consititution has been ruled by the courts to place the right to free speech ahead of the right of troops to avoid harm. Any such harm is the responsibility of the person exercising their speech rights, not the principle behind the right.
Are there any limitations for hecklers that you are aware of. For instance, would it be okay for a person to use a boat horn or a loud siren every time a speaker began?
Or they get The Troops out of harm’s way quicker, thus saving lives.
I never said anything about making it illegal, BTW.
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.
When the speaker has reserved time in the forum, as in the case of a permitted activity in a park or street, the government can and indeed is obligated to squelch interfering speech.