May 20, 2025 • 38 mins
Monday evening on NightSide, we spoke about the HALO Act, a legislative bill aimed at creating a buffer zone for first responders to be able to conduct their job responsibilities without interference from bystanders and had MA Rep. Richard Wells on the program, a supporter of the bill who says the measure would keep police and bystanders safe. Some first amendment advocates disagree, calling the Act “dangerous.” One of their main arguments is that a buffer zone would make it more difficult for people to record police, which, in some instances, has provided evidence of misconduct. Greg Sullivan, the president of the New England First Amendment Coalition joined us to explain.
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Constance Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Sorry, welcome back everyone again. If you're interested in the
campaign of Brian short Sleeve, Brian Shortsleeve dot com as
the website you can find him. And we will be
talking with Mike Kinneely on Thursday night, and we'll talk
tomorrow night at nine o'clock with State Auditor Diana Desaglio,
(00:27):
which will be an interesting conversation as well. Last night
we had an interesting conversation. We talked for the first
time last night about a piece of legislation that is
up on Beacon Hill with Richard Wells, a former police
chief in Milton, Massachusetts and a Democrat member of the legislature.
(00:49):
Richard Wells, along with some other members of the legislature's
support a piece of legislature called the Halo Act, which
would require which would allow first responders and that would
be firefighters, police officers, or EMTs to warn people who
(01:09):
may be getting too close to them while they are
responding to a situation, either a fire or a disruption,
a disturbance, or for that matter, somebody who is down
on the ground and injured bystanders could if they were
deemed to be interfering with the operation could be ordered
(01:30):
to back off by twenty five feet. And today we'd
like to get the other point of view on that,
and I'm delighted to welcome Attorney Greg Sullivan, who's president
of the New England First Amendment Coalition. Spoke with Greg
this afternoon. Pretty clear that Greg and I don't know
if the organization has taken a position on this, but
certainly Greg is opposed to Greg. Attorney Greg Sullivan, welcome
(01:54):
to night, said, how are you, sir.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
I'm well, Dan, Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Well, my pleasure, thank you for coming on. This is
one of those issues that I think a lot of
people will have a thought on, And obviously I would
love to know from you how you feel about this.
I told you today on the phone, and I would
repeat it for the audience that to me, it seems
like a fairly reasonable piece of legislation. But what is
(02:22):
it about this legislation that the New England First Amendment
Coalition and you as president find problematic?
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Well, simply put, we don't find it too past constitutional muster.
And I would point out that identical laws were passed
in three other states, four other states. I should say,
and in three of those states, federal courts have stricken
(02:53):
those laws with the identical language that the proposed Massachusetts
law has as being unduly vague and broad, overly broad,
and therefore unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
By the way, just for clarification on background, Attorney Sullivan
has represented many media companies here in New England. That is,
that is his area of expertise. Let's I will accept
your view that it's unconstitutional. On a personal level. Do
(03:33):
you see any sort of a practical concern with the law?
I mean, as it's.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Proposed, Yeah, I mean it's so vague that there there
are a lot of problems I see in the wording
of the statute, the definition of harassment, for example, which
says conduct that causes substantial emotional distress in the first responder.
(03:59):
I mean that phraseology to me, is so subjective and
vague that I don't know how courts could interpret, for example,
a first responders testimony to see if it was reasonable.
And that's the word that should underline all laws. Was
this emotional distress substantially caused by an onlooker or in
(04:27):
many cases it would be a member of the press
who would be negatively affected. Were this law to pass.
And that's certainly what the courts have found. They've found
that the First Amendment rights of the media on balance
outweigh the need for this artificial twenty five foot zone.
(04:51):
And I will say, in fairness to the drafters of
the legislation, I think their intent is good. Nobody wants
to see interference with first responders' performance of their duties.
But this law, it just is too much, too vague,
(05:12):
too broad, and not effective.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
So let me ask you this. If I could counsel,
let us assume that this proponents were to come to
you and say, do you think that it's possible for
a law to be written that would pass constitutional muster?
As you know, the Halo Act has been challenged in Florida,
(05:39):
that law is still in the books. If they came
to you and said conceptually, and I made this point
last night, all of us have our job, A police
officer of job, firefighters have job E and T responders
have a job. All of us have seen many incidents
in the last few years, and even recently. What happened
(06:03):
to the ice officers who were attempting to effectuate an
arrest in Worcester last week? What happened down at the
Ice Center in Newark, New Jersey over the weekend. Do
you think it's conceivable that a law like this could
be written which would pass any form of constitutional muster
(06:25):
if someone like yourself wrote the law.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Well, I'm going to suggest that there are numerous laws
already on the books that address these very situations you
mentioned ice. And there's a federal law which is eighteen USC.
Section one eleven, which makes it a misdemeanor to oppose, impede, intimidate,
(06:55):
or interfere with any person engaged in the performance of
their effe.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
And you're correct on that. There is a member of Congress,
by the way, a Democratic congresswoman, who has been charged
under I believe, if not that statue, a similar statue.
I know that there were laws in the books. I
do understand that if you if you strike a police officer,
you could be charged with assault and battery. If you
(07:22):
threaten a police officer, you can be charged with assault.
I get that.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
You let me let me interrect you on that one,
because threats to commit a crime is a crime in
and of itself on any individual, never mind a police officer.
In the assault and battery understand that und that even
more stringent than your normal assault and battery there is.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
But but I can construct for you, Greg, I can
construct for you a situation where a police officer or
police officers are attempting to arrest someone, and whether that
arrest is going to be ultimately justified or not is
up for the courts to decide, not a group of
people who might gather around and attempt to interfere with that.
(08:13):
And this just gives the police one more tool in
their toolbox, with a piece of legislation that is craftedise
more precisely, perhaps than the Halo Act. And basically they
can say that people stand back. And so if someone
gets close and puts that police officer in a position
(08:33):
where they or a firefighter or an EMT. I mean,
if an EMT is trying to help someone on the ground,
wouldn't there reasonably be possible to construct a piece of
legislation to give the EMT sufficient room to be able
to move from the person they're helping through an ambulance
to get some equipment and not have people standing in
(08:55):
the way. I mean, I understand, I'm a member of
the media, I'm is I'm an absolutist in the First Amendment,
and I consider myself to be an absolutist in the
First Amendment. But I have just seen too much of this.
I've seen police barrier, I've seen police buildings in Minneapolis
burn to the ground. I've seen federal buildings in Seattle, Washington,
(09:17):
and in Portland, Oregon firebomb.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
We're getting far afield.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
No, we're not. In my in my in my opinion,
you may think.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Just mentioned our crimes.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I understand that there was.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
On the books to punish those crimes. I understand that
the New England First Amendment Coalition in no way condones
illegal activity crime. Uh, but we certainly protect and defend
the First Amendment at all times. The First Amendment is
that I do as well.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
By the way I practice it. I practice the First
Amendment every night of the week. Greg, let me do this.
I want to give call us a chance to call in.
I also want to raise a couple of other situations
with you, which I want you to be able to
respond to. But I got to take a commercial break.
I know I'm going to enjoy this conversation with you,
for sure. Folks would like to weigh in on this
(10:14):
six one, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty six
one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. I will always
ask you, whatever your position on any issue on this program,
be respectful to my guests. My guest or the equivalent
of someone in my home. And just as I would
if I invited you to my home, I had to
expect you to respect the other guests. We can have
conversations six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty six
(10:36):
one seven, nine three one ten thirty. Coming right back
on Nightside with my guest, the president of the New
England First Amendment Coalition, Attorney Greg Solivan. Back right after
these messages on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
My guest is Greg Salivoni's the president of the New
England First Amendment Coalition. Here, let me run an actual
situation by Greg and get your reaction to it. If
you and I are driving in a car tonight somewhere
in Massachusetts and our car breaks down and we pull
over to the shoulder of the road, no one is
(11:17):
obligated to give us any more room. In other words,
that the people do not, you know, be nice for
them to be courteous and if we're trying to somehow
get our car back under way, there's no obligation. If,
on the other hand, a police car comes behind us
and gives us some assistance, there is a statue which
(11:39):
requires people in the in the right travel lane to
move over and give the police car more room. Do
you think that's a good law.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Yeah, I'd say that's reasonable.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Reasonable. So why should the police officer in that situation
be given extra safety and convenience and all the other
drivers inconvenience while we do not get statutorily, why do
we make the exception for the police there in the
actually the conduct of his or her job.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Well, I mean that's simple public safety and common sense.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Public safety and common sense, okay, So why does that
public safety and common sense not say, Look, if an
EMT is attempting to aid someone, he doesn't he or
she doesn't need someone hanging over their shoulders saying what's
going on here, looks like this guy's having a heart attack,
what are you doing? Or if it's a firefighter who's
attempting to get up a ladder. You know, we've had
(12:42):
firefighters who have suffered literally people throwing bottles at them
as they attempt to put out fires. There are people
in our society who who just don't understand to allow
people to do their job. I mean, you don't want
someone coming into your office, well you're interviewing a client
and saying, you know, Greg, there's a couple of ideas
(13:03):
here that I'd like to throw into the conversation. I
don't want someone walking into my studio and telling me
how to do my job. Why don't we just allow
police officers to do their job and if they make
an arrest improperly, that's what we have a court system for.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
I agree with that. And throwing bottles at anyone, of course,
I'm to the sault battery with a dangerous weapon.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
You know.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
He asked me a question if there could be a
law drafted reasonably and constitutionally, and I'm going to point
out to you I believe there is one in New Hampshire.
It's called RSA, that's revised statue. It's annotated six forty two,
Section two. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when
the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person
(13:51):
recognized to be a law enforcement official seeking to effect
an arrest or detention of a person, regardless of whether
there is a legal base for the arrest, and that's
actually can be a Class B felony if that person
causes injury. But the last sentence of the law says
verbal protestations alone shall not constitute a violation of this statard.
(14:16):
So it's the twenty five feet thing that to me
is vague and arbitrary.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
I think it's pretty specific, Greg. It's twenty five feet,
whether it's twenty four feet or twenty six.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Feet, right, But ten feet away, I'm ten feet away.
If I work for a news station, Let's say, and
I'm ten feet away with my camera and I'm recording,
and I'm peaceable, and I'm not interfering in any way
with the activity of either the law enforcement official, the
fire official, or the EMT. There should be no rule against.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
That, Okay, So therefore you would support that if I'm
here hearing you correctly and correct me if I'm wrong,
I'm hearing from you that the distance is a matter here,
twenty five feet is not acceptable. Ten would be acceptable
for a halo law in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
I'm not saying that. I'm saying someone who's ten feet
away filming the conduct of a public official. That's no
problem with that in my mind at all. Now that
person might be seven feet away or six feet or
(15:31):
three feet. Every case turns on its own set of facts.
That's why boldly broad laws are dangerous. They is a
tenabitrary enforcement.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Okay, I'm not trying to entrap you here, my friend.
I'm not smart enough to entrap a lawyer like you.
But it sounds to me like you're saying ten feet
is okay, and that the photographer and the reporter. And
by the way, I did this for thirty one years,
as you probably might remember or you might know, and
if not, I'll tell you I did it. We functioned
(16:03):
without this law in effect. But I think sometimes people
now are dealing with police a little differently, and police
have made tremendous accommodations. When I was a reporter of police,
officers were not wearing cameras. And by the way, I
(16:23):
think those cameras show and have shown, how difficult being
a police officer or a firefighter or an EMT is.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
So yes, I think the body one cameras are a
great thing. It shows that the vast majority ninety nine
percent of the police officers and other government officials are
doing their best, and they're doing a great job. But
it also, like the reporter's camera, the police camera can
also show where mistakes have been made and even egregious
(16:55):
conduct occurs, and we all know that it does occur.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Well yeah, well for George Foy, I'm going to go
right there to George Floyd. I guarantee you that the
woman that was taking that video was a respectable distance
away from and she did not attempt I believe it
was a young woman. She did not attempt to do
anything to stop Derek Chauvin. I wish she had, obviously,
(17:23):
and George Floyd would still be a lot today. But
I can tell you as a broadcast professional, she was
more than twenty five feet away.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
And I don't think that's correct. I think she was
on the sidewalk and they were at the curbstone the
police were. I think she and you know what, whether
she was twenty five thirty feet fifteen feet, I don't
think it matters that you use the word a respectable distance. Now,
if the police officers had said to her, ma'am, police
(17:52):
back up right now, and she failed to obey that order,
that in and of itself would be a crime. It's
up to you know. You mentioned the ice arrests in Worcester,
and I watched the police body camera footage of that arrest,
and that was the most absurd. All I could think
(18:16):
of was the Keystone cops. That was handled so poorly.
They had that woman in custody numerous times. I don't
know how she ended up running down the street with
a half a dozen offices chasing her. That that was
that whole thing. Everything I saw on that video, I
couldn't believe.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
I think it's I think it's easy for you and
me to watch a video uh and uh and say,
Jesus is the Keystone saw Keystone Cops. It's like when
I watch you know, some you know, professional golfer, Uh,
you know shank a drive into the woods. I'm saying,
he's a pro golfer. How did he do that? I
could do better than that. I think it's easy for
(18:59):
guys like you and me to sit back and say,
you know, I watched those tapes as well, and it
just showed to me that was a situation was totally
out of control, and it was out of control. The
police were not involved in the riot. There you had
people who were attempting to prevent the police from making
an arrest. Now I don't know, by the way, if
(19:19):
that woman ever should have been arrested, but that's for
the courts to decide. It's not for people on the
street to decide. Greg in my opinion, and that's what
we're encouraging in my opinion.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Yeah, I didn't see anyone in the video. I watched
assault or batter a police officer, and in fact, I
felt badly for the worst of police officers who were
stuck in the middle. And it was the Ice agents
to me, who I mean, you want to arrest a woman,
get her hands behind her back, put her in cuffs,
(19:50):
and put her in a cruise to see you later.
That thing lasted over twenty minutes, and as I said,
she was in custody, out of custody, in custody. It
was I've already used the word absurd. I just couldn't
believe what I was watching.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I said that I understand that, but it was it
was not that the police were looking to stage a
riotous situation. They may have timed their arrest badly. I
was critical by the way of the arrest of the
graduate student at Medford. I thought that was overreaction. I
as it turned out, there were five or six people
(20:26):
who did show a badge, but it seemed to me
that the optics were ridiculous that it would take five
or six ICE officers to arrest this thirty year old
graduate student. So I was very critical of that arrest.
And part of that was that I did not hear
anything from Ice as to what she had done. And
when I went and read the op ed in the
(20:48):
in the Toughs newspaper, it was like vanilla ice cream.
It could have been written by a junior in high
school and you would have said, gee, that's a really
well thought out article, but there was there was nothing. Anyway,
let me do this. I got to take a path.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Let me, let me, let me, let me add to
that because I read that there is nothing zero in it.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I agree with you. I agree with you. Now. I
don't know what else they had, but that that wasn't enough,
in my opinion, to revoke a visa.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
No no question about it. It's called free speech, and
it's being attacked by the current federal administration on a
daily basis.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
Well, again, that's a that's a political judgment that I
think there's a lot of criticism that we can make
of this administration, and there's a lot of criticism we
could make of any administration that I have lived under
during my lifetime. There's a there's a lot of question
about the Biden administration and what people knew and when
(21:49):
they knew it, and who was honest and how much
transparency was involved. But I don't think either one of
us want to go down that path tonight. I want
right now, Yeah, I'll focus on this. We're going to
take a phone calls right after the ra I only
have one line opened. My guest as Attorney Greg Sullivan.
He's the president of the New England First Amendment Coalition.
Six one seven five six one No, let me get
(22:10):
this right. Six one seven, two five four ten thirty
or six one seven nine three one ten thirty. The
two five four to ten thirties booked right now. The
only line open is six one seven nine three one
ten thirty. Back to phone calls or two phone calls
right after the news at the bottom.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Of the hour, if you're on Night Side with Dan
Ray on w b Z, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Or my guess is attorney Greg Salivan, he's the president
of the New England First Amendment Coalition. We're talking about
a piece of legislation that the Great and General Court
of Massachusetts might consider. It's called the Halo Act. Greg,
before we go to phone calls, anything that you want to.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Clean up, Yeah, I'll give you a quote from Thomas Jefferson.
I don't know if it's cleaning up or not, but Jefferson,
after he was in off has said, our liberty depends
on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited
without being lost. And this bill would limit the freedom
of the press with a in a standardless way. And
(23:14):
that's the reason the identical statutes have been stricken in
both Louisiana, Indiana, and Arizona because there's no standards that
would regulate a police officer's conduct with respect to effectuating
an arrest for being harassed. Harassment being defined in this
statute as causing substantial emotional distress in that first responder.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yeah, I mean, I can agree with you that you
made me to clean up the language here, but I
still believe that, based upon what I have seen in
the last few years in this country, that the amount
of respect that certain people have for police as well
as empts and firefighters is going away. And just as
(24:02):
I mentioned last night, just as Jaron Durant, the Red
Sox outfielder who dealt with some serious mental health issues,
should not be subjected to abuse while he's trying to
play for the Red Sox. And I know if you're
a Red Sox fan, but there was a fan in
Cleveland who really got on his case as you will.
(24:25):
He's trying to play a baseball game, a police officers
trying to make an arrest, maybe save someone's life, firefighter
as well, E m T's as well. I think we
can make some concession of civility to them. And if
we have to clean up the language and make it
more precise, I'm all for it. I wish I could
get you to help them clean it up and write
(24:45):
the bill, but I suspect you not so inclined. And
on that point, let's get some phone calls. Let's go
to Florida. Dan is in Tampa Bay, and I will
tell you Greg that Dan is a former police officer
in Tampa Bay. Go right ahead, Dan, you're on with
Attorney Greg Sullivan.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
Yeah, Hi, Dana, missus Sullivan you know, was using Laura,
and I think it's a good law. But I have
to disagree with Miss Sullivan's point of view. I don't
think the media and media access is really the issue
here at Lisa. In my experience, I was a municipal
cop in here in Florida for twenty three years and
(25:23):
I never had an issue with the media. They were
on crime scenes all the time, and they followed me
a great deal of my work, and there's order respect,
where's a good relationship with them. I think the biggest
challenge we have, and I've experienced myself, is so called
First Amendment auditors, and these are folks who are trying
(25:44):
to achieve their YouTube fame, and they will go, in
my case, literally inches away from me and in front
of me and block wherever I'm going and just basically
trying to promote a confrontation in hopes of getting their
fifty minutes of the family YouTube. Are in many cases
trying to get a cop to lose their timber or
(26:06):
so they can go and complain on them more. In
some cases follow filely a lawsuit against them. So I
respect your opinion, missus Sulivan, and your point of view,
but I don't think media or media access and First
Amendment is the problem. I think it's people who are
interfering with police officers doing the job and getting in
(26:27):
there in their face and blocking them whatever they're doing.
So that's that's my point of view. Is a police officer.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
Let me let me give Attorney Sullivan a chance to
explain that or react to that. Again, the internet's a
wonderful thing, but there are a lot of people out
there who assume that they're almost vigilante journalists because there's
no standard. You have to have a license to practice law.
I have a license to practice law. Doctors need a
(26:56):
license to practice medicine, people who are in a variety
of areas CDL drivers. But anybody can claim that they
can be a journalist and try to assert a First
Amendment rights. And there are some out there who are
basically abusing the First Amendment. They don't work in any way,
(27:17):
shape or form professionally as a journalist, and they are
out there with their own personal agenda, and the agenda
is to confront and aggravate first responders. Your witness.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
I'm trying to say thank you if I may. Number one,
Dan and Florida thank you for your twenty three years
of service. I have nothing but utmost respect for law
enforcement officials. First Amendment auditors, I know, can be a problem,
but the police officer performing is or her duties certainly
(27:53):
has the right to say standback, you're interfering with my job,
and failure for them to obey that order is a
crime in and of itself. So the problems you gentlemen
are talking about. The remedy, I believe is education across
(28:14):
the board, beginning with elementary school, high school, college, law school,
all the way through. We haven't taught the values, I
believe efficiently that make this country the great country it is.
And number one among all of those is the First
Amendment and both dands. I would say that the First
(28:36):
Amendment applies equally to members of the press and people
who want to be members of the press, and people
who aren't members of the press. It applies across the board,
to all of us and to me. Whenever, as I
said about Thomas Jefferson, when it begins to be infringed,
(28:56):
that's where we have to draw the line.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
We can go to a lot of the the quotes
from the founding fathers, and I have never necessarily found.
Some of them are brilliant. Some of them talk about,
you know, the blood from the tree of liberty, which
have been used for, in my opinion, the wrong purposes.
So yeah, I just h yeah, no, absolutely. But I'm
(29:19):
just saying, is that is that it's great to be
able to quote founders, but sometimes the founder's words might
have been appropriate, and that again, situations and circumstances change,
and you know, you say, well, the police officers says
stand back, Well, the person at that point is going
to say, well, where am I supposed to stand back? To?
(29:40):
Just stand back? I've been in those situations where I
watch police officers try to reason with unreasonable people. And
if there was a statute in the books that said
you stand back twenty five feet two car links or
something that would be descriptive because a lot of times
these these First Amendment auditors who have it's it's a
(30:01):
I think just an approp inappropriate use to the First Amendment.
They're not there to get information for an audience or anything.
They're there to confront, as Dan says, and Dan experience,
the Dey'll end up that that gives them an opportunity
to comport well, how where am I supposed to stand?
Back to? You know what? Am I? Where am I
supposed to go? And at that point they have accomplished
(30:22):
what they want. They've got the police officer to exchange.
In the meantime, the police officers trying to struggle and
maybe hold a crowd back or maybe help someone who's hurt.
I understand your instinct, Greg, and and I I appreciate it. Uh.
And if I ever got in trouble as a as
a shortlist, I'd probably would be calling you as as counsel.
(30:46):
But uh, and I mean that that's not a false compliment,
it's it's a genuine compliment. And and in my experience
as as immediate person, I can see it from both sides.
And and I think that people who were who were
who are first responders, they do an extraordinary job. They
deal with life and death. I don't deal with life
(31:07):
and death. Uh, for the most part. As the journalists.
I did deal with life and death in the Savadi
Lamoni case, but that's that's the exceptional case. And these
and I just think they should be we will respectfully
disagree to disagree in Dan, I thank you for your
service as well, but I got to take a break
and let's get to some more phone calls right after
(31:29):
Dan and Tampa Bay. Be well, my friend, Hope everything hopeful, Hope.
It's a little warmer in Tampa Bay than it is
in New England this week.
Speaker 5 (31:36):
It's nice and warmness in the mid eighties before I
hit in nineties this weekend.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
Oh, don't rub it all right? Thanks? Did talk to
you soon? Okay, quick break, coming right back with more
phone calls from my guess, Greg Sullivan.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
It's nice side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
To the callers in the line, We're not going to
get to everybody. Our lines are really full, but we'll
get to as many people as we can between now
and eleven, and we can carry this into the next hour.
I'm not going to dragoon to Turney Sullivan into the
next hour, but let's get to a couple, at least
a couple of calls. Let me go to Patrick down
in Washington, d C. And the Districtive Columbia. Patrick, welcome,
you're at Attorney Greg Sullivan, the New England First Amendment
(32:17):
President of the New England First Amendment Coalition.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
Greg, thank you so much for joining us I'm a
regular listener in longtime call, and I really appreciate you
being on the program, and he's made it very interesting. Right,
this is a nice discussion, Dan, this really is a
nice discussion tonight. It really is.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Thank you. I appreciate that we try to do this
every night, but sometimes we actually succeed.
Speaker 4 (32:38):
Go ahead, But Greg is bringing up some interesting points.
Is this law really necessary? Also with the language and
the educational aspect of all the intents of the law
is lacking. Otherwise the practice of public policy is lacking. Also,
(33:01):
there's good points. There's some bad points about the law
on both sides that you brought up last night. Because
this is a state law. It's not a Boston law.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
Correct, this is a state law. That's correct.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
Yeah, it's a correct and and Greg here in Washington,
do see my aspiration and anything that has to do
with politics would be with the US House of Representatives
and in any law and in any appropriations. My obligation
if I was elected to Congress is to protect your freedom.
So is this law of unprotecting people's freedoms, maybe the
(33:35):
freedom of the officer, maybe the freedom of the e MT,
or is it should be the freedom of the press.
Here's being in French here somebodys to somebody is always
getting infringed.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
What what has to be done with any law is
there's always a balancing of interest. And in this case,
we're balancing the need for public safety and order on
the one hand, and First amend writes access to governmental
proceedings on the other and dan to respond to something
you asked and we were cut off by the ads.
(34:10):
You said, shouldn't there be a law on the books
for the First Amendment auditors situation? Who's getting in the
face of the police officer. In Massachusetts, we have laws
against disorderly persons and disturb disturbers of the peace. So
if an officer says, excuse me, I need to get
(34:31):
to my duty, and that person tries to interrupt them
or intercept them, they're guilty of disorderly conduct and can
be arrested. And they probably know that. You know, bullies
bully you as long as you let them so.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
No, and you're absolutely correct on that. I'm not disagreeing
with you on that. But sometimes Look, there's a buffer
zone law that exists for abortion clinics in which protesters
who are fervidly anti abortion. Uh, they are not allowed to.
They believe they're protecting the lives of unborn children, they
(35:07):
are not allowed to prevent You know, I assume that
that you are not opposed to buffer laws for abortion clinics.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
Correct, Yeah, I am. I'm opposed to Buffalo's period.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
You're opposed to Buffalo's period, So therefore, you would be
on the side of the right to life. Right to
lifers who would prefer to block and impede someone going
in for medical.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Services, No, that person would be guilty of disorderly conduct.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
We have law, but in order to be disorderly, in
order to be disorderly, they would have to approach the
woman who's going in to receive the medical service and
probably impede the woman who's going in for medical services.
I don't think that anyone has a right to impede
someone else for going in for medical services, and I
don't think enemy okay, and having at buffaloaw makes it
(36:00):
less likely. The mere presence of a Buffalo I think
makes it safer for people who are going to abortion,
who are going to for abortion services or sure.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
That logic, you can say that anyone opposed to someone
going for abortion services must stay a mile and a
half away.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that that
the the right to life person. I might agree with them,
but they are imposing their will physically on someone else, and.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
The nesis not allowed. They can they have the right
to free speech, but they can stand there.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Yeah, but but but that they have to. But they
have to exercise that free speech from a distance. They
do not. They can't exercise that free speech in the doorway.
They can't exercise that free speech on the stairway. You
know that as well as I do.
Speaker 3 (36:54):
And that's private company. They can be told they're not welcome,
and then they're trespassing. But out on the street and
out on the sidewalk to free speech.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
They had right to free speech, but the buffer law
says you have that free speech over here, over here,
you do not have it to impede the progress of
an individual's going in same way with the police officer,
he or she or the the E M T. Has
a job to do. There's a job to do.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Anyway, I'm interference.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
We know you're not. It's a reasonable restriction in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (37:31):
Look, I got to jump in here and don't forget
about no electioneering beyond this point.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
Well, that's true too, that's true too. But and that's
that's another that's another example where where free speech is.
I mean, look, there are limitations in free speech. Greg Slovan,
first of all, Patrick, thank you, Greg, Thank you very much.
I know we would disagree. I'm glad we did it politely.
I feel strongly, you feel very strongly, and I wish
(38:03):
I could convince you to help the police, the state
representatives to craft a piece of legislation that would withstand
a constitutional review.
Speaker 3 (38:14):
Boy, you give me a call and we can talk
about us.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
Sounds great, Greg, pleasure to have had you on. I
respect what you do immensely. Again, I practiced, and I
practiced the First Amendment every night of the week, and
I'm very happy for folks like you who defend our
right to practice. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Thank you, Dan, have a good night.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Okay. For those of the aligne on the line, stay there.
We will continue this conversation into the eleven o'clock hour.
For Shore
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Constance Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Sorry, welcome back everyone again. If you're interested in the
campaign of Brian short Sleeve, Brian Shortsleeve dot com as
the website you can find him. And we will be
talking with Mike Kinneely on Thursday night, and we'll talk
tomorrow night at nine o'clock with State Auditor Diana Desaglio,
(00:27):
which will be an interesting conversation as well. Last night
we had an interesting conversation. We talked for the first
time last night about a piece of legislation that is
up on Beacon Hill with Richard Wells, a former police
chief in Milton, Massachusetts and a Democrat member of the legislature.
(00:49):
Richard Wells, along with some other members of the legislature's
support a piece of legislature called the Halo Act, which
would require which would allow first responders and that would
be firefighters, police officers, or EMTs to warn people who
(01:09):
may be getting too close to them while they are
responding to a situation, either a fire or a disruption,
a disturbance, or for that matter, somebody who is down
on the ground and injured bystanders could if they were
deemed to be interfering with the operation could be ordered
(01:30):
to back off by twenty five feet. And today we'd
like to get the other point of view on that,
and I'm delighted to welcome Attorney Greg Sullivan, who's president
of the New England First Amendment Coalition. Spoke with Greg
this afternoon. Pretty clear that Greg and I don't know
if the organization has taken a position on this, but
certainly Greg is opposed to Greg. Attorney Greg Sullivan, welcome
(01:54):
to night, said, how are you, sir.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
I'm well, Dan, Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Well, my pleasure, thank you for coming on. This is
one of those issues that I think a lot of
people will have a thought on, And obviously I would
love to know from you how you feel about this.
I told you today on the phone, and I would
repeat it for the audience that to me, it seems
like a fairly reasonable piece of legislation. But what is
(02:22):
it about this legislation that the New England First Amendment
Coalition and you as president find problematic?
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Well, simply put, we don't find it too past constitutional muster.
And I would point out that identical laws were passed
in three other states, four other states. I should say,
and in three of those states, federal courts have stricken
(02:53):
those laws with the identical language that the proposed Massachusetts
law has as being unduly vague and broad, overly broad,
and therefore unconstitutional.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
By the way, just for clarification on background, Attorney Sullivan
has represented many media companies here in New England. That is,
that is his area of expertise. Let's I will accept
your view that it's unconstitutional. On a personal level. Do
(03:33):
you see any sort of a practical concern with the law?
I mean, as it's.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
Proposed, Yeah, I mean it's so vague that there there
are a lot of problems I see in the wording
of the statute, the definition of harassment, for example, which
says conduct that causes substantial emotional distress in the first responder.
(03:59):
I mean that phraseology to me, is so subjective and
vague that I don't know how courts could interpret, for example,
a first responders testimony to see if it was reasonable.
And that's the word that should underline all laws. Was
this emotional distress substantially caused by an onlooker or in
(04:27):
many cases it would be a member of the press
who would be negatively affected. Were this law to pass.
And that's certainly what the courts have found. They've found
that the First Amendment rights of the media on balance
outweigh the need for this artificial twenty five foot zone.
(04:51):
And I will say, in fairness to the drafters of
the legislation, I think their intent is good. Nobody wants
to see interference with first responders' performance of their duties.
But this law, it just is too much, too vague,
(05:12):
too broad, and not effective.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
So let me ask you this. If I could counsel,
let us assume that this proponents were to come to
you and say, do you think that it's possible for
a law to be written that would pass constitutional muster?
As you know, the Halo Act has been challenged in Florida,
(05:39):
that law is still in the books. If they came
to you and said conceptually, and I made this point
last night, all of us have our job, A police
officer of job, firefighters have job E and T responders
have a job. All of us have seen many incidents
in the last few years, and even recently. What happened
(06:03):
to the ice officers who were attempting to effectuate an
arrest in Worcester last week? What happened down at the
Ice Center in Newark, New Jersey over the weekend. Do
you think it's conceivable that a law like this could
be written which would pass any form of constitutional muster
(06:25):
if someone like yourself wrote the law.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Well, I'm going to suggest that there are numerous laws
already on the books that address these very situations you
mentioned ice. And there's a federal law which is eighteen USC.
Section one eleven, which makes it a misdemeanor to oppose, impede, intimidate,
(06:55):
or interfere with any person engaged in the performance of
their effe.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
And you're correct on that. There is a member of Congress,
by the way, a Democratic congresswoman, who has been charged
under I believe, if not that statue, a similar statue.
I know that there were laws in the books. I
do understand that if you if you strike a police officer,
you could be charged with assault and battery. If you
(07:22):
threaten a police officer, you can be charged with assault.
I get that.
Speaker 3 (07:27):
You let me let me interrect you on that one,
because threats to commit a crime is a crime in
and of itself on any individual, never mind a police officer.
In the assault and battery understand that und that even
more stringent than your normal assault and battery there is.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
But but I can construct for you, Greg, I can
construct for you a situation where a police officer or
police officers are attempting to arrest someone, and whether that
arrest is going to be ultimately justified or not is
up for the courts to decide, not a group of
people who might gather around and attempt to interfere with that.
(08:13):
And this just gives the police one more tool in
their toolbox, with a piece of legislation that is craftedise
more precisely, perhaps than the Halo Act. And basically they
can say that people stand back. And so if someone
gets close and puts that police officer in a position
(08:33):
where they or a firefighter or an EMT. I mean,
if an EMT is trying to help someone on the ground,
wouldn't there reasonably be possible to construct a piece of
legislation to give the EMT sufficient room to be able
to move from the person they're helping through an ambulance
to get some equipment and not have people standing in
(08:55):
the way. I mean, I understand, I'm a member of
the media, I'm is I'm an absolutist in the First Amendment,
and I consider myself to be an absolutist in the
First Amendment. But I have just seen too much of this.
I've seen police barrier, I've seen police buildings in Minneapolis
burn to the ground. I've seen federal buildings in Seattle, Washington,
(09:17):
and in Portland, Oregon firebomb.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
We're getting far afield.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
No, we're not. In my in my in my opinion,
you may think.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
Just mentioned our crimes.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
I understand that there was.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
On the books to punish those crimes. I understand that
the New England First Amendment Coalition in no way condones
illegal activity crime. Uh, but we certainly protect and defend
the First Amendment at all times. The First Amendment is
that I do as well.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
By the way I practice it. I practice the First
Amendment every night of the week. Greg, let me do this.
I want to give call us a chance to call in.
I also want to raise a couple of other situations
with you, which I want you to be able to
respond to. But I got to take a commercial break.
I know I'm going to enjoy this conversation with you,
for sure. Folks would like to weigh in on this
(10:14):
six one, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty six
one seven, nine, three, one ten thirty. I will always
ask you, whatever your position on any issue on this program,
be respectful to my guests. My guest or the equivalent
of someone in my home. And just as I would
if I invited you to my home, I had to
expect you to respect the other guests. We can have
conversations six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty six
(10:36):
one seven, nine three one ten thirty. Coming right back
on Nightside with my guest, the president of the New
England First Amendment Coalition, Attorney Greg Solivan. Back right after
these messages on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
My guest is Greg Salivoni's the president of the New
England First Amendment Coalition. Here, let me run an actual
situation by Greg and get your reaction to it. If
you and I are driving in a car tonight somewhere
in Massachusetts and our car breaks down and we pull
over to the shoulder of the road, no one is
(11:17):
obligated to give us any more room. In other words,
that the people do not, you know, be nice for
them to be courteous and if we're trying to somehow
get our car back under way, there's no obligation. If,
on the other hand, a police car comes behind us
and gives us some assistance, there is a statue which
(11:39):
requires people in the in the right travel lane to
move over and give the police car more room. Do
you think that's a good law.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Yeah, I'd say that's reasonable.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Reasonable. So why should the police officer in that situation
be given extra safety and convenience and all the other
drivers inconvenience while we do not get statutorily, why do
we make the exception for the police there in the
actually the conduct of his or her job.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Well, I mean that's simple public safety and common sense.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
Public safety and common sense, okay, So why does that
public safety and common sense not say, Look, if an
EMT is attempting to aid someone, he doesn't he or
she doesn't need someone hanging over their shoulders saying what's
going on here, looks like this guy's having a heart attack,
what are you doing? Or if it's a firefighter who's
attempting to get up a ladder. You know, we've had
(12:42):
firefighters who have suffered literally people throwing bottles at them
as they attempt to put out fires. There are people
in our society who who just don't understand to allow
people to do their job. I mean, you don't want
someone coming into your office, well you're interviewing a client
and saying, you know, Greg, there's a couple of ideas
(13:03):
here that I'd like to throw into the conversation. I
don't want someone walking into my studio and telling me
how to do my job. Why don't we just allow
police officers to do their job and if they make
an arrest improperly, that's what we have a court system for.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
I agree with that. And throwing bottles at anyone, of course,
I'm to the sault battery with a dangerous weapon.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
You know.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
He asked me a question if there could be a
law drafted reasonably and constitutionally, and I'm going to point
out to you I believe there is one in New Hampshire.
It's called RSA, that's revised statue. It's annotated six forty two,
Section two. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when
the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person
(13:51):
recognized to be a law enforcement official seeking to effect
an arrest or detention of a person, regardless of whether
there is a legal base for the arrest, and that's
actually can be a Class B felony if that person
causes injury. But the last sentence of the law says
verbal protestations alone shall not constitute a violation of this statard.
(14:16):
So it's the twenty five feet thing that to me
is vague and arbitrary.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
I think it's pretty specific, Greg. It's twenty five feet,
whether it's twenty four feet or twenty six.
Speaker 3 (14:29):
Feet, right, But ten feet away, I'm ten feet away.
If I work for a news station, Let's say, and
I'm ten feet away with my camera and I'm recording,
and I'm peaceable, and I'm not interfering in any way
with the activity of either the law enforcement official, the
fire official, or the EMT. There should be no rule against.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
That, Okay, So therefore you would support that if I'm
here hearing you correctly and correct me if I'm wrong,
I'm hearing from you that the distance is a matter here,
twenty five feet is not acceptable. Ten would be acceptable
for a halo law in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
I'm not saying that. I'm saying someone who's ten feet
away filming the conduct of a public official. That's no
problem with that in my mind at all. Now that
person might be seven feet away or six feet or
(15:31):
three feet. Every case turns on its own set of facts.
That's why boldly broad laws are dangerous. They is a
tenabitrary enforcement.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Okay, I'm not trying to entrap you here, my friend.
I'm not smart enough to entrap a lawyer like you.
But it sounds to me like you're saying ten feet
is okay, and that the photographer and the reporter. And
by the way, I did this for thirty one years,
as you probably might remember or you might know, and
if not, I'll tell you I did it. We functioned
(16:03):
without this law in effect. But I think sometimes people
now are dealing with police a little differently, and police
have made tremendous accommodations. When I was a reporter of police,
officers were not wearing cameras. And by the way, I
(16:23):
think those cameras show and have shown, how difficult being
a police officer or a firefighter or an EMT is.
Speaker 3 (16:30):
So yes, I think the body one cameras are a
great thing. It shows that the vast majority ninety nine
percent of the police officers and other government officials are
doing their best, and they're doing a great job. But
it also, like the reporter's camera, the police camera can
also show where mistakes have been made and even egregious
(16:55):
conduct occurs, and we all know that it does occur.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
Well yeah, well for George Foy, I'm going to go
right there to George Floyd. I guarantee you that the
woman that was taking that video was a respectable distance
away from and she did not attempt I believe it
was a young woman. She did not attempt to do
anything to stop Derek Chauvin. I wish she had, obviously,
(17:23):
and George Floyd would still be a lot today. But
I can tell you as a broadcast professional, she was
more than twenty five feet away.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
And I don't think that's correct. I think she was
on the sidewalk and they were at the curbstone the
police were. I think she and you know what, whether
she was twenty five thirty feet fifteen feet, I don't
think it matters that you use the word a respectable distance. Now,
if the police officers had said to her, ma'am, police
(17:52):
back up right now, and she failed to obey that order,
that in and of itself would be a crime. It's
up to you know. You mentioned the ice arrests in Worcester,
and I watched the police body camera footage of that arrest,
and that was the most absurd. All I could think
(18:16):
of was the Keystone cops. That was handled so poorly.
They had that woman in custody numerous times. I don't
know how she ended up running down the street with
a half a dozen offices chasing her. That that was
that whole thing. Everything I saw on that video, I
couldn't believe.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
I think it's I think it's easy for you and
me to watch a video uh and uh and say,
Jesus is the Keystone saw Keystone Cops. It's like when
I watch you know, some you know, professional golfer, Uh,
you know shank a drive into the woods. I'm saying,
he's a pro golfer. How did he do that? I
could do better than that. I think it's easy for
(18:59):
guys like you and me to sit back and say,
you know, I watched those tapes as well, and it
just showed to me that was a situation was totally
out of control, and it was out of control. The
police were not involved in the riot. There you had
people who were attempting to prevent the police from making
an arrest. Now I don't know, by the way, if
(19:19):
that woman ever should have been arrested, but that's for
the courts to decide. It's not for people on the
street to decide. Greg in my opinion, and that's what
we're encouraging in my opinion.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Yeah, I didn't see anyone in the video. I watched
assault or batter a police officer, and in fact, I
felt badly for the worst of police officers who were
stuck in the middle. And it was the Ice agents
to me, who I mean, you want to arrest a woman,
get her hands behind her back, put her in cuffs,
(19:50):
and put her in a cruise to see you later.
That thing lasted over twenty minutes, and as I said,
she was in custody, out of custody, in custody. It
was I've already used the word absurd. I just couldn't
believe what I was watching.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I said that I understand that, but it was it
was not that the police were looking to stage a
riotous situation. They may have timed their arrest badly. I
was critical by the way of the arrest of the
graduate student at Medford. I thought that was overreaction. I
as it turned out, there were five or six people
(20:26):
who did show a badge, but it seemed to me
that the optics were ridiculous that it would take five
or six ICE officers to arrest this thirty year old
graduate student. So I was very critical of that arrest.
And part of that was that I did not hear
anything from Ice as to what she had done. And
when I went and read the op ed in the
(20:48):
in the Toughs newspaper, it was like vanilla ice cream.
It could have been written by a junior in high
school and you would have said, gee, that's a really
well thought out article, but there was there was nothing. Anyway,
let me do this. I got to take a path.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Let me, let me, let me, let me add to
that because I read that there is nothing zero in it.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
I agree with you. I agree with you. Now. I
don't know what else they had, but that that wasn't enough,
in my opinion, to revoke a visa.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
No no question about it. It's called free speech, and
it's being attacked by the current federal administration on a
daily basis.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
Well, again, that's a that's a political judgment that I
think there's a lot of criticism that we can make
of this administration, and there's a lot of criticism we
could make of any administration that I have lived under
during my lifetime. There's a there's a lot of question
about the Biden administration and what people knew and when
(21:49):
they knew it, and who was honest and how much
transparency was involved. But I don't think either one of
us want to go down that path tonight. I want
right now, Yeah, I'll focus on this. We're going to
take a phone calls right after the ra I only
have one line opened. My guest as Attorney Greg Sullivan.
He's the president of the New England First Amendment Coalition.
Six one seven five six one No, let me get
(22:10):
this right. Six one seven, two five four ten thirty
or six one seven nine three one ten thirty. The
two five four to ten thirties booked right now. The
only line open is six one seven nine three one
ten thirty. Back to phone calls or two phone calls
right after the news at the bottom.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Of the hour, if you're on Night Side with Dan
Ray on w b Z, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
Or my guess is attorney Greg Salivan, he's the president
of the New England First Amendment Coalition. We're talking about
a piece of legislation that the Great and General Court
of Massachusetts might consider. It's called the Halo Act. Greg,
before we go to phone calls, anything that you want to.
Speaker 3 (22:50):
Clean up, Yeah, I'll give you a quote from Thomas Jefferson.
I don't know if it's cleaning up or not, but Jefferson,
after he was in off has said, our liberty depends
on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited
without being lost. And this bill would limit the freedom
of the press with a in a standardless way. And
(23:14):
that's the reason the identical statutes have been stricken in
both Louisiana, Indiana, and Arizona because there's no standards that
would regulate a police officer's conduct with respect to effectuating
an arrest for being harassed. Harassment being defined in this
statute as causing substantial emotional distress in that first responder.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Yeah, I mean, I can agree with you that you
made me to clean up the language here, but I
still believe that, based upon what I have seen in
the last few years in this country, that the amount
of respect that certain people have for police as well
as empts and firefighters is going away. And just as
(24:02):
I mentioned last night, just as Jaron Durant, the Red
Sox outfielder who dealt with some serious mental health issues,
should not be subjected to abuse while he's trying to
play for the Red Sox. And I know if you're
a Red Sox fan, but there was a fan in
Cleveland who really got on his case as you will.
(24:25):
He's trying to play a baseball game, a police officers
trying to make an arrest, maybe save someone's life, firefighter
as well, E m T's as well. I think we
can make some concession of civility to them. And if
we have to clean up the language and make it
more precise, I'm all for it. I wish I could
get you to help them clean it up and write
(24:45):
the bill, but I suspect you not so inclined. And
on that point, let's get some phone calls. Let's go
to Florida. Dan is in Tampa Bay, and I will
tell you Greg that Dan is a former police officer
in Tampa Bay. Go right ahead, Dan, you're on with
Attorney Greg Sullivan.
Speaker 5 (25:02):
Yeah, Hi, Dana, missus Sullivan you know, was using Laura,
and I think it's a good law. But I have
to disagree with Miss Sullivan's point of view. I don't
think the media and media access is really the issue
here at Lisa. In my experience, I was a municipal
cop in here in Florida for twenty three years and
(25:23):
I never had an issue with the media. They were
on crime scenes all the time, and they followed me
a great deal of my work, and there's order respect,
where's a good relationship with them. I think the biggest
challenge we have, and I've experienced myself, is so called
First Amendment auditors, and these are folks who are trying
(25:44):
to achieve their YouTube fame, and they will go, in
my case, literally inches away from me and in front
of me and block wherever I'm going and just basically
trying to promote a confrontation in hopes of getting their
fifty minutes of the family YouTube. Are in many cases
trying to get a cop to lose their timber or
(26:06):
so they can go and complain on them more. In
some cases follow filely a lawsuit against them. So I
respect your opinion, missus Sulivan, and your point of view,
but I don't think media or media access and First
Amendment is the problem. I think it's people who are
interfering with police officers doing the job and getting in
(26:27):
there in their face and blocking them whatever they're doing.
So that's that's my point of view. Is a police officer.
Speaker 2 (26:36):
Let me let me give Attorney Sullivan a chance to
explain that or react to that. Again, the internet's a
wonderful thing, but there are a lot of people out
there who assume that they're almost vigilante journalists because there's
no standard. You have to have a license to practice law.
I have a license to practice law. Doctors need a
(26:56):
license to practice medicine, people who are in a variety
of areas CDL drivers. But anybody can claim that they
can be a journalist and try to assert a First
Amendment rights. And there are some out there who are
basically abusing the First Amendment. They don't work in any way,
(27:17):
shape or form professionally as a journalist, and they are
out there with their own personal agenda, and the agenda
is to confront and aggravate first responders. Your witness.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
I'm trying to say thank you if I may. Number one,
Dan and Florida thank you for your twenty three years
of service. I have nothing but utmost respect for law
enforcement officials. First Amendment auditors, I know, can be a problem,
but the police officer performing is or her duties certainly
(27:53):
has the right to say standback, you're interfering with my job,
and failure for them to obey that order is a
crime in and of itself. So the problems you gentlemen
are talking about. The remedy, I believe is education across
(28:14):
the board, beginning with elementary school, high school, college, law school,
all the way through. We haven't taught the values, I
believe efficiently that make this country the great country it is.
And number one among all of those is the First
Amendment and both dands. I would say that the First
(28:36):
Amendment applies equally to members of the press and people
who want to be members of the press, and people
who aren't members of the press. It applies across the board,
to all of us and to me. Whenever, as I
said about Thomas Jefferson, when it begins to be infringed,
(28:56):
that's where we have to draw the line.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
We can go to a lot of the the quotes
from the founding fathers, and I have never necessarily found.
Some of them are brilliant. Some of them talk about,
you know, the blood from the tree of liberty, which
have been used for, in my opinion, the wrong purposes.
So yeah, I just h yeah, no, absolutely. But I'm
(29:19):
just saying, is that is that it's great to be
able to quote founders, but sometimes the founder's words might
have been appropriate, and that again, situations and circumstances change,
and you know, you say, well, the police officers says
stand back, Well, the person at that point is going
to say, well, where am I supposed to stand back? To?
(29:40):
Just stand back? I've been in those situations where I
watch police officers try to reason with unreasonable people. And
if there was a statute in the books that said
you stand back twenty five feet two car links or
something that would be descriptive because a lot of times
these these First Amendment auditors who have it's it's a
(30:01):
I think just an approp inappropriate use to the First Amendment.
They're not there to get information for an audience or anything.
They're there to confront, as Dan says, and Dan experience,
the Dey'll end up that that gives them an opportunity
to comport well, how where am I supposed to stand?
Back to? You know what? Am I? Where am I
supposed to go? And at that point they have accomplished
(30:22):
what they want. They've got the police officer to exchange.
In the meantime, the police officers trying to struggle and
maybe hold a crowd back or maybe help someone who's hurt.
I understand your instinct, Greg, and and I I appreciate it. Uh.
And if I ever got in trouble as a as
a shortlist, I'd probably would be calling you as as counsel.
(30:46):
But uh, and I mean that that's not a false compliment,
it's it's a genuine compliment. And and in my experience
as as immediate person, I can see it from both sides.
And and I think that people who were who were
who are first responders, they do an extraordinary job. They
deal with life and death. I don't deal with life
(31:07):
and death. Uh, for the most part. As the journalists.
I did deal with life and death in the Savadi
Lamoni case, but that's that's the exceptional case. And these
and I just think they should be we will respectfully
disagree to disagree in Dan, I thank you for your
service as well, but I got to take a break
and let's get to some more phone calls right after
(31:29):
Dan and Tampa Bay. Be well, my friend, Hope everything hopeful, Hope.
It's a little warmer in Tampa Bay than it is
in New England this week.
Speaker 5 (31:36):
It's nice and warmness in the mid eighties before I
hit in nineties this weekend.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
Oh, don't rub it all right? Thanks? Did talk to
you soon? Okay, quick break, coming right back with more
phone calls from my guess, Greg Sullivan.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
It's nice side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
To the callers in the line, We're not going to
get to everybody. Our lines are really full, but we'll
get to as many people as we can between now
and eleven, and we can carry this into the next hour.
I'm not going to dragoon to Turney Sullivan into the
next hour, but let's get to a couple, at least
a couple of calls. Let me go to Patrick down
in Washington, d C. And the Districtive Columbia. Patrick, welcome,
you're at Attorney Greg Sullivan, the New England First Amendment
(32:17):
President of the New England First Amendment Coalition.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
Greg, thank you so much for joining us I'm a
regular listener in longtime call, and I really appreciate you
being on the program, and he's made it very interesting. Right,
this is a nice discussion, Dan, this really is a
nice discussion tonight. It really is.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Thank you. I appreciate that we try to do this
every night, but sometimes we actually succeed.
Speaker 4 (32:38):
Go ahead, But Greg is bringing up some interesting points.
Is this law really necessary? Also with the language and
the educational aspect of all the intents of the law
is lacking. Otherwise the practice of public policy is lacking. Also,
(33:01):
there's good points. There's some bad points about the law
on both sides that you brought up last night. Because
this is a state law. It's not a Boston law.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
Correct, this is a state law. That's correct.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
Yeah, it's a correct and and Greg here in Washington,
do see my aspiration and anything that has to do
with politics would be with the US House of Representatives
and in any law and in any appropriations. My obligation
if I was elected to Congress is to protect your freedom.
So is this law of unprotecting people's freedoms, maybe the
(33:35):
freedom of the officer, maybe the freedom of the e MT,
or is it should be the freedom of the press.
Here's being in French here somebodys to somebody is always
getting infringed.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
What what has to be done with any law is
there's always a balancing of interest. And in this case,
we're balancing the need for public safety and order on
the one hand, and First amend writes access to governmental
proceedings on the other and dan to respond to something
you asked and we were cut off by the ads.
(34:10):
You said, shouldn't there be a law on the books
for the First Amendment auditors situation? Who's getting in the
face of the police officer. In Massachusetts, we have laws
against disorderly persons and disturb disturbers of the peace. So
if an officer says, excuse me, I need to get
(34:31):
to my duty, and that person tries to interrupt them
or intercept them, they're guilty of disorderly conduct and can
be arrested. And they probably know that. You know, bullies
bully you as long as you let them so.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
No, and you're absolutely correct on that. I'm not disagreeing
with you on that. But sometimes Look, there's a buffer
zone law that exists for abortion clinics in which protesters
who are fervidly anti abortion. Uh, they are not allowed to.
They believe they're protecting the lives of unborn children, they
(35:07):
are not allowed to prevent You know, I assume that
that you are not opposed to buffer laws for abortion clinics.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
Correct, Yeah, I am. I'm opposed to Buffalo's period.
Speaker 2 (35:20):
You're opposed to Buffalo's period, So therefore, you would be
on the side of the right to life. Right to
lifers who would prefer to block and impede someone going
in for medical.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Services, No, that person would be guilty of disorderly conduct.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
We have law, but in order to be disorderly, in
order to be disorderly, they would have to approach the
woman who's going in to receive the medical service and
probably impede the woman who's going in for medical services.
I don't think that anyone has a right to impede
someone else for going in for medical services, and I
don't think enemy okay, and having at buffaloaw makes it
(36:00):
less likely. The mere presence of a Buffalo I think
makes it safer for people who are going to abortion,
who are going to for abortion services or sure.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
That logic, you can say that anyone opposed to someone
going for abortion services must stay a mile and a
half away.
Speaker 2 (36:19):
I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that that
the the right to life person. I might agree with them,
but they are imposing their will physically on someone else, and.
Speaker 3 (36:31):
The nesis not allowed. They can they have the right
to free speech, but they can stand there.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Yeah, but but but that they have to. But they
have to exercise that free speech from a distance. They
do not. They can't exercise that free speech in the doorway.
They can't exercise that free speech on the stairway. You
know that as well as I do.
Speaker 3 (36:54):
And that's private company. They can be told they're not welcome,
and then they're trespassing. But out on the street and
out on the sidewalk to free speech.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
They had right to free speech, but the buffer law
says you have that free speech over here, over here,
you do not have it to impede the progress of
an individual's going in same way with the police officer,
he or she or the the E M T. Has
a job to do. There's a job to do.
Speaker 3 (37:21):
Anyway, I'm interference.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
We know you're not. It's a reasonable restriction in my opinion.
Speaker 4 (37:31):
Look, I got to jump in here and don't forget
about no electioneering beyond this point.
Speaker 2 (37:40):
Well, that's true too, that's true too. But and that's
that's another that's another example where where free speech is.
I mean, look, there are limitations in free speech. Greg Slovan,
first of all, Patrick, thank you, Greg, Thank you very much.
I know we would disagree. I'm glad we did it politely.
I feel strongly, you feel very strongly, and I wish
(38:03):
I could convince you to help the police, the state
representatives to craft a piece of legislation that would withstand
a constitutional review.
Speaker 3 (38:14):
Boy, you give me a call and we can talk
about us.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
Sounds great, Greg, pleasure to have had you on. I
respect what you do immensely. Again, I practiced, and I
practiced the First Amendment every night of the week, and
I'm very happy for folks like you who defend our
right to practice. Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
Thank you, Dan, have a good night.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Okay. For those of the aligne on the line, stay there.
We will continue this conversation into the eleven o'clock hour.
For Shore
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Good Hang with Amy Poehler
Come hang with Amy Poehler. Each week on her podcast, she'll welcome celebrities and fun people to her studio. They'll share stories about their careers, mutual friends, shared enthusiasms, and most importantly, what's been making them laugh. This podcast is not about trying to make you better or giving advice. Amy just wants to have a good time.