The right to free speech, or a violation of private property?

The Westboro Baptist Church has in the past protested funerals of fallen servicemen and the courts have ruled that this falls under the right to free speech. What I don't understand is why does a right to free speech mean you have the right to disrupt a private function on private property? I understand they are not physically on their property, but their actions to me clearly present a kind of externality. Municipalities have noise ordinances and consider noise filtering into someone's property if it disrupts them 'noise pollution'. Just as you can't pollute your neighbor's property with toxins why would you be able to disrupt your neighbor's private function by blasting him with your noise?

Post 1

Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 6:59pm

"In regard to the lawsuit to prevent a Nazi group from marching in Skokie, Illinois:

What I challenge (and not only because of that particular case) is the interpretation of demonstrations and of other actions as so-called “symbolic speech.” When you lose the distinction between action and speech, you lose, eventually, the freedom of both. The Skokie case is a good illustration of that principle. There is no such thing as “symbolic speech.” You do not have the right to parade through the public streets or to obstruct public thoroughfares. You have the right of assembly, yes, on your own property, and on the property of your adherents or your friends. But nobody has the “right” to clog the streets. The streets are only for passage. The hippies, in the 60s, should have been forbidden to lie down on city pavements. (They used to lie down across a street and cause dreadful traffic snarls, in order to display their views, to attract attention, to register a protest.) If they were permitted to do it, the Nazis should be permitted as well. Properly, both should have been forbidden. They may speak, yes. They may not take action at whim on public property."

Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Calendar, June 1978.
--------------

No freedoms are more important to protecting us against loss of political freedom - and the control of our government - than being able to speak our thoughts, publish them, and assemble. But like Rand points out, clogging a street (like interrupting a funeral service) is NOT included in freedom of speech or assembly. I would also argue that a municipal cemetery does have property rights even through they are held in common (which is the heart of the problem here) and the municipality should act on behalf of those who are there as legitimate participants in the funeral and treat those who are interrupting it as trespassing. And if they are off the public property but making enough noise to disrupt the funeral they are still trespassing.

Post 2

Thursday, January 13, 2011 - 8:31pm

Agreed :)

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 12:50am

Steve quoted Rand, "When you lose the distinction between action and speech, you lose, eventually, the freedom of both."

I'm surprised that Rand would say that, because speech is a form of action. In that respect, there is no distinction between action and speech. You don't have a right to engage in action (e.g., in speech) that interferes with someone else's right to freedom of action (or freedom of speech).

A heckler who attempts to drown out a public speaker is not practicing freedom of speech; he is instead interfering with the speaker's right to freedom of speech.

Post 4

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 5:31am

Indeed, and that was exactly what Robert Hessen said when he had some disruptors removed from an auditorium in which he was speaking, back in the 60's [was there]...

Post 5

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 10:05am

And in a similar vein, to deny one the 'right to offend' is in effect also to deny one the 'right to speak'.

And, taking that idea just one step further, one could well 'claim' to be 'offended' by a particular retail big box outlet that uses a giant graphic of a bullseye symbol followed by the word 'target' - not only offensive, but may very well influence one to commit random acts of violence. Ludicrous.

Or, random acts of shopping; followed by acts of violence. (LOL)
(Edited by Terry Peters on 1/14, 10:07am)

Post 6

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 12:09pm

The context when Rand said, "When you lose the distinction between action and speech, you lose, eventually, the freedom of both" indicates that she is talking about the difference between voicing ideas and laying down in a street so that no one can pass while pretending that it's just the expression of ideas and a form of free speech.

She said that the hippies and the Nazis should both be able to speak but neither should be able block traffic and in saying that, despite the fact that speaking is an action, as Bill points out, she is distinguishing between actions that would violate the rights of others, and those (speaking) that would not.

She could also have distinguished, if she had wanted to, between the authorized speaker attempting to make a speech, and the hecklers who are speaking loudly, and without invitation. Throwing the hecklers out isn't violating their right to free speech.

Post 7

Friday, January 14, 2011 - 12:31pm