Hecklers veto

[S.A.M.]

This is under the category of "Things I larned on Modoweiss"

A heckler's veto occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is that of demonstrators (reacting party) causing a speech (given by the acting party) to be terminated in order to preserve the peace.

In the United States, case law regarding the heckler's veto is mixed. Most findings say that the acting party's actions cannot be pre-emptively stopped due to fear of heckling by the reacting party, but in the immediate face of violence, authorities can ask the acting party to cease their action in order to satisfy the hecklers.

The best known case involving the heckler's veto is probably Feiner v. New York, handed down by the Supreme Court in 1951. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, writing for the majority, held that police officers acted within their power in arresting a speaker if the arrest was "motivated solely by a proper concern for the preservation of order and protection of the general welfare." 340 U.S. 315.

It was rejected in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 735 (SCOTUS 2000). where The US Supreme Court rejected the "Heckler's Veto," where "grants of power to private actors" allow "a single, private actor to unilaterally silence a speaker"[1]

What is the legal standing on this issue in other places?

 

[Asguard]

never herd of anything like this in Australian law (though bells would know better). there have been laws restricting specific protests (like the struck down World Youth Day laws and the APEC laws) but the closest example to this i can think of would be the preemptive visa refusal for people asaociated with the nutjob fred phelps who threatened to protest at heath leadures funeral (though i wish they had let him in then charged the basted under antidiscrimitation and inciting vilonce laws)