First Amendment, Coulter & Texas

Well, I figured the title of the thread would get some attention, and Ann Coulter is related tangentially to the point.

Anyway, the post below highlights the problem with the rationale for regulating a lot of so-called “hate speech”. Many people want to rely on the “inciting violence” rationale for hate-speech regulation, but if you allow that, you would end up with laws that would allow stuff like what happened below – which, as Prof. Volokh points out, was almost surely a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the little ass clown questioner. You can’t allow the lack of self control of the audience to trump free speech rights.

BTW, just a note on what’s below for the purposes of clarification, for something to be a “personal epithet” it can’t be a general statement that someone decides to take personally.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_01-2005_05_07.shtml#1115235309

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 fuck 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.

That’s odd. I had heard he was arrested only after he refused to be escorted out. That would have been fine, no?

[quote]doogie wrote:
That’s odd. I had heard he was arrested only after he refused to be escorted out. That would have been fine, no?[/quote]

That would have been fine if they were enforcing a neutral regulation in a non-discriminatory fashion.

However, if it were a public forum and he didn’t need special permission to be there, then they would have been incorrect to try to kick him out in the first instance, and they would be back to having a problem.

BB,

What is the statue in Texas regarding disturbing the peace?

Would it apply?

I seriously don’t know.

JeffR

doogie has it dead right. It’s not a First Amendment issue at all. He was arrested because he refused to leave.

And no he did not ask his question and simply return to his seat.

BB- You have way too much time on your hands, a problem shared by far too many on the left.

[quote]Atreides wrote:
doogie has it dead right. It’s not a First Amendment issue at all. He was arrested because he refused to leave.

And no he did not ask his question and simply return to his seat.

BB- You have way too much time on your hands, a problem shared by far too many on the left. [/quote]

Did you read the link BB posted? It makes it clear that he wasn’t arrested for refusing to leave.

Well, the only real limitation on freedom of speech is if it is deemed pornographic. It always brings up the question what is pornographic, but asking about a husband fucking his wife in the ass just to cause a scene in my opinion could certainly be deemed pornographic. Hell, I am pretty far on the left and where as I find this pretty funny, it is pretty stupid to try and argue that it was wrong to kick him out.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Atreides wrote:
doogie has it dead right. It’s not a First Amendment issue at all. He was arrested because he refused to leave.

And no he did not ask his question and simply return to his seat.

BB- You have way too much time on your hands, a problem shared by far too many on the left.

Did you read the link BB posted? It makes it clear that he wasn’t arrested for refusing to leave.[/quote]

I am now interested in why anyone believes that he was arrested for refusing to leave when that doesn’t seem to be the case. Clearly, it would appear to be a violation of his rights. I don’t see why anyone would support that simply because you might not agree with his actions.

[quote]RED9 wrote:
Well, the only real limitation on freedom of speech is if it is deemed pornographic. It always brings up the question what is pornographic, but asking about a husband fucking his wife in the ass just to cause a scene in my opinion could certainly be deemed pornographic. Hell, I am pretty far on the left and where as I find this pretty funny, it is pretty stupid to try and argue that it was wrong to kick him out. [/quote]

What part is pornographic, the word “fucking” or the word “ass”? Does that mean I just typed something pornographic? Had he brought in pictures of women being screwed in the ass, THEN it would have been pornographic. Talking about sex isn’t porno. If it is, then most of the songs on the radio are pornographic.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Did you read the link BB posted? It makes it clear that he wasn’t arrested for refusing to leave.[/quote]

No, I did not follow the link to read the mindless drivel of a mental midget. I have it first hand from the man who organized the event. This gentleman was arrested for refusing to leave. Plain and simple.

Why would I fact check the guy who relays a first hand account with a piece unfit for the op-ed page?

[quote]Atreides wrote:
doogie wrote:
Did you read the link BB posted? It makes it clear that he wasn’t arrested for refusing to leave.

No, I did not follow the link to read the mindless drivel of a mental midget. I have it first hand from the man who organized the event. This gentleman was arrested for refusing to leave. Plain and simple.

Why would I fact check the guy who relays a first hand account with a piece unfit for the op-ed page?
[/quote]

Just for clarification, is it my mindless drivel and UCLA Constitutional Law Professor and 1st Amendment expert Eugene Volokh is the mental midget, or am I the mental midget while Professor Volokh own’s the mindless drivel, or are you referring to the legally sworn affidavit that was linked internally to the link I provided to Professor Volokh’s post?

Just curious.

BTW, here’s the link to the affidavit, courtesy of The Smoking Gun:

Perhaps he was ejected because he was annoying those around him who came to excercise their rights to hear the speaker.

Would you have been just as concerned about poor Raj if he had disrupted Jane Fonda or Howard Dean?

[quote]Atreides wrote:
doogie has it dead right. It’s not a First Amendment issue at all. He was arrested because he refused to leave.

And no he did not ask his question and simply return to his seat.

BB- You have way too much time on your hands, a problem shared by far too many on the left. [/quote]

Dude, BB is not on “the left” Sure he is supporting someone who spoke out against coulter or rather his right to speak out and voice himself to her. Thats the difference between brainwashed libs and conservatives and people who can think for themselves.

BB doesn’t need to defend every conservative or demonize every liberal if there is no need to do so. To the contrary I’m sure he would defend the rights of any person regardless of thier political message in thier persuits of delivering that message.

V

[quote]Just for clarification, is it my mindless drivel and UCLA Constitutional Law Professor and 1st Amendment expert Eugene Volokh is the mental midget, or am I the mental midget while Professor Volokh own’s the mindless drivel, or are you referring to the legally sworn affidavit that was linked internally to the link I provided to Professor Volokh’s post?

Just curious.
[/quote]

Were you or Volokh actually there? at the event?

Certified ‘expert’, or rubber stamped by the ACLU-it doesn’t matter.

It’s still opinion.

And for the record, having esquire behind a name doesn’t necessitate the ability to form cogent thought.

Come on liberals!!!

One of you who hate Ann Coulter passionately, say so and then agree this guy should have been thrown the hell out!!!

Come on!!!

You can do it!!!

Let me start, I think Ann Coulter is wrong about plenty of things. I think this dink should have been thrown the hell out.

People were trying to listen. This dipshit was interrupting.

Or is it cool to have some moron screaming at the top of his/her lungs in a movie theatre?

Don’t spend time arguing about my analogy. Just show a small bit of objectivity (even if it means agreeing with me!!!)

JeffR

Is this guy a US citizen?

Does anyone know?

If not, he doesn’t have ANY constitutional rights.

[quote]Atreides wrote:
Is this guy a US citizen?

Does anyone know?

If not, he doesn’t have ANY constitutional rights.[/quote]

Unless he was an enemy combatant held at GitMo. Then he has all the rights of an american citizen.

[quote]Atreides wrote:

No, I did not follow the link to read the mindless drivel of a mental midget. I have it first hand from the man who organized the event. This gentleman was arrested for refusing to leave. Plain and simple.

Why would I fact check the guy who relays a first hand account with a piece unfit for the op-ed page?
[/quote]

I heard that guy on Rush, too. That’s why I thought he was arrested for refusing to leave.

HOWEVER, that doesn’t change what the arresting officer wrote in his affidavit. At least man up and read the smoking gun link up there, then admit you’re wrong.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Just for clarification, is it my mindless drivel and UCLA Constitutional Law Professor and 1st Amendment expert Eugene Volokh is the mental midget, or am I the mental midget while Professor Volokh own’s the mindless drivel, or are you referring to the legally sworn affidavit that was linked internally to the link I provided to Professor Volokh’s post?

Just curious.

Atreides wrote:
Were you or Volokh actually there? at the event?[/quote]

Nope. Luckily though, we done learned us to read. Real good too.

[quote]Atreides wrote:
Legally sworn, certified, or rubber stamped by the ACLU-it doesn’t matter.[/quote]

Actually, it’s the statement of the arresting officer, laying out the legal reasons for the offender’s removal and arrest, and sworn to a judge. I don’t think the ACLU was asked to give its opinion on the matter…

[quote]Atreides wrote:
It’s still opinion.
[/quote]

I suppose so, if you consider the reason given by the arresting officer for the removal and arrest to be more of an opinion for the reason for the removal and arrest that what your buddy told you.

[quote]Atreides wrote:
And for the record, having esquire behind a name doesn’t necessitate the ability to form cogent thought.[/quote]

Nope, there are definitely a lot of unqualified and stupid lawyers out there. Of course, no one was claiming that the law degree made anyone particularly intelligent. As very few people are familiar with me or my CV off of here, I’m relying on my posting record, which everyone is free to evaluate by his own criteria. As for Professor Volokh, you can view his resume here, which speaks for itself if you happen to be unfamiliar with him. http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/

Perhaps you’ll enlighten us with some of your views on the 1st Amendment implications?

[Edited to remove overly snarky comments]