To Heckle or Not to Heckle?

A standard tactic has been to infiltrate a speech or rally with partisans who would, once the speaker began, jump up and heckle.  Security would soon seize the person and escort them out of the event.  The speaker would resume and the next partisan would jump up and heckle.  In some cases, someone would rush the stage and try to take away the microphone.  If violence against the heckler could be provoked, all the better.  Eventually, all the infiltrators would be weeded out but the constant delays and interruptions might lead to a shortened or cancelled speech or frustration among the audience that they might not be willing to attend future events.  This has been almost universally a tactic of the left.

 

The other night, the right decided to try give it a try.  Laura Loomer rushed the stage at Shakespeare in the Park where Julius Caesar - who bears an uncanny resemblance to Donald Trump - has been assassinated nightly.  She screamed, "You are all Nazis."  She was arrested and taken away.

 

Andrew Klavan is upset by this and he makes a good point.  The right cannot defend free speech by trying to squelch speech with which they do not agree.  Like it or not, the play is free speech.  On the other hand, the aggressor sets the rules.  If a fighter arrives to a fist fight and discovers that his opponent is armed with a club, is he wrong to get his own club?  If one party is unwilling to follow the rules, why is it incumbent on the other party to do so?  From Klavan's view, if both sides seek to squelch the other's free speech, free speech suffers and may be stamped out.  Then again, if both sides are using the tactic, a truce might result in a status quo ante for free speech (i.e. no more heckling or disrupting each other's events).  The right has generally followed Klavan's preferred tactic and the heckling and disruptions of right-leaning events have escalated to Berkeley and Middlebury.  Among the commenters, many railed that Loomer was exercising her free speech and get back to them when a Berkeley-like riot is staged by the right.

 

Is it better to lose with your principles intact or win with them broken and in need of repair?  Lincoln breeched the Constitutional limits on several occasions in order to win the Civil War.  The damage he inflicted to the Constitution is still felt to this day but he saved the Union.  Was it worth it?  At this point, I would have to side with Klavan.  The Republicans secured both houses of Congress and the Presidency without disrupting Democratic rallies, speeches, and mock assassinations.  Why start now?