Speaker 1: It's with i'mas Boston.
Speaker 2: All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. I'd like
Speaker 2: to continue our conversation on this. We spent an hour
Speaker 2: on this last night with a member of the legislature,
Speaker 2: a Democrats state Democrat state representative, Democratic state representative from Milton,
Speaker 2: Richard Wells. He is a police former police chief in
Speaker 2: the town of Milton, very well respected there, and he's
Speaker 2: filed piece of legislation with some other members of the
Speaker 2: legislature on both sides, Republican and Democrat. They are simply
Speaker 2: asking for an additional piece of legislation, which is called
Speaker 2: the Halo Act and basically would provide, if requested by
Speaker 2: a police officer or a firefighter or an EMT, first responders,
Speaker 2: an adequate zone around them as they engage in their job.
Speaker 2: Now again, police officers arrest people, police officers help deliver babies.
Speaker 2: Police officers do a lot, firefighters do a lot, EMTs
Speaker 2: do a lot. All of us, at some point in
Speaker 2: our lives might be helped by a police officer, firefighter,
Speaker 2: or an EMT. And I don't think it's too much
Speaker 2: to ask to give, upon request a first responder a
Speaker 2: twenty five foot zone in which to work. Now, we
Speaker 2: can use all sorts of examples of your job. Do
Speaker 2: you want someone in your office telling you what to
Speaker 2: do or how you should do it? And that's what
Speaker 2: happens now. Some of these situations are confrontational where someone's
Speaker 2: being arrested. We saw that up in Wooster, We've seen
Speaker 2: it in other places. Some of these are situations where
Speaker 2: people are maybe trying to help, but maybe they're not helping.
Speaker 2: Maybe what they're doing actually is interfering with those who
Speaker 2: are trained professionally to help. And again I can posit
Speaker 2: examples to you, and I'm sure you can posit examples
Speaker 2: to me. I point to the move over law here
Speaker 2: in Massachusetts, which if you're driving on a two or
Speaker 2: three rate lane road and there's a police officer in
Speaker 2: a breakdown lane, and if he stopped someone, either to
Speaker 2: help them or to write a ticket, you're obligated to
Speaker 2: move over if you can. Now, you're not supposed to
Speaker 2: cause a crash, but that might mean you have to
Speaker 2: slow down a little bit to give him or her
Speaker 2: a little bit more room. If you and I were
Speaker 2: simply stopped and I was trying to help you, you
Speaker 2: were trying to help me there's no similar obligation upon
Speaker 2: someone to move over. Again, we recognize that what police,
Speaker 2: what firefighters, and what EMT says first responders do is different.
Speaker 2: So let's see what people think. I'd like to talk
Speaker 2: about this for the balance of the night. I hope
Speaker 2: you will as well. We have no open lines now,
Speaker 2: I'll let you know. Let's go to Eric in Natick. Eric,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry we couldn't get you on with attourney Greg Sullivan,
Speaker 2: but obviously this is a conversation starter. Go right ahead, Eric.
Speaker 3: No, that's okay, good evening, Dan, how are you.
Speaker 2: I'm doing just great. Thank you for holding through the news.
Speaker 3: Absolutely my pleasure. I actually called back at the beginning
Speaker 3: of the year talking about this law in particular, okay,
Speaker 3: the Halo law, yep, and I was all for it,
Speaker 3: and we had the discussion about how unfair it is
Speaker 3: to interfere with someone's job and let the police do
Speaker 3: their job, let mts do their jobs. And I am
Speaker 3: a little well, I was going to ask Greg that question,
Speaker 3: but I was a little intimidated because I don't want
Speaker 3: to get an argument with the lawyer. But it's one
Speaker 3: of those things where I was trying to think of analogy,
Speaker 3: and one of the ones I came up with was
Speaker 3: if there was a medical emergency and someone needed to
Speaker 3: be lifted off the ground and I'm on crutches, and
Speaker 3: like you said earlier about common sense, wouldn't it I
Speaker 3: use my common sense and get out of the way
Speaker 3: because I am not being able to be helpful in
Speaker 3: that situation, or is it quote unquote my right to
Speaker 3: be there because I want to see what's going on.
Speaker 3: I would choose to get out of the way because
Speaker 3: as much as I want to help, I physically can't.
Speaker 3: So therefore, let people who can help aid and anyone
Speaker 3: else should be backing up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I also think it gives the police officer
Speaker 2: what will what happens and what I have seen happen
Speaker 2: as a as a member of the media, you have
Speaker 2: a situation going along, and those of us who are
Speaker 2: trained in the media, we're able to figure out when
Speaker 2: you approach and when you don't approach a police officer.
Speaker 2: And the reason you do that is instinctively you want
Speaker 2: to give them the right to complete whatever task. You know.
Speaker 2: I don't have a rightism ember the media to rush
Speaker 2: into a situation while police officers attempting to arrest someone
Speaker 2: and say, you know, what's going on here?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 2: Why are you putting the cuffs in this guy? What
Speaker 2: did this guy do? You know, he doesn't owe me
Speaker 2: an explanation. If he's arresting someone improperly that gets judicated
Speaker 2: in the court system, we can take pictures of him.
Speaker 2: Police officer doesn't have the right to say, I mean,
Speaker 2: turn that camera off. Believe me, I've been in those
Speaker 2: situations and the camera can roll as long as in
Speaker 2: public and as a matter of fact, we have I
Speaker 2: If I'm asking a police officer a question, uh, and
Speaker 2: and he chooses to answer, he or she chooses to answer,
Speaker 2: I can use that that audio because the mere presence
Speaker 2: of a camera should indicate to the to the officer
Speaker 2: that there's there's audio as well as video being recorded.
Speaker 2: But yeah, you're right on the money. I mean, there
Speaker 2: are some people and again I use this, and I
Speaker 2: used an example last night. There's an accident on one
Speaker 2: side of the road, and you know that should not
Speaker 2: affect traffic on the other side of the road, but
Speaker 2: everybody has to take a good long look. Oh, I
Speaker 2: don't know what's going on. It looks like an accident.
Speaker 2: I wonder who's a fall. Well, you know, all that
Speaker 2: does is tie the tie the traffic ups. You've been
Speaker 2: in situations like that where you you've been tied up
Speaker 2: for twenty minutes and you finally get up to the
Speaker 2: end and you realize everybody's looking at the accident.
Speaker 3: Again, And to be honest, it's hard not to look.
Speaker 2: It's hard not to look. And it's human nature. And
Speaker 2: if all of a sudden, you walk out your front
Speaker 2: door and you see some sort of police activity or fire,
Speaker 2: firefighters or or anything, that's normal. And all I'm just
Speaker 2: saying is that the police officers that says to me, hey,
Speaker 2: back up, Maybe it's for my own safety. I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe there's somebody, you know, in the woods and they're
Speaker 2: trying to arrest someone and they don't know where that
Speaker 2: person is, and they they don't want to be in
Speaker 2: a conversation with me. Why are you telling me to
Speaker 2: back up? Officer? Yeah, I mean, like they're gonna turn me. Well,
Speaker 2: the reason we're telling you backup is there's a fellow
Speaker 2: in the woods here who we think is mentally disturbed,
Speaker 2: and he has a butcher's knife, and at any moment
Speaker 2: he may come out of the woods. I mean that's
Speaker 2: that's now again. Attorney Sullivan said, well, the police officer
Speaker 2: can can can charge you with interference or disturbing the peace, whatever,
Speaker 2: But sometimes people are really played a good afternoon, officer.
Speaker 2: Could you tell me what's going on here? You know that?
Speaker 2: And I think the police officer you give them another
Speaker 2: tool and say look, tell you later back up twenty
Speaker 2: five feet for your own good or get get get
Speaker 2: out of this area. Well, officer, now, why you bossing me?
Speaker 2: And he's guy. The officer doesn't have to sit in
Speaker 2: there and give you an explanation, you know.
Speaker 3: No, absolutely, And to your point about someone having a
Speaker 3: knife in the woods, what if you are impeding that
Speaker 3: officer from catching them because you're interrupting the police officer
Speaker 3: from doing his job.
Speaker 2: Sure or putting the police officer more in jeopardy. He
Speaker 2: might be five feet away from the guy and the
Speaker 2: guy might say this is the time to try to,
Speaker 2: you know, slash the police officer and escape. And his
Speaker 2: attention should be on the job at hand, whether it's
Speaker 2: saving somebody with mouth to mouth resuscitation or capturing somebody
Speaker 2: who's a dangerous at the public. So, Eric, we're on
Speaker 2: the same page. Man.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Thank you very much, sir, and.
Speaker 2: Thanks thanks for continuing to call this program. What line
Speaker 2: of work do you happen to be in law enforcement
Speaker 2: per chance? Or no?
Speaker 3: I am not No, I just have a lot of
Speaker 3: respect for it, okay, And.
Speaker 2: Could ask you. I'm just curious how old you are?
Speaker 2: You sounding like you're a young guy.
Speaker 4: I am forty six, but thank you for telling me about.
Speaker 2: Well, I consider that to be a young guy. And
Speaker 2: one of the things, the point, the reason I asked
Speaker 2: that is that Greg Sullivan was making the point that
Speaker 2: really the problem is we need to educate people, but
Speaker 2: it's going to take decades to educate people because you know,
Speaker 2: public education and has fallen down in terms of teaching
Speaker 2: civics and respect for law enforcement and all of that.
Speaker 2: So I just think the whole other topic.
Speaker 3: But you're absolutely right about.
Speaker 2: So it is a whole number of doc topic. Eric,
Speaker 2: Thanks very much. Great great to talk with you, call
Speaker 2: more often.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Have a great night.
Speaker 2: Thank okay, you too, well. Take a very quick break
Speaker 2: coming back. I got Joe coming up, I got Jim,
Speaker 2: I got Christine, and I got will I got room
Speaker 2: for you at six one, seven, two five, four ten thirty.
Speaker 2: Back on the night Side.
Speaker 1: After this, You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ,
Speaker 1: Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Back to the calls, go to Joe. Joe, you were
Speaker 2: next on Nightside. What's your thoughts on this?
Speaker 5: Joe, Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call. I have
Speaker 5: mixed feelings on this. I was just talking. I'm going
Speaker 5: to have lunch with my friend tomorrow from Brighton. We
Speaker 5: were talking about something similar. I have mixed feelings. I
Speaker 5: agree you should have respect for the police, but when
Speaker 5: the police are wrong, like in the case. And I
Speaker 5: won't get into but you know, they kill that black
Speaker 5: man Tennessee. That's a different story. But there's so much
Speaker 5: bitterness today.
Speaker 2: And by the way I think, and I was surprised,
Speaker 2: I believe that they were acquitted or three yes, they.
Speaker 5: Were in That shocked me because I saw the they
Speaker 5: were playing evidence and oh, but that's another issue we'll
Speaker 5: get into some other times.
Speaker 2: We're really not talking about that here. In other words,
Speaker 2: as if no, there are a lot of people out
Speaker 2: there who feel that they have a right to in
Speaker 2: some cases challenge law enforcement even though they are not
Speaker 2: a party to what's going on. Uh, And even you know,
Speaker 2: interfere and maybe in some cases they're trying to help
Speaker 2: an e MT, but they're just making it more complicated
Speaker 2: for the EMT.
Speaker 5: I agree with you. Yeah, I agree with mister Sullivan. Sorry,
Speaker 5: we disagree, but that's okay. We can agree to disagree.
Speaker 5: I agree with mister Sullivant on the abortion. You can
Speaker 5: do it quietly, not get in his face, not in
Speaker 5: the doorway. But see if we go twenty five feet.
Speaker 5: Because he's right, we're already losing. There are cases where
Speaker 5: people civil rights have been violent. We're already loving.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Let me maybe, let me make sure I understand what
Speaker 2: you're saying. Okay. I brought up the buffer around the
Speaker 2: abortion clinic.
Speaker 5: Abortion.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: So in other words, you have people who are so
Speaker 2: called right to lifers who are so committed to the
Speaker 2: concept of protecting unborn what they perceive as and what
Speaker 2: I believe are unborn children. But they are so they
Speaker 2: are prepared to stand in front of doorways, to stand
Speaker 2: on steps, to to stand on sidewalks and prevent and
Speaker 2: impede people from from going in and seeking the medical treatment.
Speaker 2: If you want to call it that that that they
Speaker 2: that they desire.
Speaker 5: Absolutely that's wrong.
Speaker 4: That's wrong.
Speaker 2: I agree with Hold no, what is wrong?
Speaker 5: Don't don't let.
Speaker 2: You explain. I just do me a favorite, Joe. I'm
Speaker 2: just trying to I'm trying to make sure my audience
Speaker 2: isn't confused. And I think if you let me finish, okay,
Speaker 2: and you'll have a chance. In other words, somebody who
Speaker 2: wants who's a pro lifer and wants to protest at
Speaker 2: a at an abortion clinic, they have a right to protest,
Speaker 2: but that protest cannot interfere with the medical practice that's
Speaker 2: going on there or impede people who want to go
Speaker 2: and unveil themselves of that service. So therefore, there are
Speaker 2: buffer zones, buffer zones outside of these clinics. And I
Speaker 2: may disagree with the protesters, or I may even agree
Speaker 2: with the protesters, but I don't want those protesters interfering
Speaker 2: with moral decisions that other people are making.
Speaker 5: And okay, now my point ahead. I agree with you
Speaker 5: to a point. They're buffer zones, but we need education.
Speaker 5: They shouldn't stand in front of the doorway, they shouldn't
Speaker 5: get in their face. They should maybe be a little
Speaker 5: on the side and protest, to do it prospectively and properly.
Speaker 5: Not like Black Lives did all those terrible things. I
Speaker 5: agree with mister Sullivan on that education. But I just
Speaker 5: think we have so many laws, so many bills, twenty
Speaker 5: five feet, next it'll be fifty. It's like with the
Speaker 5: judge that the Karen Reid case. That case is they're
Speaker 5: working on changing the buffer zone because somebody I heard
Speaker 5: them talking today.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand that. But there's another
Speaker 2: example where the jet has said to the demonstrators, look,
Speaker 2: we want you to have the ability to protest, but
Speaker 2: you can't protest uh and and interfere with the conduct
Speaker 2: of the case. That's all all right, Thank you for
Speaker 2: your points.
Speaker 5: All right, thank you, Joe, you and I can't wait
Speaker 5: to get the other subject. Thanks, take care about you.
Speaker 2: Let me go to Jim and Kansas City. Jim, go right.
Speaker 6: Ahead, and thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2: How are you good, sir? How you doing?
Speaker 6: I'm happy? Thank you? So okay. When I first heard
Speaker 6: you described last hour's topic, I thought I didn't want
Speaker 6: to listen to it or talk about it. But then
Speaker 6: I did start listening to it, and I'm glad I
Speaker 6: did because I just misunderstood it. I guess I don't
Speaker 6: know I got six things to say about this, and
Speaker 6: it's a very very important topic. The first one of them,
Speaker 6: this is just an opinion because I'm not an attorney,
Speaker 6: I'm not a legal scholar. But my second thing to
Speaker 6: say is that y'all need to review the difference between
Speaker 6: the First and the Fourth Amendment, because the third thing
Speaker 6: I had to say is that I hear them confused
Speaker 6: all the time. And the fourth thing I want to
Speaker 6: say is that the First Amendment doesn't empower us to
Speaker 6: force our way into an arrangement. It allows us to
Speaker 6: It allows us the freedom from unreasonable search.
Speaker 2: The first hold it, you're confusing me. Fourth Amendment deals
Speaker 2: with unreasonable searches. First Amendment deals with freedom of association, religion,
Speaker 2: freedom of speech, freedoms, okay for all. The Bill of
Speaker 2: Rights deals with freedoms essentially, and our limitations upon what
Speaker 2: government can do. The Eighth Amendment freedom from uh you know,
Speaker 2: excessive uh punishments.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 2: That's you know again, there's you know, the the Second Amendment,
Speaker 2: the right to bear arms.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: They all, you know, pretty much, the the amendments, the
Speaker 2: eighth Amendment. You know, you cannot have all usual punishments
Speaker 2: and all of that.
Speaker 6: Okay, okay, Well you're getting a little off off the
Speaker 6: topic there. But my point is, I hear the first
Speaker 6: I hear the First Amendment confused with the Fourth Amendment
Speaker 6: a lot, and that people think that somehow or another,
Speaker 6: that the First Amendment powers you to just force your
Speaker 6: way into a situation on what pretense. I don't know,
Speaker 6: but it doesn't. That's the fourth Amendment. But even then
Speaker 6: they're reversing the fourth, the fourth.
Speaker 2: The first and fourth Amendment. I'm going to read to you. Yes,
Speaker 2: the First Amendment is very it happens a lot.
Speaker 6: It happens a lot.
Speaker 2: There, Jim, if you open your ears for a second here,
Speaker 2: I want to read the First Amendment to you and
Speaker 2: to and to the audience because it's coming straightforward. Congress
Speaker 2: shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
Speaker 2: prohibiting the free exercise there are, or abridging the freedom
Speaker 2: of speech or of the press, or of the right
Speaker 2: of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government
Speaker 2: for a redress of grievances. That's it. Amendment is search
Speaker 2: and seizure, right.
Speaker 6: It's just separate, well, right, But I think people are
Speaker 6: confusing that the First Amendment doesn't provide you with any
Speaker 6: sort It doesn't empower you to just force your way
Speaker 6: into an arrangement in order to express yourself or collect information.
Speaker 6: It empowers you to express yourself. As I understand it, basically.
Speaker 2: I've studied this for more than fifty years. I just
Speaker 2: read you the First Amendment, which deals with again, uh, freedoms,
Speaker 2: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion.
Speaker 6: It doesn't it but it doesn't say anthing about freedom
Speaker 6: to but your nose into some situation that you don't
Speaker 6: have any business in.
Speaker 2: That That well, it's it gives you freedoms, okay, it
Speaker 2: gives you freedom of the press, freedom of speech, but
Speaker 2: freedom of.
Speaker 6: All freedom from the government, and bridging your your express
Speaker 6: your self expression.
Speaker 2: Basically, yes, four.
Speaker 6: Freedom.
Speaker 2: No the fourth Jim, Jim, please please. The Fourth Amendment
Speaker 2: deals protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. Okay, that's
Speaker 2: the that's that's the Fourth Amendment.
Speaker 6: Exactly, yeah, exactly. So it's just because somebody's walking down
Speaker 6: the street and they hear a commotion going on in
Speaker 6: the backyard or a sideyard, that doesn't empower the Fourth Amendment,
Speaker 6: doesn't empower them to just run over there and stick
Speaker 6: their nose into that business. They you know, they're just that.
Speaker 2: No, the Fourth Amendment is Jim, I feel like we're
Speaker 2: doing law school here, and I feel.
Speaker 6: Well, people need to be informed because here's here's my things.
Speaker 2: They need to be informed accurately, Jim, And I think
Speaker 2: you're confusing people here. Okay, Jim, Jim, don't let me
Speaker 2: read to you the Fourth Amendment because it's very brief.
Speaker 2: It's very brief, and if I don't know when the
Speaker 2: last time you read it, but let me read it
Speaker 2: to you. The Fourth Amendment deals with search and arrest warrants.
Speaker 2: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
Speaker 2: and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
Speaker 2: And no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
Speaker 2: by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing a place to
Speaker 2: be searched, and the persons are things to be seized.
Speaker 2: So if the government thinks that you're doing something illegally,
Speaker 2: let's say you have a meth factory in your basement,
Speaker 2: and they get someone who can give them solid information,
Speaker 2: they need to get a search warrant in order to
Speaker 2: come into your house. Okay, that's the fourth in search
Speaker 2: and seizures. It's got nothing to do with it.
Speaker 6: That's what I'm saying. People misunderstand it. It's it doesn't
Speaker 6: got Nobody has the right to just butt their nose
Speaker 6: into everybody else's business. Thank you for that part of it.
Speaker 2: No, thank you for that invaluable clarification. Jim, And I'm
Speaker 2: up at my news break, so I gotta run, Thank
Speaker 2: you very much. Okay, here comes the news. We'll be
Speaker 2: back right after this.
Speaker 4: It's night side Radio.
Speaker 2: Let's get a First Amendment expert in here. Harvey silver Light. Harvey, welcome.
Speaker 2: How are you, sir?
Speaker 4: I'm fine, Dan. I've been listening to the entire discussion
Speaker 4: and by coincidence. Let me just get it here. Today's
Speaker 4: New York Times has an essay has an interview of Slsburger,
Speaker 4: the publisher of the Times. Just one second, only get
Speaker 4: it here? Oh no, no, no, you lost it.
Speaker 2: Well just give it to us if you want, just
Speaker 2: paraphrase it for a while. Well, we accept it. I
Speaker 2: can find it as well. But what does the publisher
Speaker 2: of the Times have to say?
Speaker 4: I found it. I had it here an interview with
Speaker 4: our publisher on a free press. It's an interview with
Speaker 4: the publisher of the New York Times, a g. Slsburger,
Speaker 4: And let me just teat you a couple of things.
Speaker 4: Right now, he's talking about the challenges of a free
Speaker 4: press in the Trump administration. Now, on top of these
Speaker 4: those challenges, we're facing the most serious direct assault on
Speaker 4: the rights and legitiacy of journalists that we've seen in
Speaker 4: at least a century. So it's the sheer volume of
Speaker 4: pressures that worries me, especially when so many news organizations,
Speaker 4: particularly local news, are vulnerable, and it ends that's why
Speaker 4: press freedom matters. It's less about the right of the
Speaker 4: press defines defined stuff. It's about the public's rights to
Speaker 4: know it. And it's about the primacy of the First
Speaker 4: Amendment over all other amendments and all other considerations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what many people say, you know, that's why
Speaker 2: the First Amendment is primary. I just feel, and you know,
Speaker 2: I've practiced with the First Amendment my entire career. I
Speaker 2: just feel that this so called halo law basically gives
Speaker 2: police EMTs and firefighters an additional tool to basically exert
Speaker 2: some control of a crowd that particularly is going to
Speaker 2: in some shape or form challenge what they are doing.
Speaker 2: If they're going to arrest someone, that arrest is adjudicated
Speaker 2: not on the streets, but if it's an improper arrest,
Speaker 2: it's adjudicated in the court system.
Speaker 4: And I agree with you on that limitation to the
Speaker 4: First Amendment. I actually agree with you on that. But
Speaker 4: I think anybody interested in the First Amendment should read
Speaker 4: this fabulous interview with some Silsburger. It's on page two
Speaker 4: of the Today's New York Times.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I guess he delivered this speech at the University
Speaker 2: of Dames Kiel School Global Effairs correct Tuesday.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, A free people need a free press. I would
Speaker 2: I would agree with that. All I'm just saying is
Speaker 2: that if if this uh so called halo law said,
Speaker 2: when when police order you you have to stand back
Speaker 2: a thousand feet, well that's unenforceable. It's it's vague, it's
Speaker 2: a it's arbitrary and capricious. It's not vague. But twenty
Speaker 2: five feet, I think is just another tool for a
Speaker 2: police officer or any EMT or a firefighter to say, look,
Speaker 2: we're engaged in our activity here that we're trying to
Speaker 2: either effectuate an arrest or help somebody, and you're not
Speaker 2: you're not helping the situation. Please stand back.
Speaker 4: I mean of the Supreme Court has always upheld limited
Speaker 4: limitations on the on the First Amendment. Sure, right, you know,
Speaker 4: falsely fire, shouting fire in a crowd in theater.
Speaker 2: Fighting words, we know, we know, you know, I can't
Speaker 2: get in your face, and and what's so called fighting words.
Speaker 2: There's some defamation, libel, slander, I mean those we know
Speaker 2: there are limitations there. So I think we're I think
Speaker 2: we're kind of an agreement on this. I mean, are
Speaker 2: you horrified that the halo law could pass in Massachusetts?
Speaker 2: As you understand it?
Speaker 4: Horrified?
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, yeah, I mean yeah, you're horrified. Yeah, would
Speaker 2: be would be the way I phrased the question. No, okay,
Speaker 2: you want you're concerned, I'm sure, right, yeah, but but
Speaker 2: it's not I mean, it's it's not something that.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: I I raised with Attorney Sullivan the idea that that
Speaker 2: when police have pulled someone over the side of the road,
Speaker 2: that we're now obligated to try to get out of
Speaker 2: their way a little bit and and give them a
Speaker 2: wider birth.
Speaker 4: With that in the Supreme Court would agree with that.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely the buffers and abortion clinics. You know me,
Speaker 2: I'm I'm pro life, but but I don't think pro
Speaker 2: life demonstrators have a right to in any way, shape
Speaker 2: or form impeded people who who need access or want
Speaker 2: access to a to a medical clinic. And so that
Speaker 2: buffer law, uh I think would stand. They even as
Speaker 2: someone I think just mentioned in the in the in
Speaker 2: the case down in the read case in Detam, the
Speaker 2: judge had a buffer zone set up so that people
Speaker 2: would not hear the yelling and screaming. And and I
Speaker 2: guess the federal court has uh instructed the judge to
Speaker 2: reconsider the distance from which the buffer clinic. They're not
Speaker 2: saying they can't be a buffer clinic. They're saying that
Speaker 2: the distance she uh that she imposed is unreasonable. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: I think we're in I had of agreement on this
Speaker 2: from my friend. I think right.
Speaker 4: But I I called mainly to point out this fabulous
Speaker 4: essay interview will souls boggling. If you can get a
Speaker 4: hold of Today's New York Times. Yeah, well they.
Speaker 2: Could also go on the internet. It's the pieces is
Speaker 2: titled simply a free people Need a free Press. New
Speaker 2: York Times.
Speaker 4: You can get the yes.
Speaker 2: Sounds great, Harvey is always Thanks, thanks for joining the conversation.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it very much. We'll talk show talks to you. Okay,
Speaker 2: let me get real quickly in here. I'm gonna go
Speaker 2: for Will on Long Island. Will you were next on Nightsacer?
Speaker 2: Right ahead?
Speaker 1: Hey, Dan, I wish Harvey was still on, because I
Speaker 1: have to say, I just even especially when attorneys like yourselves,
Speaker 1: you know, use the Oliver Wendell Holmes fire and a
Speaker 1: crowded movie there from the nineteen nineteen Shank versus Us.
Speaker 1: It really almost irritates me considering it was part of
Speaker 1: a decision that was partially overturned because of its degregious
Speaker 1: violations of free speech. Okay, I'm really not a big
Speaker 1: fan of infringing on the First Amendment. Almost no restrictions
Speaker 1: in my opinion.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let me let me run a couple by
Speaker 2: if I can. Okay, I'll start with shouting fire in
Speaker 2: a crowded theater.
Speaker 1: We're going into what you're aware you're aware of where that,
Speaker 1: where that term came from, that phrase came from, and
Speaker 1: why later it was decided that you know, I understand
Speaker 1: the analogy, right, but why it was decided that Brandon
Speaker 1: urg versus Ohio in nineteen sixty nine. It was part
Speaker 1: of a decision in nineteen nineteen that egregiously violated free
Speaker 1: speech on the people that were right in the draft leaflets. Okay,
Speaker 1: I understand the point that they're trying to make. But
Speaker 1: depending on your motive, let yelling fire and a c Okay,
Speaker 1: let me go back another.
Speaker 2: Uh. I defame your character, Okay, I slander your character
Speaker 2: in the radio tonight. Okay. Uh okay, I can't defend
Speaker 2: my slander or my defamation, uh with the with the first.
Speaker 1: Amendment, right because because it's a lie. Well but New.
Speaker 2: York Times versus Sullivan modifies that a little bit and
Speaker 2: it gives me, as a member of the press, a
Speaker 2: wider birth if you happen to be a public figure.
Speaker 2: Uh so I have.
Speaker 1: To which is unfair.
Speaker 2: I don't agree with New York Times versus Sullivan before,
Speaker 2: But all I'm just saying, these are the rules with
Speaker 2: fighting words.
Speaker 1: You know, you know it's a call to action. That's
Speaker 1: that was actually what was pointed out in Brandenburg versus Ohio.
Speaker 1: If it's a call to action to create imminent dan
Speaker 1: your insight and violence to say, go kill that person,
Speaker 1: go hurt these people, go start a fire, right those things?
Speaker 1: May you know, I'm not gonna you know, I have
Speaker 1: conflicted feelings even about that, because it requires the listener
Speaker 1: of that feature of that order.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'd love to know what do you think about
Speaker 2: this idea? Okay that in our current context here and
Speaker 2: realizing the First Amendment still exists, okay, and we love
Speaker 2: the First Amendment. Police officers are trying to effectuate an
Speaker 2: arrest and the crowd says, we're not going to let
Speaker 2: you arrest that guy. I mean, now, is there.
Speaker 1: A there's a crime there? Though, Look, there's obstruction, there's
Speaker 1: interfering with the investigation, there's all types of crime there,
Speaker 1: like Jimmy Sullivan pointed.
Speaker 2: Out, exactly exactly. However, however, it seems to me that
Speaker 2: another tool that can be given to the police officer
Speaker 2: in that situation is to say, stand back. You know,
Speaker 2: you're interfering with my job. Stand back. I'm not asking
Speaker 2: to stand back a thousand feet stand back twenty five feet,
Speaker 2: two Carlins.
Speaker 1: Its twenty five feet, but it's five feet. It's twenty
Speaker 1: five feet, right, you see. Now, maybe there could be
Speaker 1: some type of invading the personal space of somebody trying
Speaker 1: to perform a function that's important to the safety of
Speaker 1: you know, the people of the of the state or
Speaker 1: the municipality.
Speaker 4: Where this law has passed.
Speaker 1: Right, So it is twenty five feet though close enough
Speaker 1: for you to get the video that you needed of
Speaker 1: George Floyd, is twenty five feet close enough for you
Speaker 1: to be able to hear the things that I'm not.
Speaker 2: Sure about it George Floyd is.
Speaker 1: And I think that this law, right, I think that
Speaker 1: this law actually is an unnecessary law that's based upon
Speaker 1: most of the arguments I've heard from the proponents of
Speaker 1: this and the people that are in agreement with this
Speaker 1: are hypothetical scenarios, Right. I don't see too many scenarios,
Speaker 1: not in my state or yours, or anywhere around the country,
Speaker 1: where this law would have done anything except give the
Speaker 1: police officers an excuse, which I'm going back to blue.
Speaker 1: By the way, I don't want to see officers in
Speaker 1: any way hurt or interfered with. And I think that
Speaker 1: you should listen and obey, and then obviously if there's
Speaker 1: false arrest and things like that you pointed out, we'll
Speaker 1: be handled in the court. But exactly by the way.
Speaker 2: You mentioned George Floyd. Okay, you mentioned George Floyd. I
Speaker 2: was not there, But that I understand was a woman
Speaker 2: with a young woman with her cell phone who was
Speaker 2: able to hold that camera steady for a long time
Speaker 2: and to chronicle Chauvin, Derek Chauvin with his knee on
Speaker 2: the neck of George Floyd. She did not have to
Speaker 2: get within five feet. As a matter of fact, if
Speaker 2: she got within five feet, somehow, some way that that
Speaker 2: camera she was smart to stay at a at a
Speaker 2: bit of a distance. She could have been twenty feet,
Speaker 2: you could, she.
Speaker 1: Could have been with a zoom or whatever. But I
Speaker 1: think that, you know, it's gonna I think that once
Speaker 1: you start to draw these types of lines, right, which
Speaker 1: is why I'm really against most restrictions on free all
Speaker 1: of them points I do, Okay, And I understand it's
Speaker 1: not a black and white thing either, right, That's why
Speaker 1: we have these arguments. Right, Like other guys, I heard
Speaker 1: the other guys, I don't want to argue with an attorney. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm not attorney, but I have really good reading comprehension.
Speaker 1: I like to read, and I could also argue really
Speaker 1: well that's what you guys do really good, right. You
Speaker 1: read things and then you argue. I think it's a
Speaker 1: debate that has to be had, and I could maybe
Speaker 1: concede to something some small perimeter, and maybe that perimeter
Speaker 1: could be extended upon depending upon the circumstance. But I
Speaker 1: don't think a blanket twenty five foot, thirty feet fifty
Speaker 1: feet or upon request get back and it becomes illegal.
Speaker 1: I think that opens up a great area for the
Speaker 1: police to be able to misuse that a right, Thanks, then,
Speaker 1: I appreciate it time.
Speaker 2: Thanks very much. We to disagree. Thanks, okay, go and
Speaker 2: take quick break here if you want to get in.
Speaker 2: I got a couple of open lines. We're going to
Speaker 2: wrap it up. I got Christine coming up on the
Speaker 2: other side. I got room for you now. If you
Speaker 2: really want to get in, dial right now six one, seven, two, five,
Speaker 2: four ten thirty six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty.
Speaker 2: If you agree that the halo law is something that
Speaker 2: would do little harm, uh, which is what my position is, uh,
Speaker 2: and that it would give police a bit of breathing room,
Speaker 2: that's great. If you want to go the other way,
Speaker 2: that's fine as well. As I said, we have free speech.
Speaker 2: There's yeah, this this free speech, but there's many examples
Speaker 2: of where people go too far. It's like the clown
Speaker 2: in Cleveland the other day that was yelling at Jared Duran,
Speaker 2: the rid Sox center fielder who has had you know,
Speaker 2: suicidal adiations, and he wanted to get uh, get his
Speaker 2: point across. Well he did, but it was it was
Speaker 2: improper in my opinion, and I'm glad that now you
Speaker 2: can say, well, there's no government action involved here, that's fine,
Speaker 2: but it was at a baseball park and the guardians
Speaker 2: made the right decision to get the guy out of
Speaker 2: there is as simple as that. We'll be back a
Speaker 2: couple more callers here to finish out strong six one, seven, two,
Speaker 2: ten thirty, six, seven, nine thirty. We've had two good
Speaker 2: hours in this. Let's keep it going.
Speaker 3: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on.
Speaker 7: Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2: Well, we're wrapping up a couple of hours. We talked
Speaker 2: last hour with the joining Greg Sullivan, the president of
Speaker 2: the New England First Amendment Coalition, and we're talking about
Speaker 2: a law that is being proposed at the state House.
Speaker 2: It would be very interesting if this came up for
Speaker 2: the debate at the State House. But as far as
Speaker 2: I'm concerned, it probably will, as it often happens in Massachusetts,
Speaker 2: be be referred to committee, which means essentially that is
Speaker 2: the end of the law. Let me go to Christine. Christine,
Speaker 2: what do you think about this this proposal.
Speaker 8: I'm not show up at all that I'm kind of
Speaker 8: just it's police to be respected, you know. I mean,
Speaker 8: is I'm going to get to the point like a parade,
Speaker 8: that we have a barricade all senes. You know it's crazy.
Speaker 2: Well, look that's another example. I mean, when there's a parade, generally,
Speaker 2: I guess there are some parades where everybody is welcome,
Speaker 2: but when there's generally a parade, the groups that are
Speaker 2: allowed in the parade are the groups that apply, and
Speaker 2: there's some owner there. It's the same way here we're
Speaker 2: talking about. If a police officer, and again this is
Speaker 2: more than police officer, police officer, firefighter, or an emergency
Speaker 2: medical technician, they have a job to do and if
Speaker 2: that and in most cases with EMTs, no one's going
Speaker 2: to interfere intentionally with an EMT. They might try to
Speaker 2: interfere with an arrest, but with an EMTY you can
Speaker 2: always have that person who is there, Well, let me
Speaker 2: help you. I don't what to do here. I'm not
Speaker 2: a doctor, but you know, and the EMT is going
Speaker 2: to say, excuse me, we have this under control. And
Speaker 2: then the person continues, oh, you know what you could
Speaker 2: be doing here, and at some point the EMT to
Speaker 2: give the em T the additional authority say look, please,
Speaker 2: you know, step step back, stand back for twenty five feet.
Speaker 2: I think that's important. I think to have that's just
Speaker 2: another tool in the toolbox. And I don't know if
Speaker 2: you agree or not, but we.
Speaker 4: Can agree with this.
Speaker 8: I you know, I was We were always taught to
Speaker 8: respect your police, your firement.
Speaker 2: Whatever happened to that, it went away, it went away,
Speaker 2: maybe just as bell bottom pants went away.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I know all these things too, with people with cameras.
Speaker 8: You know, it's it's so ridiculous.
Speaker 2: I'm with you. I'm with you, Christine. Thank you much
Speaker 2: as always. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 8: Okay, I'm back to blue and mullifying men as God
Speaker 8: bless the market them all fake.
Speaker 2: Thanks Christine, appreciate it all right. I'm going to try GEO.
Speaker 2: You have called in really late, I, honest to God,
Speaker 2: have less than a minute for you, but I'm going
Speaker 2: to give you the microphone go ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Regarding the First and fourth Amendment, the search, illegal search,
Speaker 7: and seizure, what the protests at the clinic are actually
Speaker 7: doing is stealing, and they're actually terrorists who terrorize the
Speaker 7: person who's trying to involve themselves in their own life.
Speaker 2: I don't have heard that characterization, but that's am.
Speaker 9: The first Amendment that they're violating is the religion aspect.
Speaker 9: They are trying to enforce their religion on another person.
Speaker 9: God has a relationship with you. You don't have a
Speaker 9: right to interfere with God's association with that woman.
Speaker 2: Any rest to that article. I have expressed that point
Speaker 2: of view. I happen to be pro life, Okay, that's
Speaker 2: what my religion teaches and that's what I believe.
Speaker 1: Well, I was raised as a Catholic.
Speaker 2: But that's fine, and you don't have I mean, that's
Speaker 2: the point that I'm making is that I don't feel
Speaker 2: that I have a right, although I do believe that
Speaker 2: that unborn fetus is a living, growing, developing person, that
Speaker 2: I don't ever right to block other people. Gio do
Speaker 2: me a favorite, would you do? Please call a little
Speaker 2: earlier because I'm flat out of time and I got
Speaker 2: to wrap the show. And I appreciate when you call it,
Speaker 2: but call earliest so we can actually have a conversation. Okay,
Speaker 2: thank you very much. Done for the night, Rob Brooks,
Speaker 2: thank you very much, Marita, thank you very much. To
Speaker 2: my guest attorney, Greg Sullivan, thank you very much as well,
Speaker 2: and also to Brian short Sleeve, candidate for governor on
Speaker 2: the Republican side. All dogs, all cats, all pets go
Speaker 2: to heap. And that's why Pal Charlie Rais, who passed
Speaker 2: fifteen years ago in February, that's why your pets are
Speaker 2: who passed. They loved you and you loved them. You'll
Speaker 2: see them again, see again tomorrow night. On night's side
Speaker 2: of a great Wednesday, everyone,