As an unapologetic proponent of Natural Rights which includes the inherent right to Freedom of Speech, it may be a surprise to learn that this is not a 100% Freedom in all situations, it does in fact have limits. But where and when those limits occur must and can only be finite and very limited themselves, and are only on location and not context.
Recently in California 10 students were found guilty of "disruptive speech" (from Foxnews.com), when they attempted to speak over the Israeli Ambassador to the United States while speaking at California University. The charge and court decision here are correct in this case. The main reason why these students did not have protected speech is the forum. Even though the Ambassadors speech was open to the public, the speech itself was not in the public domain, rather a controlled area or setting. This distinction is where the line of Freedom of speech ends, the Public Domain and NOT the Public Domain.
The Public forum is where Freedom of Speech is and ought to be absolute, the town square, parades, assemblies outside or around government facilities, the press or other writings, this is the public forum. What is not the public forum is privately controlled or reserved for another purpose, such as your house, your yard, a sports stadium, or another facility that distinctly separates it from the open public, such as a lecture room at a college. It does not matter who owns the property, it CAN be government owned but still not be in the public domain, meaning freedom of speech can be limited.
Governments own various Sporting arena or stadiums around the country, yet each and every one has a standard of conduct for its fans, even though it may be open to all the public. Even though it is government owned, free speech is limited, a fan may not be able to say or show whatever they wish, and if they break the rules they may be removed or even prosecuted, though it is an open to public setting. The reason speech can be limited, even though it is open to the public and in a government owned building, is it is inherently separate from the general public. The event is to put on a service or exhibition of sorts, those who are attending the event are there for a common purpose, and it is isolated from the general public by some physical means of separation. This same premise holds true to the College Lecture with the ambassador.
It is when these actions happen, that also kept out of the setting is free speech. In California, the College or Ambassador prepared a setting for the Ambassador to speak, it was removed or separate from the public as a whole, it was setup for a specific purpose or service, it separated itself from the general public, thus also separating it from areas a absolute freedom of speech.
When people choose to attend these settings, whether for a lecture or sports game, a movie or whatever it happens to be, those people are there for a dedicated purpose. To allow others to use their natural right of speech to deny others their equal right of assembly for a common cause inherently is a violation of the natural rights. The rights of one individual are protected and ought to be absolute, up until they infringe on another's equal rights. By denying the Ambassador and those who attended his right to speak and those to listen, in an environment specifically setup for that purpose out of the general public, those 10 men were infringing on their right to speak, assemble and discuss ideas.
If this speech had happened in the open, in the public square, on a street or at a street corner, these 10 students would have been well within there rights to attempt to drown out the ambassadors remarks. But once the Ambassador moved the the location to an area outside of the public domain, he also separated himself from this absolute protection given to these students, and moved into a position to fully protect his speech and the right of those who chose to listen to him.
Nothing would have prevented these students from protesting outside the building and still expressing their disagreement with the ambassador, but to prevent the ambassador from speaking at all and those who wish to hear him in this setting is not protected speech.
This was the correct decision by the courts. This was disruptive speech, and certainly infringed on the rights of the Ambassador and those who attended.
No comments :
Post a Comment