Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law. It was billed as a
Speaker 1: free speech rally in the heart of downtown Boston, with
Speaker 1: a list of controversial conservative and libertarian speakers, but the
Speaker 1: rally fizzled as some forty thousand counter demonstrators flooded the
Speaker 1: Boston Common and the surrounding area and effectively shouted down
Speaker 1: the group. The event was largely a peaceful one, putting
Speaker 1: it in contrast with the deadly demonstrations a week earlier
Speaker 1: in Charlottesville, Virginia. Here's Boston Police Commissioner William Evans. We
Speaker 1: got the First Amendment people in, we got them out,
Speaker 1: and um, you know, and no one got hurt, no
Speaker 1: one got killed, and we don't really have a whole
Speaker 1: lot of property. In fact, we have no significant at
Speaker 1: all property damage to the city. So great day for
Speaker 1: the city, Evans said. Twenty seven people were arrested with
Speaker 1: us to talk about the events in Boston. Harvey Silverglade
Speaker 1: he's a criminal defense and civil liberties litigator. He's of
Speaker 1: consul to the law firm Zalkin, Duncan and Bernstein working
Speaker 1: in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And Judy catoulis a professor at st
Speaker 1: Oli College Um, thanks to both of you for joining me.
Speaker 1: I want to start with what happened on the ground
Speaker 1: in Boston. Then maybe we can move into some of
Speaker 1: the First Amendment implications. Harvey, who gets the credit in
Speaker 1: Boston for the relative limited amount of violence that took
Speaker 1: place on Saturday, Well, I guess the same people who
Speaker 1: get the credit for the fact that the event was
Speaker 1: a total failure. Um. This notion, uh, that there's a
Speaker 1: kind of an epidemic of false facts going on around Boston.
Speaker 1: If I could use that volatile phrase, the free speech
Speaker 1: rally was a total and complete failure, uh, Police Commissioner.
Speaker 1: Ever since we got the man and we got them out,
Speaker 1: but one thing we didn't get. We didn't hear a
Speaker 1: single word from the speakers. How this can be built
Speaker 1: a free speech success is totally orwelling and totally beyond me.
Speaker 1: It was a real failure. Junior. How do you assess
Speaker 1: that that question who who gets credit and who gets
Speaker 1: blamed for how things went forward in Boston on Saturday? Well,
Speaker 1: I think that it's the city that gets the blame.
Speaker 1: There is no credit because this is a failure, but
Speaker 1: they get the blame. The whole event was mishandled by
Speaker 1: the city. Um, it could have easily gone off without
Speaker 1: a hitch if the city only was a little bit smarter.
Speaker 1: Judy catulis from from your vantage point at saying all
Speaker 1: of college, Uh, what's your take on how the city
Speaker 1: performed with with this demonstration. Well, I think most people
Speaker 1: approached the idea of a free speech march in the
Speaker 1: same way that they misunderstand what the a c l
Speaker 1: U does that they that they tended to see it
Speaker 1: as one that was a partisan view that took a
Speaker 1: partisan view, whereas I'm not knowing the specifics of the
Speaker 1: what who was planned to speak in Boston or anything
Speaker 1: like that. Um, the idea of civil liberties or protecting
Speaker 1: free speech is a very tricky matter because it isn't
Speaker 1: a partisan issue, it's a democratic one. Well, Julie, let
Speaker 1: me just follow up on that. So, so, right after
Speaker 1: William Evans, the Boston Police Commissioner, talked about the success
Speaker 1: in limiting the violence and property damage. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: he went on to say something along the lines that,
Speaker 1: you know, bigotry has no place here in Boston. Um.
Speaker 1: Is that are you suggesting that a police commissioner should
Speaker 1: be remain neutral and not not express views on the
Speaker 1: underlying issues going on with the protest, Well, it depends
Speaker 1: on the issues that he's expressing opinions on. UH. Free
Speaker 1: speech as the A t L you would argue, belongs
Speaker 1: to all groups as long as there isn't violence or
Speaker 1: along is there falling within the parameters of the ways
Speaker 1: that the United States defines free speech. But the police
Speaker 1: commissioner definitely has to make some judgments about whether what
Speaker 1: was planned falls into those parameters for defining free speech, Harvey,
Speaker 1: what would you have had the city do differently? Since
Speaker 1: you have criticized them? This event could not take place
Speaker 1: in an open space like the Boston Common The fact
Speaker 1: that tens of thousands of people showed up and they
Speaker 1: were not peaceful, They were not calm and quiet. There
Speaker 1: was a mob that made it impossible for the event
Speaker 1: to go forward. Nobody could have heard a word that
Speaker 1: would have been said. What the city should have done
Speaker 1: was insist that this event be held in an enclosed
Speaker 1: theater or at the amphitheater of some kind, where a
Speaker 1: limited number of people would be in the audience, where
Speaker 1: the police could have easily kept control in case somebody
Speaker 1: got out of control and where it could have been
Speaker 1: live streamed so that the whole world could have heard it.
Speaker 1: There was such a simple solution. The police instead enabled
Speaker 1: a pre riot condition to evolve and then got every
Speaker 1: took every shut down the whole event, took the speakers
Speaker 1: away before they could say word one, and then proclaimed
Speaker 1: the success for free speech in Boston. It's nut. Our
Speaker 1: guests are Judy Coutlass, a professor at Saying all Off College,
Speaker 1: and Harvey Silverglades, Cambridge, Massachusetts, criminal defense and self civil
Speaker 1: liberties litigator. UM. Judy, some of the comments I read
Speaker 1: from the counter demonstrators essentially said this that what was
Speaker 1: going to go on at this this rally was hate
Speaker 1: speech and it might even be a call to violence,
Speaker 1: and therefore we were justified in in shouting them down
Speaker 1: and preventing them from saying what they planned to say.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with that? Um? No, I don't. Actually
Speaker 1: I think that, um, free speech entitles people to other
Speaker 1: ways of communicating that I can understand where there were
Speaker 1: somewhat extenuating circumstances in Boston. UM. Had I been in Boston,
Speaker 1: I might well have shown up at that counter rally.
Speaker 1: But um, just in the abstract sense, I think that
Speaker 1: it's problematic when one group of people shouts down and
Speaker 1: shuts down another groups right to free speech. Harvey, what
Speaker 1: do you think about that that question of of uh
Speaker 1: this potentially being a call to violence? Um? At some point, UM,
Speaker 1: isn't there a right to prevent a group from speaking
Speaker 1: if what they are espousing UH could be dangerous? Well,
Speaker 1: the the ridiculous analysis that we're hearing um, and that
Speaker 1: is inherent in the question that you asked me, is
Speaker 1: simply this, how do we know that speeches hate speech
Speaker 1: until we've had an opportunity to hear it. Nobody heard
Speaker 1: what these people have to say, And in fact, from
Speaker 1: all we know, this was a very eclective group from
Speaker 1: all over the political spectrum. But there is no reason
Speaker 1: at all to think that hate speech was going to
Speaker 1: be um, you know, spoken at this rally. But second
Speaker 1: of all, hate speech is constitutionally protected. If we had
Speaker 1: a First Amendment that only protected love speech, we wouldn't
Speaker 1: have liberty at all. So this crowd that chucked down
Speaker 1: this free speech rally violated the constitutional rights of the
Speaker 1: speakers and violated the constitutional rights of people who wanted
Speaker 1: to listen. I wanted to listen, Judy, I want to
Speaker 1: ask you about the a c l U, which recently
Speaker 1: said that it won't while it has represented white supremacists
Speaker 1: UH and people across the ideological spectrum, that it won't
Speaker 1: represent people who are carrying semi automatic UH military style weapons.
Speaker 1: Is this a change in the way the a c
Speaker 1: l U has approached this issue or or is this
Speaker 1: a policy they've always had that we just didn't know about.
Speaker 1: I think it's a change in other kinds of laws. UM. Certainly,
Speaker 1: one of the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment is
Speaker 1: the right right to assemble peacefully. The fact that so
Speaker 1: many states have now enacted laws where you can carry
Speaker 1: guns in public or concealed weapons in public UM means
Speaker 1: that the a c l U is going to have
Speaker 1: a trickier job, or any agency is going to have
Speaker 1: a trickier job deciding how to interpret whether or not
Speaker 1: a crowd is armed or dangerous or threatening or is
Speaker 1: about to result in violence. It's it's just a something
Speaker 1: outside of the a cl you've control that I think
Speaker 1: is possibly an unexpected consequence of some of the laws
Speaker 1: that have been passed in states regarding guns. Also, technological development,
Speaker 1: Harvey what do we do about these two rights? Um?
Speaker 1: It is in a lot of states perfectly legal, legal
Speaker 1: for people to walk around with weapons being displayed. Um.
Speaker 1: And uh, we have seen in the case of Charlottesville
Speaker 1: that sometimes out accompanies people who are trying to speak
Speaker 1: as well, and and that maybe having those weapons changes
Speaker 1: how free other people feel to to speak there in opposition,
Speaker 1: what do we do about those two to competing rights?
Speaker 1: The first Amendment in the second Amendment? Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: these are two amendments that are very clearly set forth
Speaker 1: in the Bill of Rights, and I think the a
Speaker 1: C O. You is trying to balance the two of them.
Speaker 1: I happen to think that it's made a mistake, but
Speaker 1: it's not a mistake from bad faith. I think it's
Speaker 1: it's an error in judgment. And I think eventually the
Speaker 1: a c U and actually change its mind and come
Speaker 1: back to its original position and that they will protect
Speaker 1: free speech in a rally even where people are armed. Um.
Speaker 1: But I can't believe. I can't. I can't. I can
Speaker 1: forgive the a c O. You for being quite shocked
Speaker 1: by the events in Charlotte's Bille, and it's caused a
Speaker 1: lot of people to stop and think and to question
Speaker 1: things they've been believing and been doing. And so I
Speaker 1: think the A c O. You can be forgiven if
Speaker 1: it turns out this was a mistake. Judy, where do
Speaker 1: you think this, this whole debate is going. Are you
Speaker 1: concerned that we are are we getting into uh an
Speaker 1: escalation of of rhetoric and violence that is going to
Speaker 1: be harmful to to our conversation, or or is Boston
Speaker 1: evidence that maybe we're we're moving in a more peaceful direction. Um.
Speaker 1: I worry a lot about the present political climate and
Speaker 1: the way that either side intern for it said, UM
Speaker 1: that I worry that people who have minority views. Probably
Speaker 1: I would like to hope about America as a white
Speaker 1: nation or as one that isn't welcoming of various groups,
Speaker 1: that that these people are. I would like to think
Speaker 1: that they are a minority, but they feel like they've
Speaker 1: been boldened by events recently and by um Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and the White House. At the same time, I think
Speaker 1: that as a younger generation steps in to respond to them,
Speaker 1: sometimes they use different tactics that have evolved since the
Speaker 1: sixties when there was so much protest in the United
Speaker 1: States that that circumstances have changed. That technology has changed.
Speaker 1: It's easier to gather a crowd very quickly through social media,
Speaker 1: and so the same expectations about civil liberties and civil
Speaker 1: rights and communication with people with whom you disagree. I
Speaker 1: think all of that is just changing very, very rapidly.
Speaker 1: We're going to have to leave it there. I want
Speaker 1: to thank Judy Cotulas and Harvey silver Glade for talking
Speaker 1: to us about the events in Boston this weekend. That's
Speaker 1: it for this edition of Bloomberg Law, and we'll be
Speaker 1: back tomorrow.