There is NO requirement under the Law that ANYONE listens to you or can even HEAR you over OTHER people exercising THEIR freedom of speech.
bob>Interesting. The right to protest supersedes the right to free speech? If so, then one has the right to keep someone's free speech from being used.
It may be rude, and it may be antithetical to creating an atmosphere of "tolerance" and "diversity" (as some institutions of higher learning claim--ironically--to be), but it is completely within a person's constitutional rights to shout down those they disagree with. The only place where you MUST be given you fair opportunity to speak is in the court of law when you are the Defendant.
bob>Well, the lawyers have taken over that right. Most criminal cases come to an end with the defendant not saying anything. I have always thought it not "legal" or "just" to allow the attorney to tell the "story" without being under oath, without having any first hand knowledge of the event, yet he's a witness and he doesn't have to tell the truth. Save the defendant, even if he's guilty is their goal. Do you agree?
Other than that, people are free to IGNORE you, boo you, shout their disapproval of you so loudly no one can hear you.
bob>Leave my mother in law out of this.
Now, on the other hand, if you are on private property and those people come without permission, they can be THROWN OUT. If the disruption is on public property and could provoke violence or physical altercations, they can be shown the door or the two parties separated for security reasons.
But no one is REQUIRED by law to sit quietly and respectfully while you say whatever you want. That may be POLITE....but it is NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.
People have the right to be *ssh*les if they so choose. That's not against the law. It's rude. But legal.
bob>We see on the tube "professional" protesters who break into stores and loot, set buildings and cars on fire, attack and beat those they disagree with and sometimes the police just stand by and watch.