To dig further into this, I think my personal line revolves around how easy it is for aggrieved to avoid the speech. If someone is harassing someone on a train or berating members of a group I'm completely cool with that being illegal (as long as the penalties aren't too draconian, of course).

On the other hand, if some guy wants to give a speech about how group X is terrible in a private setting where anyone who doesn't want to hear it can simply leave at any time, I think he should have the right to do so, as long as he's not advocating for the audience to kill the members of group X or anything like that.

You might be right about Berkeley; I haven't done nearly enough research to comment intelligently on that specific incident.

The "floor of the Senate" term is typically reserved for the Senate chamber itself. Sessions's confirmation hearing for Attorney General was held in a side room that is not considered the "floor of the Senate".

I don't think that is particularly relevant to this case since I think disrupting a Senate committee meeting is tantamount to disrupting the Senate.

OK, thanks for the clarification, whosnext.

It seems that in this "disrupting the Senate" issue that just removing her / barring her from coming back would be fine? Why the need to actually charge her with a crime?

I think it was actually because she made a disruption on her way out. Not sure though.

"Ms. Fairooz had “let out a loud burst of laughter, followed by a second louder burst of laughter,” the U.S. attorney’s office said in the filing. The police then tried to “quietly escort” Ms. Fairooz from the room, but she “grew loud and more disruptive, eventually halting the confirmation hearing,” the court papers argued.

As she was escorted away, Ms. Fairooz loudly asked, “Why am I being taken out of here?” She also said that the nominee’s “voting record is evil.”"

"Each of the three protesters faces up to 12 months in jail, $2,000 in fines, or both, depending on the outcome of a June 21 sentencing hearing."


This just seems absolutely insane to me. Like, at worst, she intentionally halted the confirmation meeting for a few minutes. For this she gets a YEAR in jail?

Throw her out? Fine.
Tell her she can't come back under penalty of arrest? Fine.
A fine of $2,000? I don't agree with it, but fine.
One year in jail?? Get the **** out.


(Quotes from here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/u...rial.html?_r=0)

If you just slap her hand and tell her not to come back you are encouraging others to do what she did because they wouldn't fear the consequences.

I think we should come down harder on these loonies.

You want to come down harder than a year in jail for the offense of disrupting a confirmation hearing?

Pokerdox,

The police not providing a safe space from citizens is not a state action against free speech and not a violation of the first amendment.

Protecting citizens from violence from other citizens is not prescribed by the constitution, though the government can (and perhaps should) do it where it does not violate people's civil rights.

Radical islamic Imams speaking about death to America is a good thing?

Nazis talking about creating an all white ethno state and what a good thing the holocaust was is a good thing?

Stop this nonsense.

Stop holding on to stupid outdated beliefs and do what makes sense. We all know what should be cut out so lets do it. The only people who will be affected will be the ones who have taken advantage of the system. Either play nicely or you don't get to play at all.

https://www.amazon.com/Ann-Coulter/e/B00JLG65ZS

No, that's a strawman. Those people having the right to do that (with some limitations) is a good thing. I would prefer they chose not to do it though.

I would hang them upside down by their toes for a week and levy a 20k fine.

We'll see if anybody ever wants to disrupt a hearing again.

I think a year in jail is stupid and too costly.

Don't pretend that people don't know what you're doing here.

This is a bad position.

I actually don't know what you think Im pretending to be doing.

Explain?

I wouldn't expect anybody in this neighborhood to agree with my tactics.

Who would you expect to agree with them?

I don't really like the Socratic method, or it's evil twin, twenty questions. But I'll play along for a little bit here, by building your argument for you, or guessing what I think is your argument from your post of Ann Coulter's books for sale. Then you can straighten me out into what you're actually trying to say. Then I can reply to that.

So I think you're saying that because her books are readily for sale, the students that invited her to speak already have an avenue for that speech. Therefore, their speech is not being suppressed. Is that right?

pokerodox, is your view that noone should be allowed to suppress speech?

I think TiltedDonkey addressed the question regarding police inaction very cogently. If the police differentiate between which speech content they will protect from violence, that becomes a free speech violation.

Isn't free speech a civil right? If not, shouldn't we protect free speech aggressively, even if you don't call it a civil right?

Doubt this is as absolute as you believe. If the government (whether police or public university) takes action by issuing stand down orders to the police/security, cancelling the speech because it feared violence or treating groups differently depending on the speech it could violate equal protection, due process and/or freedom of speech. There is at least some evidence that Berkely (public university) treated the Republican groups speaker different from other speakers. Doubt the Republican groups lawsuit will be thrown out without a trial.

No. But I think the purpose of the speech and the purpose of the suppression are relevant.

The example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has already been given. Also, it can be illegal to swear in public. Or display porn to minors. Those are all good forms of suppression of speech.

Political speech is the highest form of speech, and should be protected the most aggressively. The disruption of the Senate is an exception here. There are appropriate venues for speech (e.g., right out side on the Senate steps, maybe even in the hallways, I don't know).

Pro Palestinian voices are absolutely suppressed more so than just about any other instance on campus. This one is a good example even if you don't think graduation ceremonies are the hill to die on. It's mostly a counterpoint where advocates of free speech, at least ones that claim to be, only really come from a narrow set of viewpoints, specifically the Milo trolling kinds that are transparently about trolling, less so than any concrete positions while ignoring other view points that are actively being suppressed far more than not letting Ann Coulter speak (whether you think that's good or bad).