 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Here's Eugene Volokh re the incident:
quote:
[Eugene Volokh, May 4, 2005 at 3:35pm] 4 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Arrested for Asking a Vulgar Question: Vince Finaldi points me to the affidavit justifying the arrest of a student for asking a rude question at an Ann Coulter speech. If the facts in the affidavit are accurate, then it looks like the student has an excellent First Amendment defense.
The student is not being prosecuted for heckling, in the sense of shouting things while the speaker was speaking; content-neutral heckling bans, I think, would be quite constitutional if properly drafted, but that isn't involved here. Rather, he's being prosecuted for asking "You say that you believe in the sanctity of marriage . . . . How do you feel about marriages where the man does nothing but **** his wife up the ass?," and then going back to his seat while "making a repeated motion with his right arm and hand, which was cupped in a circular shape, towards his crotch area simulating masturbation." This, the affidavit says, was "disorderly conduct" under Texas law, which is to say "abusive, profane, and vulgar language and obscene gesture," and it's unprotected because it supposedly "incited an imminent breach of the peace of the peace within the crowd," by provoking some of the audience to scream, shout, and boo, and by leading "a few" of Coulter's supporters to "st[an]d up as if to chase down" the questioner.
But such speech, even if vulgar, is constitutionally protected unless it contains "personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction." See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971); Duran v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. App. 1996).
Simply getting the crowd riled up doesn't make the speech unprotected. Simply saying offensive things to Coulter doesn't make the speech unprotected. If the student had personally called her some epithet, then the matter might have been different. But just asking a rude question that includes a profanity (but not one used to describe Coulter) is not unprotected, and neither is making sexually suggestive gestures (again, when they didn't seem to be personal insults of Coulter).
I should stress that the student's speech was rude. What I take to be the substantive question (what cultural conservatives who support morals legislation think about the fact that many upstanding married people engage in "sodomy," chiefly oral sex but sometimes also anal sex) is quite legitimate, but there's no reason to throw in profanity or sexual gestures. Also, if the person had been speaking out of turn (i.e., heckling) and was prosecuted for that, the matter would be very different. But based on what I see in the affidavit, any arrest and prosecution of this student would be unconstitutional. |
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_...html#1115235309
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Regardless, it is more than clear that he was there with a group of very wild and obscene protesters who deliberately were trying to obstruct Coulter's speech in any way they could besides physically attacking her. |
The police report doesn't say that at all. You're making **** up. Again.
quote:
When the speaker became so outrageous as to cause Coulter supporters in the front to conduct their counter-riot and move to physically restrained the obscene protester, the police moved in and made the arrest. |
What the police report does say is that a few of Coulter's fan decided to stand up (and the officer assumed that they were going to chase down Raj and stop him). Given that he was leaving at the time that the officers decided to arrest him, there's absolutely no reason why a riot would've occured. It might've been justifiable to force him to leave (not that that was necessary), but why arrest him? Furthermore, there's absolutely no reason to charge him with a misdimeanor. It's idiotic. It's absurdly authoritarian.
quote:
Consistent with most of the left, they have no arguments, just disdain. But to that extent, he expressed his. |
Consistent with the right, y'all hate freedom.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
Regardless, it is more than clear that he was there with a group of very wild and obscene protesters who deliberately were trying to obstruct Coulter's speech in any way they could besides physically attacking her. |
The police report doesn't say that at all. You're making **** up. Again.
|
Ramo, but the perp said this himself!!!!!
quote:
quote:
When the speaker became so outrageous as to cause Coulter supporters in the front to conduct their counter-riot and move to physically restrained the obscene protester, the police moved in and made the arrest. |
What the police report does say is that a few of Coulter's fan decided to stand up (and the officer assumed that they were going to chase down Raj and stop him). Given that he was leaving at the time that the officers decided to arrest him, there's absolutely no reason why a riot would've occured. It might've been justifiable to force him to leave (not that that was necessary), but why arrest him? Furthermore, there's absolutely no reason to charge him with a misdimeanor. It's idiotic. It's absurdly authoritarian. |
What the fascists at the front would have done is open to speculation. However, they did move to respond to the outrage.
Now, why did the perp call to his fellow anarchists to evacuate right after the fascists in the front began to respond? Do you have an answer to that?
quote:
quote:
Consistent with most of the left, they have no arguments, just disdain. But to that extent, he expressed his. |
Consistent with the right, y'all hate freedom. |
We hate freedom? Who was trying to silence Coulter?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
just to add i already know most of you guys said his behavior was unacceptable but not illegal. However had he acted like this in aother setting such as in a resturant and directed this behvavior at you or another diner this would constituste it being ilegal |
I am not totally familiar with the recent cases, but if he was about to cause a riot, I think the police had to act in some manner.
Now, it is said here that they didn't have to act because the perp and his fellow anarchistS fled the auditorium when the fascists stood up and made threatening moves. But, this now raises the question as to where the arrest was made. Inside or outside the auditorium? If the arrest had the effect of quelling the potential violence because it took place in view of the fascists, it might have been necessary.
Last edited by Ned on 06-05-2005 at 22:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Ramo, but the perp said this himself!!!!! |
Where? Specifics, please.
quote:
What the fascists at the front would have done is open to speculation. However, they did move to respond to the outrage. |
And he was leaving, making this standing up from their seats (the only movement they made) irrelevent.
quote:
Now, why did the perp call to his fellow anarchists to evacuate right after the fascists in the front began to respond? Do you have an answer to that? |
He left after he made his irreverent comment. As he was leaving, he made a masturbatory gesture. And he told his friends that he was leaving because you generally let your friends know what's going on. Common sense, really.
And he wasn't an anarchist. He's a liberal. I'm an anarchist.
quote:
We hate freedom? Who was trying to silence Coulter? |
No one. OTOH, this kid was locked up and charged with a crime.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2005 11:02
ACK!
|