Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[Exi5tentialist]

I can't believe people are even entertaining the idea that this could be a freedom of speech issue.

Pages and pages of tedious rot.

Define 'this'

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Read my post (quoted here, above). I'm inferring what CES thinks from what he has said. Read my post (quoted here, above). I am not like Ronja, Zilla and you, I do not accept edicts that I must naively take everything at face value and not infer anything from what is said. Read my post (quoted here, above). It answers the point you made after the event. Please feel free to comment on my answers, not regress to questions that have already been dealt with, if you would only read my post (quoted here, above).

No, you just like to put words in people's mouths so you can kick a strawman to bits.

[Coito ergo sum]

Where would you get the idea that I don't want them to be free at all? I want them to educated and cared for at school. They have to be supervised, and freedom for children doesn't mean unrestricted free speech. You already admitted that. Why are you continually creating straw men? I've told you exactly what it should be like, and "not wanting them to be free AT ALL" isn't anything I ever implied.

I'm getting no sense of what you think freedom is. All you're talking about is restrictions; they must be quiet, do as they are told, follow instructions. Where's the freedom?

As I said, during their lunch hour and during breaks, and before and after school hours, they have more freedom. During algebra class, they don't - they have to follow the lesson plan, teacher instructions, and if the floor isn't open to questions, then they aren't allowed to just go off on tangents. Is this really all that difficult to understand? Were you never in a school classroom? I assume you were - when you sat in math class, were you free to do and say whatever you want, whenever you want, no matter what? Or, did you have to follow the teacher's instructions.

Hah! Abuse will get you nowhere!

That depends where and when. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the President couldn't get up and speak at a dinner or something without being heckled.

Really? You'd want the President to be immune from heckling?

No more or less immune than anyone else.

In that case it sounds like you want the President to be treated equally to everyone else by audiences. But later you go on to contradict that.

Not at all. When you and I get up to speak at an event, hecklers can be escorted out too. Like I said - no more or less immune than anyone else. In many instances, we lowly non-Presidents don't have to put up with hecklers.

Comedians, for example, can have hecklers removed from shows, if the heckler interferes with the performance. Remember Woodstock (well, footage of Woodstock)? Remember when Abbie Hoffman wanted to exercise his free speech by making some political announcement during The Who's performance? And, Pete Townsend literally kicked him off the stage?

Are you suggesting that performers and speakers are subject to the veto of loud, rude people? If one riotous heckler wants to prevent anyone from hearing a band or a speaker, we all just have to put up with it? The heckler can interfere with the performer or speaker, but the speaker and performer can't interfere with the heckler? LOL - your logic is impeccable...

I want the opposite - and only because everybody has the right of free speech, and that includes heckling.

Next time you're at a wedding, heckle the best man during the toast. Exercise your free speech.

Well, no - because the people who invite me to weddings trust me not to do that. That's the bit I think you're missing. Trust.

The bit you're missing is that if you stood up to heckle, they'd have you escorted out.

Our 'leaders' want sanitized, stage-managed speeches where they can be seen to be the perfect speechifiers, skilfully handling every problem. And President Obama in that clip handled the situation very well, with good humour n'awl, but let's face it he had more than a little support from some paid thugs who eliminated the problem for him in short order.

Well, if loud hecklers could veto our right to hear the President speak by simply yelling and screaming during his speeches, we'd never hear what he had to say.

Or... he'd have to make the sanitisation even more obvious by limiting himself to lone speeches from the Oval Office, thus demonstrating how incapable he is as an individual of dealing with hecklers, and leaving people to realise that the President isn't quite as immune from failing as many people seem to think he is. Maybe they'd end up reducing the role of the President as a result. What do you think?

I think that sounds stupid. No matter who is President, there are people who don't want his message heard. Obama would have extreme right wingers shouting him down no matter what, and George Bush would have extreme left wingers shouting him down no matter what. If the President is out in the public square, shouting is what he'll have to put up with. If he is in the Kiwanis Club dining hall, he doesn't, just like anyone else doesn't. Get it?

And where do you draw the line? What about this 82-year-old man who famously shouted "rubbish!" at our Home Secretary in 2005 and was quickly bundled out of the Party Conference Hall for daring to exercise his right of free speech?

If people are in public spaces, they can say and do what they want, in line with laws that apply to everyone every day - disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, etc. If the President is at a private event at the Kiwanis Club and someone sneaked in to disrupt it, then he ought to be thrown out. Seems pretty easy to draw the line to me. What's so confusing to you?

Nothing is confusing me, thanks. The Labour Party Conference is a private event, not a public space. So I presume that means you think that it was right for the heckler to be chucked out, just for shouting "Rubbish!" at the Home Secretary. [/quote]

Sure. Just like a dinner guest in a private home, or any attendee at a private dinner by invitation.

I think this private / public divide is a bit of red herring. Of course, it was crap that the heckler at the Labour Conference was thrown out. It was an affront to democracy. I think you need to come up with a better reason that public / private for justifying it.

It's not a red herring -- being out on the sidewalk (public) is different than being in your living room.

It certainly may well be interpreted as an overreaction to chuck a guy just for shouting one word. However, I wasn't there, so until I see and hear what happened, I will reserve judgment. And, different people may disagree in their assessment. The fact remains, that a private place can control who is in there and who is not.

And, like heckler at a debate or conference, people don't have the right to disrupt meetings. Hecklers at city council meetings ought be removed, for example.

Very, very wrong. We have a free-speech society. Hecklers at city council meetings cutting services or forcing people into poverty should be applauded, not 'removed'. I think this is the difference between us. It is not some small, detailed argument about visiting speakers in schools, it is your fundamental misunderstanding about the right of free speech in general, and your inability to trust people in general to exercise their right of free speech productively.

Free speech doesn't give you the right to stop city or government business or to disrupt someone else's private function.[/quote]

Surely the city hall is a public building by your definition. Having disposed of hecklers in meetings like the "private" Labour Party Conference, you are now moving on to clamping down on hecklers in city hall. Soon, you'll be moving on to declaring the space outside to be private property. This is the way presumptions about democracy are going nowadays. There is always, always, always a reason to clamp down on free speech in our televised, sanitised democracy. [/quote]

Yes, it's a public building but not a public space, like a street or a sidewalk. A court house is a public building too, and so is the US Capitol Building. That doesn't mean I can walk in to the US Capitol Building and start shouting at people during a legislative session.

The right of free speech doesn't give you the right, for example, to stand up in a courtroom and start shouting such that the judge and the lawyers can't do their job, for example.

True, that would be contempt of court (under an elected judiciary... otherwise I and several thousands of protesters in your city might just take up the right to shout there too, unlike you or your obedient students!)

Nothing says you can't protest and should outside the courthouse.

[Bella Fortuna]

Pages and pages of tedious rot.

Interchangeable for "alien rubbish?"

[Coito ergo sum]

Exi thinks that anyone ought to be able to jump up and heckle anyone anytime. That way nobody will hear anyone.

... And you think all heckling should be banned, punished and stopped. Oh you deny it? But in every post you have only talked about restrictions. I get zero sense from you about where you think heckling is ok. Not in a local town hall - it is a private building. Not in the street - the streets nowadays all belong to the shopping centre management committee. Not in a party conference - conference halls are owned privately by municipal companies. Where? Nowhere. Definitely not in school. You want a sanitized, unproblematic speechifying opportunity for every politician that wofts round the country making pretty pictures for himself to be distributed on television to the masses. Free speech is out, in your book: dead as a dodo, you are so keen on listing all the places where it isn't allowed that you have forgotten to defend where it is, and in the meantime it has been taken away from you and the worst of it is, you don't mind.

Where did CES say all heckling should be banned then?

Read my post (quoted here, above). I'm inferring what CES thinks from what he has said. Read my post (quoted here, above). I am not like Ronja, Zilla and you, I do not accept edicts that I must naively take everything at face value and not infer anything from what is said. Read my post (quoted here, above). It answers the point you made after the event. Please feel free to comment on my answers, not regress to questions that have already been dealt with, if you would only read my post (quoted here, above).

In other words, you're just making shit up, and attributing it to me, because you're unable to address what I actually said and meant.

[klr]

Exi thinks that anyone ought to be able to jump up and heckle anyone anytime. That way nobody will hear anyone.

... And you think all heckling should be banned, punished and stopped. Oh you deny it? But in every post you have only talked about restrictions. I get zero sense from you about where you think heckling is ok. Not in a local town hall - it is a private building. Not in the street - the streets nowadays all belong to the shopping centre management committee. Not in a party conference - conference halls are owned privately by municipal companies. Where? Nowhere. Definitely not in school. You want a sanitized, unproblematic speechifying opportunity for every politician that wofts round the country making pretty pictures for himself to be distributed on television to the masses. Free speech is out, in your book: dead as a dodo, you are so keen on listing all the places where it isn't allowed that you have forgotten to defend where it is, and in the meantime it has been taken away from you and the worst of it is, you don't mind.

Where did CES say all heckling should be banned then?

Read my post (quoted here, above). I'm inferring what CES thinks from what he has said. Read my post (quoted here, above). I am not like Ronja, Zilla and you, I do not accept edicts that I must naively take everything at face value and not infer anything from what is said. Read my post (quoted here, above). It answers the point you made after the event. Please feel free to comment on my answers, not regress to questions that have already been dealt with, if you would only read my post (quoted here, above).

Exactly my point.

[Robert_S]

If you are willing to be escorted out of the building for heckling then you have the freedom to heckle for a limited time and everyone will know that there are some folks who strongly disagree with the speaker.

Do you mean you want extend the freedom to completely take hijack a venue that others have organized and paid for to those who are not willing to put in the time and effort to get their own platform?

[Tigger]

If you are willing to be escorted out of the building for heckling then you have the freedom to heckle for a limited time and everyone will know that there are some folks who strongly disagree with the speaker.

Do you mean you want extend the freedom to completely take hijack a venue that others have organized and paid for to those who are not willing to put in the time and effort to get their own platform?

I went to the "Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers in conversation" evening, and they were heckled by ignorant fuckwits who thought what they had to say was important. They just embarrassed themselves big time and then got defenestrated by plod. Very amusing I thought.

[Exi5tentialist]

As I said, during their lunch hour and during breaks, and before and after school hours, they have more freedom. During algebra class, they don't - they have to follow the lesson plan, teacher instructions, and if the floor isn't open to questions, then they aren't allowed to just go off on tangents. Is this really all that difficult to understand? Were you never in a school classroom? I assume you were - when you sat in math class, were you free to do and say whatever you want, whenever you want, no matter what? Or, did you have to follow the teacher's instructions.

Rum (sorry, Zombie Rum) made the point a couple of posts back that all the discussions get ridiculously polarized here. Just for illustration, the two polar opposites being described are

1) On the premises but outside all schooling activity - limited free speech is allowed
2) In algebra classes - zero free speech is allowed

This would be a more interesting discussion if every proposition made were not being tested against its most ridiculous extreme, for example

1) Exi5tentialist thinks free speech at school is a good thing
2) Therefore Exi5tentialist thinks all classes should have absolute free speech
3) Therefore Exi5tentialist is being ridiculous
4) Therefore I must be as ridiculous as Exi5tentialist is being within this 4-point thought process

On point 4, yes I did go to school.

Not at all. When you and I get up to speak at an event, hecklers can be escorted out too. Like I said - no more or less immune than anyone else. In many instances, we lowly non-Presidents don't have to put up with hecklers.

Therefore you don't believe in the free speech of hecklers. I do.

Comedians, for example, can have hecklers removed from shows, if the heckler interferes with the performance. Remember Woodstock (well, footage of Woodstock)? Remember when Abbie Hoffman wanted to exercise his free speech by making some political announcement during The Who's performance? And, Pete Townsend literally kicked him off the stage?

In my experience, good comedians have a vast repetoire of techniques for dealing with hecklers before they need to resort to kicking people out. That you think of violence as the first and foremost technique for mention is what sums up the difference between you and me.

Are you suggesting that performers and speakers are subject to the veto of loud, rude people? If one riotous heckler wants to prevent anyone from hearing a band or a speaker, we all just have to put up with it? The heckler can interfere with the performer or speaker, but the speaker and performer can't interfere with the heckler? LOL - your logic is impeccable...

I go back to the example of Walter Wolfgang who shouted "nonsense!" at Jack Straw who was making a speech at the 2005 Labour Party Conference and was bundled out of the meeting. The Labour Party Conference is technically a private event in a private venue. Walter Wolfgang said afterwards, Jack Straw has the right of free speech, I also have the right of free speech. This is the traditional assumption around heckling in politics and I would suggest it has been the traditional assumption in other fields as well. Until now. Now, the audience in performances like the Labour Party Conference are no longer audiences per se - their role is to provide managed, televisual clapping and approval for the leadership. Anyone who dissents from this vision, which seems very much to be the vision you are defending, is dealt with violently. The attitude that paid thugs were right to shut the dissent up is all too common nowadays. Many people seem to prefer seeing the macho crushing of dissent than defend the rights of the lone individual, or a small group, who are kicking up a fuss.

So in answer to your question, I think the relationship between speakers and hecklers is complex one but it is a relationship about power and human rights, not just the simplistic private/public divide you seem to think it is; there are major issues of free speech in play, and unlike you I don't sign up to the blanket principle that all hecklers in politics and entertainment (oh yes, in 'private' settings which is were nearly all political speeches are made nowadays) must expect to be instantaneously removed by force and that this is a jolly good thing. I think that's crap and it's something that should be increasingly challenged (and hopefully will be).

By the way, I love the way you contrive a supposed equality around the heckler who can "interfere with the speaker" so the speaker (or his thugs) can "interfere with the heckler". I would suggest a different equality. The heckler can shout at the speaker, and the speaker can shout at the heckler. Any skilled politician should know how to deal with hecklers, and it needn't involve sending the heavies in. That in my view is a sign of weakness. I don't have much respect for politicians that use that technique.

What worries me is that if what you have described is your understanding of the role of heckling in free speech - is this what is being taught to youngsters around the whole subject? I've forgotten - are you a teacher? What age children, and how is this subject handled?

Next time you're at a wedding, heckle the best man during the toast. Exercise your free speech.

Well, no - because the people who invite me to weddings trust me not to do that. That's the bit I think you're missing. Trust.

The bit you're missing is that if you stood up to heckle, they'd have you escorted out.

I don't think that's true at all. Heckling the best man is half the fun of the speech! But if the heckling is not in good humour, I'd suggest that the heckler would be faced with a lot of people expressing their right of free speech by emphatically inviting the heckler to remain silent. So no, they would not have to escort me out. That is clearly incorrect for the reasons I've stated. It is so strange that you resort to these violent methods (again, I love the euphemism of 'escorting out'!), as the first and foremost method of dealing with hecklers. For me as a speaker it would be a long way down the list, and I would take it as a sign of my failure if it were resorted to.

I think that sounds stupid. No matter who is President, there are people who don't want his message heard. Obama would have extreme right wingers shouting him down no matter what, and George Bush would have extreme left wingers shouting him down no matter what. If the President is out in the public square, shouting is what he'll have to put up with. If he is in the Kiwanis Club dining hall, he doesn't, just like anyone else doesn't. Get it?

So... you and I know, the President never goes out in the public square. He always speaks in venues which can be construed as private. This is how controlled a show the Presidency has become.

Let the President speak in public, I say. He has a microphone. What's he frightened of - that he might look unpopular? I agree that hecklers should not be allowed to force the President to stop speaking. But he doesn't have to just because one or two people are shouting. I've got no problem with his aides turning up the volume, and letting his skills as a politician carry the audience. If he has such skills, that is.

Nothing is confusing me, thanks. The Labour Party Conference is a private event, not a public space. So I presume that means you think that it was right for the heckler to be chucked out, just for shouting "Rubbish!" at the Home Secretary.

Sure. Just like a dinner guest in a private home, or any attendee at a private dinner by invitation.

I think I'll end this here. You obviously don't have a clue about the democratic dynamics of any political meetings.

Just to say that your simplistic, neat-and-tidy solution to the problem of heckling: privatise all speechifying, stinks. Force the public into private venues and treat them like cattle. Punish disobedience, and build a privileged position for those in authority to have sway over all meetings. If the public don't obey, chuck them out on the street and let them get on with it. I don't doubt this way of doing things has been rapidly gaining legitimacy in the last few years, and I'm sure it's the basis underpinning your approach to free speech in schools. It's why you don't want outside speakers coming in to schools if they start saying anything you disapprove of: you call it proselytizing, but it's just people saying what they think.

[Cormac]

Knowing the ambiguity, Dawkins could just have said "alien to science".

Let's face it, Dawkins isn't stupid. Islamophobia has become a substitute for racism in our politically correct times, and Dawkins will squeeze every
gram of advantage out of such an ambiguity in order to raise his profile.

So, you don't think he has a point?

There is, of course, a meaning of the word 'alien' other than just 'foreign'. That is 'not of the planet' - i.e. non-human. Given the way that he likes to describe women wearing a niqab as 'bin liners', again dehumanising them to the status of rubbish, I think his latest outburst is entirely consistent with his broadly western-supremacist politics. I'm not surprised you think he has a point.

Perhaps because Western Thought arose from the Enlightenment, the greatest leap forward in human thought since the last time it was done - in Greece. Also, democracy and human rights came directly from enlightenment thought.

Unfortunately, one thing that also derived from Western thought is the idiotic moral and cultural relativism you espouse, which, if left unchallenged will lead inexorably to the extinguishing of the shining beacon of enlightenment thought. The loss of Western thought from the world is a recipe for oppression and misery.

[Exi5tentialist]

Knowing the ambiguity, Dawkins could just have said "alien to science".

Let's face it, Dawkins isn't stupid. Islamophobia has become a substitute for racism in our politically correct times, and Dawkins will squeeze every
gram of advantage out of such an ambiguity in order to raise his profile.

So, you don't think he has a point?

There is, of course, a meaning of the word 'alien' other than just 'foreign'. That is 'not of the planet' - i.e. non-human. Given the way that he likes to describe women wearing a niqab as 'bin liners', again dehumanising them to the status of rubbish, I think his latest outburst is entirely consistent with his broadly western-supremacist politics. I'm not surprised you think he has a point.

Perhaps because Western Thought arose from the Enlightenment, the greatest leap forward in human thought since the last time it was done - in Greece. Also, democracy and human rights came directly from enlightenment thought.

Unfortunately, one thing that also derived from Western thought is the idiotic moral and cultural relativism you espouse, which, if left unchallenged will lead inexorably to the extinguishing of the shining beacon of enlightenment thought. The loss of Western thought from the world is a recipe for oppression and misery.

Please explain where the moral and cultural relativism is that you are talking about. There is no such moral or cultural relativism in my argument as far as I can see. All I have said is that human beings should be treated as human beings, and not dehumanised. In talking about moral and cultural relativism, I think you are using words you don't understand; if I am wrong, I am sure you will be happy to explain your understanding of them, rationally.

[Coito ergo sum]

As I said, during their lunch hour and during breaks, and before and after school hours, they have more freedom. During algebra class, they don't - they have to follow the lesson plan, teacher instructions, and if the floor isn't open to questions, then they aren't allowed to just go off on tangents. Is this really all that difficult to understand? Were you never in a school classroom? I assume you were - when you sat in math class, were you free to do and say whatever you want, whenever you want, no matter what? Or, did you have to follow the teacher's instructions.

Rum (sorry, Zombie Rum) made the point a couple of posts back that all the discussions get ridiculously polarized here. Just for illustration, the two polar opposites being described are

1) On the premises but outside all schooling activity - limited free speech is allowed
2) In algebra classes - zero free speech is allowed

This would be a more interesting discussion if every proposition made were not being tested against its most ridiculous extreme, for example

1) Exi5tentialist thinks free speech at school is a good thing
2) Therefore Exi5tentialist thinks all classes should have absolute free speech
3) Therefore Exi5tentialist is being ridiculous
4) Therefore I must be as ridiculous as Exi5tentialist is being within this 4-point thought process

On point 4, yes I did go to school.

Dude, you're the one doing that. You're the one telling me that my position is "students must obey obey obey" and they never get to say anything anytime, they just should shut up. That is how you characterize my view. You're the one polarizing the conversation.

I, on the other hand, asked for your view on it. I didn't tell you what your view was. See the question mark in the quoted item from me above? That means I'm asking you. You could say what the limits of free speech are in your proposed world. Maybe they're the same as mine, in which case, your ridiculing of my view as some extreme "kids should just shut up all the time and obey" type rule would seem all the more silly.

Not at all. When you and I get up to speak at an event, hecklers can be escorted out too. Like I said - no more or less immune than anyone else. In many instances, we lowly non-Presidents don't have to put up with hecklers.

Therefore you don't believe in the free speech of hecklers. I do.

I do too believe in free speech for hecklers. However, if I'm speaking at the Kiwanis club, for example, the Kiwanis club has the right to kick out hecklers. If I'm speaking at a city council meeting where Parliamentary procedure applies, then hecklers can be escorted out. Etc. Don't you think that?

Comedians, for example, can have hecklers removed from shows, if the heckler interferes with the performance. Remember Woodstock (well, footage of Woodstock)? Remember when Abbie Hoffman wanted to exercise his free speech by making some political announcement during The Who's performance? And, Pete Townsend literally kicked him off the stage?

In my experience, good comedians have a vast repetoire of techniques for dealing with hecklers before they need to resort to kicking people out. That you think of violence as the first and foremost technique for mention is what sums up the difference between you and me.

I don't think of violence as a first and foremost technique, and nothing I wrote suggested that. You're very dimwitted, it seems, since you have extreme difficulty comprehending basic English and simple concepts, and you continually invent things. I talked of escorting people out. I didn't advocate violence.

And, of course good comedians can deal with hecklers before the need to removing them. The point is that a private club has the right to remove them. Hecklers don't have the right to say what they want there that trumps the right of the owner of the property.

Are you suggesting that performers and speakers are subject to the veto of loud, rude people? If one riotous heckler wants to prevent anyone from hearing a band or a speaker, we all just have to put up with it? The heckler can interfere with the performer or speaker, but the speaker and performer can't interfere with the heckler? LOL - your logic is impeccable...

I go back to the example of Walter Wolfgang who shouted "nonsense!" at Jack Straw who was making a speech at the 2005 Labour Party Conference and was bundled out of the meeting. The Labour Party Conference is technically a private event in a private venue. Walter Wolfgang said afterwards, Jack Straw has the right of free speech, I also have the right of free speech. This is the traditional assumption around heckling in politics and I would suggest it has been the traditional assumption in other fields as well. Until now. Now, the audience in performances like the Labour Party Conference are no longer audiences per se - their role is to provide managed, televisual clapping and approval for the leadership. Anyone who dissents from this vision, which seems very much to be the vision you are defending, is dealt with violently. The attitude that paid thugs were right to shut the dissent up is all too common nowadays. Many people seem to prefer seeing the macho crushing of dissent than defend the rights of the lone individual, or a small group, who are kicking up a fuss. [/quote]

It depends on where the "dissent" is being expressed. If the labor conference is a private event in a private venue, then third parties don't have the right to disrupt it. If they're in some public square somewhere, the analysis is different. The Nazis can march down the street screaming racist hate speech in Skokie, Illinois, but they can't sneak into an NAACP event and ruin their conference. Do you not agree with that?

So in answer to your question, I think the relationship between speakers and hecklers is complex one but it is a relationship about power and human rights, not just the simplistic private/public divide you seem to think it is; there are major issues of free speech in play, and unlike you I don't sign up to the blanket principle that all hecklers in politics and entertainment (oh yes, in 'private' settings which is were nearly all political speeches are made nowadays) must expect to be instantaneously removed by force and that this is a jolly good thing. I think that's crap and it's something that should be increasingly challenged (and hopefully will be).

And, you have every right to your opinion. However, you'll need to be specific about where the "line" your drawing is. When do the police obey a property owner's request that a third party heckler be removed, and when does the heckler have the "right" to heckle? Does it matter what the heckler says? What's your source of law on this issue?

By the way, I love the way you contrive a supposed equality around the heckler who can "interfere with the speaker" so the speaker (or his thugs) can "interfere with the heckler". I would suggest a different equality. The heckler can shout at the speaker, and the speaker can shout at the heckler. Any skilled politician should know how to deal with hecklers, and it needn't involve sending the heavies in. That in my view is a sign of weakness. I don't have much respect for politicians that use that technique.

So, you would allow the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street groups an unfettered right to "shout down" their political opponents, on their opponents' private property, and the only recourse is to shout back, and have the conference or presentation devolve into a shouting match? Sounds great.

What worries me is that if what you have described is your understanding of the role of heckling in free speech - is this what is being taught to youngsters around the whole subject? I've forgotten - are you a teacher? What age children, and how is this subject handled?

No, I'm not a teacher. Heckling has a great role in free speech, and like the Skokie, Il, case the content of speech is sacrosanct and even the most vile among us has a right to publish their views and shout them in the public square. But, content neutral time, place and manner restrictions are required to keep order. If we didn't have those, then hecklers could stand outside private homes and heckle to their hearts content all through the night, and nobody could stop them. If Mitt Romney tried to get a heckler off his private property, you'd not allow him to do so, right/

Next time you're at a wedding, heckle the best man during the toast. Exercise your free speech.

Well, no - because the people who invite me to weddings trust me not to do that. That's the bit I think you're missing. Trust.

The bit you're missing is that if you stood up to heckle, they'd have you escorted out.

I don't think that's true at all. Heckling the best man is half the fun of the speech![/quote]

You don't get invited to weddings much, do you?

But if the heckling is not in good humour, I'd suggest that the heckler would be faced with a lot of people expressing their right of free speech by emphatically inviting the heckler to remain silent.

Or, leave...

So no, they would not have to escort me out.

Have to? Where did I state or imply that they would "have to" escort you out? Is this more of your "inferring" you previously mentioned?

That is clearly incorrect for the reasons I've stated. It is so strange that you resort to these violent methods (again, I love the euphemism of 'escorting out'!), as the first and foremost method of dealing with hecklers.

I didn't say they would. I said they could. Do you understand the difference between "would" and "could?" Think on it. It'll come to you...

For me as a speaker it would be a long way down the list, and I would take it as a sign of my failure if it were resorted to.

Regardless of whether you place it 2nd or 5th on the list, the fact that it is on the list means you acknowledge that it is a viable and rightful alternative.

I think that sounds stupid. No matter who is President, there are people who don't want his message heard. Obama would have extreme right wingers shouting him down no matter what, and George Bush would have extreme left wingers shouting him down no matter what. If the President is out in the public square, shouting is what he'll have to put up with. If he is in the Kiwanis Club dining hall, he doesn't, just like anyone else doesn't. Get it?

So... you and I know, the President never goes out in the public square.

...as is his right as an American... but, I think "never" is an overstatement.

He always speaks in venues which can be construed as private. This is how controlled a show the Presidency has become.

Has become? Name the last President who presided when it was different.

Let the President speak in public, I say. He has a microphone. What's he frightened of - that he might look unpopular?

Are you not American? The President speaks in public.

I agree that hecklers should not be allowed to force the President to stop speaking. But he doesn't have to just because one or two people are shouting. I've got no problem with his aides turning up the volume, and letting his skills as a politician carry the audience. If he has such skills, that is.

Who cares what you have a problem with?

Nothing is confusing me, thanks. The Labour Party Conference is a private event, not a public space. So I presume that means you think that it was right for the heckler to be chucked out, just for shouting "Rubbish!" at the Home Secretary.

Sure. Just like a dinner guest in a private home, or any attendee at a private dinner by invitation.

I think I'll end this here. You obviously don't have a clue about the democratic dynamics of any political meetings.

I'm sure my clues exceed yours. That's obvious.

Just to say that your simplistic, neat-and-tidy solution to the problem of heckling: privatise all speechifying, stinks. Force the public into private venues and treat them like cattle. Punish disobedience, and build a privileged position for those in authority to have sway over all meetings. If the public don't obey, chuck them out on the street and let them get on with it. I don't doubt this way of doing things has been rapidly gaining legitimacy in the last few years, and I'm sure it's the basis underpinning your approach to free speech in schools. It's why you don't want outside speakers coming in to schools if they start saying anything you disapprove of: you call it proselytizing, but it's just people saying what they think.

I didn't suggest privatizing all speeches. That's your "inferring" again, ay?

I have no problem with outside speakers coming into schools. I just don't want religion taught in state run schools, because the state shouldn't be in the business of religion.

[Exi5tentialist]

In answer to your response, Coito, in all the examples of people being "escorted out" of a meeting that I've seen: Walter Wolfgang, Tony Blair's hecklers at the Labour Conference, the "Antichrist" guy, and others in the last few years, the "escorting out" involved actual use of physical force by bouncers at a stage in the heckling that I would regard as ridiculously early and disrespectful to the freedom of speech of the hecklers.

I do not think we are going to make much more progress talking about this matter in the abstract. It is only on the basis of specific examples that we can test the substantial differences between us so I will take this up on another thread, with examples, in due course.

[Coito ergo sum]

In answer to your response, Coito, in all the examples of people being "escorted out" of a meeting that I've seen: Walter Wolfgang, Tony Blair's hecklers at the Labour Conference, the "Antichrist" guy, and others in the last few years, the "escorting out" involved actual use of physical force by bouncers at a stage in the heckling that I would regard as ridiculously early and disrespectful to the freedom of speech of the hecklers.

And, that suggests that I advocated immediate use of violence? Must be another of your "inferences.."

I do not think we are going to make much more progress talking about this matter in the abstract. It is only on the basis of specific examples that we can test the substantial differences between us so I will take this up on another thread, with examples, in due course.

Whatever. Your first step should be to take your own advice and stop turning my argument into something I didn't write. If we start there, then maybe we'd get somewhere.

[Exi5tentialist]

You're very dimwitted, it seems, since you have extreme difficulty comprehending basic English and simple concepts, and you continually invent things. I talked of escorting people out. I didn't advocate violence.

I object to being called "dimwitted" as I do not think it shows rational approach to discussion. You are welcome to continue but frankly your posts for the time being will receive a low priority from me.

Whatever. Your first step should be to take your own advice and stop turning my argument into something I didn't write. If we start there, then maybe we'd get somewhere.

Just because you don't state something explicitly is no reason not to infer your meaning. For example, you repeatedly talk about the correctness of hecklers being "escorted" from the meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if hecklers refuse to be "escorted" voluntarily then it is a reasonable inference that you would support the position that they be "escorted" forcefully (i.e. violently). You didn't write that, of course, and you are free to correct me if I have misinterpreted you. However, I am also free to draw the inference, and I have done so on the basis of an intelligent assessment of your opinions generally. Therefore no, I will not "stop" drawing inferences from your views, if that's what you mean.

Finally, I think it is fair to say we differ about the appropriate response to heckling in political meetings. I have noted your repeated attempts to portray my position as being the same as yours. It isn't, it's different - I value the freedom to heckle in meetings like the Labour Conference and Fundraising Events, you want to stop it in its tracks, I value giving students the opportunity to hear diverse religious views at school, you don't. That is a difference of substance.