WEBVTT - Boston Protests Put First Amendment in Focus (Audio) 0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.040 You're listening to Bloomberg Law. It was billed as a 0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:05.400 free speech rally in the heart of downtown Boston, with 0:00:05.440 --> 0:00:09.079 a list of controversial conservative and libertarian speakers, but the 0:00:09.200 --> 0:00:12.680 rally fizzled as some forty thousand counter demonstrators flooded the 0:00:12.920 --> 0:00:16.520 Boston Common and the surrounding area and effectively shouted down 0:00:16.520 --> 0:00:19.240 the group. The event was largely a peaceful one, putting 0:00:19.239 --> 0:00:22.160 it in contrast with the deadly demonstrations a week earlier 0:00:22.200 --> 0:00:27.280 in Charlottesville, Virginia. Here's Boston Police Commissioner William Evans. We 0:00:27.440 --> 0:00:30.920 got the First Amendment people in, we got them out, 0:00:30.960 --> 0:00:33.400 and um, you know, and no one got hurt, no 0:00:33.479 --> 0:00:35.640 one got killed, and we don't really have a whole 0:00:35.640 --> 0:00:39.040 lot of property. In fact, we have no significant at 0:00:39.080 --> 0:00:42.120 all property damage to the city. So great day for 0:00:42.159 --> 0:00:46.800 the city, Evans said. Twenty seven people were arrested with 0:00:46.960 --> 0:00:49.920 us to talk about the events in Boston. Harvey Silverglade 0:00:49.960 --> 0:00:52.640 he's a criminal defense and civil liberties litigator. He's of 0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:56.520 consul to the law firm Zalkin, Duncan and Bernstein working 0:00:56.520 --> 0:01:00.600 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And Judy catoulis a professor at st 0:01:00.640 --> 0:01:04.080 Oli College Um, thanks to both of you for joining me. 0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:06.839 I want to start with what happened on the ground 0:01:06.880 --> 0:01:08.959 in Boston. Then maybe we can move into some of 0:01:09.000 --> 0:01:13.800 the First Amendment implications. Harvey, who gets the credit in 0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:17.480 Boston for the relative limited amount of violence that took 0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:21.320 place on Saturday, Well, I guess the same people who 0:01:21.400 --> 0:01:24.000 get the credit for the fact that the event was 0:01:24.040 --> 0:01:29.440 a total failure. Um. This notion, uh, that there's a 0:01:29.520 --> 0:01:33.800 kind of an epidemic of false facts going on around Boston. 0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:37.760 If I could use that volatile phrase, the free speech 0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:42.280 rally was a total and complete failure, uh, Police Commissioner. 0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:44.240 Ever since we got the man and we got them out, 0:01:44.319 --> 0:01:46.520 but one thing we didn't get. We didn't hear a 0:01:46.600 --> 0:01:50.760 single word from the speakers. How this can be built 0:01:51.240 --> 0:01:56.760 a free speech success is totally orwelling and totally beyond me. 0:01:56.800 --> 0:02:00.960 It was a real failure. Junior. How do you assess 0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:04.120 that that question who who gets credit and who gets 0:02:04.120 --> 0:02:08.320 blamed for how things went forward in Boston on Saturday? Well, 0:02:08.360 --> 0:02:12.120 I think that it's the city that gets the blame. 0:02:12.560 --> 0:02:15.680 There is no credit because this is a failure, but 0:02:15.800 --> 0:02:19.680 they get the blame. The whole event was mishandled by 0:02:19.720 --> 0:02:23.519 the city. Um, it could have easily gone off without 0:02:23.520 --> 0:02:26.000 a hitch if the city only was a little bit smarter. 0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:29.400 Judy catulis from from your vantage point at saying all 0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:32.760 of college, Uh, what's your take on how the city 0:02:32.800 --> 0:02:36.960 performed with with this demonstration. Well, I think most people 0:02:37.040 --> 0:02:43.520 approached the idea of a free speech march in the 0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:46.239 same way that they misunderstand what the a c l 0:02:46.360 --> 0:02:50.480 U does that they that they tended to see it 0:02:51.040 --> 0:02:54.360 as one that was a partisan view that took a 0:02:54.440 --> 0:03:00.120 partisan view, whereas I'm not knowing the specifics of the 0:03:01.000 --> 0:03:04.040 what who was planned to speak in Boston or anything 0:03:04.080 --> 0:03:08.720 like that. Um, the idea of civil liberties or protecting 0:03:08.800 --> 0:03:13.080 free speech is a very tricky matter because it isn't 0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:17.000 a partisan issue, it's a democratic one. Well, Julie, let 0:03:17.000 --> 0:03:19.640 me just follow up on that. So, so, right after 0:03:19.639 --> 0:03:23.280 William Evans, the Boston Police Commissioner, talked about the success 0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:26.280 in limiting the violence and property damage. Uh, you know, 0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:28.880 he went on to say something along the lines that, 0:03:28.960 --> 0:03:31.880 you know, bigotry has no place here in Boston. Um. 0:03:32.840 --> 0:03:36.120 Is that are you suggesting that a police commissioner should 0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:40.400 be remain neutral and not not express views on the 0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:44.520 underlying issues going on with the protest, Well, it depends 0:03:44.520 --> 0:03:50.000 on the issues that he's expressing opinions on. UH. Free 0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:53.920 speech as the A t L you would argue, belongs 0:03:54.120 --> 0:03:59.360 to all groups as long as there isn't violence or 0:03:59.800 --> 0:04:04.320 along is there falling within the parameters of the ways 0:04:04.440 --> 0:04:10.160 that the United States defines free speech. But the police 0:04:10.200 --> 0:04:15.680 commissioner definitely has to make some judgments about whether what 0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:21.400 was planned falls into those parameters for defining free speech, Harvey, 0:04:21.440 --> 0:04:25.240 what would you have had the city do differently? Since 0:04:25.279 --> 0:04:30.839 you have criticized them? This event could not take place 0:04:31.000 --> 0:04:35.360 in an open space like the Boston Common The fact 0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:38.440 that tens of thousands of people showed up and they 0:04:38.560 --> 0:04:42.760 were not peaceful, They were not calm and quiet. There 0:04:42.920 --> 0:04:45.919 was a mob that made it impossible for the event 0:04:46.000 --> 0:04:48.760 to go forward. Nobody could have heard a word that 0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:51.880 would have been said. What the city should have done 0:04:52.240 --> 0:04:56.240 was insist that this event be held in an enclosed 0:04:56.400 --> 0:05:00.800 theater or at the amphitheater of some kind, where a 0:05:00.880 --> 0:05:04.279 limited number of people would be in the audience, where 0:05:04.279 --> 0:05:08.440 the police could have easily kept control in case somebody 0:05:08.480 --> 0:05:11.480 got out of control and where it could have been 0:05:11.560 --> 0:05:14.560 live streamed so that the whole world could have heard it. 0:05:14.920 --> 0:05:20.400 There was such a simple solution. The police instead enabled 0:05:20.600 --> 0:05:26.880 a pre riot condition to evolve and then got every 0:05:26.960 --> 0:05:30.600 took every shut down the whole event, took the speakers 0:05:30.600 --> 0:05:34.160 away before they could say word one, and then proclaimed 0:05:34.160 --> 0:05:47.720 the success for free speech in Boston. It's nut. Our 0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:50.920 guests are Judy Coutlass, a professor at Saying all Off College, 0:05:51.160 --> 0:05:55.960 and Harvey Silverglades, Cambridge, Massachusetts, criminal defense and self civil 0:05:56.000 --> 0:06:00.240 liberties litigator. UM. Judy, some of the comments I read 0:06:00.400 --> 0:06:05.320 from the counter demonstrators essentially said this that what was 0:06:05.320 --> 0:06:09.119 going to go on at this this rally was hate 0:06:09.160 --> 0:06:12.600 speech and it might even be a call to violence, 0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:17.080 and therefore we were justified in in shouting them down 0:06:17.120 --> 0:06:20.680 and preventing them from saying what they planned to say. 0:06:20.920 --> 0:06:26.320 Do you agree with that? Um? No, I don't. Actually 0:06:26.360 --> 0:06:32.320 I think that, um, free speech entitles people to other 0:06:32.480 --> 0:06:36.280 ways of communicating that I can understand where there were 0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:44.200 somewhat extenuating circumstances in Boston. UM. Had I been in Boston, 0:06:44.480 --> 0:06:48.840 I might well have shown up at that counter rally. 0:06:49.200 --> 0:06:53.880 But um, just in the abstract sense, I think that 0:06:54.320 --> 0:06:58.719 it's problematic when one group of people shouts down and 0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:03.520 shuts down another groups right to free speech. Harvey, what 0:07:03.560 --> 0:07:07.480 do you think about that that question of of uh 0:07:07.560 --> 0:07:13.040 this potentially being a call to violence? Um? At some point, UM, 0:07:13.200 --> 0:07:16.440 isn't there a right to prevent a group from speaking 0:07:16.480 --> 0:07:21.480 if what they are espousing UH could be dangerous? Well, 0:07:21.880 --> 0:07:30.360 the the ridiculous analysis that we're hearing um, and that 0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:34.240 is inherent in the question that you asked me, is 0:07:34.280 --> 0:07:37.920 simply this, how do we know that speeches hate speech 0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:42.400 until we've had an opportunity to hear it. Nobody heard 0:07:42.480 --> 0:07:45.800 what these people have to say, And in fact, from 0:07:45.840 --> 0:07:48.600 all we know, this was a very eclective group from 0:07:48.600 --> 0:07:52.440 all over the political spectrum. But there is no reason 0:07:52.560 --> 0:07:56.200 at all to think that hate speech was going to 0:07:56.320 --> 0:08:01.320 be um, you know, spoken at this rally. But second 0:08:01.360 --> 0:08:05.600 of all, hate speech is constitutionally protected. If we had 0:08:05.600 --> 0:08:09.120 a First Amendment that only protected love speech, we wouldn't 0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:13.920 have liberty at all. So this crowd that chucked down 0:08:14.320 --> 0:08:18.080 this free speech rally violated the constitutional rights of the 0:08:18.120 --> 0:08:22.480 speakers and violated the constitutional rights of people who wanted 0:08:22.480 --> 0:08:26.880 to listen. I wanted to listen, Judy, I want to 0:08:26.920 --> 0:08:30.600 ask you about the a c l U, which recently 0:08:30.640 --> 0:08:35.520 said that it won't while it has represented white supremacists 0:08:35.679 --> 0:08:39.240 UH and people across the ideological spectrum, that it won't 0:08:39.280 --> 0:08:46.679 represent people who are carrying semi automatic UH military style weapons. 0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:50.319 Is this a change in the way the a c 0:08:50.520 --> 0:08:53.480 l U has approached this issue or or is this 0:08:54.160 --> 0:08:56.199 a policy they've always had that we just didn't know about. 0:08:56.720 --> 0:09:01.000 I think it's a change in other kinds of laws. UM. Certainly, 0:09:01.040 --> 0:09:04.960 one of the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment is 0:09:05.000 --> 0:09:09.400 the right right to assemble peacefully. The fact that so 0:09:09.520 --> 0:09:14.880 many states have now enacted laws where you can carry 0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:20.240 guns in public or concealed weapons in public UM means 0:09:20.280 --> 0:09:23.760 that the a c l U is going to have 0:09:23.840 --> 0:09:27.360 a trickier job, or any agency is going to have 0:09:27.400 --> 0:09:32.320 a trickier job deciding how to interpret whether or not 0:09:32.440 --> 0:09:37.480 a crowd is armed or dangerous or threatening or is 0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:42.600 about to result in violence. It's it's just a something 0:09:42.679 --> 0:09:46.199 outside of the a cl you've control that I think 0:09:46.360 --> 0:09:51.560 is possibly an unexpected consequence of some of the laws 0:09:51.600 --> 0:09:57.160 that have been passed in states regarding guns. Also, technological development, 0:09:57.720 --> 0:10:00.400 Harvey what do we do about these two rights? Um? 0:10:00.440 --> 0:10:02.800 It is in a lot of states perfectly legal, legal 0:10:02.840 --> 0:10:08.640 for people to walk around with weapons being displayed. Um. 0:10:08.760 --> 0:10:12.920 And uh, we have seen in the case of Charlottesville 0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:15.480 that sometimes out accompanies people who are trying to speak 0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:19.640 as well, and and that maybe having those weapons changes 0:10:21.240 --> 0:10:25.560 how free other people feel to to speak there in opposition, 0:10:25.640 --> 0:10:28.640 what do we do about those two to competing rights? 0:10:28.640 --> 0:10:31.480 The first Amendment in the second Amendment? Well, first of all, 0:10:31.480 --> 0:10:36.280 these are two amendments that are very clearly set forth 0:10:36.280 --> 0:10:38.960 in the Bill of Rights, and I think the a 0:10:39.080 --> 0:10:42.640 C O. You is trying to balance the two of them. 0:10:42.679 --> 0:10:46.360 I happen to think that it's made a mistake, but 0:10:46.880 --> 0:10:50.840 it's not a mistake from bad faith. I think it's 0:10:51.679 --> 0:10:55.360 it's an error in judgment. And I think eventually the 0:10:55.440 --> 0:10:57.719 a c U and actually change its mind and come 0:10:57.760 --> 0:11:01.160 back to its original position and that they will protect 0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:05.959 free speech in a rally even where people are armed. Um. 0:11:06.000 --> 0:11:10.360 But I can't believe. I can't. I can't. I can 0:11:10.559 --> 0:11:14.160 forgive the a c O. You for being quite shocked 0:11:14.280 --> 0:11:18.240 by the events in Charlotte's Bille, and it's caused a 0:11:18.240 --> 0:11:21.480 lot of people to stop and think and to question 0:11:21.640 --> 0:11:24.800 things they've been believing and been doing. And so I 0:11:24.840 --> 0:11:26.679 think the A c O. You can be forgiven if 0:11:26.679 --> 0:11:29.880 it turns out this was a mistake. Judy, where do 0:11:29.960 --> 0:11:32.200 you think this, this whole debate is going. Are you 0:11:32.320 --> 0:11:37.800 concerned that we are are we getting into uh an 0:11:37.920 --> 0:11:42.079 escalation of of rhetoric and violence that is going to 0:11:42.200 --> 0:11:45.959 be harmful to to our conversation, or or is Boston 0:11:46.480 --> 0:11:52.160 evidence that maybe we're we're moving in a more peaceful direction. Um. 0:11:52.200 --> 0:11:57.080 I worry a lot about the present political climate and 0:11:57.800 --> 0:12:01.600 the way that either side intern for it said, UM 0:12:01.840 --> 0:12:09.000 that I worry that people who have minority views. Probably 0:12:09.120 --> 0:12:15.160 I would like to hope about America as a white 0:12:16.240 --> 0:12:21.880 nation or as one that isn't welcoming of various groups, 0:12:22.559 --> 0:12:25.360 that that these people are. I would like to think 0:12:25.400 --> 0:12:28.120 that they are a minority, but they feel like they've 0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:36.000 been boldened by events recently and by um Donald Trump 0:12:36.040 --> 0:12:38.880 and the White House. At the same time, I think 0:12:38.960 --> 0:12:44.600 that as a younger generation steps in to respond to them, 0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:53.520 sometimes they use different tactics that have evolved since the 0:12:53.679 --> 0:12:56.800 sixties when there was so much protest in the United 0:12:56.840 --> 0:13:02.800 States that that circumstances have changed. That technology has changed. 0:13:02.840 --> 0:13:07.280 It's easier to gather a crowd very quickly through social media, 0:13:07.520 --> 0:13:15.040 and so the same expectations about civil liberties and civil 0:13:15.200 --> 0:13:21.320 rights and communication with people with whom you disagree. I 0:13:21.360 --> 0:13:25.000 think all of that is just changing very, very rapidly. 0:13:25.240 --> 0:13:26.520 We're going to have to leave it there. I want 0:13:26.520 --> 0:13:29.200 to thank Judy Cotulas and Harvey silver Glade for talking 0:13:29.240 --> 0:13:32.280 to us about the events in Boston this weekend. That's 0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:33.920 it for this edition of Bloomberg Law, and we'll be 0:13:33.920 --> 0:13:34.520 back tomorrow.