Free Speech and Democratic Discourse: Shouting "Fire" in a Crowded Town Hall Meeting

Why is this so difficult, people?

For weeks I've been hearing conservatives defend the "shouters" at town hall meetings across the land (and more recently in the House of Representatives) by explaining that they are merely venting their righteous anger and  exercising their "Right to Free Speech".

Bullshit.

Granted, when the founding "fathers" drew this rule up, they didn't leave any instructions as to how one might exercise this right in a public forum. But in the intervening 220 years, champions of democracy have come up with some useful, commonsense guidelines for democratic discourse.  One is this: In a forum where issues are being discussed in an informative way, with a goal of debating the pros and cons of an issue, building consensus and reaching a decision by democratic means, participants should make allowances for the inclusion of all participants.

When one person speaks or acts in a coercive or threatening way - shouting people down, casting insults, making threats, etc. - they are acting to limit the participation of others. This form of speech is anti-democractic. The tactics used by conservative "tea baggers" (or whatever they are called) are designed not to express opinion, but rather to stifle opposition. This has been openly admitted by the leaders of this movement. This type of activity amounts to an active effort to suppress thought and expression - it is anti-first amendment, plain and simple.  To call it an exercise of first amendment rights is pure hypocrisy.

Does Joe Wilson's childish outburst rise to this level? Maybe, maybe not. It violate rules of decorum, but it didn't necessarily stifle the expression of others since the meeting was not intended to be a forum for debate of the issues  (unless you make the argument that applauding or not applauding amounts to democratic discourse, and the even thinner argument that Wilson's shout was intended to unnerve supportive Democrats to the point where they might not choose to applaud). No - what Joe Wilson did was foolish, narrow minded, embarassing and probably racist - but I doubt it was intended to be anti democractic.

By the way, I applaud Barack Obama -- who probably drew blood as he bit his tongue -- for answering calmly and directly, and then proceeding as if to say "ignore the foolish man to my right, we have so real work to do here." I am less impressed by the House, who seem intent on ratcheting up the hero worship on the right by keeping Wilson in the headlines.  It's like a parent who takes a child over the knee because his apology sounded insincere - the wrong kind of lesson. President Obama has already moved on, because there are more important things to focus on here - and demonizing Wilson will only hurt the cause.