The "right" and "left" of Free Speech?

OK here is a question for all of you. What are your rights with free speech and when is it simply wrong to excercize them? Does being polite have any place in free speech?

I bring all this up because California's governor is going around the state and having some rallys to boost support for some ballot inititatives. First let me state I have no clue what the issues are, and I don't really care. Running around to these same organized rallys, which apperently require an invitation to get into, is Warren Beatty and Annette Benning; their sole purpose is to disrupt the events. Now I believe they have the right to say what they want, and I believe they have the right to shadow the governor, but at what point do these types of activities simply become wrong? Forget politics and which side of the issue who is on for a moment. The question really is do free speech rights permit you to crash private events and disrupt them?

It is a "by invitation only" event, then he would be considered a stalker and could be arrested. If the speeches are open to the public, then he has a right to go to listen. If he / they become disruptive, then they should be arrested for causing a public disturbance.
It is interesting that this topic should come up, because the US Appeals court just struck down a California law that made it a crime to falsely accuse a police officer of a crime. The law was struck down, because it didn't offer the same protection to the average citizen.

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court on Thursday nullified a California criminal law adopted after the Rodney King beating that made it unlawful for citizens to knowingly lodge false accusations against police officers.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law was an unconstitutional infringement of speech because false statements in support of officers were not also criminalized.

The decision, hailed by civil liberties groups and opposed by state prosecutors and law enforcement groups, overturns the California Supreme Court, which in 2002 ruled that free speech concerns took a back seat when it came to speech targeting police officers.


Lawmakers enacted the law after a flood of hostile complaints against officers statewide following King’s 1991 taped beating. The 1995 law is punishable by up to six months in jail.

The imbalance generated by the law “turns the First Amendment on its head,” Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

Darren Chaker, 33, of Beverly Hills, challenged the law after he was convicted in San Diego County in 1999 of making a false complaint against an El Cajon police officer.

Chaker appealed to California’s courts, to no avail. A federal judge had ruled against him as well, so he went to the San Francisco-based appeals court.

“It was up to the police department to determine if the speech was false,” Chaker said. “I made a complaint against a police officer for twisting my wrist and was charged as a criminal.”

The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the decision.

“To us, it was a clear example to cut off criticism of the government,” said ACLU attorney Alan Schlosser.

Michael Schwartz, a Ventura County prosecutor who on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association urged the appellate court to uphold Chaker’s conviction, said he was disappointed with the outcome.

“It’s a controversial issue that people disagree about,” he said. He said the statute in question is used sparingly.

San Diego County prosecutors said they were considering asking the appeals court to reconsider or asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

Click to expand...

B_Skurka said:

What are your rights with free speech and when is it simply wrong to excercize them? Does being polite have any place in free speech?

Click to expand...

No, of course not.

If the unconventional, offensive, or heretic were suppressed the earth would still be flat.

However, polite certainly helps assure that your intended audience listens to your message. Example: While my daughters were in high school the anti abortion advocates picketed weekly across the street, including bullhorns and 6 foot by 10 foot bloody photos of aborted fetuses. My daughters had to walk past this to go home. Their reactions were to ignore the message and decide that anyone who presents their position by such bloody means is too crazy to listen to.

I bring all this up because California's governor is going around the state and having some rallys to boost support for some ballot inititatives. First let me state I have no clue what the issues are, and I don't really care.

Click to expand...

We don't either.
I think Prop.77 to halt state legislators from defining the boundaries of their own districts is worthwhile; the other propositions are nonsense. State governance really is broken and we had hoped Schwarzenegger could make it more responsive but holding this closed-door 'public' appearance for supporters of his initiatives is an example of what still needs to be remedied.

Running around to these same organized rallys, which apperently require an invitation to get into, is Warren Beatty and Annette Benning; their sole purpose is to disrupt the events. Now I believe they have the right to say what they want, and I believe they have the right to shadow the governor, but at what point do these types of activities simply become wrong? Forget politics and which side of the issue who is on for a moment. The question really is do free speech rights permit you to crash private events and disrupt them?

Click to expand...

I disagree that their real purpose is disruption, or at least to a degree that prevents our Governor from presenting his views to his private audience. I see a political strategy that says 'go where the reporters are' to reach the widest possible audience. I had skipped over political news recently and wasn't aware of this incident until you brought it to my attention. I think this attention was their ultimate purpose, rather than really trying to halt the Goveror's private speech.

The only similar recent publicity stunt that stuck in my consciousness appeared Friday and yesterday in the paper. Some female antiwar activists are threating to bring their 'boobs for peace' campaign to the state capitol on Monday and run around topless. Whether or not they ever arrive is irrelevant, they have already been very effective in getting publicity for their views.

All three examples I'm citing here are simply political street theatre intended to provoke discussion.

Rude and tasteless, probably, but more severe limits on free speech to prevent such incidents are not in our best interest.


And on a similar theme, California is full of people who came here to be more free than wherever they came from. We sometimes groan at their excesses and wish they would go home to display their foolishness, but we wouldn't have it any other way.