THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1003, 6 February 1912, Page 4

THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.

A very interesting decision bearing upon the conduct of public meetings was given at Dannevirke last Thursday by Mr McCarthy, S.M. There are a number of “ free and enlightened” electors who believe in the right of free speech—that is, free speech for themselves, but not for the gentleman addressing the meeting. During the recent election campaign it may be remembered that at Hawera a man who interrupted one of Mr Pearce’s meetings was haled before the Court and fined, Mr Kenrick, S.M., remarking that a candidate paid for the hall and was entitled to have his views heard, and if a man disagreed with them and did not wish to hear them, he had no right to disturb the meeting—the best thing for such a person was to leave the hall. Mr Kenrick added that a man could ask any questions, but if the speaker gave an answer that the man did not like —well, he had to accept it. In the Hawke’s Bay case it was the man who was ejected from the meeting who was the prosecutor. The case arose out of a meeting addressed by Sir Joseph Ward, in Dannevirke, on November 28th. It appears from the evidence that the hall was engaged for the purpose of the meeting by Mr W. G. F. Frame. There was an organised opposition against Sir Joseph Ward, a prominent interrupter being Henry Monteith, who was asked to desist, and as he would not do so, was ejected, with some scuffling, by Frame, who was assisted by Mr H. lan Simson. Monteith brought an action, claiming damages from both Frame and Simson. A considerable amount of evidence was taken, and in deliyering judgment the Magistrate said that the hall had been booked by Frame pursuant to a resolution passed by Mr Jull’s committee. The committee delegated to Frame the.duty of preserving order. The Magistrate traversed the evidence, and said that the question was whether the assault was justifiable. There were two persons in charge that night, Frame and the Mayor. Their positions were different. The chairman was only justified in ordering any person to be removed who was disturbing the proceedings. Monteith was responsible for a great deal of the interrupting, and the meeting was getting out of order. The chairman very properly asked Monteith to be quiet, but the latter was contentious. Frame’s position was quite different from that of the chairman. He had hired the hall and was in the position of host, those present being his guests. They had a license from Frame to be present, but this license could be terminated at any moment. Frame had the right to stop anyone from going into the hall, and could also have anyone removed. Anyone of the audience had the right to assist Frame to carry out his desires. Therefore the only question was whether undue force had been used. In his opinion no undue force was used, and he would dismiss the case with costs payable by plaintiff. These in Frame’s case would amount to £5 is, and in Simson’s £2 1 os. Though the cases are not exactly analagous, it will be observed that both Mr Kenrick and Mr McCarthy are in virtual agreement as to the relative positions occupied by a person hiring a hall and a person attending a meeting for the holding of which a hall has been hired. Mr Kenrick says that a candidate hiring a hall is entitled to have his views heard, and by imposing a fine in the case which came before him, he definitely asserted his opinion that a man who remains at a meeting and continues to interrupt is liable to punishment. Mr McCarthy also says in effect that a speaker on the platform is entitled to be heard, and that the hirer of the hall is entitled to stop anyone from going into it, or to have anyone removed, and further, that any member of the audience has the right to assist the hirer of the hall to remove any objectionable person. These Magisterial dictums make it very clear that no person can attend a meeting and continue to interrupt a speaker with impunity. They also make it clear that though a meeting may be advertised as a “public” meeting, the convener of ic still has the right to say who shall be present and who shall remain. It will be noticed that Mr McCarthy places the onus on the person hiring the hall, whose position is different from that of the chairman, who apparently has the right to direct attention to a disturbance and call lor order, the actual matter of ejectment being left to the hirer ot the hall or the convener ot the meeting. The giving of publicity to the decisions quoted ought to result in a better understanding on the pait of the public of the position occupied by people attending meetings of the kind referred to. Every public speaker, no matter who or what he is, is at least entitled to the right of free speech, and people who desire to know bis views are certainly entitled to the privilege of hearing what he has to say without being subjected to interruptions, which may be annoying to the majority of the audience and the speaker alike. Ample opportunities are given for the free and orderly discussion of public questions from all points ot view; the idea that the right of free speech is to be denied to anyone by those who are opposed to him cannot be tolerated in this country.