Expert: Michael Troy - 7/28/2003

Question
Dear Sir,
I seek your help reguarding freedom of speech restrictions.
My question is: Can a potential disruption of public order be used as an argument to restrict free speach in advance?
Thank you for your time.

Answer
In the US the answer is almost never.  The Courts have held that while preventing disruption is important, it cannot be used to suppress free speech.  There was a big case in the 1970's about this when a group of American Nazi's wanted to have a parade in a primarily Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois.  The Court held that despite the fact that riots against the Nazis were expected, they had to be allowed to march.  The police simply had to provide enough manpower to keep the order.

If the Court had held otherwise, any unpopular speech could be censored merely by having the opponents threaten to riot.  Legal circles call that the "heckler's veto" and it is not permitted.

There are occasions in time of extreme emergency that Courts may permit a short delay in allowing a protest.  For example, if there was a riot already going on out of control, police might temporarily delay a protest march.  Similarly, they might be able to force a short delay for a potential riot if they had no prior notice and needed time to get more police on the scene to keep order.

But the bottom line is that they may not suppress the message, they may only use certain time, place, and manner restrictions to make sure the presentation of the message does not unnecessarily disturb the peace.


I hope this helps!
- Mike