A speaker, including a pastor, has 1A rights too--including the right to speak without interference from a "heckler's veto". And that's even before we get into religious rights.
As always, FIRE hits the mark. You guys do a great job. You'll never be terribly popular, but that's the price you pay for being both principled and objective (or at least truth-seeking) in our current polarized and simplistic environment. The 1A isn't intended to make us happy or unoffended--it allows for a lot of speech & conduct that many will find repugnant. The fact that it protects so much *AND YET* there are fringes that still feel the need to break the law or abuse others in order to make their point is a pretty strong indictment of them.
We have to remember that among the opposition to the illiberal Trump Administration are a lot of illiberal factions themselves--they just happen to be what you'd call, for lack of a better term, far left. They're in the fight against Trump because he wears the opposite color jersey, not because they support genuine small-L liberalism. Hence, they're perfectly willing to violently shut down other peoples' attempts to exercise their human rights--a la the crowds that intimidate, attack, or block conservative speakers or Israeli speakers (among others) on campuses as of late.
This isn't an attempt at moral equivalency or a "both sides-ism" rant. Not at all. It's just an observation that--unlike the modern ACLU, as much as it pains me to say--FIRE is willing to defend any legal speech & for that I salute you. But you're also willing to draw a line--and it's actually not a very difficult line to find. The fact that people do not appreciate the 1st A is because they don't understand it--and that is most likely a result of the dismal state of civics education in our country. While it was taught under the title of "Government," I remember receiving an outstanding civics education as recently as the 1990s. Some might dismiss that as "privilege"since it was a relatively wealthy, upper middle class district--but I somehow doubt that, despite the same demographics today, the school provides the same calibre of education. It's become unfashionable to praise the products of, you know . . . a bunch of old dead white men. The values of the Enlightenment have become rather passe....
Well written piece here with one important reminder embedded - if someone asks you to leave private property, you must. This includes ICE in restaurants and shops where they want to use the bathroom or have lunch - it cuts both ways. Aside from the 1A consideration, I believe the optics of protesting in a church, no matter whom the “pastor” is - is no good.
As I understand it, free speech includes not only the right to speak but also the right to hear speech, especially when it’s controversial. When a group mobilises to block entry or force a venue to cancel an event, that’s effectively a heckler’s veto, a form of mob censorship that undermines the open marketplace of ideas. Authorities and venues should protect both the speaker’s rights and the protestors’ rights to protest without allowing either to shut down public discourse.
Interesting points you raise here & your other post--I'm not sure if there exists as substantial a "right" to *hear* speech in the same way there exists an obvious right to express speech . . . there certainly does not exist a collective right to hear speech that would, say, prevent a comedy club from picking & choosing its performers.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I think where you're on to something is in raising the question of what happens once public speech has begun (or is about to begin)--i.e., once it's truly entered the marketplace of ideas. So, situations in which a speaker is speaking (or about to) on campus and is shut down by a mob--the pro-Palestinian crowd does this frequently. It gets trickier, I'd say, if the university chooses not permit a speaker to begin with or cancels their spot...but it's rather cut & dry once the speaker is ready to talk.
A private club is under none of the potential obligations a public university is, of course--and also serves a different role than a university, public or private. That said, while a private school might enjoy most of the same rights technically as a private venue like a club, it ideally *should* behave like a genuinely liberal ("small L") institution, advancing & defending debate, discussion, and freedom of expression.
Likewise, it would be nice, too, if private institutions of all kinds - perhaps *especially* comedy clubs - stood up for the same principle. Your local Burger King perhaps not, but any venue - even a comedy club - that claims to be part of the "arts" has a vested interest (whether it realizes it or not) in a society that is truly tolerant of genuine 1A expression. The realization that "if they can do it to them, they can do it to me" has never been more true.
I’m not sure this thought from Garry Kasparov totally belongs here, but I like it.
“The US Constitution isn't about what the government must do for you, but what it cannot do to you. This is one of the things that the Bill of Rights exists to prevent. But as with most any enumerated rights, if they are unused and unprotected, they wither.”
I think we’re actually very close in substance, and I probably should have been clearer about what I meant by a “right to hear.”
You’re quite right that there is no general or collective right to hear speech in the way there is a right to speak. No one is entitled to force a comedy club, publisher, or platform to host a particular speaker. I’m not arguing for anything like that, and I agree that private venues retain broad discretion over who they invite.
What I am pointing to is a narrower but important principle: once a lawful speaking event has been scheduled and is about to occur, especially in a public or quasi-public forum like a university, then organised attempts to physically prevent it from happening through disruption, intimidation, or shutdown amount to a heckler’s veto. At that point, it’s not just the speaker’s expressive rights at issue, but the audience’s interest in receiving speech that has already entered the public sphere.
That audience interest doesn’t function as a free-standing right that overrides venue choice, but it does matter normatively and, in some contexts, legally. Free speech theory has long recognised that expression is a communicative act involving both speaker and listener. If mobs can reliably prevent controversial speech from being heard by making events unworkable, then speech is effectively censored without any formal prohibition, and the marketplace of ideas collapses into a contest of intimidation.
I also agree with you that the obligations differ by institution. Public universities have the clearest duty here; private ones have more latitude. Still, as you say, institutions that claim to value inquiry, the arts, or liberal norms ought to recognise that tolerating mob shutdowns corrodes the conditions that make those values possible in the first place.
So yes, this isn’t about forcing venues to host speech they don’t want. It’s about resisting the idea that whoever can shout loudest, threaten most effectively, or mobilise the angriest crowd gets to decide what may be said once speech is already in motion. On that point, I think we’re very much aligned.
I don’t see why ICE Churches and Apostates should be the only churches in the nation with their sanctity intact. We did not begin the violations of sanctity. That was you.
I think FIRE is taking on big and small cases that are so important for Americans and rights. I remember the ACLU used to do that but they seem bloated, misguided, or irrelevant these days.
Well I appreciate the line that is being called out here. Because 1A is for everyone but not necessarily every situation... It has time and manner restrictions. And I appreciate the analysis
Please help me understand the hecklers veto. If protestors in public make so much noise that either a speaker can’t be heard due to whistles, blow horns, or screaming by counter protesters, or law enforcement can’t hear each other communicate, is that permissible free speech?
We are no better than cult members if we can't take correction. This information is important to keep us free, and the author is stepping into the line of friendly fire to keep us on the straight and narrow. We have to be able to entertain that a kneejerk reaction and dopamine-filled response is not a substitute for being correct. Otherwise, we succumb to the same emotional addictions as the popsicle posse and their supporters. Do not take the bait.
Just skimmed this, haven’t listened to the full episode but there is a term that I must vehemently object to: “the U.S. Church”. There is no such thing. This isn’t about protecting churches specifically, this is about upholding principles, to paraphrase FIRE, that rise and fall together.
Ok, I see it now. Yeah, you can take a point away for the term, but it would be a huge stretch to imply that Tisby believes in a state-sanctioned church. I will take it as a minor misspeak.
How does that apply to cases where theatres and other private institutions have cancelled shows? For example, NY comedian, Guy Hochman, was scheduled to perform in the Broadway Comedy Club.
Apparently, the show was cancelled due to threats from pro-Palestine protesters.
At the risk of sounding schmaltzy, FIRE continues to restore my faith that I can have faith in institutions.
A speaker, including a pastor, has 1A rights too--including the right to speak without interference from a "heckler's veto". And that's even before we get into religious rights.
As always, FIRE hits the mark. You guys do a great job. You'll never be terribly popular, but that's the price you pay for being both principled and objective (or at least truth-seeking) in our current polarized and simplistic environment. The 1A isn't intended to make us happy or unoffended--it allows for a lot of speech & conduct that many will find repugnant. The fact that it protects so much *AND YET* there are fringes that still feel the need to break the law or abuse others in order to make their point is a pretty strong indictment of them.
We have to remember that among the opposition to the illiberal Trump Administration are a lot of illiberal factions themselves--they just happen to be what you'd call, for lack of a better term, far left. They're in the fight against Trump because he wears the opposite color jersey, not because they support genuine small-L liberalism. Hence, they're perfectly willing to violently shut down other peoples' attempts to exercise their human rights--a la the crowds that intimidate, attack, or block conservative speakers or Israeli speakers (among others) on campuses as of late.
This isn't an attempt at moral equivalency or a "both sides-ism" rant. Not at all. It's just an observation that--unlike the modern ACLU, as much as it pains me to say--FIRE is willing to defend any legal speech & for that I salute you. But you're also willing to draw a line--and it's actually not a very difficult line to find. The fact that people do not appreciate the 1st A is because they don't understand it--and that is most likely a result of the dismal state of civics education in our country. While it was taught under the title of "Government," I remember receiving an outstanding civics education as recently as the 1990s. Some might dismiss that as "privilege"since it was a relatively wealthy, upper middle class district--but I somehow doubt that, despite the same demographics today, the school provides the same calibre of education. It's become unfashionable to praise the products of, you know . . . a bunch of old dead white men. The values of the Enlightenment have become rather passe....
Well written piece here with one important reminder embedded - if someone asks you to leave private property, you must. This includes ICE in restaurants and shops where they want to use the bathroom or have lunch - it cuts both ways. Aside from the 1A consideration, I believe the optics of protesting in a church, no matter whom the “pastor” is - is no good.
As I understand it, free speech includes not only the right to speak but also the right to hear speech, especially when it’s controversial. When a group mobilises to block entry or force a venue to cancel an event, that’s effectively a heckler’s veto, a form of mob censorship that undermines the open marketplace of ideas. Authorities and venues should protect both the speaker’s rights and the protestors’ rights to protest without allowing either to shut down public discourse.
Interesting points you raise here & your other post--I'm not sure if there exists as substantial a "right" to *hear* speech in the same way there exists an obvious right to express speech . . . there certainly does not exist a collective right to hear speech that would, say, prevent a comedy club from picking & choosing its performers.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I think where you're on to something is in raising the question of what happens once public speech has begun (or is about to begin)--i.e., once it's truly entered the marketplace of ideas. So, situations in which a speaker is speaking (or about to) on campus and is shut down by a mob--the pro-Palestinian crowd does this frequently. It gets trickier, I'd say, if the university chooses not permit a speaker to begin with or cancels their spot...but it's rather cut & dry once the speaker is ready to talk.
A private club is under none of the potential obligations a public university is, of course--and also serves a different role than a university, public or private. That said, while a private school might enjoy most of the same rights technically as a private venue like a club, it ideally *should* behave like a genuinely liberal ("small L") institution, advancing & defending debate, discussion, and freedom of expression.
Likewise, it would be nice, too, if private institutions of all kinds - perhaps *especially* comedy clubs - stood up for the same principle. Your local Burger King perhaps not, but any venue - even a comedy club - that claims to be part of the "arts" has a vested interest (whether it realizes it or not) in a society that is truly tolerant of genuine 1A expression. The realization that "if they can do it to them, they can do it to me" has never been more true.
I’m not sure this thought from Garry Kasparov totally belongs here, but I like it.
“The US Constitution isn't about what the government must do for you, but what it cannot do to you. This is one of the things that the Bill of Rights exists to prevent. But as with most any enumerated rights, if they are unused and unprotected, they wither.”
I think we’re actually very close in substance, and I probably should have been clearer about what I meant by a “right to hear.”
You’re quite right that there is no general or collective right to hear speech in the way there is a right to speak. No one is entitled to force a comedy club, publisher, or platform to host a particular speaker. I’m not arguing for anything like that, and I agree that private venues retain broad discretion over who they invite.
What I am pointing to is a narrower but important principle: once a lawful speaking event has been scheduled and is about to occur, especially in a public or quasi-public forum like a university, then organised attempts to physically prevent it from happening through disruption, intimidation, or shutdown amount to a heckler’s veto. At that point, it’s not just the speaker’s expressive rights at issue, but the audience’s interest in receiving speech that has already entered the public sphere.
That audience interest doesn’t function as a free-standing right that overrides venue choice, but it does matter normatively and, in some contexts, legally. Free speech theory has long recognised that expression is a communicative act involving both speaker and listener. If mobs can reliably prevent controversial speech from being heard by making events unworkable, then speech is effectively censored without any formal prohibition, and the marketplace of ideas collapses into a contest of intimidation.
I also agree with you that the obligations differ by institution. Public universities have the clearest duty here; private ones have more latitude. Still, as you say, institutions that claim to value inquiry, the arts, or liberal norms ought to recognise that tolerating mob shutdowns corrodes the conditions that make those values possible in the first place.
So yes, this isn’t about forcing venues to host speech they don’t want. It’s about resisting the idea that whoever can shout loudest, threaten most effectively, or mobilise the angriest crowd gets to decide what may be said once speech is already in motion. On that point, I think we’re very much aligned.
People who are complaining about the cancellation of the comedy show are not posting their support for this disruption.
Floridians STORMED the Indian River County Zoning Meeting to BLOCK the construction of a Muslim "EPIC City" and Dearborn-style community in Vero Beach
It was filled to the BRIM: "Standing room ONLY."
REPEL ISLAM, FLORIDA! Keep pushing back, this project must be defeated!
Edit: "are now posting their support for..."
I don’t see why ICE Churches and Apostates should be the only churches in the nation with their sanctity intact. We did not begin the violations of sanctity. That was you.
Yes, but this conspicuously does not address Don Lemon’s case as a journalist.
I think FIRE is taking on big and small cases that are so important for Americans and rights. I remember the ACLU used to do that but they seem bloated, misguided, or irrelevant these days.
It’s sort of unreal people like Don Lemon don’t understand the fundamental principles being discussed in this article.
Well I appreciate the line that is being called out here. Because 1A is for everyone but not necessarily every situation... It has time and manner restrictions. And I appreciate the analysis
Please help me understand the hecklers veto. If protestors in public make so much noise that either a speaker can’t be heard due to whistles, blow horns, or screaming by counter protesters, or law enforcement can’t hear each other communicate, is that permissible free speech?
We are no better than cult members if we can't take correction. This information is important to keep us free, and the author is stepping into the line of friendly fire to keep us on the straight and narrow. We have to be able to entertain that a kneejerk reaction and dopamine-filled response is not a substitute for being correct. Otherwise, we succumb to the same emotional addictions as the popsicle posse and their supporters. Do not take the bait.
https://substack.com/@jemartisby/note/p-185482083?r=em1q&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Just skimmed this, haven’t listened to the full episode but there is a term that I must vehemently object to: “the U.S. Church”. There is no such thing. This isn’t about protecting churches specifically, this is about upholding principles, to paraphrase FIRE, that rise and fall together.
Now onto listening to this piece…
I searched the transcript for “the U. S. Church” and got zero responses. ???
Last paragraph beneath the heading “The Real Question”
Ok, I see it now. Yeah, you can take a point away for the term, but it would be a huge stretch to imply that Tisby believes in a state-sanctioned church. I will take it as a minor misspeak.
Fair enough, I agree.
Have you seen the news from my fair city of Minneapolis today? The pastor of Cities Church has blood on his hands.
How does that apply to cases where theatres and other private institutions have cancelled shows? For example, NY comedian, Guy Hochman, was scheduled to perform in the Broadway Comedy Club.
Apparently, the show was cancelled due to threats from pro-Palestine protesters.
Thank you!!!!
🎯