I’m writing about an interesting question involving free speech relating to the demonstration at Clio Hall.
Can and does the right to speak one’s ideas exist without a right to make oneself heard and/or the right to make some particular person listen — especially when the associated act entailed may be technically or blatantly illegal? One famous Supreme Court case exonerated a Jehovah’s Witnesses witness convicted of trespassing to distribute pamphlets, Schneider v. New Jersey 308 U.S. 147 (1939).
Let us envision a demonstrator standing on a street corner yakking away being totally ignored. He grabs a passerby by the wrist and detains him (battery and false imprisonment) and yells his spiel (disturbing the peace). In his defense the demonstrator claims that freedom to speak must imply being able to make others listen or it is vacuous. Is there any sense in that?
All protesters aim to disturb our peace of circumventing their perceived pressing problem. What limits should be imposed on their ability to command our attention? In my era (Vietnam, with 50,000+ Americans dead) after the calamity at Kent State we figured it was appropriate to shut Harvard down for three days and talk. (I was a Ph.D. student at the time.) A few offices were messed up. The cops cleared the Yard once. But for the most part Harvard quickly returned to business. The dissenters were somewhat satisfied to get heard.
The Princeton protesters seem to insist on more than being heard. Will we let them violate law?