HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017222.jpg
2.38 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
8
Organizations
5
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Excerpt from a legal or academic text regarding free speech
File Size:
2.38 MB
Summary
This document discusses the distinction between the First Amendment right to heckle a speaker versus silencing them entirely, referencing the Bruce Franklin case involving Henry Cabot Lodge at Stanford in 1971. It contrasts the ACLU's past defense of limited disruption with a later refusal by the Southern California branch to apply the same principles during a disruption of Michael Oren's speech at the University of California at Irvine.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Franklin | ||
| Henry Cabot Lodge | ||
| Michael Oren | ||
| Erwin Chemerinksy |
Organizations (8)
Timeline (2 events)
Henry Cabot Lodge speech at Stanford (January 1971)
Michael Oren speech at UC Irvine
Locations (5)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
Relationships (4)
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
Key Quotes (3)
"there is a constitutional right to heckle speakers (at least in some context), there is no such right to silence a speaker by shouting him down."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017222.jpg
Quote #1
"“[I]f the Board concludes that Professor Franklin intentionally engaged in concerted activity designed to silence Ambassador Lodge... then it is the Civil Liberties Union’s position that some discipline would be appropriate.”"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017222.jpg
Quote #2
"“The rule of thumb [is] that the speaker’s entire address must be allowed to be heard, but it may be frequently interrupted, so long as he is permitted to continue a short time after each interruption..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017222.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,099 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
Expressions that deliberately disrupt a speaker with whom one disagrees
The Bruce Franklin case also included this alleged exception to the First Amendment—namely,
that although there is a constitutional right to heckle speakers (at least in some context), there is
no such right to silence a speaker by shouting him down. When Henry Cabot Lodge came to
speak at Stanford in January 1971, he was shouted down with cries of “pig” and “war criminal,”
and then drowned out by continuous chanting and clapping. Eventually, the program had to be
canceled (just as a similar program had been canceled several years earlier at Harvard.) Franklin
participated in the shouting but denied complicity in the chanting and clapping that brought the
program to an untimely end.
that although there is a constitutional right to heckle speakers (at least in some context), there is
no such right to silence a speaker by shouting him down. When Henry Cabot Lodge came to
speak at Stanford in January 1971, he was shouted down with cries of “pig” and “war criminal,”
and then drowned out by continuous chanting and clapping. Eventually, the program had to be
canceled (just as a similar program had been canceled several years earlier at Harvard.) Franklin
participated in the shouting but denied complicity in the chanting and clapping that brought the
program to an untimely end.
The ACLU brief that I filed vigorously disagreed with Franklin’s contention that there is a “right”
to silence a speaker who is deemed to be a “war criminal”:
“[I]f the Board concludes that Professor Franklin intentionally engaged in concerted
activity designed to silence Ambassador Lodge—that is, to prevent him from speaking at
all—then it is the Civil Liberties Union’s position that some discipline would be
appropriate.”
to silence a speaker who is deemed to be a “war criminal”:
“[I]f the Board concludes that Professor Franklin intentionally engaged in concerted
activity designed to silence Ambassador Lodge—that is, to prevent him from speaking at
all—then it is the Civil Liberties Union’s position that some discipline would be
appropriate.”
It defended, however, Franklin’s right to heckle, boo, and express displeasure at the speaker of
disagreement with his views. If members of the audience may cheer and applaud approval, they
must also have a coextensive right to demonstrate disapproval:
disagreement with his views. If members of the audience may cheer and applaud approval, they
must also have a coextensive right to demonstrate disapproval:
“The rule of thumb [is] that the speaker’s entire address must be allowed to be heard, but
it may be frequently interrupted, so long as he is permitted to continue a short time after
each interruption. This rule does not make for the most comfortable or effective oratory,
but the American Civil Liberties Union believes it to be the constitutionally required
balance...”
it may be frequently interrupted, so long as he is permitted to continue a short time after
each interruption. This rule does not make for the most comfortable or effective oratory,
but the American Civil Liberties Union believes it to be the constitutionally required
balance...”
The Stanford Committee followed the ACLU guidelines and concluded that Franklin had not tried
to prevent Lodge from speaking.
to prevent Lodge from speaking.
Forty years later, I tried to get the Southern California branch of the ACLU to apply these same
guidelines to another case involving the disruption of a speaker who had been invited by a
university—this time the University of California at Irvine, a public university. But its leaders
refused to do so, because they disapproved of the speaker and favored the politics of those who
were trying to silence him. First, some background.
guidelines to another case involving the disruption of a speaker who had been invited by a
university—this time the University of California at Irvine, a public university. But its leaders
refused to do so, because they disapproved of the speaker and favored the politics of those who
were trying to silence him. First, some background.
There is a growing international campaign to prevent pro-Israel advocates, who have been invited
to speak at universities, from delivering their speeches. The method used to silence these speakers
and preclude their audiences from hearing their message is exemplified by what occurred at the
University of California at Irvine.
to speak at universities, from delivering their speeches. The method used to silence these speakers
and preclude their audiences from hearing their message is exemplified by what occurred at the
University of California at Irvine.
Michael Oren -- a distinguished scholar and writer, a moderate supporter of the two-state
solution, and now Israel's Ambassador to the United States -- was invited to speak. The Muslim
Student Union set out to prevent him from delivering his talk. Here is the way Erwin
Chemerinksy, Dean of the law school, described what the students did:
solution, and now Israel's Ambassador to the United States -- was invited to speak. The Muslim
Student Union set out to prevent him from delivering his talk. Here is the way Erwin
Chemerinksy, Dean of the law school, described what the students did:
135
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017222
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document