[ back ]
Is it a Crime to Interrupt an Official’s Speech by Yelling “You
DEVELOPMENTS IN VERMONT LAW
By Kim Cheney
Is it a Crime to Interrupt an Official’s Speech by Yelling “You Have Blood on Your Hands!”?
When John Negroponte, the U.S. Director of National Security, began his commencement address at St. Johnsbury Academy, Michael Colby stood up and shouted at him. Boots Wardinski also stood up and shouted “You have blood on your hands.” Security staff, anticipating disruption, escorted Michael and Boots from the hall without further disruption. The incident lasted about 30 seconds. Negroponte finished his speech. Michael and Boots were arrested and charged with violation of the disorderly conduct statute. The state said they were criminals because they “recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience or annoyance, when, without lawful authority, (they) attempted to disturb a lawful assembly…”
The trial judge referred the case to the Supreme Court as to whether the First Amendment permitted such conduct. The defendants argued that the statute was too broad. If the words of the statute were applied literally, virtually any speech or disruption of a meeting would be a crime. This result, they argued violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech.
Justice Johnson, writing for a unanimous Court, noted that the First Amendment contained two fundamental rights – freedom of peaceable assembly, and freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, any criminal law must be construed in a way to protect both these rights. Was the right of peaceful assembly infringed by what Michael and Boots did? Or did they have the right to speak out in protest? The Court ruled that the First Amendment permits “heckling, interrupting, harsh questioning, or even booing,” unless the meeting is actually disrupted. Even though brief outbursts of speech might be annoying to some people, the law does not protect individual sensibilities. Rather it protected the right of the group to assemble without having a meeting interfered with. Brief outbursts should be distinguished from voluminous or prolonged speech which drowns out the speaker. Accordingly, the law can only punish disruptive speech if it substantially impairs others’ rights to peaceable assembly. The courts must look at each situation as it arises. If the conduct of the defendants, in the form of speech or otherwise, substantially prevents peaceful assembly, a crime has been committed. If not, the conduct is protected speech.
In this case, the disruption was only 30 seconds. The defendants left without a ruckus. Negroponte finished his speech. This conduct, Justice Johnson wrote, was not enough to have “the power of the State brought against the defendants.” The Court ordered the criminal charges dismissed.
State v. Colby and Wardinski 2009 VT 28.
[ back ]
