Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Constance Radio.
Speaker 2: Sorry, welcome back everyone again. If you're interested in the
Speaker 2: campaign of Brian short Sleeve, Brian Shortsleeve dot com as
Speaker 2: the website you can find him. And we will be
Speaker 2: talking with Mike Kinneely on Thursday night, and we'll talk
Speaker 2: tomorrow night at nine o'clock with State Auditor Diana Desaglio,
Speaker 2: which will be an interesting conversation as well. Last night
Speaker 2: we had an interesting conversation. We talked for the first
Speaker 2: time last night about a piece of legislation that is
Speaker 2: up on Beacon Hill with Richard Wells, a former police
Speaker 2: chief in Milton, Massachusetts and a Democrat member of the legislature.
Speaker 2: Richard Wells, along with some other members of the legislature's
Speaker 2: support a piece of legislature called the Halo Act, which
Speaker 2: would require which would allow first responders and that would
Speaker 2: be firefighters, police officers, or EMTs to warn people who
Speaker 2: may be getting too close to them while they are
Speaker 2: responding to a situation, either a fire or a disruption,
Speaker 2: a disturbance, or for that matter, somebody who is down
Speaker 2: on the ground and injured bystanders could if they were
Speaker 2: deemed to be interfering with the operation could be ordered
Speaker 2: to back off by twenty five feet. And today we'd
Speaker 2: like to get the other point of view on that,
Speaker 2: and I'm delighted to welcome Attorney Greg Sullivan, who's president
Speaker 2: of the New England First Amendment Coalition. Spoke with Greg
Speaker 2: this afternoon. Pretty clear that Greg and I don't know
Speaker 2: if the organization has taken a position on this, but
Speaker 2: certainly Greg is opposed to Greg. Attorney Greg Sullivan, welcome
Speaker 2: to night, said, how are you, sir.
Speaker 3: I'm well, Dan, Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 2: Well, my pleasure, thank you for coming on. This is
Speaker 2: one of those issues that I think a lot of
Speaker 2: people will have a thought on, And obviously I would
Speaker 2: love to know from you how you feel about this.
Speaker 2: I told you today on the phone, and I would
Speaker 2: repeat it for the audience that to me, it seems
Speaker 2: like a fairly reasonable piece of legislation. But what is
Speaker 2: it about this legislation that the New England First Amendment
Speaker 2: Coalition and you as president find problematic?
Speaker 3: Well, simply put, we don't find it too past constitutional muster.
Speaker 3: And I would point out that identical laws were passed
Speaker 3: in three other states, four other states. I should say,
Speaker 3: and in three of those states, federal courts have stricken
Speaker 3: those laws with the identical language that the proposed Massachusetts
Speaker 3: law has as being unduly vague and broad, overly broad,
Speaker 3: and therefore unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: By the way, just for clarification on background, Attorney Sullivan
Speaker 2: has represented many media companies here in New England. That is,
Speaker 2: that is his area of expertise. Let's I will accept
Speaker 2: your view that it's unconstitutional. On a personal level. Do
Speaker 2: you see any sort of a practical concern with the law?
Speaker 2: I mean, as it's.
Speaker 3: Proposed, Yeah, I mean it's so vague that there there
Speaker 3: are a lot of problems I see in the wording
Speaker 3: of the statute, the definition of harassment, for example, which
Speaker 3: says conduct that causes substantial emotional distress in the first responder.
Speaker 3: I mean that phraseology to me, is so subjective and
Speaker 3: vague that I don't know how courts could interpret, for example,
Speaker 3: a first responders testimony to see if it was reasonable.
Speaker 3: And that's the word that should underline all laws. Was
Speaker 3: this emotional distress substantially caused by an onlooker or in
Speaker 3: many cases it would be a member of the press
Speaker 3: who would be negatively affected. Were this law to pass.
Speaker 3: And that's certainly what the courts have found. They've found
Speaker 3: that the First Amendment rights of the media on balance
Speaker 3: outweigh the need for this artificial twenty five foot zone.
Speaker 3: And I will say, in fairness to the drafters of
Speaker 3: the legislation, I think their intent is good. Nobody wants
Speaker 3: to see interference with first responders' performance of their duties.
Speaker 3: But this law, it just is too much, too vague,
Speaker 3: too broad, and not effective.
Speaker 2: So let me ask you this. If I could counsel,
Speaker 2: let us assume that this proponents were to come to
Speaker 2: you and say, do you think that it's possible for
Speaker 2: a law to be written that would pass constitutional muster?
Speaker 2: As you know, the Halo Act has been challenged in Florida,
Speaker 2: that law is still in the books. If they came
Speaker 2: to you and said conceptually, and I made this point
Speaker 2: last night, all of us have our job, A police
Speaker 2: officer of job, firefighters have job E and T responders
Speaker 2: have a job. All of us have seen many incidents
Speaker 2: in the last few years, and even recently. What happened
Speaker 2: to the ice officers who were attempting to effectuate an
Speaker 2: arrest in Worcester last week? What happened down at the
Speaker 2: Ice Center in Newark, New Jersey over the weekend. Do
Speaker 2: you think it's conceivable that a law like this could
Speaker 2: be written which would pass any form of constitutional muster
Speaker 2: if someone like yourself wrote the law.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm going to suggest that there are numerous laws
Speaker 3: already on the books that address these very situations you
Speaker 3: mentioned ice. And there's a federal law which is eighteen USC.
Speaker 3: Section one eleven, which makes it a misdemeanor to oppose, impede, intimidate,
Speaker 3: or interfere with any person engaged in the performance of
Speaker 3: their effe.
Speaker 2: And you're correct on that. There is a member of Congress,
Speaker 2: by the way, a Democratic congresswoman, who has been charged
Speaker 2: under I believe, if not that statue, a similar statue.
Speaker 2: I know that there were laws in the books. I
Speaker 2: do understand that if you if you strike a police officer,
Speaker 2: you could be charged with assault and battery. If you
Speaker 2: threaten a police officer, you can be charged with assault.
Speaker 2: I get that.
Speaker 3: You let me let me interrect you on that one,
Speaker 3: because threats to commit a crime is a crime in
Speaker 3: and of itself on any individual, never mind a police officer.
Speaker 3: In the assault and battery understand that und that even
Speaker 3: more stringent than your normal assault and battery there is.
Speaker 2: But but I can construct for you, Greg, I can
Speaker 2: construct for you a situation where a police officer or
Speaker 2: police officers are attempting to arrest someone, and whether that
Speaker 2: arrest is going to be ultimately justified or not is
Speaker 2: up for the courts to decide, not a group of
Speaker 2: people who might gather around and attempt to interfere with that.
Speaker 2: And this just gives the police one more tool in
Speaker 2: their toolbox, with a piece of legislation that is craftedise
Speaker 2: more precisely, perhaps than the Halo Act. And basically they
Speaker 2: can say that people stand back. And so if someone
Speaker 2: gets close and puts that police officer in a position
Speaker 2: where they or a firefighter or an EMT. I mean,
Speaker 2: if an EMT is trying to help someone on the ground,
Speaker 2: wouldn't there reasonably be possible to construct a piece of
Speaker 2: legislation to give the EMT sufficient room to be able
Speaker 2: to move from the person they're helping through an ambulance
Speaker 2: to get some equipment and not have people standing in
Speaker 2: the way. I mean, I understand, I'm a member of
Speaker 2: the media, I'm is I'm an absolutist in the First Amendment,
Speaker 2: and I consider myself to be an absolutist in the
Speaker 2: First Amendment. But I have just seen too much of this.
Speaker 2: I've seen police barrier, I've seen police buildings in Minneapolis
Speaker 2: burn to the ground. I've seen federal buildings in Seattle, Washington,
Speaker 2: and in Portland, Oregon firebomb.
Speaker 3: We're getting far afield.
Speaker 2: No, we're not. In my in my in my opinion,
Speaker 2: you may think.
Speaker 3: Just mentioned our crimes.
Speaker 2: I understand that there was.
Speaker 3: On the books to punish those crimes. I understand that
Speaker 3: the New England First Amendment Coalition in no way condones
Speaker 3: illegal activity crime. Uh, but we certainly protect and defend
Speaker 3: the First Amendment at all times. The First Amendment is
Speaker 3: that I do as well.
Speaker 2: By the way I practice it. I practice the First
Speaker 2: Amendment every night of the week. Greg, let me do this.
Speaker 2: I want to give call us a chance to call in.
Speaker 2: I also want to raise a couple of other situations
Speaker 2: with you, which I want you to be able to
Speaker 2: respond to. But I got to take a commercial break.
Speaker 2: I know I'm going to enjoy this conversation with you,
Speaker 2: for sure. Folks would like to weigh in on this
Speaker 2: six one, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty six
Speaker 2: one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. I will always
Speaker 2: ask you, whatever your position on any issue on this program,
Speaker 2: be respectful to my guests. My guest or the equivalent
Speaker 2: of someone in my home. And just as I would
Speaker 2: if I invited you to my home, I had to
Speaker 2: expect you to respect the other guests. We can have
Speaker 2: conversations six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty six
Speaker 2: one seven, nine three one ten thirty. Coming right back
Speaker 2: on Nightside with my guest, the president of the New
Speaker 2: England First Amendment Coalition, Attorney Greg Solivan. Back right after
Speaker 2: these messages on Nightside.
Speaker 1: You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Speaker 1: Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: My guest is Greg Salivoni's the president of the New
Speaker 2: England First Amendment Coalition. Here, let me run an actual
Speaker 2: situation by Greg and get your reaction to it. If
Speaker 2: you and I are driving in a car tonight somewhere
Speaker 2: in Massachusetts and our car breaks down and we pull
Speaker 2: over to the shoulder of the road, no one is
Speaker 2: obligated to give us any more room. In other words,
Speaker 2: that the people do not, you know, be nice for
Speaker 2: them to be courteous and if we're trying to somehow
Speaker 2: get our car back under way, there's no obligation. If,
Speaker 2: on the other hand, a police car comes behind us
Speaker 2: and gives us some assistance, there is a statue which
Speaker 2: requires people in the in the right travel lane to
Speaker 2: move over and give the police car more room. Do
Speaker 2: you think that's a good law.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'd say that's reasonable.
Speaker 2: Reasonable. So why should the police officer in that situation
Speaker 2: be given extra safety and convenience and all the other
Speaker 2: drivers inconvenience while we do not get statutorily, why do
Speaker 2: we make the exception for the police there in the
Speaker 2: actually the conduct of his or her job.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean that's simple public safety and common sense.
Speaker 2: Public safety and common sense, okay, So why does that
Speaker 2: public safety and common sense not say, Look, if an
Speaker 2: EMT is attempting to aid someone, he doesn't he or
Speaker 2: she doesn't need someone hanging over their shoulders saying what's
Speaker 2: going on here, looks like this guy's having a heart attack,
Speaker 2: what are you doing? Or if it's a firefighter who's
Speaker 2: attempting to get up a ladder. You know, we've had
Speaker 2: firefighters who have suffered literally people throwing bottles at them
Speaker 2: as they attempt to put out fires. There are people
Speaker 2: in our society who who just don't understand to allow
Speaker 2: people to do their job. I mean, you don't want
Speaker 2: someone coming into your office, well you're interviewing a client
Speaker 2: and saying, you know, Greg, there's a couple of ideas
Speaker 2: here that I'd like to throw into the conversation. I
Speaker 2: don't want someone walking into my studio and telling me
Speaker 2: how to do my job. Why don't we just allow
Speaker 2: police officers to do their job and if they make
Speaker 2: an arrest improperly, that's what we have a court system for.
Speaker 3: I agree with that. And throwing bottles at anyone, of course,
Speaker 3: I'm to the sault battery with a dangerous weapon.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: He asked me a question if there could be a
Speaker 3: law drafted reasonably and constitutionally, and I'm going to point
Speaker 3: out to you I believe there is one in New Hampshire.
Speaker 3: It's called RSA, that's revised statue. It's annotated six forty two,
Speaker 3: Section two. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when
Speaker 3: the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person
Speaker 3: recognized to be a law enforcement official seeking to effect
Speaker 3: an arrest or detention of a person, regardless of whether
Speaker 3: there is a legal base for the arrest, and that's
Speaker 3: actually can be a Class B felony if that person
Speaker 3: causes injury. But the last sentence of the law says
Speaker 3: verbal protestations alone shall not constitute a violation of this statard.
Speaker 3: So it's the twenty five feet thing that to me
Speaker 3: is vague and arbitrary.
Speaker 2: I think it's pretty specific, Greg. It's twenty five feet,
Speaker 2: whether it's twenty four feet or twenty six.
Speaker 3: Feet, right, But ten feet away, I'm ten feet away.
Speaker 3: If I work for a news station, Let's say, and
Speaker 3: I'm ten feet away with my camera and I'm recording,
Speaker 3: and I'm peaceable, and I'm not interfering in any way
Speaker 3: with the activity of either the law enforcement official, the
Speaker 3: fire official, or the EMT. There should be no rule against.
Speaker 2: That, Okay, So therefore you would support that if I'm
Speaker 2: here hearing you correctly and correct me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 2: I'm hearing from you that the distance is a matter here,
Speaker 2: twenty five feet is not acceptable. Ten would be acceptable
Speaker 2: for a halo law in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that. I'm saying someone who's ten feet
Speaker 3: away filming the conduct of a public official. That's no
Speaker 3: problem with that in my mind at all. Now that
Speaker 3: person might be seven feet away or six feet or
Speaker 3: three feet. Every case turns on its own set of facts.
Speaker 3: That's why boldly broad laws are dangerous. They is a
Speaker 3: tenabitrary enforcement.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm not trying to entrap you here, my friend.
Speaker 2: I'm not smart enough to entrap a lawyer like you.
Speaker 2: But it sounds to me like you're saying ten feet
Speaker 2: is okay, and that the photographer and the reporter. And
Speaker 2: by the way, I did this for thirty one years,
Speaker 2: as you probably might remember or you might know, and
Speaker 2: if not, I'll tell you I did it. We functioned
Speaker 2: without this law in effect. But I think sometimes people
Speaker 2: now are dealing with police a little differently, and police
Speaker 2: have made tremendous accommodations. When I was a reporter of police,
Speaker 2: officers were not wearing cameras. And by the way, I
Speaker 2: think those cameras show and have shown, how difficult being
Speaker 2: a police officer or a firefighter or an EMT is.
Speaker 3: So yes, I think the body one cameras are a
Speaker 3: great thing. It shows that the vast majority ninety nine
Speaker 3: percent of the police officers and other government officials are
Speaker 3: doing their best, and they're doing a great job. But
Speaker 3: it also, like the reporter's camera, the police camera can
Speaker 3: also show where mistakes have been made and even egregious
Speaker 3: conduct occurs, and we all know that it does occur.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, well for George Foy, I'm going to go
Speaker 2: right there to George Floyd. I guarantee you that the
Speaker 2: woman that was taking that video was a respectable distance
Speaker 2: away from and she did not attempt I believe it
Speaker 2: was a young woman. She did not attempt to do
Speaker 2: anything to stop Derek Chauvin. I wish she had, obviously,
Speaker 2: and George Floyd would still be a lot today. But
Speaker 2: I can tell you as a broadcast professional, she was
Speaker 2: more than twenty five feet away.
Speaker 3: And I don't think that's correct. I think she was
Speaker 3: on the sidewalk and they were at the curbstone the
Speaker 3: police were. I think she and you know what, whether
Speaker 3: she was twenty five thirty feet fifteen feet, I don't
Speaker 3: think it matters that you use the word a respectable distance. Now,
Speaker 3: if the police officers had said to her, ma'am, police
Speaker 3: back up right now, and she failed to obey that order,
Speaker 3: that in and of itself would be a crime. It's
Speaker 3: up to you know. You mentioned the ice arrests in Worcester,
Speaker 3: and I watched the police body camera footage of that arrest,
Speaker 3: and that was the most absurd. All I could think
Speaker 3: of was the Keystone cops. That was handled so poorly.
Speaker 3: They had that woman in custody numerous times. I don't
Speaker 3: know how she ended up running down the street with
Speaker 3: a half a dozen offices chasing her. That that was
Speaker 3: that whole thing. Everything I saw on that video, I
Speaker 3: couldn't believe.
Speaker 2: I think it's I think it's easy for you and
Speaker 2: me to watch a video uh and uh and say,
Speaker 2: Jesus is the Keystone saw Keystone Cops. It's like when
Speaker 2: I watch you know, some you know, professional golfer, Uh,
Speaker 2: you know shank a drive into the woods. I'm saying,
Speaker 2: he's a pro golfer. How did he do that? I
Speaker 2: could do better than that. I think it's easy for
Speaker 2: guys like you and me to sit back and say,
Speaker 2: you know, I watched those tapes as well, and it
Speaker 2: just showed to me that was a situation was totally
Speaker 2: out of control, and it was out of control. The
Speaker 2: police were not involved in the riot. There you had
Speaker 2: people who were attempting to prevent the police from making
Speaker 2: an arrest. Now I don't know, by the way, if
Speaker 2: that woman ever should have been arrested, but that's for
Speaker 2: the courts to decide. It's not for people on the
Speaker 2: street to decide. Greg in my opinion, and that's what
Speaker 2: we're encouraging in my opinion.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I didn't see anyone in the video. I watched
Speaker 3: assault or batter a police officer, and in fact, I
Speaker 3: felt badly for the worst of police officers who were
Speaker 3: stuck in the middle. And it was the Ice agents
Speaker 3: to me, who I mean, you want to arrest a woman,
Speaker 3: get her hands behind her back, put her in cuffs,
Speaker 3: and put her in a cruise to see you later.
Speaker 3: That thing lasted over twenty minutes, and as I said,
Speaker 3: she was in custody, out of custody, in custody. It
Speaker 3: was I've already used the word absurd. I just couldn't
Speaker 3: believe what I was watching.
Speaker 2: I said that I understand that, but it was it
Speaker 2: was not that the police were looking to stage a
Speaker 2: riotous situation. They may have timed their arrest badly. I
Speaker 2: was critical by the way of the arrest of the
Speaker 2: graduate student at Medford. I thought that was overreaction. I
Speaker 2: as it turned out, there were five or six people
Speaker 2: who did show a badge, but it seemed to me
Speaker 2: that the optics were ridiculous that it would take five
Speaker 2: or six ICE officers to arrest this thirty year old
Speaker 2: graduate student. So I was very critical of that arrest.
Speaker 2: And part of that was that I did not hear
Speaker 2: anything from Ice as to what she had done. And
Speaker 2: when I went and read the op ed in the
Speaker 2: in the Toughs newspaper, it was like vanilla ice cream.
Speaker 2: It could have been written by a junior in high
Speaker 2: school and you would have said, gee, that's a really
Speaker 2: well thought out article, but there was there was nothing. Anyway,
Speaker 2: let me do this. I got to take a path.
Speaker 3: Let me, let me, let me, let me add to
Speaker 3: that because I read that there is nothing zero in it.
Speaker 2: I agree with you. I agree with you. Now. I
Speaker 2: don't know what else they had, but that that wasn't enough,
Speaker 2: in my opinion, to revoke a visa.
Speaker 3: No no question about it. It's called free speech, and
Speaker 3: it's being attacked by the current federal administration on a
Speaker 3: daily basis.
Speaker 2: Well, again, that's a that's a political judgment that I
Speaker 2: think there's a lot of criticism that we can make
Speaker 2: of this administration, and there's a lot of criticism we
Speaker 2: could make of any administration that I have lived under
Speaker 2: during my lifetime. There's a there's a lot of question
Speaker 2: about the Biden administration and what people knew and when
Speaker 2: they knew it, and who was honest and how much
Speaker 2: transparency was involved. But I don't think either one of
Speaker 2: us want to go down that path tonight. I want
Speaker 2: right now, Yeah, I'll focus on this. We're going to
Speaker 2: take a phone calls right after the ra I only
Speaker 2: have one line opened. My guest as Attorney Greg Sullivan.
Speaker 2: He's the president of the New England First Amendment Coalition.
Speaker 2: Six one seven five six one No, let me get
Speaker 2: this right. Six one seven, two five four ten thirty
Speaker 2: or six one seven nine three one ten thirty. The
Speaker 2: two five four to ten thirties booked right now. The
Speaker 2: only line open is six one seven nine three one
Speaker 2: ten thirty. Back to phone calls or two phone calls
Speaker 2: right after the news at the bottom.
Speaker 1: Of the hour, if you're on Night Side with Dan
Speaker 1: Ray on w b Z, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Or my guess is attorney Greg Salivan, he's the president
Speaker 2: of the New England First Amendment Coalition. We're talking about
Speaker 2: a piece of legislation that the Great and General Court
Speaker 2: of Massachusetts might consider. It's called the Halo Act. Greg,
Speaker 2: before we go to phone calls, anything that you want to.
Speaker 3: Clean up, Yeah, I'll give you a quote from Thomas Jefferson.
Speaker 3: I don't know if it's cleaning up or not, but Jefferson,
Speaker 3: after he was in off has said, our liberty depends
Speaker 3: on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited
Speaker 3: without being lost. And this bill would limit the freedom
Speaker 3: of the press with a in a standardless way. And
Speaker 3: that's the reason the identical statutes have been stricken in
Speaker 3: both Louisiana, Indiana, and Arizona because there's no standards that
Speaker 3: would regulate a police officer's conduct with respect to effectuating
Speaker 3: an arrest for being harassed. Harassment being defined in this
Speaker 3: statute as causing substantial emotional distress in that first responder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I can agree with you that you
Speaker 2: made me to clean up the language here, but I
Speaker 2: still believe that, based upon what I have seen in
Speaker 2: the last few years in this country, that the amount
Speaker 2: of respect that certain people have for police as well
Speaker 2: as empts and firefighters is going away. And just as
Speaker 2: I mentioned last night, just as Jaron Durant, the Red
Speaker 2: Sox outfielder who dealt with some serious mental health issues,
Speaker 2: should not be subjected to abuse while he's trying to
Speaker 2: play for the Red Sox. And I know if you're
Speaker 2: a Red Sox fan, but there was a fan in
Speaker 2: Cleveland who really got on his case as you will.
Speaker 2: He's trying to play a baseball game, a police officers
Speaker 2: trying to make an arrest, maybe save someone's life, firefighter
Speaker 2: as well, E m T's as well. I think we
Speaker 2: can make some concession of civility to them. And if
Speaker 2: we have to clean up the language and make it
Speaker 2: more precise, I'm all for it. I wish I could
Speaker 2: get you to help them clean it up and write
Speaker 2: the bill, but I suspect you not so inclined. And
Speaker 2: on that point, let's get some phone calls. Let's go
Speaker 2: to Florida. Dan is in Tampa Bay, and I will
Speaker 2: tell you Greg that Dan is a former police officer
Speaker 2: in Tampa Bay. Go right ahead, Dan, you're on with
Speaker 2: Attorney Greg Sullivan.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Hi, Dana, missus Sullivan you know, was using Laura,
Speaker 5: and I think it's a good law. But I have
Speaker 5: to disagree with Miss Sullivan's point of view. I don't
Speaker 5: think the media and media access is really the issue
Speaker 5: here at Lisa. In my experience, I was a municipal
Speaker 5: cop in here in Florida for twenty three years and
Speaker 5: I never had an issue with the media. They were
Speaker 5: on crime scenes all the time, and they followed me
Speaker 5: a great deal of my work, and there's order respect,
Speaker 5: where's a good relationship with them. I think the biggest
Speaker 5: challenge we have, and I've experienced myself, is so called
Speaker 5: First Amendment auditors, and these are folks who are trying
Speaker 5: to achieve their YouTube fame, and they will go, in
Speaker 5: my case, literally inches away from me and in front
Speaker 5: of me and block wherever I'm going and just basically
Speaker 5: trying to promote a confrontation in hopes of getting their
Speaker 5: fifty minutes of the family YouTube. Are in many cases
Speaker 5: trying to get a cop to lose their timber or
Speaker 5: so they can go and complain on them more. In
Speaker 5: some cases follow filely a lawsuit against them. So I
Speaker 5: respect your opinion, missus Sulivan, and your point of view,
Speaker 5: but I don't think media or media access and First
Speaker 5: Amendment is the problem. I think it's people who are
Speaker 5: interfering with police officers doing the job and getting in
Speaker 5: there in their face and blocking them whatever they're doing.
Speaker 5: So that's that's my point of view. Is a police officer.
Speaker 2: Let me let me give Attorney Sullivan a chance to
Speaker 2: explain that or react to that. Again, the internet's a
Speaker 2: wonderful thing, but there are a lot of people out
Speaker 2: there who assume that they're almost vigilante journalists because there's
Speaker 2: no standard. You have to have a license to practice law.
Speaker 2: I have a license to practice law. Doctors need a
Speaker 2: license to practice medicine, people who are in a variety
Speaker 2: of areas CDL drivers. But anybody can claim that they
Speaker 2: can be a journalist and try to assert a First
Speaker 2: Amendment rights. And there are some out there who are
Speaker 2: basically abusing the First Amendment. They don't work in any way,
Speaker 2: shape or form professionally as a journalist, and they are
Speaker 2: out there with their own personal agenda, and the agenda
Speaker 2: is to confront and aggravate first responders. Your witness.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to say thank you if I may. Number one,
Speaker 3: Dan and Florida thank you for your twenty three years
Speaker 3: of service. I have nothing but utmost respect for law
Speaker 3: enforcement officials. First Amendment auditors, I know, can be a problem,
Speaker 3: but the police officer performing is or her duties certainly
Speaker 3: has the right to say standback, you're interfering with my job,
Speaker 3: and failure for them to obey that order is a
Speaker 3: crime in and of itself. So the problems you gentlemen
Speaker 3: are talking about. The remedy, I believe is education across
Speaker 3: the board, beginning with elementary school, high school, college, law school,
Speaker 3: all the way through. We haven't taught the values, I
Speaker 3: believe efficiently that make this country the great country it is.
Speaker 3: And number one among all of those is the First
Speaker 3: Amendment and both dands. I would say that the First
Speaker 3: Amendment applies equally to members of the press and people
Speaker 3: who want to be members of the press, and people
Speaker 3: who aren't members of the press. It applies across the board,
Speaker 3: to all of us and to me. Whenever, as I
Speaker 3: said about Thomas Jefferson, when it begins to be infringed,
Speaker 3: that's where we have to draw the line.
Speaker 2: We can go to a lot of the the quotes
Speaker 2: from the founding fathers, and I have never necessarily found.
Speaker 2: Some of them are brilliant. Some of them talk about,
Speaker 2: you know, the blood from the tree of liberty, which
Speaker 2: have been used for, in my opinion, the wrong purposes.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I just h yeah, no, absolutely. But I'm
Speaker 2: just saying, is that is that it's great to be
Speaker 2: able to quote founders, but sometimes the founder's words might
Speaker 2: have been appropriate, and that again, situations and circumstances change,
Speaker 2: and you know, you say, well, the police officers says
Speaker 2: stand back, Well, the person at that point is going
Speaker 2: to say, well, where am I supposed to stand back? To?
Speaker 2: Just stand back? I've been in those situations where I
Speaker 2: watch police officers try to reason with unreasonable people. And
Speaker 2: if there was a statute in the books that said
Speaker 2: you stand back twenty five feet two car links or
Speaker 2: something that would be descriptive because a lot of times
Speaker 2: these these First Amendment auditors who have it's it's a
Speaker 2: I think just an approp inappropriate use to the First Amendment.
Speaker 2: They're not there to get information for an audience or anything.
Speaker 2: They're there to confront, as Dan says, and Dan experience,
Speaker 2: the Dey'll end up that that gives them an opportunity
Speaker 2: to comport well, how where am I supposed to stand?
Speaker 2: Back to? You know what? Am I? Where am I
Speaker 2: supposed to go? And at that point they have accomplished
Speaker 2: what they want. They've got the police officer to exchange.
Speaker 2: In the meantime, the police officers trying to struggle and
Speaker 2: maybe hold a crowd back or maybe help someone who's hurt.
Speaker 2: I understand your instinct, Greg, and and I I appreciate it. Uh.
Speaker 2: And if I ever got in trouble as a as
Speaker 2: a shortlist, I'd probably would be calling you as as counsel.
Speaker 2: But uh, and I mean that that's not a false compliment,
Speaker 2: it's it's a genuine compliment. And and in my experience
Speaker 2: as as immediate person, I can see it from both sides.
Speaker 2: And and I think that people who were who were
Speaker 2: who are first responders, they do an extraordinary job. They
Speaker 2: deal with life and death. I don't deal with life
Speaker 2: and death. Uh, for the most part. As the journalists.
Speaker 2: I did deal with life and death in the Savadi
Speaker 2: Lamoni case, but that's that's the exceptional case. And these
Speaker 2: and I just think they should be we will respectfully
Speaker 2: disagree to disagree in Dan, I thank you for your
Speaker 2: service as well, but I got to take a break
Speaker 2: and let's get to some more phone calls right after
Speaker 2: Dan and Tampa Bay. Be well, my friend, Hope everything hopeful, Hope.
Speaker 2: It's a little warmer in Tampa Bay than it is
Speaker 2: in New England this week.
Speaker 5: It's nice and warmness in the mid eighties before I
Speaker 5: hit in nineties this weekend.
Speaker 2: Oh, don't rub it all right? Thanks? Did talk to
Speaker 2: you soon? Okay, quick break, coming right back with more
Speaker 2: phone calls from my guess, Greg Sullivan.
Speaker 1: It's nice side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: To the callers in the line, We're not going to
Speaker 2: get to everybody. Our lines are really full, but we'll
Speaker 2: get to as many people as we can between now
Speaker 2: and eleven, and we can carry this into the next hour.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to dragoon to Turney Sullivan into the
Speaker 2: next hour, but let's get to a couple, at least
Speaker 2: a couple of calls. Let me go to Patrick down
Speaker 2: in Washington, d C. And the Districtive Columbia. Patrick, welcome,
Speaker 2: you're at Attorney Greg Sullivan, the New England First Amendment
Speaker 2: President of the New England First Amendment Coalition.
Speaker 4: Greg, thank you so much for joining us I'm a
Speaker 4: regular listener in longtime call, and I really appreciate you
Speaker 4: being on the program, and he's made it very interesting. Right,
Speaker 4: this is a nice discussion, Dan, this really is a
Speaker 4: nice discussion tonight. It really is.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I appreciate that we try to do this
Speaker 2: every night, but sometimes we actually succeed.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, But Greg is bringing up some interesting points.
Speaker 4: Is this law really necessary? Also with the language and
Speaker 4: the educational aspect of all the intents of the law
Speaker 4: is lacking. Otherwise the practice of public policy is lacking. Also,
Speaker 4: there's good points. There's some bad points about the law
Speaker 4: on both sides that you brought up last night. Because
Speaker 4: this is a state law. It's not a Boston law.
Speaker 2: Correct, this is a state law. That's correct.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a correct and and Greg here in Washington,
Speaker 4: do see my aspiration and anything that has to do
Speaker 4: with politics would be with the US House of Representatives
Speaker 4: and in any law and in any appropriations. My obligation
Speaker 4: if I was elected to Congress is to protect your freedom.
Speaker 4: So is this law of unprotecting people's freedoms, maybe the
Speaker 4: freedom of the officer, maybe the freedom of the e MT,
Speaker 4: or is it should be the freedom of the press.
Speaker 4: Here's being in French here somebodys to somebody is always
Speaker 4: getting infringed.
Speaker 3: What what has to be done with any law is
Speaker 3: there's always a balancing of interest. And in this case,
Speaker 3: we're balancing the need for public safety and order on
Speaker 3: the one hand, and First amend writes access to governmental
Speaker 3: proceedings on the other and dan to respond to something
Speaker 3: you asked and we were cut off by the ads.
Speaker 3: You said, shouldn't there be a law on the books
Speaker 3: for the First Amendment auditors situation? Who's getting in the
Speaker 3: face of the police officer. In Massachusetts, we have laws
Speaker 3: against disorderly persons and disturb disturbers of the peace. So
Speaker 3: if an officer says, excuse me, I need to get
Speaker 3: to my duty, and that person tries to interrupt them
Speaker 3: or intercept them, they're guilty of disorderly conduct and can
Speaker 3: be arrested. And they probably know that. You know, bullies
Speaker 3: bully you as long as you let them so.
Speaker 2: No, and you're absolutely correct on that. I'm not disagreeing
Speaker 2: with you on that. But sometimes Look, there's a buffer
Speaker 2: zone law that exists for abortion clinics in which protesters
Speaker 2: who are fervidly anti abortion. Uh, they are not allowed to.
Speaker 2: They believe they're protecting the lives of unborn children, they
Speaker 2: are not allowed to prevent You know, I assume that
Speaker 2: that you are not opposed to buffer laws for abortion clinics.
Speaker 3: Correct, Yeah, I am. I'm opposed to Buffalo's period.
Speaker 2: You're opposed to Buffalo's period, So therefore, you would be
Speaker 2: on the side of the right to life. Right to
Speaker 2: lifers who would prefer to block and impede someone going
Speaker 2: in for medical.
Speaker 3: Services, No, that person would be guilty of disorderly conduct.
Speaker 2: We have law, but in order to be disorderly, in
Speaker 2: order to be disorderly, they would have to approach the
Speaker 2: woman who's going in to receive the medical service and
Speaker 2: probably impede the woman who's going in for medical services.
Speaker 2: I don't think that anyone has a right to impede
Speaker 2: someone else for going in for medical services, and I
Speaker 2: don't think enemy okay, and having at buffaloaw makes it
Speaker 2: less likely. The mere presence of a Buffalo I think
Speaker 2: makes it safer for people who are going to abortion,
Speaker 2: who are going to for abortion services or sure.
Speaker 3: That logic, you can say that anyone opposed to someone
Speaker 3: going for abortion services must stay a mile and a
Speaker 3: half away.
Speaker 2: I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that that
Speaker 2: the the right to life person. I might agree with them,
Speaker 2: but they are imposing their will physically on someone else, and.
Speaker 3: The nesis not allowed. They can they have the right
Speaker 3: to free speech, but they can stand there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but but but that they have to. But they
Speaker 2: have to exercise that free speech from a distance. They
Speaker 2: do not. They can't exercise that free speech in the doorway.
Speaker 2: They can't exercise that free speech on the stairway. You
Speaker 2: know that as well as I do.
Speaker 3: And that's private company. They can be told they're not welcome,
Speaker 3: and then they're trespassing. But out on the street and
Speaker 3: out on the sidewalk to free speech.
Speaker 2: They had right to free speech, but the buffer law
Speaker 2: says you have that free speech over here, over here,
Speaker 2: you do not have it to impede the progress of
Speaker 2: an individual's going in same way with the police officer,
Speaker 2: he or she or the the E M T. Has
Speaker 2: a job to do. There's a job to do.
Speaker 3: Anyway, I'm interference.
Speaker 2: We know you're not. It's a reasonable restriction in my opinion.
Speaker 4: Look, I got to jump in here and don't forget
Speaker 4: about no electioneering beyond this point.
Speaker 2: Well, that's true too, that's true too. But and that's
Speaker 2: that's another that's another example where where free speech is.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, there are limitations in free speech. Greg Slovan,
Speaker 2: first of all, Patrick, thank you, Greg, Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: I know we would disagree. I'm glad we did it politely.
Speaker 2: I feel strongly, you feel very strongly, and I wish
Speaker 2: I could convince you to help the police, the state
Speaker 2: representatives to craft a piece of legislation that would withstand
Speaker 2: a constitutional review.
Speaker 3: Boy, you give me a call and we can talk
Speaker 3: about us.
Speaker 2: Sounds great, Greg, pleasure to have had you on. I
Speaker 2: respect what you do immensely. Again, I practiced, and I
Speaker 2: practiced the First Amendment every night of the week, and
Speaker 2: I'm very happy for folks like you who defend our
Speaker 2: right to practice. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Dan, have a good night.
Speaker 2: Okay. For those of the aligne on the line, stay there.
Speaker 2: We will continue this conversation into the eleven o'clock hour.
Speaker 2: For Shore