Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, the issue is that not all ways to keep the peace are appropriate. If John Doe is hated because he's black, and white guys riot and chase John Doe because they hate black people, that doesn't mean that it would be appropriate to arrest John Doe, even if that would be the easiest way to prevent a breach of the peace. Similarly, if John Doe is out speaking out against the KKK, and the KKK get upset at his speech which offends them and upsets them, and they start getting unruly and riotous, it would not be appropriate to stop John Doe from speaking -- because he isn't doing anything wrong (and isn't doing anything that should be made illegal). Similarly, if John Doe, a KKK Grand Wizard, is speaking out against miscegenation, and a bunch of people start getting upset, unruly and riotous, then it would not be appropriate to stop John Doe from speaking - because he isn't doing anything wrong (and isn't doing anything that should be made illegal).MrJonno wrote:Cause the peace to be kept seems the equivalent to me
Police should make reasonable attempts to ensure free speech which may be restricted by resources, but if they are unable to do so keeping the peace takes priority. In an idea world people could say and offend whoever they want whenever they are and generally do have a good approximation to that but there are times when that is not possible.
Going up to a crowd baying for your blood to shout back when their is just a single policeman on duty endangers the person doing at the policeman. The policeman on the ground is well within his rights but more accurately duty to get the counter protestor to go in a different direction.
