> The speaker did not come there to prevent the heckler's speech. But if the heckler did come to prevent the rights of the speaker, then they are not merely heckling.
How do you determine intent? The heckler is entitled to say "I think the speaker is a moron. It's important that the speaker's audience hears that message. And that audience is only present now."
> That is a fundamental difference.
Pretending that you're able to magically differentiate someone's intent is the irritant in this perfect model of reality you've constructed. You can ignore it and remain pure because you don't have to deal with it personally. Those who have to apply free speech principles in practice can't be so pure.
I don't even know if you're a real person or the product of a bot farm. Does the bot farm operator have the right to unfettered free speech too? That's indistinguishable from "more money = more free speech".
How do you determine intent? The heckler is entitled to say "I think the speaker is a moron. It's important that the speaker's audience hears that message. And that audience is only present now."
> That is a fundamental difference.
Pretending that you're able to magically differentiate someone's intent is the irritant in this perfect model of reality you've constructed. You can ignore it and remain pure because you don't have to deal with it personally. Those who have to apply free speech principles in practice can't be so pure.
I don't even know if you're a real person or the product of a bot farm. Does the bot farm operator have the right to unfettered free speech too? That's indistinguishable from "more money = more free speech".