Garrett Epps writes in The Atlantic about the continued effect of Feiner v. New York and the hecklers’ veto in the First Amendment, especially as it affects minority groups whose speech may be subject to greater audience abuse and more concerted efforts by protesters to interfere. Epps’ jumping-off point is the divided en banc Sixth Circuit decision
Comments
I don’t think this is a true case of the “heckler’s veto” at all. The “heckler’s veto” is the exercise of *legal* force to shut down the speech. So, as I understood this case, some of the festival participants threw trash and debris at the Bible Believers (in response their admittedly repugnant message.) The authorities told the Bible Believers to leave based on a public disorder statute–and didn’t tell the festival participants to stop attacking the Bible Believers. *That’s* the heckler’s veto–allowing unrest about speech to justify legal intervention shutting that speech down.
While it is extremely unfortunate that the Arab International Festival chose not to continue, it’s a decision that is not driven by law compelling them not to continue because of social unrest, and so not a true heckler’s veto–it’s still their decision to make, whether to continue the festival in the face of protest–and a choice each of us make when delivering a message that someone (obviously wrongly, here) objects to.
Posted by: Robert Morse | Nov 13, 2015 10:44:25 AM
FYI you have a typo — “effect of Feiner” not “affect of Feiner”
Posted by: gdanning | Nov 4, 2015 12:28:24 PM