When 4 or 5 are gathered against my name, I'm going to require a permit, applied for 72 hours in advance.

Sayeth Scott Walker. (Compare Jesus: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.")

The rule applies inside the Capitol, where lengthy, noisy, wild protests raged last winter. Outside the Capitol — where there have been many spontaneous gatherings of tens of thousands — the permit requirement kicks it at 100. Even worse:

Groups holding demonstrations could be charged for the costs of having extra police on hand for the event. Costs associated with a counterprotest could be charged to that second group. The costs would be $50 per hour per Capitol Police officer - costs for police officers from outside agencies would depend on the costs billed to the state. The police could require an advance payment as a requirement for getting a permit and also could require liability insurance or a bond....

Any damage or cleanup after a demonstration could be charged to organizers. During the court fight earlier this year over access to the Capitol, Walker's administration said the demonstrators had done $7.5 million in damage to the building with the signs and other wear and tear. But almost immediately the administration sharply backpedaled from that claim, conceding the damage was significantly less.

Conservative politicians, forced to meet in Madison, Wisconsin, have the problem that the sudden, troublesome crowds consist overwhelmingly of their antagonists. The Governor's seemingly neutral rules obviously fall heavily on his opponents. The stricter the limitations — and these are absurdly strict — the more non-neutral they really are. But even if you can pretend these rules are as neutral as they look on the surface and need only be reasonable to satisfy the First Amendment, these rules are plainly unreasonable.

This is craven repression and a shocking violation of free speech rights.

"RJ Reynolds v. FDA and the Hidden Danger of Denying Free Speech Protection to Corporations."

Aaron Worthing has an excellent post about the litigation over the FDA rules requiring new warning labels on cigarettes.

IN THE COMMENTS: caplight said:

This is great, so now the government can require abortionists to post pictures of the developmental stages of a human being in utero and pictures of chopped up baby parts. Oh, and the link between abortion and breast cancer too.

Exactly!

Justice Stevens writes of his "extreme distaste for debates about campaign financing."

That's from his new book "Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir," and it refers to his experience immediately upon his ascent to the Supreme Court in 1976, when the Justices were deciding Buckley v. Valeo. He goes on:

That distaste never abated, and I have felt ever since that the Court would be best served by inserting itself into campaign finance debates with less frequency. 

The Court would be best served, eh? The questions have to do with what the Constitution says about  freedom of speech, so one must wonder why he'd think in terms of what serves the Court best as opposed to what the Constitution means or at least what serves the people best.

That view may have had an impact on the unusually long dissent that I wrote during my last term on the Court against the Court’s overreaching in the Citizens United case...

In addition to my overriding hostile reaction to the subjects discussed in Buckley, I also recall puzzlement about why the Court failed to endorse the position expressed by Justice White in his dissent. He effectively explained why the distinction between limitations on contributions (which the Court upheld) and the limitations on expenditures (which the Court invalidated) did not make much sense, and why the Court should have respected the congressional judgment that effective campaigns could be conducted within the limits established by the statute. Time has vindicated his prediction that without “limits on total expenditures, campaign costs will inevitably and endlessly escalate.” He thought it quite proper for Congress to limit the amount of money that a candidate or his family could spend on a campaign in order “to discourage any notion that the outcome of elections is primarily a function of money.”

That is, he favors limiting speech so that people don't get the wrong idea (the wrong idea being that money affects elections). Under the system we have, as the majority of the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution, candidates can spend all the money they want trying to get elected and people are free to get the "notion" that money affects the outcome of elections.

Justice Stevens continues:

The majority’s response to Justice White relied on the rhetorical flourish that “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” The assumption underlying that colorful argument...

Colorful?

... is that limitations on the quantity of speech in public debates are just as obnoxious as limitations on the content of what a speaker has to say. 

That is to say, it's not really so bad for the government to tell a candidate: We think you've said enough.

But there is nothing even arguably unfair about evenhanded rules that limit the amount of speech that can be voiced in certain times or places or by certain means, such as sound trucks. If we view an election as a species of debate between two adversaries, equalizing the amount of time (or money) that each can spend in an attempt to persuade the decision-makers is fully consistent with the First Amendment. Otherwise, appellate court rules limiting the time that the adversaries spend in oral arguments would be invalid because they limit the speech of one adversary in order to enhance the relative voice of his or her opponent.

He's equating the formal conditions within the confines of the appellate courtroom to the speech that takes place in the entirety of all of the forums in which a candidate might speak: all of the city squares and auditoriums, all of the TV and radio channels, all of the print media, and the entirety of the internet!

There's very little mention of Citizens United in Stevens's book, perhaps because the opinion wasn't written by the Chief Justice, and the subject of the book is Chief Justices. But he does mention it, musing that, based on Roberts opinion in Snyder v. Phelps, "perhaps I should give him a passing grade in First Amendment law."

But for reasons that it took me ninety pages to explain in my dissent in the Citizens United campaign finance case, his decision to join the majority in that case prevents me from doing so.

That's it. He doesn't even attempt to explain Citizens United to the general reader, who's expected to accept that the Court got it wrong but it would take 90 pages to explain why. Citizens United — which we covered in my conlaw class yesterday — is indeed damned pesky to absorb, and there's something disturbing about a case that purports to tell us something fundamental about political speech in our democracy, but that cannot be talked about in straightforward terms. If he's so right and the other side is so wrong, he should be able to say why in a clear, readable few pages. Instead, what we get is either way overcomplicated, so you'll have to go read 90 pages, or it's insultingly oversimplified: John Roberts flunks!

Here's the 90-page dissenting opinion, in case you're up for reading it. As we say on the limitless internet: Read the whole thing. I'll bet very few people have read the whole thing. Justice Stevens delves into the history of Americans' attitudes about corporations. (In Citizens United, the majority emphasized free speech, not the source of the speech, while the dissenters made a distinction between individuals and corporations and would have accepted limits on speech when it comes from corporations.) Stevens wrote about the fear of corporations in early American history. He quotes Lawrence Friedman's "A History of American Law": “The word ‘soulless’ constantly recurs in debates over corporations… . Corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men”). Later in his opinion, Stevens augments that anxiety about corporations with his own words: "corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires."

Here's the whole "soulless" paragraph from Professor Friedman's book:

The word “soulless” constantly recurs in debates over corporations. Everyone knew that corporations were really run by human beings. Yet, the word was not completely inappropriate. Corporations did not die, and there was no real limit to their size, or their greed. Corporations might aggregate the worst urges of whole groups of men. No considerations of family, friendship, or morality, would temper their powers. People hated and distrusted corporations, the way some people came to fear the soulless computer—machines that can join together the wit, skill, power, and malevolence of infinite numbers of minds.

Thank God my computer is soulless! I'm using it to write this post, and I wouldn't like it to insert any morality, beliefs, feelings, thoughts, and desires, between me and you, as I invite you to aggregate your possibly evil urges here in the comments. With the power of the soulless computer we can join together the wit, skill, power, and malevolence of infinite numbers of minds.

How scary is that?

Scott Turow advocates amending the Constitution to restrict free speech.

It's never been done, but he thinks it's time now, and he recommends this push for a constitutional amendment as the next step for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Free speech rights prevent government from expressing its anti-smoking message on cigarette packages.

NYT reports:

In a preliminary injunction, Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court in Washington ruled that cigarette makers were likely to win a free speech challenge against the proposed labels, which include staged photos of a corpse and of a man breathing smoke out of a tracheotomy hole in his neck.

The judge ruled that the labels were not factual and required the companies to use cigarette packages as billboards for what he described as the government’s “obvious anti-smoking agenda!”...

“It is abundantly clear from viewing these images that the emotional response they were crafted to induce is calculated to provoke the viewer to quit, or never to start, smoking: an objective wholly apart from disseminating purely factual and uncontroversial information,” Judge Leon wrote.

How delightful for the government to be limited in its endless efforts to manipulate our emotions! Stick to the facts?! Why that's so... refreshing!

Matt Rothschild — editor of The Progressive — arrested for taking photos of someone getting arrested for taking photos.

There's a rule against taking photos from the gallery of the Wisconsin Assembly. On his shirt, Rothschild had taped a sheet of paper taped with the free speech provisions of the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions.

Like many of the others who filled nearly every seat in the Assembly gallery, Rothschild said he was fed up with the arrests in recent weeks of citizens who defied the Assembly ban on displaying signs, and shooting photos and video....

A contributor to the liberal blog Daily Kos helped draw protesters to the Capitol Tuesday by calling for a "Concealed Camera Day" protest. Comedian Stephen Colbert had great fun on his show Monday night, noting that Wisconsin residents, under the concealed carry law that kicked in Tuesday, will now be able to carry concealed weapons in the Capitol but are not allowed to shoot video of legislative proceedings.

Where's the inconsistency? You can carry a camera, and you can't shoot the gun.

When the Assembly was called to order a little after 6 p.m., protesters sat in the upstairs gallery with signs clearly attached to their shirts. 

There's also a rule against signs. And "public displays" and "demonstrations." Here's video edited from the point of view of the demonstrators. Go to 2:40 to get to the scene inside the gallery. There's singing — "Deep in my heart/I do believe/Walker won't be Governor some day" — and confrontation with the police — "Did you see that guy pushed me?... Don't you ever put your hands on me again or I'll sue you."

About five police officers stood at the back of the room at the time. Soon people starting holding up their cell phones to shoot video. Assembly pages first asked these individuals to put away their phones but, when they were rebuffed, police officers moved in to make arrests.

That is, as we've observed in the past, the photography-related arrests occur only after a person is warned and decides to accept arrest rather than stop.

While the arrests were being made, some protesters yelled at the police. Others simply asked them why they were making arrests. "You could refuse to do this," one protester said to an officer.

Here's the "Concealed Camera Day" post from Giles Goat Boy in the Daily Kos:

Starting Tuesday, November 1st, Wisconsin residents can apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons, and they can then carry those concealed weapons throughout most of the state Capitol building. Guns will soon be allowed in the Assembly gallery, but silently filming from the gallery will get you arrested. Weird, eh?...

For those of you who can show up, here are a few things to know:

1. There is no central meeting place. Bring a camera, even if it's just your cell phone....

3. Some activists might choose to quietly record the proceedings, as is their first amendment right. They might be arrested. This is their choice, and is not required of you to be part of this action. If you do choose to film the proceedings or display signs, you too might be subject to arrest, citations, or jail, so you are more than welcome to simply be a silent observer. More than anything, we want to fill up the gallery with peaceful, quiet witnesses.

5. As I just said, this is a peaceful action. Remain quiet and do not disrupt the Assembly proceedings....

6. This is not a demonstration against the concealed carry law, it is an action meant to point out hypocrisy and to support the first amendment rights of those who have been arrested and jailed.

What was the "hypocrisy"? If you're carrying a "concealed camera," there's no violation of the rules at all. And the demonstrators obviously were not following Goat Boy's rules, because they were not keeping a quiet vigil with concealed cameras. From what I can see, they were disruptive and distracting, which is the reason for the viewpoint-neutral rules of the Assembly.

"The Constitutional Right to Insult Your Neighbors With Tombstone Displays."

Just one section of an article — PDF — in the New York State Bar Association Journal about Halloween-related lawsuits. (Via ABAJournal.)

The tombstones referenced the petitioning neighbors by name, and each contained a date of death based on that neighbor’s address. For example, one tombstone referencing a neighbor named Betty Gargarz stated:

"[W]hen your product is so repulsive that no one wants to buy it in the open market..."

"... you have to somehow find a way to borrow the market for someone else's more attractive product."

"His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge."

Who?

Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."

"To forget it!"

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" I protested.

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently: "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

Just something I ran into when I Googled the phrase "mental furniture," which came up during the conversation excerpted in the previous post. We'd been talking about how people have opinions and beliefs that are like rooms that they've got arranged some way that they like or they're used to, and if you want to come in and say maybe the sofa would be better on the other side of the room, and they're not up for moving it over there to check your theory, well... you can understand how they feel.

They're happy enough with the rooms they've got. They feel comfortable. They can't be spending all their time moving furniture about, thinking about whether some piece earns the space it takes up, always ready to drag something ugly or useless out to the curb, and going shopping for the perfect new tables and chairs. They want to live in those rooms they've already furnished. Why can't you be a more pleasant guest?

"Plenty of people on the right and on the left are not comfortable with a free marketplace of ideas."

Says Meade, after I read him a blog post that calls me "obtuse" for writing about how 2 men were talking past each other about affirmative action. This blogger simply agreed with the man who stated the crisply clear position that race discrimination is always wrong and bad, and since I did not — I was more interested in the way the 2 men could not interact — I was obtuse.

My response to Meade was: "A lot of people don't really like shopping."

Cornel West — protesting Citizens United — gets himself arrested on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reported by Susan Brooks Thisltethwaite at the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog:

The Supreme Court was a fitting venue for this demonstration both to honor Dr. King and demonstrate solidarity with the #OWS (Occupy Wall Street) movement. As Dr. West said prior to being arrested, there is “a relation between corporate greed and what goes on too often in Supreme Court decisions.”

In Democracy Matters, West makes this point in far greater detail “(The) illicit marriage of corporate and political elites — so blatant and flagrant in our time — not only undermines the trust of informed citizens in those who rule over them. It also promotes the pervasive sleepwalking of the populace, who see that the false prophets are handsomely rewarded with money, status, and access to more power.” (p. 4)

How is that "far greater detail"? With no reference to Supreme Court at all, it seems like less detail. Or by "detail," did Ms. Thisltethwaite mean verbosity? Thisltethwaite continues:

Here’s the point: If you are content to think that corporations are people and money is speech, as the Supreme Court decided in the by a vote of 5-4, in their Citizens United v Federal Election Commission decision, then indeed you are sleepwalking through your citizenship and giving over your faith to false prophets.

I believe, when future accounts of this era are written, historians will judge that the wake up call for many people in America was in early 2010 with that Supreme Court decision. The winter of 2010 is what led to the #OWS demonstrations in the fall of 2011.

Can we as citizens accept this definition of person, and of speech? This is what Dr. West, by his action on the steps of the Supreme Court, is asking us to stop and ponder. Corporation as person? A soulless legal entity as human being? No. We can’t and we must not. As I have written before, God didn’t create corporations.

And God didn't create The Washington Post, which is a corporation. Could Congress criminalize WaPo's reporting about political candidates  in the 2-month period preceding an election? It would protect us from distorted ravings like yours, Ms. Thisltethwaite. What do you say? You must say yes! I mean, if you care about coherence. And I know you don't.

... Dr. West did not call for anger, he actually called for “deep love” in his remarks before his arrest, and he spoke his solidarity even with the police, those who were about to arrest him.

This is worthy of another jail, at another time. In 1963, Dr. King wrote, in his Letter from Birmingham Jail....

Boston's response to Occupy Boston: "if there are so many people joining a demonstration that the city doesn’t want to tangle with them, then they will waive the requirements."

Does that mean it's viewpoint discrimination, which is what some Tea Partiers are insinuating?

I raised this question during the Wisconsin protests, as we saw the police do all sorts of things to yield to the protesters. For example, they would respond to impromptu marches around the Capitol by blocking regular traffic. We talked to the police who were carrying out that policy — I have video — and they explained that it was the best way to deal with crowds that size. That is, it's not viewpoint discrimination, but a neutral response designed to maintain the best semblance of order when the police are outnumbered.

I tried to needle them with law professor questions — I do random acts of law teaching around town — about whether they'd treat Nazis or some such loathed group the same way. The crafty but troubling answer was: The Nazis would never arrive in such numbers.

The first link, above, is via Instapundit, who attributed Boston's special treatment of the Occupy Boston protesters to the fact that "the officials are Democratic hacks, and the 'protesters' are Democratic tools. Duh."

Setting the right free speech example.

Dean Daniel Polsby at George Mason Law School.

Meanwhile, at UW-Stout, after sufficient pressure, the Chancellor caved.

"Come on, can’t you hear the keystrokes clicking by somebody over at Fox or Althouse just so eager to defend this next 'brave young person' who dared to 'tell the truth' at Harvard Law School?"

Somebody over at Althouse? I'm the only one here. I've been solo-blogging with nary a guest blogger for nigh on 8 years. If you're talking about somebody over at Althouse, you're talking about me. Or are you dragging my name through the "raaaaccciissssttt!!!!" mud over what you imagine a commenter might say?

Dammit. Now I know Elie Mystal at Above the Law has an old issue with me about calling things racist. Back in 2008, there was a contest — which he won — to determine who would be the new blogger at Above the Law. I was one of a panel of judges — a la "American Idol" — and we were looking a the writing of several competitors without seeing the details of who was writing. Judging one of Mystal's entries, I said: "Racism alert." I didn't know that Mystal is, in fact, African American.

Anyway, in the present case, Mystal is writing about a blog called “Harvard Law Caveman,” which is some kind of satirical blog opposed to affirmative action. I have never linked to it, though the author pitched it to me via email a couple times about 10 days ago. I'm not amused by the crude use of racism even when I think the writer meant to lampoon racism. Mystal's belief that I am "just so eager to defend this next 'brave young person' who dared to 'tell the truth'" is nothing but mudslinging.

As for the Harvard Law Caveman, why give him attention just to trash him? Is it so you can trash somebody who has profile, like me? But I didn't link to him. Maybe back when he pitched his blog to me, the Caveman also pitched it to Above the Law. Maybe Mystal has been waiting to see whether someone like me would link so he could attack. Time passed. Did anyone link? But he nevertheless portrays me as "eager" to link! I call bullshit, Elie.

This guy launched a racist blog using as much HLS branding as he could, but the school is not going to actually do anything about it. 

Like what?! It's free speech, and Mystal must know damned well that taking action would draw attention to this erstwhile unnoticed blog and also turn the writer into a free speech martyr. The criticism of Harvard Law School is thus also bullshit.

... But this is life at Harvard Law School. The school is so big. And there are so many people there who are still pissed that they didn’t get into Yale. The racist crap one hears from the HLS student body on just a casual level I think would blow most people away. I once had a white guy argue to my face that I didn’t “belong” there — and this was after we’d both figured out that I got a better grade in the class we took together.

Shine a light on whatever HLS "racist crap" you really see, but it only undercuts your credibility to make crap up. The way you just treated me makes me wonder what was the whole context of that "belong" quote? Let's talk about what's actually true. It works a whole lot better that way.

"'Firefly' and Anti-Fascism Posters Get Professor Threatened with Criminal Charges on University of Wisconsin Campus."

Instapundit highlights this story from UW—Stout, stressing the threat of criminal charges against a professor who put a quote from the TV show "Firefly" on his office door.

If we're going to talk about this, let's face up to what the quote was: "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed."

I can't fathom why a teacher would put that on an office door. I mean, I can see that this was a theater professor and it's a vividly theatrical line from a character some people are familiar with. I wonder what the whole story is, specifically, how the school attempted to handle the matter internally and cordially.

Prof. Donald Downs demands answers from the University of Wisconsin about the Doubletree protest against Roger Clegg.

Noting the university's vaunted devotion to "sifting and winnowing," he writes:

There is a key First Amendment distinction between protest and disruption...

Disruption is a problem for at least two reasons. First, it violates the rights of speakers and listeners. Second, it sends a message that the topic under discussion is taboo, and, therefore, not a proper subject for public discussion...

What do University of Wisconsin leaders have to say about what happened at the press conference? Are they prepared to support and espouse the rules that make free speech possible? Did some administrators play a role in encouraging protests? If so, were they acting consistently with their professional responsibilities?

Only by seriously addressing these and related questions can we proceed together as a community bound by a common commitment to legal speech, counter-speech and protest.

Downs ought to get answers to these questions, but I tend to doubt that he will.

I'm creating a new tag, "Doubletree protest," so click there if you want to go back to those old posts to get up to speed. That protest is a sub-issue to 2 major issues — with very specific Wisconsin content — which I am covering, long term, on this blog: 1. protests and 2. affirmative action. I'm trying to control tag proliferation, but I'm glad I made a "Wisconsin protests" tag last winter instead of relying solely on my old "protest" tag. But to make a sub-category out of one Wisconsin protest... that seemed ridiculous... until it didn't.

"California Jury Convicts 10 Muslim Students of Interrupting Campus Speech."

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports:

The students interrupted a February 2010 speech by Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, by taking turns standing up and shouting their objections to Israeli-government policies...

Both prosecutors and lawyers for the defendants said they were protecting the principle of freedom of speech. The prosecutors accused the students of deliberate censorship, while the students' lawyers argued that their clients were conducting a common campus protest and should not have been prevented from expressing their views....

The protest took place at the University of California at Irvine. Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school there said it was a "terrible mistake" to prosecute the students. But he's also written that it does not violate free speech rights to ban the disruption of a speech:

[T]here are now posters around campus referring to the unjust treatment of the "Irvine 11" and saying they were just engaging in speech themselves. However... [t]he government, including public universities, always can impose time, place and manner restrictions on speech. A person who comes into my classroom and shouts so that I cannot teach surely can be punished without offending the 1st Amendment. Likewise, those who yelled to keep the ambassador from being heard were not engaged in constitutionally protected behavior.

Freedom of speech, on campuses and elsewhere, is rendered meaningless if speakers can be shouted down by those who disagree. The law is well established that the government can act to prevent a heckler's veto -- to prevent the reaction of the audience from silencing the speaker. There is simply no 1st Amendment right to go into an auditorium and prevent a speaker from being heard, no matter who the speaker is or how strongly one disagrees with his or her message.

Do you think Dean Chemerinsky would be impressed by the argument that Oren was an outsider who made an antagonistic deliberate transgression on a community?

What should the Republicans do about their problem with boos?

That was ugly! TPM leans heavily on the GOP for the sounds that emanate from various audiences. There was the booing of the soldier and...

... On Sept. 7, the biggest applause line of the night went to the then-234 executions that had occurred during Rick Perry’s time as governor. At the CNN/Tea Party Express debate a few days later, members of the audience voiced their support for letting an uninsured man die.

Settling in to write this post, I said out loud: "The Republicans need to get their audiences under control." And Meade said:

"No, they don't. They're the party of free speech. Anyone can come in and say what they want to say. It's just like your blog. You're not responsible for what people say in the comments."

There's no real way to control the audience, other than to strictly limit who gets in, which will look repressive and cowardly. And who knows who is booing or applauding in this way that's harmful to the Republican cause? It could just as well be somebody who hates the GOP, trying to generate bad press and distract attention from what the candidates actually say.

The booing in that clip above comes from one very loud guy. Maybe he could be identified. I'd like to know whether he's on the Republican side or he's a dirty trickster. Am I being repressive to suggest that audience members at the next debate ought to pay attention in the future and look when somebody boos or applauds in this way that is useful to Republican opponents?

I don't think so. I think it's similar to going to a protest and photographing people with offensive signs. Let's say someone who hates the Tea Party is thinking of going to a Tea Party rally and holding up a blatantly racist sign in the hope of stoking the belief that the Tea Party is a bunch of racists. If this prankster realizes he will be photographed (or confronted by the people he's hoping to hurt), he probably won't do it.  

A separate matter is whether the candidates should overlook the inappropriate sounds in the room. (This assumes they hear the sounds and can immediately correctly interpret whether it's an approval or disapproval sound and what it refers to.) The candidates have to be smart about what will be used against them and, if they are sharp, they could find opportunities to leverage the moment for their own benefit with a good spontaneous remark. But I don't think that every jerk in the audience, like that guy last night, ought to have the power to command attention in place of whatever response the candidate had brewing in his head as he listened to the question. There lies chaos.

ADDED: I have listened to the video several times, and I stand by my perception that only one person audibly yells "boo." I hear a loud "boo," then a difficult to decipher noise — which could be an ugh response to the booer — and then a little more of a boo, which sounds like the original guy.

Sometimes I think academia is a containment pen for the smartest individuals...

... so they don't interfere with the efforts of the rest of the people.

But if they're so smart, why don't they step out of the pen? Because the people are actually pretty wily, even if technically less smart than the academics. They've designed a comfy pen!

Professor at the Doubletree incident says: There was no "mob" that was "physically violent."

Michael Olneck, Professor Emeritus of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology at UW-Madison, has a letter in The Daily Cardinal, about the reaction to the reports from the Center for Equal Opportunity (which found racial discrimination in  UW-Madison's admissions).

Olneck takes issue with the way Linda Chavez — the CEO founder — characterized the incident that took place at the CEO press conference announcing the reports. (We talked about the Chavez op-ed here, yesterday.)

Olneck says:

Ms. Chavez takes at face value, and further publicizes, the Doubletree's manager's description of what occurred at the hotel. The press release issued by the Doubletree described the large group of student protesters as a "mob" that "became increasingly physically violent when forcing themselves into the meeting room where the press conference had already ended." And, it alleged that "staff were then rushed by a mob of protesters, throwing employees to the ground."

I attended the press conference, and was in the main lobby of the hotel afterward. There was no "mob" that was "physically violent." There was an organized group of protesters whose loud chanting forced an end to the press conference, and which attempted to enter the conference room after the doors were open. Two hotel employees attempted to physically prevent the group from entering the room, and the group pushed through them. 

Pushed through them?! So, you're saying you know they did not fall to the ground or simply that you did not see anything more than that they were "pushed through"? And that's not violent because... why? You can go into a private business place, decide you get to go where you want to go, and push through the employees that try to guard a door and that's not violent? And it's not a "mob" because... why? You described a mob!

Members of the group attempted to confront Mr. Clegg, and made his exit difficult. 

Deliberately depriving someone of his ability to leave a place is a crime. You don't think it's physically violent? Go to that link: It's a felony in Wisconsin. Thanks for the description of what you saw, but your account reinforces the press report that Chavez relied on. You may deny the characterizations "mob" and "physically violent," but you, an eyewitness, describe the details, stating facts that would lead me to characterize it as a physically violent mob.

Some followed him as he headed toward what I presume was the elevator bank. While this experience was clearly unfamiliar and unnerving to Doubletree staff, for the manager and Ms. Chavez to depict what occurred as the actions of a "mob" is an egregious slur on the students. While the protest may well have broken decorum, its well-motivated participants do not deserve to be characterized as a "mob."

Incredible! Or perhaps not so incredible here in Madison, Wisconsin where people seem to have acquired the idea that the usual rules don't apply if you're propelled by righteous anger against a demonized a political opponent. You're "well-motivated" so what would otherwise be crimes become mere breaches of "decorum."

Is this the Madison mind-set? Is this what passes for liberalism around here? It seems to me that a true liberal would never say that what is a crime (or a tort) depends on one's political orientation. Picture a press conference by a beloved advocate of civil rights stormed by a group of racist skinheads, Professor Olneck. Make all the actions exactly the same, but change the political viewpoints. Would you then use the words "mob" and "physically violent"?