” (I am anticipating here that some of you may be prompted to respond that America’s interest is not in protecting this particular President,”

I think you are on to something here.

I don’t think I agree with either of you.

Whether a person has a right to interrupt anyone depends on the public or private character of the forum in which the event is held.

It is very doubtful that “drunken concert-goers” may exercise their freedom of speech by interrupting a private “party”, which is essentially what a concert, in a space leased by a private “party” is. A space leased by an artist or concert promoter really is not a public forum open to free speech. One might even question whether a space leased by a municipality or other division of local, state or federal government is a public forum. It would be hard to imagine that a performance of the National Symphony Orchestra, e.g., for Independence Day celebrations, may be interrupted simply because the party with which the Orchestra contracted and the party which leased the space in which the performance takes place is the federal government. The character of the event seems (to me) not to be political and, truly, a long way removed from a protest in which opposing viewpoints (e.g., on abortion), each protesting the other, are shouted from opposite sidewalks or street corners.

The analysis is fact-specific, but it is probably safe to say that no one at a Matthew Good concert, in a space Matt has paid for personally, may simply consider it a very competitive and crowded Speaker’s Corner.

Now, that raises the question whether Monticello, when President Bush was speaking on Independence Day, was a public or private forum. I simply don’t know, and I wouldn’t be so foolish as to give you a definitive response. It was a naturalization ceremony, and that seems to argue that it was a public event. Still, however, court proceedings, generally, are public and few argue that disrupting them is a constitutional exercise of free speech. I think most reasonable people also can agree that unexpected protesters in the presence of the President (e.g., the woman with the sign in the video who seemed to approach the side of the podium and the man with the large camera who stood up in the crowd) may be removed for reasons having nothing at all to do with free speech. It’s not hard to imagine that a person who stands up during the President’s speech and walks toward the podium (with no sign and saying nothing) might be removed, simply to protect the President. The fact that the protesters at Monticello had signs and were shouting political dissent may not have mattered to the Constitution because America’s first interest is in the protection of the President. (I am anticipating here that some of you may be prompted to respond that America’s interest is not in protecting this particular President, but please, instead of typing a mundane, predictable response, use the time to read the Bill of Rights or a constitutional law case. Actually read Roe v. Wade and the related cases, since, undoubtedly, you have a strong opinion on the topic and probably voice it, as, of course, you should. As a general principle, however, protecting the President is the first priority, and you know it.)

Therefore, in this case, it may be reasonable to argue that protecting the President (whoever he or she is) may explain the actions of the Secret Service better than analyzing whether any one at Monticello had a right of public dissent. It is, as I have argued, fact-specific, and if the Secret Service had removed protesters from the sidewalks (or side of the road) leading to Monticello as the President’s motorcade passed, it would probably be a clearer case.

Robert R. really has only criticized these protesters for failing to act as respectable human beings in public. That says nothing about their right to act in that manner or the truth of their protest. Knowing the constitutional deficit America has suffered in the last 8 years, however, simply yo argue that such a fundamental and intrinsically political protest failed decorum is laughable. There were reasons the protest was shut down, but Robert R.’s comments discourage me because they imply that we might not actually succeed in keeping this “America” concept afloat.

We are failing civics, nationally.

I don’t really understand what you mean. Where do you see irony?

Is he thinking: “What a crackpot, interrupting my speech. No respect for the President.”

Or is he thinking: “I am a mockery of what a President should be. These people are prime examples of the poor job I’m doing. To change my ways now would admit I made wrong decisions, something my reputation cannot withstand. I’d rather go down in history as a poor President than a manipulated idiot, realizing his errors in the waning months of his presidency.”

(please bring back the edit feature for those of us who don’t proofread so well :P )

My guess is that the protesters original plan was spark debate of 2nd ammendment rights. Now, we all know that any public speech by the president will be a) patrolled for such activity, b) it’ll be quickly squashed, and c) not include a Q & A session where the President provides an open mic to anyone who cares to speak their mind…

This was still NOT the right place/time for “heckling.” This was a _Naturalization_ ceremony for cripes sake. Have some common decency for those who actually want to join the ranks of citizenry.

Give him hell during another of his overly redundant speeches on the “war on terror” - to me, that sh!t deserves to be interrupted until canceled… but not this.

Proper respect, that’s all.

Notice how the ONLY debate in 35 posts above is regarding the person being kicked out, and not whatever point they tried to make…[/quote]

So what? That was the topic of the post: free speech restrictions in the US, and the irony of it happening while Bush was talking about the right to free speech.

Rude or not how the hell else are you going to be heard. You cant claim to uphold the Right to Free Speech then have people dragged away because the are exercising that right!!

They were there with the specific intent on intimidating, harassing and disrupting somebody else’s speech. Would you like it if I stood up and started shouting and booing at you, Mr Good, so that your message could not be heard? The first heckler wasn’t just heckling, she was trying to run up onto the stage.

How would you feel, Mr Good, if a bunch of right-wing gun-nuts tried to jump on the stage and heckle you while you were speaking?

Or should those folks have the goddamn respect to let the other side speak. It’s one thing if the secret service went around silencing public speakers, and another thing to remove people being intentionally disruptive.

That’s not free speech, hell you could practically call it psychological harassment.

That’s your personal option. Nobody will damn you for that. That’s the good thing about talking to people who are aware of every person’s rights.

[quote comment="57798"]Inturruption with no constructive dialog is essentially meaningless. It is the wrong forum for protest, if you really want to be heard.[/quote]

As for that: that’s exactly the reason why these people where there. They went there and raised their voice because the US government avoids constructive dialog whenever possible. It never cares about its people’s oppinions on issues such as the war on iraq nor does it prefer dialog over war as a means to overcome conflicts. I have never seen a more painful and ignorant ‘interruption’ of a dialog in progress in my whole life than there was when the US leadership decided to invade Iraq without actually having plausible reasons for that.
And I think that there have enough attempts been made above to discuss with reference to the issue or to what Robert k. stated in his comments, not to the person itsself.

Inturruption with no constructive dialog is essentially meaningless. It is the wrong forum for protest, if you really want to be heard.

Now, what I consider truly a breach of 2nd ammendment is when anyone is not allowed to attend in the first place because their views differ from the President. Penning protesters a mile away from an event in a “Free Speech Zone” is atrocious.

Notice how the ONLY debate in 35 posts above is regarding the person being kicked out, and not whatever point they tried to make…

I’ll never understand what makes people defend the politics of their countries to the bitter end for very inappropriate reasons, totally unaware of these politics contributing to the degeneration of peoples rights and the ideas and values that might have been inspiration for something truly great.

I’ll be honest with you, it is exactly people such as yourself that ensure that the status quo is maintained through the employment of such thinking. ”

Are you suggesting that a drunken fan hecklng you is more rude than heckling the President? I’ll be honest with you, it is exactly people such as yourself that ensure rudeness is the new coin.
[/quote]

Boy, what are you talking? Nobody ever made such a statement. I don’t see your point in referring to a ‘rude abuse of freedom of speech’ in the given context. You are doing that very constantly while obviously not being able to document it in an adequate way.
It would be a pleasure to see you answer the question two people have asked you: HOW do you come to alledge that these people ABUSED their right to free speech in a RUDE way?

What you describe of the event in which a vocal critic gets dragged off ignominiously only states the obvious, that democracy only exists in degrees and the US is not that far removed today from any other totalitarian regime against which it might sermon.

Cheers and keep blogging.

Entropy

Http://www.brainthorn.blogspot.com

All in all, like I said, fine, protest, its your right to do so. However, when you are being rude, loud, and inconsiderate; dont be surprised or bitch about infringenment of your rights when you get silenced for disrupting a public event.

Kind and considerate change-makers? Were that the case, my friend, you wouldn’t be living in the United States right now, would you? These are not drunks showing up at Presidential speeches. These are concerned citizens, parents that have lost children because of the war in Iraq, people who have the courage to exercise their rights while you do not. These are the same sort of people that marched on Washington, the same sort of people that marched for the civil rights movement. These are citizens of a nation whose right to dissent is protected, whose right to dissent is at the very base of the nation’s most sacred virtues. But that’s not America anymore because people such as yourself have been made to believe that they are crackpots instead of patriots. And that is precisely why this administration has gotten away with murder. And I do not use that statement as slang, but in actuality.

I’ll be honest with you, it is exactly people such as yourself that ensure that the status quo is maintained through the employment of such thinking. ”

Are you suggesting that a drunken fan hecklng you is more rude than heckling the President? I’ll be honest with you, it is exactly people such as yourself that ensure rudeness is the new coin.

30,000 rude Americans are still rude. Political action at the grass roots level by kind, considerate changemakers is far more effective than rowdy inchoherent youngsters.