Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The post is by someone using the name dagon and it's entitled Free Debate or Freedom From Craziness. The author advocates shutting down free speech for those ideas he doesn't like. And he begins by showing his legal and historical ignorance:
A decade or so ago a neo-Nazi group decided to hold a parade through a community heavily populated by survivors of Nazi concentration camps. There was a huge uproar. Progressives, veterans, and most sensible Americans came down on the side of "No Nazi March!" The ACLU and some progressives came down on the side of Freedom to Assemble and Free Speech - give 'em a parade permit. In the end a compromise was reached ... they marched in Chicago, I believe, and everyone ignored them.
First of all, this battle was three decades ago, in 1977 and 1978. Second, the march took place where it was originally planned, at Marquette Park in Chicago (Skokie was the backup plan). Third, the Nazis won in court, as they should have. And no, everyone did not ignore them. This remains one of the most controversial legal cases in American history and it has spawned several books and at least one movie.
If you look on the Internet today, you can find lots of "White Power" racism and Anti-Semitic horror writing and preaching. Christianity backs up the hatred on these websites. Yet no mainstream church admits these jerks in their sanctuaries, prayers, dogma, General Sessions, writings, or websites. No city's newspaper grants them stories or will accept their ads. They are "shut up" in the USA.
What a bizarre, incoherent statement - Christianity backs up the hatred, but no mainstream church will admit them in their sanctuaries or ideas? Pick a horse and ride it, for crying out loud. Second, the fact that newspapers won't accept their ads does not mean such groups are "shut up" in the US. In fact, the courts have ruled dozens of times - and entirely consistently - that those groups have every right to speak in public. They've struck down every conceivable attempt to prevent them from speaking, marching and assembling.
Not only can a city not prevent the Nazis from marching, they can't even charge them more for police protection because of the increased threat of a violent reaction (and that, too, is the correct result). The first amendment covers these hate groups whether you think it should or not. If they were really "shut up" in the US, those websites would not exist.
You can even find pro-slavery advocates on the Net, I bet. But they too would not be allowed lectern space on any university campus in the USA.
Yes they would. They often are. In fact, if it's a public university and they were invited to speak by a campus organization, by law the university cannot prevent them from speaking.
The conservative Christian author of a book disputing science "The Born Gay Hoax" sought an invitation from the Republican Club at Smith College. During his speech to the women students, lesbian entered the hall, beat pans, and chanted. The speaker could not continue. He left the hall. The lesbians effctively silenced him...I have to admit, I think those bloggers who criticized the Smith women were wrong. The Smith lesbian were right on the money. We do NOT need to invite crazy people to our campuses, churches, or civic centers. The whole western world already knows that homosexuality is completely normal. The jury is back, the verdict is in, the case is over. Case closed. Debate over.
What fascinates me about this position is that he so arrogantly presumes that he gets to decide what people can speak about and what they can't, yet in doing so he reveals a deep-seated insecurity in the validity of his own positions. If you're convinced that you're right and that the evidence backs you up, debate should be the last thing you seek to shut down. Rather than shutting up those who oppose them, one should be seeking out debate with them in order to show people that A) we're right and B) we're therefore not afraid to confront the opposition and their arguments.
I agree completely with the first commenter at Bug Girl's blog post on this subject, where she compares how MSU handled this same putz and how Smith College did. DougT wrote:
The heckler's veto, while it can feel very satisfying, can actually be a sign of weakness in your position. Anyone can use it- you don't have to be right and you don't have to have a cogent argument. You just have to be loud.
Dagon shouldn't be proud of those who shut down Ryan Sorba's speech, he should be ashamed of them. Sorba is a vile, hateful little creep. More importantly, he's wrong - and far more good would come from calmly proving him wrong than by shutting him up and making him a martyr.
Comments
Neo-nazi groups have marched in St. Paul Minnesota just a couple of years ago (they may do it every year but I don't pay that much attention to 5 people marching for something anymore) - the press dutifully covered it. Heck - every time the Westboro church breaths - the press covers it. I wish they would ignore them.
So yes - the guy's an idiot.
Posted by: yoshi | May 14, 2008 9:48 AM
Except for the Blues Brothers.
"I hate Illinois Nazis."
Is the heckler's veto to some extent not free speech as well? I can understand the opposition if the hecklers are trespassing or disrupting a permitted assembly, but what about those people that shout down hateful street preachers? Are they not exercising their right to free speech, and should their heckling (which, let's be honest, is a subjective judgement of the content of the speech itself) not be afforded the same protection as the original speaker?
Posted by: Shygetz | May 14, 2008 10:01 AM
In the comments at Pam's House Blend, Dagon compares the Smith students shouting down a speaker to people dressed as angels who surrounded the Westboro Baptist Church protesters at a funeral, saying he's "on the side of the angels." He fails to see the difference between shutting down someone else's event and preventing someone else from disrupting an event.
Shygetz: I think your distinction is correct. Heckling a street preacher is free speech--though in my opinion it's most effective when it actually engages the preacher in arguments about their position. In my college days I had the pleasure of several times causing campus preachers to lose their cool or give up addressing my arguments and pretend I wasn't there.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | May 14, 2008 10:12 AM
With regards to the Westboro Baptist Church, I particularly enjoyed this recent counter protest:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iT7xQJrqUQ8
Posted by: SteveF | May 14, 2008 10:18 AM
I don't know the actual law, but I do believe that heckling a speaker is distinguished from disrupting or drowning him out, as the latter is violating the first person's freedom of speech by preventing him from speaking or being heard. The Smith case had students "beating pans and chanting... the speaker could not continue". That's not protected speech, that's an attack on the speech of another.
(Where the line is drawn between heckling, interrupting, or arguing with a speaker, and preventing their speech, I don't know. At what point does a questioner who just won't shut up become disruptive and get kicked out? I don't even know if a consistent standard exists, but the principle stands.)
Posted by: Morgan | May 14, 2008 10:22 AM
Looks like java isn't the only thing steaming over at Pam's. This pile of... well you get the idea.
It feels odd criticizing Pam's the day after I linked to and praised it in one of my posts. But it's absolutely deserved. It seems to me that those who want to curtail free speech like this fall in to three camps. There are those who, as Ed pointed out, don't have confidence in their position. Then there are those that seek it out of expedience. It's just plain easier to shout down your opponent than to engage them.
Then there are the righteous. They seem to have an attitude of, "I'm the good guy; you're the bad guy." So whatever helps them and hurts their opponent is okay. This short sighted, solipsistic, egotistical view is, I think, the most pervasive and pernicious. It can be popular with those who already agree with you. But it does little to actually advance one's cause and most often is harmful. It contains no new information. So it does nothing to change peoples thinking. But instead gives the appearance of weakness and fear.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 14, 2008 10:24 AM
Thanks for the shoutout, Ed. I'm a regular reader (and, very occasionally, commenter) here. You are an inspiration.
Posted by: DougT | May 14, 2008 10:45 AM
Hire the handicapped, eh?
We need a new term - a corollary to the Strawman, perhaps "The Simpleman" - useful to describe the utility of selecting the most inarticulate opponent possible for fisking on one's blog.
So, good Simpleman here.
Don't get me wrong - eviscerating an incompetent is good fun and I wouldn't miss it for a moment.
But it might be interesting to hear dissenting views on the subject from someone who can talk and chew gum at the same time.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 14, 2008 11:14 AM
I'm reminded of an incident from my grad school days: a Klan rally in Ann Arbor was being protested by people who didn't see the irony in putting up signs reading "No Free Speech For Fascists". Same mindset at work here.
Posted by: Cathy W | May 14, 2008 11:17 AM
Shygetz wrote:
No. As the old saying goes, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. More specifically, the limit on the exercise of your rights is when it prevents me from exercising mine. Shouting down or drowning out a speaker violates their right to speak. There's a whole range of things you can do to protest or counter their speech, but preventing it from being heard is not one of them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 14, 2008 11:40 AM
I quite agree with you. One of the best comments I have heard is that of the (sometimes detested) Chris Hitchens.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html#comments
Click on "download here".
Posted by: bernarda | May 14, 2008 11:46 AM
So it is a matter of volume? If one person shouts at a street preacher who is also shouting back, which is violating the other's rights? The one who started shouting first? If one person speaks at a volume that is sufficient to allow the preacher to be heard, but is then joined by others speaking at the same volume, the cumulative result of which prevents that person from being heard, which of them is violating the preacher's rights? Does the preacher claim priority because he was speaking first, and everyone else must shut up until he is good and ready to stop? If I am having a private conversation that is drowned out by a shouting street preacher, do I have to prove that my conversation started first in order to sue him for violating my civil rights? What if I'm walking while having my conversation and then we move into the area being dominated by the street preacher--is the claim for priority geographically based or temporally based? Is the sidewalk governed by Roberts Rules of Order, where I must wait to be recognized by the current speaker before I can interrupt?
I'm sorry, Ed, but I think you go too far. Just as I cannot stop you from speaking, you cannot stop me from doing the same, even if it blunts the effects of your speech. If you have a legitimate claim to an exclusive venue (as the author at Smith College apparently did), then yes, I must shut up until such time as your exclusive claim expires. But if you are in an open public forum, I have as much right to heckle as you have to spew. The fact that you were speaking first may make it impolite for me to interrupt (in which case I may be censured socially for my impertinence), but it does not make it illegal, nor should it. If the speaker wants to ensure he is heard without interruption, then the speaker can arrange for an exclusive venue.
Posted by: Shygetz | May 14, 2008 12:11 PM
Posted by: Pither | May 14, 2008 12:16 PM
I thought that the Blues Brothers dealt to those neo Nazis?!
Posted by: KiwiInOz | May 14, 2008 8:50 PM
I'm not sure that Ed would disagree with what you're saying, Shygetz. I didn't get the impression that he was saying that shouting people in public places should be entirely illegal. But any given venue has the right to set the standards of decor to be followed on their property, and that might include prohibiting hecklers. And it's still ethically and morally wrong to shout someone down rather than respond to them with reason and logic.
Also, saying that shouting over someone is attacking their right to speak isn't necessarily the same as saying it should be illegal to shout over someone. For example, I think that raising a child in a rigidly fundamentalist religion denies that child his or her freedom of religion, but I'm not willing to go as far as some people who want to outlaw religious indoctrination of children entirely.
Posted by: Wes | May 14, 2008 9:43 PM
Seriously, I have to agree with shygetz and would love your take on it, Ed. (Sorry I haven't posted lately, I access at work and am trying to be good about limiting myself to reading but I'm interested in knowing the legal lines here if you or anyone else knows.) We should be able to heckle the street preachers all we want. Engage them? Are you kidding me? Have you ever tried to engage one of these crazies? All they do is shout repent sinner and scream that you're going to hell. Meanwhile, if I rant there is no God, you know I'd be shut down real quick if I didn't have a permit to protest. (No, I don't have the inclination to martyr myself by putting this to the test.) So I don't buy the protection they're afforded without benefit of one. Since free speech and the freedom to protest has become limited by needing to get a permit, why don't these wackos have to get one or else keep their decibles down to a reasonable level so I can carry on my conversation with whoever? And, if they don't, why can't we heckle them in the same public place? Why can't we stand right next to them and scream the exact opposite? Hell, then, let's get an atheist, agnostic, Bhuddist, Muslim, Hindu and all get to screaming up and down the damned sidewalk. I mostly agree with you, Ed. Much as I hate it (and I saw that movie) the Skokie Nazis did have the right to march and should have. I agree that the Smith lesbians were wrong. But there does have to be some limits to free speech -- before it becomes bullying. And, frankly, I find street preachers shouting so loudly I can't avoid hearing them bullying. I hate hearing the God hates you sinner stuff so bad I don't go inside churches, etc. Why does some unpermitted asshole get to inflict it on me because I needed to walk down that street today? Okay, free speech. But if he's got it so, damn it, do I. And I sure as hell am not going to be forced to listen quietly and am gonna call him out on his hate speech and ignorance -- as loudly as he's spewing it.
Posted by: Donna | May 15, 2008 8:40 AM