May 20, 2025 • 40 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. We heard what listeners had to say about the HALO Act.
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 (00:01):
It's with i'mas Boston.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. I'd like
to continue our conversation on this. We spent an hour
on this last night with a member of the legislature,
a Democrats state Democrat state representative, Democratic state representative from Milton,
Richard Wells. He is a police former police chief in
(00:29):
the town of Milton, very well respected there, and he's
filed piece of legislation with some other members of the
legislature on both sides, Republican and Democrat. They are simply
asking for an additional piece of legislation, which is called
(00:50):
the Halo Act and basically would provide, if requested by
a police officer or a firefighter or an EMT, first responders,
an adequate zone around them as they engage in their job.
(01:12):
Now again, police officers arrest people, police officers help deliver babies.
Police officers do a lot, firefighters do a lot, EMTs
do a lot. All of us, at some point in
our lives might be helped by a police officer, firefighter,
or an EMT. And I don't think it's too much
(01:33):
to ask to give, upon request a first responder a
twenty five foot zone in which to work. Now, we
can use all sorts of examples of your job. Do
you want someone in your office telling you what to
do or how you should do it? And that's what
happens now. Some of these situations are confrontational where someone's
(01:55):
being arrested. We saw that up in Wooster, We've seen
it in other places. Some of these are situations where
people are maybe trying to help, but maybe they're not helping.
Maybe what they're doing actually is interfering with those who
are trained professionally to help. And again I can posit
(02:17):
examples to you, and I'm sure you can posit examples
to me. I point to the move over law here
in Massachusetts, which if you're driving on a two or
three rate lane road and there's a police officer in
a breakdown lane, and if he stopped someone, either to
(02:38):
help them or to write a ticket, you're obligated to
move over if you can. Now, you're not supposed to
cause a crash, but that might mean you have to
slow down a little bit to give him or her
a little bit more room. If you and I were
simply stopped and I was trying to help you, you
were trying to help me there's no similar obligation upon
someone to move over. Again, we recognize that what police,
(03:02):
what firefighters, and what EMT says first responders do is different.
So let's see what people think. I'd like to talk
about this for the balance of the night. I hope
you will as well. We have no open lines now,
I'll let you know. Let's go to Eric in Natick. Eric,
I'm sorry we couldn't get you on with attourney Greg Sullivan,
but obviously this is a conversation starter. Go right ahead, Eric.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
No, that's okay, good evening, Dan, how are you.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I'm doing just great. Thank you for holding through the news.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
Absolutely my pleasure. I actually called back at the beginning
of the year talking about this law in particular, okay,
the Halo law, yep, and I was all for it,
and we had the discussion about how unfair it is
to interfere with someone's job and let the police do
(03:55):
their job, let mts do their jobs. And I am
a little well, I was going to ask Greg that question,
but I was a little intimidated because I don't want
to get an argument with the lawyer. But it's one
of those things where I was trying to think of analogy,
and one of the ones I came up with was
(04:17):
if there was a medical emergency and someone needed to
be lifted off the ground and I'm on crutches, and
like you said earlier about common sense, wouldn't it I
use my common sense and get out of the way
because I am not being able to be helpful in
that situation, or is it quote unquote my right to
(04:40):
be there because I want to see what's going on.
I would choose to get out of the way because
as much as I want to help, I physically can't.
So therefore, let people who can help aid and anyone
else should be backing up.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Yeah, And I also think it gives the police officer
what will what happens and what I have seen happen
as a as a member of the media, you have
a situation going along, and those of us who are
trained in the media, we're able to figure out when
you approach and when you don't approach a police officer.
(05:19):
And the reason you do that is instinctively you want
to give them the right to complete whatever task. You know.
I don't have a rightism ember the media to rush
into a situation while police officers attempting to arrest someone
and say, you know, what's going on here?
Speaker 1 (05:34):
Why?
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Why are you putting the cuffs in this guy? What
did this guy do? You know, he doesn't owe me
an explanation. If he's arresting someone improperly that gets judicated
in the court system, we can take pictures of him.
Police officer doesn't have the right to say, I mean,
turn that camera off. Believe me, I've been in those
situations and the camera can roll as long as in
(05:57):
public and as a matter of fact, we have I
If I'm asking a police officer a question, uh, and
and he chooses to answer, he or she chooses to answer,
I can use that that audio because the mere presence
of a camera should indicate to the to the officer
that there's there's audio as well as video being recorded.
(06:20):
But yeah, you're right on the money. I mean, there
are some people and again I use this, and I
used an example last night. There's an accident on one
side of the road, and you know that should not
affect traffic on the other side of the road, but
everybody has to take a good long look. Oh, I
don't know what's going on. It looks like an accident.
(06:41):
I wonder who's a fall. Well, you know, all that
does is tie the tie the traffic ups. You've been
in situations like that where you you've been tied up
for twenty minutes and you finally get up to the
end and you realize everybody's looking at the accident.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Again, And to be honest, it's hard not to look.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
It's hard not to look. And it's human nature. And
if all of a sudden, you walk out your front
door and you see some sort of police activity or fire,
firefighters or or anything, that's normal. And all I'm just
saying is that the police officers that says to me, hey,
back up, Maybe it's for my own safety. I mean,
(07:22):
maybe there's somebody, you know, in the woods and they're
trying to arrest someone and they don't know where that
person is, and they they don't want to be in
a conversation with me. Why are you telling me to
back up? Officer? Yeah, I mean, like they're gonna turn me. Well,
the reason we're telling you backup is there's a fellow
in the woods here who we think is mentally disturbed,
(07:43):
and he has a butcher's knife, and at any moment
he may come out of the woods. I mean that's
that's now again. Attorney Sullivan said, well, the police officer
can can can charge you with interference or disturbing the peace, whatever,
But sometimes people are really played a good afternoon, officer.
(08:04):
Could you tell me what's going on here? You know that?
And I think the police officer you give them another
tool and say look, tell you later back up twenty
five feet for your own good or get get get
out of this area. Well, officer, now, why you bossing me?
And he's guy. The officer doesn't have to sit in
(08:25):
there and give you an explanation, you know.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
No, absolutely, And to your point about someone having a
knife in the woods, what if you are impeding that
officer from catching them because you're interrupting the police officer
from doing his job.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Sure or putting the police officer more in jeopardy. He
might be five feet away from the guy and the
guy might say this is the time to try to,
you know, slash the police officer and escape. And his
attention should be on the job at hand, whether it's
saving somebody with mouth to mouth resuscitation or capturing somebody
who's a dangerous at the public. So, Eric, we're on
(09:01):
the same page. Man.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Thank you, Thank you very much, sir, and.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Thanks thanks for continuing to call this program. What line
of work do you happen to be in law enforcement
per chance? Or no?
Speaker 3 (09:13):
I am not No, I just have a lot of
respect for it, okay, And.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Could ask you. I'm just curious how old you are?
You sounding like you're a young guy.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
I am forty six, but thank you for telling me about.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, I consider that to be a young guy. And
one of the things, the point, the reason I asked
that is that Greg Sullivan was making the point that
really the problem is we need to educate people, but
it's going to take decades to educate people because you know,
public education and has fallen down in terms of teaching
civics and respect for law enforcement and all of that.
(09:44):
So I just think the whole other topic.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
But you're absolutely right about.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
So it is a whole number of doc topic. Eric,
Thanks very much. Great great to talk with you, call
more often.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Thank you very much. Have a great night.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Thank okay, you too, well. Take a very quick break
coming back. I got Joe coming up, I got Jim,
I got Christine, and I got will I got room
for you at six one, seven, two five, four ten thirty.
Back on the night Side.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
After this, You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Back to the calls, go to Joe. Joe, you were
next on Nightside. What's your thoughts on this?
Speaker 5 (10:19):
Joe, Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call. I have
mixed feelings on this. I was just talking. I'm going
to have lunch with my friend tomorrow from Brighton. We
were talking about something similar. I have mixed feelings. I
agree you should have respect for the police, but when
the police are wrong, like in the case. And I
won't get into but you know, they kill that black
man Tennessee. That's a different story. But there's so much
(10:42):
bitterness today.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
And by the way I think, and I was surprised,
I believe that they were acquitted or three yes, they.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
Were in That shocked me because I saw the they
were playing evidence and oh, but that's another issue we'll
get into some other times.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
We're really not talking about that here. In other words,
as if no, there are a lot of people out
there who feel that they have a right to in
some cases challenge law enforcement even though they are not
a party to what's going on. Uh, And even you know,
interfere and maybe in some cases they're trying to help
(11:20):
an e MT, but they're just making it more complicated
for the EMT.
Speaker 5 (11:25):
I agree with you. Yeah, I agree with mister Sullivan. Sorry,
we disagree, but that's okay. We can agree to disagree.
I agree with mister Sullivant on the abortion. You can
do it quietly, not get in his face, not in
the doorway. But see if we go twenty five feet.
Because he's right, we're already losing. There are cases where
people civil rights have been violent. We're already loving.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Let me maybe, let me make sure I understand what
you're saying. Okay. I brought up the buffer around the
abortion clinic.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Abortion.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
So in other words, you have people who are so
called right to lifers who are so committed to the
concept of protecting unborn what they perceive as and what
I believe are unborn children. But they are so they
are prepared to stand in front of doorways, to stand
on steps, to to stand on sidewalks and prevent and
(12:15):
impede people from from going in and seeking the medical treatment.
If you want to call it that that that they
that they desire.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
Absolutely that's wrong.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
That's wrong.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
I agree with Hold no, what is wrong?
Speaker 5 (12:29):
Don't don't let.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
You explain. I just do me a favorite, Joe. I'm
just trying to I'm trying to make sure my audience
isn't confused. And I think if you let me finish, okay,
and you'll have a chance. In other words, somebody who
wants who's a pro lifer and wants to protest at
a at an abortion clinic, they have a right to protest,
(12:54):
but that protest cannot interfere with the medical practice that's
going on there or impede people who want to go
and unveil themselves of that service. So therefore, there are
buffer zones, buffer zones outside of these clinics. And I
(13:15):
may disagree with the protesters, or I may even agree
with the protesters, but I don't want those protesters interfering
with moral decisions that other people are making.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
And okay, now my point ahead. I agree with you
to a point. They're buffer zones, but we need education.
They shouldn't stand in front of the doorway, they shouldn't
get in their face. They should maybe be a little
on the side and protest, to do it prospectively and properly.
Not like Black Lives did all those terrible things. I
agree with mister Sullivan on that education. But I just
(13:51):
think we have so many laws, so many bills, twenty
five feet, next it'll be fifty. It's like with the
judge that the Karen Reid case. That case is they're
working on changing the buffer zone because somebody I heard
them talking today.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand that. But there's another
example where the jet has said to the demonstrators, look,
we want you to have the ability to protest, but
you can't protest uh and and interfere with the conduct
of the case. That's all all right, Thank you for
your points.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
All right, thank you, Joe, you and I can't wait
to get the other subject. Thanks, take care about you.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Let me go to Jim and Kansas City. Jim, go right.
Speaker 6 (14:34):
Ahead, and thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
How are you good, sir? How you doing?
Speaker 6 (14:40):
I'm happy? Thank you? So okay. When I first heard
you described last hour's topic, I thought I didn't want
to listen to it or talk about it. But then
I did start listening to it, and I'm glad I
did because I just misunderstood it. I guess I don't
know I got six things to say about this, and
(15:01):
it's a very very important topic. The first one of them,
this is just an opinion because I'm not an attorney,
I'm not a legal scholar. But my second thing to
say is that y'all need to review the difference between
the First and the Fourth Amendment, because the third thing
I had to say is that I hear them confused
all the time. And the fourth thing I want to
(15:21):
say is that the First Amendment doesn't empower us to
force our way into an arrangement. It allows us to
It allows us the freedom from unreasonable search.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
The first hold it, you're confusing me. Fourth Amendment deals
with unreasonable searches. First Amendment deals with freedom of association, religion,
freedom of speech, freedoms, okay for all. The Bill of
Rights deals with freedoms essentially, and our limitations upon what
(15:57):
government can do. The Eighth Amendment freedom from uh you know,
excessive uh punishments.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
That's you know again, there's you know, the the Second Amendment,
the right to bear arms.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
They all, you know, pretty much, the the amendments, the
eighth Amendment. You know, you cannot have all usual punishments
and all of that.
Speaker 6 (16:24):
Okay, okay, Well you're getting a little off off the
topic there. But my point is, I hear the first
I hear the First Amendment confused with the Fourth Amendment
a lot, and that people think that somehow or another,
that the First Amendment powers you to just force your
way into a situation on what pretense. I don't know,
(16:47):
but it doesn't. That's the fourth Amendment. But even then
they're reversing the fourth, the fourth.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
The first and fourth Amendment. I'm going to read to you. Yes,
the First Amendment is very it happens a lot.
Speaker 6 (17:00):
It happens a lot.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
There, Jim, if you open your ears for a second here,
I want to read the First Amendment to you and
to and to the audience because it's coming straightforward. Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise there are, or abridging the freedom
(17:22):
of speech or of the press, or of the right
of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances. That's it. Amendment is search
and seizure, right.
Speaker 6 (17:34):
It's just separate, well, right, But I think people are
confusing that the First Amendment doesn't provide you with any
sort It doesn't empower you to just force your way
into an arrangement in order to express yourself or collect information.
It empowers you to express yourself. As I understand it, basically.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
I've studied this for more than fifty years. I just
read you the First Amendment, which deals with again, uh, freedoms,
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
It doesn't it but it doesn't say anthing about freedom
to but your nose into some situation that you don't
have any business in.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
That That well, it's it gives you freedoms, okay, it
gives you freedom of the press, freedom of speech, but
freedom of.
Speaker 6 (18:32):
All freedom from the government, and bridging your your express
your self expression.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Basically, yes, four.
Speaker 6 (18:42):
Freedom.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
No the fourth Jim, Jim, please please. The Fourth Amendment
deals protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. Okay, that's
the that's that's the Fourth Amendment.
Speaker 6 (18:56):
Exactly, yeah, exactly. So it's just because somebody's walking down
the street and they hear a commotion going on in
the backyard or a sideyard, that doesn't empower the Fourth Amendment,
doesn't empower them to just run over there and stick
their nose into that business. They you know, they're just that.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
No, the Fourth Amendment is Jim, I feel like we're
doing law school here, and I feel.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
Well, people need to be informed because here's here's my things.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
They need to be informed accurately, Jim, And I think
you're confusing people here. Okay, Jim, Jim, don't let me
read to you the Fourth Amendment because it's very brief.
It's very brief, and if I don't know when the
last time you read it, but let me read it
to you. The Fourth Amendment deals with search and arrest warrants.
(19:43):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
And no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing a place to
be searched, and the persons are things to be seized.
So if the government thinks that you're doing something illegally,
(20:06):
let's say you have a meth factory in your basement,
and they get someone who can give them solid information,
they need to get a search warrant in order to
come into your house. Okay, that's the fourth in search
and seizures. It's got nothing to do with it.
Speaker 6 (20:22):
That's what I'm saying. People misunderstand it. It's it doesn't
got Nobody has the right to just butt their nose
into everybody else's business. Thank you for that part of it.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
No, thank you for that invaluable clarification. Jim, And I'm
up at my news break, so I gotta run, Thank
you very much. Okay, here comes the news. We'll be
back right after this.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
It's night side Radio.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Let's get a First Amendment expert in here. Harvey silver Light. Harvey, welcome.
How are you, sir?
Speaker 4 (21:02):
I'm fine, Dan. I've been listening to the entire discussion
and by coincidence. Let me just get it here. Today's
New York Times has an essay has an interview of Slsburger,
(21:22):
the publisher of the Times. Just one second, only get
it here? Oh no, no, no, you lost it.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Well just give it to us if you want, just
paraphrase it for a while. Well, we accept it. I
can find it as well. But what does the publisher
of the Times have to say?
Speaker 4 (21:41):
I found it. I had it here an interview with
our publisher on a free press. It's an interview with
the publisher of the New York Times, a g. Slsburger,
And let me just teat you a couple of things.
Right now, he's talking about the challenges of a free
(22:01):
press in the Trump administration. Now, on top of these
those challenges, we're facing the most serious direct assault on
the rights and legitiacy of journalists that we've seen in
at least a century. So it's the sheer volume of
pressures that worries me, especially when so many news organizations,
(22:23):
particularly local news, are vulnerable, and it ends that's why
press freedom matters. It's less about the right of the
press defines defined stuff. It's about the public's rights to
know it. And it's about the primacy of the First
Amendment over all other amendments and all other considerations.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Yeah, that's what many people say, you know, that's why
the First Amendment is primary. I just feel, and you know,
I've practiced with the First Amendment my entire career. I
just feel that this so called halo law basically gives
police EMTs and firefighters an additional tool to basically exert
(23:10):
some control of a crowd that particularly is going to
in some shape or form challenge what they are doing.
If they're going to arrest someone, that arrest is adjudicated
not on the streets, but if it's an improper arrest,
it's adjudicated in the court system.
Speaker 4 (23:30):
And I agree with you on that limitation to the
First Amendment. I actually agree with you on that. But
I think anybody interested in the First Amendment should read
this fabulous interview with some Silsburger. It's on page two
(23:52):
of the Today's New York Times.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Yeah. I guess he delivered this speech at the University
of Dames Kiel School Global Effairs correct Tuesday.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Yeah, A free people need a free press. I would
I would agree with that. All I'm just saying is
that if if this uh so called halo law said,
when when police order you you have to stand back
a thousand feet, well that's unenforceable. It's it's vague, it's
a it's arbitrary and capricious. It's not vague. But twenty
(24:24):
five feet, I think is just another tool for a
police officer or any EMT or a firefighter to say, look,
we're engaged in our activity here that we're trying to
either effectuate an arrest or help somebody, and you're not
you're not helping the situation. Please stand back.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
I mean of the Supreme Court has always upheld limited
limitations on the on the First Amendment. Sure, right, you know,
falsely fire, shouting fire in a crowd in theater.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Fighting words, we know, we know, you know, I can't
get in your face, and and what's so called fighting words.
There's some defamation, libel, slander, I mean those we know
there are limitations there. So I think we're I think
we're kind of an agreement on this. I mean, are
you horrified that the halo law could pass in Massachusetts?
(25:20):
As you understand it?
Speaker 4 (25:23):
Horrified?
Speaker 2 (25:24):
Well, yeah, yeah, I mean yeah, you're horrified. Yeah, would
be would be the way I phrased the question. No, okay,
you want you're concerned, I'm sure, right, yeah, but but
it's not I mean, it's it's not something that.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
You know.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
I I raised with Attorney Sullivan the idea that that
when police have pulled someone over the side of the road,
that we're now obligated to try to get out of
their way a little bit and and give them a
wider birth.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
With that in the Supreme Court would agree with that.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Yes, absolutely the buffers and abortion clinics. You know me,
I'm I'm pro life, but but I don't think pro
life demonstrators have a right to in any way, shape
or form impeded people who who need access or want
access to a to a medical clinic. And so that
buffer law, uh I think would stand. They even as
(26:24):
someone I think just mentioned in the in the in
the case down in the read case in Detam, the
judge had a buffer zone set up so that people
would not hear the yelling and screaming. And and I
guess the federal court has uh instructed the judge to
(26:45):
reconsider the distance from which the buffer clinic. They're not
saying they can't be a buffer clinic. They're saying that
the distance she uh that she imposed is unreasonable. Yeah, okay,
I think we're in I had of agreement on this
from my friend. I think right.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
But I I called mainly to point out this fabulous
essay interview will souls boggling. If you can get a
hold of Today's New York Times. Yeah, well they.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Could also go on the internet. It's the pieces is
titled simply a free people Need a free Press. New
York Times.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
You can get the yes.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Sounds great, Harvey is always Thanks, thanks for joining the conversation.
Appreciate it very much. We'll talk show talks to you. Okay,
let me get real quickly in here. I'm gonna go
for Will on Long Island. Will you were next on Nightsacer?
Right ahead?
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Hey, Dan, I wish Harvey was still on, because I
have to say, I just even especially when attorneys like yourselves,
you know, use the Oliver Wendell Holmes fire and a
crowded movie there from the nineteen nineteen Shank versus Us.
It really almost irritates me considering it was part of
a decision that was partially overturned because of its degregious
(28:03):
violations of free speech. Okay, I'm really not a big
fan of infringing on the First Amendment. Almost no restrictions
in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Okay, so let me let me run a couple by
if I can. Okay, I'll start with shouting fire in
a crowded theater.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
We're going into what you're aware you're aware of where that,
where that term came from, that phrase came from, and
why later it was decided that you know, I understand
the analogy, right, but why it was decided that Brandon
urg versus Ohio in nineteen sixty nine. It was part
of a decision in nineteen nineteen that egregiously violated free
(28:46):
speech on the people that were right in the draft leaflets. Okay,
I understand the point that they're trying to make. But
depending on your motive, let yelling fire and a c Okay,
let me go back another.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Uh. I defame your character, Okay, I slander your character
in the radio tonight. Okay. Uh okay, I can't defend
my slander or my defamation, uh with the with the first.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
Amendment, right because because it's a lie. Well but New.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
York Times versus Sullivan modifies that a little bit and
it gives me, as a member of the press, a
wider birth if you happen to be a public figure.
Uh so I have.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
To which is unfair.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
I don't agree with New York Times versus Sullivan before,
But all I'm just saying, these are the rules with
fighting words.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
You know, you know it's a call to action. That's
that was actually what was pointed out in Brandenburg versus Ohio.
If it's a call to action to create imminent dan
your insight and violence to say, go kill that person,
go hurt these people, go start a fire, right those things?
May you know, I'm not gonna you know, I have
(30:10):
conflicted feelings even about that, because it requires the listener
of that feature of that order.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Okay, I'd love to know what do you think about
this idea? Okay that in our current context here and
realizing the First Amendment still exists, okay, and we love
the First Amendment. Police officers are trying to effectuate an
arrest and the crowd says, we're not going to let
you arrest that guy. I mean, now, is there.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
A there's a crime there? Though, Look, there's obstruction, there's
interfering with the investigation, there's all types of crime there,
like Jimmy Sullivan pointed.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Out, exactly exactly. However, however, it seems to me that
another tool that can be given to the police officer
in that situation is to say, stand back. You know,
you're interfering with my job. Stand back. I'm not asking
to stand back a thousand feet stand back twenty five feet,
(31:08):
two Carlins.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Its twenty five feet, but it's five feet. It's twenty
five feet, right, you see. Now, maybe there could be
some type of invading the personal space of somebody trying
to perform a function that's important to the safety of
you know, the people of the of the state or
the municipality.
Speaker 4 (31:31):
Where this law has passed.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Right, So it is twenty five feet though close enough
for you to get the video that you needed of
George Floyd, is twenty five feet close enough for you
to be able to hear the things that I'm not.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Sure about it George Floyd is.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
And I think that this law, right, I think that
this law actually is an unnecessary law that's based upon
most of the arguments I've heard from the proponents of
this and the people that are in agreement with this
are hypothetical scenarios, Right. I don't see too many scenarios,
not in my state or yours, or anywhere around the country,
(32:05):
where this law would have done anything except give the
police officers an excuse, which I'm going back to blue.
By the way, I don't want to see officers in
any way hurt or interfered with. And I think that
you should listen and obey, and then obviously if there's
false arrest and things like that you pointed out, we'll
be handled in the court. But exactly by the way.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
You mentioned George Floyd. Okay, you mentioned George Floyd. I
was not there, But that I understand was a woman
with a young woman with her cell phone who was
able to hold that camera steady for a long time
and to chronicle Chauvin, Derek Chauvin with his knee on
(32:46):
the neck of George Floyd. She did not have to
get within five feet. As a matter of fact, if
she got within five feet, somehow, some way that that
camera she was smart to stay at a at a
bit of a distance. She could have been twenty feet,
you could, she.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Could have been with a zoom or whatever. But I
think that, you know, it's gonna I think that once
you start to draw these types of lines, right, which
is why I'm really against most restrictions on free all
of them points I do, Okay, And I understand it's
not a black and white thing either, right, That's why
we have these arguments. Right, Like other guys, I heard
(33:26):
the other guys, I don't want to argue with an attorney. Well,
I'm not attorney, but I have really good reading comprehension.
I like to read, and I could also argue really
well that's what you guys do really good, right. You
read things and then you argue. I think it's a
debate that has to be had, and I could maybe
concede to something some small perimeter, and maybe that perimeter
could be extended upon depending upon the circumstance. But I
(33:47):
don't think a blanket twenty five foot, thirty feet fifty
feet or upon request get back and it becomes illegal.
I think that opens up a great area for the
police to be able to misuse that a right, Thanks, then,
I appreciate it time.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Thanks very much. We to disagree. Thanks, okay, go and
take quick break here if you want to get in.
I got a couple of open lines. We're going to
wrap it up. I got Christine coming up on the
other side. I got room for you now. If you
really want to get in, dial right now six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty.
If you agree that the halo law is something that
(34:23):
would do little harm, uh, which is what my position is, uh,
and that it would give police a bit of breathing room,
that's great. If you want to go the other way,
that's fine as well. As I said, we have free speech.
There's yeah, this this free speech, but there's many examples
(34:44):
of where people go too far. It's like the clown
in Cleveland the other day that was yelling at Jared Duran,
the rid Sox center fielder who has had you know,
suicidal adiations, and he wanted to get uh, get his
point across. Well he did, but it was it was
(35:05):
improper in my opinion, and I'm glad that now you
can say, well, there's no government action involved here, that's fine,
but it was at a baseball park and the guardians
made the right decision to get the guy out of
there is as simple as that. We'll be back a
couple more callers here to finish out strong six one, seven, two,
(35:26):
ten thirty, six, seven, nine thirty. We've had two good
hours in this. Let's keep it going.
Speaker 3 (35:32):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on.
Speaker 7 (35:36):
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
Well, we're wrapping up a couple of hours. We talked
last hour with the joining Greg Sullivan, the president of
the New England First Amendment Coalition, and we're talking about
a law that is being proposed at the state House.
It would be very interesting if this came up for
the debate at the State House. But as far as
I'm concerned, it probably will, as it often happens in Massachusetts,
(35:59):
be be referred to committee, which means essentially that is
the end of the law. Let me go to Christine. Christine,
what do you think about this this proposal.
Speaker 8 (36:10):
I'm not show up at all that I'm kind of
just it's police to be respected, you know. I mean,
is I'm going to get to the point like a parade,
that we have a barricade all senes. You know it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
Well, look that's another example. I mean, when there's a parade, generally,
I guess there are some parades where everybody is welcome,
but when there's generally a parade, the groups that are
allowed in the parade are the groups that apply, and
there's some owner there. It's the same way here we're
talking about. If a police officer, and again this is
(36:50):
more than police officer, police officer, firefighter, or an emergency
medical technician, they have a job to do and if
that and in most cases with EMTs, no one's going
to interfere intentionally with an EMT. They might try to
interfere with an arrest, but with an EMTY you can
(37:12):
always have that person who is there, Well, let me
help you. I don't what to do here. I'm not
a doctor, but you know, and the EMT is going
to say, excuse me, we have this under control. And
then the person continues, oh, you know what you could
be doing here, and at some point the EMT to
give the em T the additional authority say look, please,
you know, step step back, stand back for twenty five feet.
(37:36):
I think that's important. I think to have that's just
another tool in the toolbox. And I don't know if
you agree or not, but we.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
Can agree with this.
Speaker 8 (37:45):
I you know, I was We were always taught to
respect your police, your firement.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
Whatever happened to that, it went away, it went away,
maybe just as bell bottom pants went away.
Speaker 8 (38:00):
Yeah, I know all these things too, with people with cameras.
You know, it's it's so ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
I'm with you. I'm with you, Christine. Thank you much
as always. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 8 (38:11):
Okay, I'm back to blue and mullifying men as God
bless the market them all fake.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
Thanks Christine, appreciate it all right. I'm going to try GEO.
You have called in really late, I, honest to God,
have less than a minute for you, but I'm going
to give you the microphone go ahead.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 7 (38:31):
Regarding the First and fourth Amendment, the search, illegal search,
and seizure, what the protests at the clinic are actually
doing is stealing, and they're actually terrorists who terrorize the
person who's trying to involve themselves in their own life.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
I don't have heard that characterization, but that's am.
Speaker 9 (38:55):
The first Amendment that they're violating is the religion aspect.
They are trying to enforce their religion on another person.
God has a relationship with you. You don't have a
right to interfere with God's association with that woman.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Any rest to that article. I have expressed that point
of view. I happen to be pro life, Okay, that's
what my religion teaches and that's what I believe.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
Well, I was raised as a Catholic.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
But that's fine, and you don't have I mean, that's
the point that I'm making is that I don't feel
that I have a right, although I do believe that
that unborn fetus is a living, growing, developing person, that
I don't ever right to block other people. Gio do
me a favorite, would you do? Please call a little
(39:50):
earlier because I'm flat out of time and I got
to wrap the show. And I appreciate when you call it,
but call earliest so we can actually have a conversation. Okay,
thank you very much. Done for the night, Rob Brooks,
thank you very much, Marita, thank you very much. To
my guest attorney, Greg Sullivan, thank you very much as well,
and also to Brian short Sleeve, candidate for governor on
the Republican side. All dogs, all cats, all pets go
(40:12):
to heap. And that's why Pal Charlie Rais, who passed
fifteen years ago in February, that's why your pets are
who passed. They loved you and you loved them. You'll
see them again, see again tomorrow night. On night's side
of a great Wednesday, everyone,
It's with i'mas Boston.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. I'd like
to continue our conversation on this. We spent an hour
on this last night with a member of the legislature,
a Democrats state Democrat state representative, Democratic state representative from Milton,
Richard Wells. He is a police former police chief in
(00:29):
the town of Milton, very well respected there, and he's
filed piece of legislation with some other members of the
legislature on both sides, Republican and Democrat. They are simply
asking for an additional piece of legislation, which is called
(00:50):
the Halo Act and basically would provide, if requested by
a police officer or a firefighter or an EMT, first responders,
an adequate zone around them as they engage in their job.
(01:12):
Now again, police officers arrest people, police officers help deliver babies.
Police officers do a lot, firefighters do a lot, EMTs
do a lot. All of us, at some point in
our lives might be helped by a police officer, firefighter,
or an EMT. And I don't think it's too much
(01:33):
to ask to give, upon request a first responder a
twenty five foot zone in which to work. Now, we
can use all sorts of examples of your job. Do
you want someone in your office telling you what to
do or how you should do it? And that's what
happens now. Some of these situations are confrontational where someone's
(01:55):
being arrested. We saw that up in Wooster, We've seen
it in other places. Some of these are situations where
people are maybe trying to help, but maybe they're not helping.
Maybe what they're doing actually is interfering with those who
are trained professionally to help. And again I can posit
(02:17):
examples to you, and I'm sure you can posit examples
to me. I point to the move over law here
in Massachusetts, which if you're driving on a two or
three rate lane road and there's a police officer in
a breakdown lane, and if he stopped someone, either to
(02:38):
help them or to write a ticket, you're obligated to
move over if you can. Now, you're not supposed to
cause a crash, but that might mean you have to
slow down a little bit to give him or her
a little bit more room. If you and I were
simply stopped and I was trying to help you, you
were trying to help me there's no similar obligation upon
someone to move over. Again, we recognize that what police,
(03:02):
what firefighters, and what EMT says first responders do is different.
So let's see what people think. I'd like to talk
about this for the balance of the night. I hope
you will as well. We have no open lines now,
I'll let you know. Let's go to Eric in Natick. Eric,
I'm sorry we couldn't get you on with attourney Greg Sullivan,
but obviously this is a conversation starter. Go right ahead, Eric.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
No, that's okay, good evening, Dan, how are you.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I'm doing just great. Thank you for holding through the news.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
Absolutely my pleasure. I actually called back at the beginning
of the year talking about this law in particular, okay,
the Halo law, yep, and I was all for it,
and we had the discussion about how unfair it is
to interfere with someone's job and let the police do
(03:55):
their job, let mts do their jobs. And I am
a little well, I was going to ask Greg that question,
but I was a little intimidated because I don't want
to get an argument with the lawyer. But it's one
of those things where I was trying to think of analogy,
and one of the ones I came up with was
(04:17):
if there was a medical emergency and someone needed to
be lifted off the ground and I'm on crutches, and
like you said earlier about common sense, wouldn't it I
use my common sense and get out of the way
because I am not being able to be helpful in
that situation, or is it quote unquote my right to
(04:40):
be there because I want to see what's going on.
I would choose to get out of the way because
as much as I want to help, I physically can't.
So therefore, let people who can help aid and anyone
else should be backing up.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Yeah, And I also think it gives the police officer
what will what happens and what I have seen happen
as a as a member of the media, you have
a situation going along, and those of us who are
trained in the media, we're able to figure out when
you approach and when you don't approach a police officer.
(05:19):
And the reason you do that is instinctively you want
to give them the right to complete whatever task. You know.
I don't have a rightism ember the media to rush
into a situation while police officers attempting to arrest someone
and say, you know, what's going on here?
Speaker 1 (05:34):
Why?
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Why are you putting the cuffs in this guy? What
did this guy do? You know, he doesn't owe me
an explanation. If he's arresting someone improperly that gets judicated
in the court system, we can take pictures of him.
Police officer doesn't have the right to say, I mean,
turn that camera off. Believe me, I've been in those
situations and the camera can roll as long as in
(05:57):
public and as a matter of fact, we have I
If I'm asking a police officer a question, uh, and
and he chooses to answer, he or she chooses to answer,
I can use that that audio because the mere presence
of a camera should indicate to the to the officer
that there's there's audio as well as video being recorded.
(06:20):
But yeah, you're right on the money. I mean, there
are some people and again I use this, and I
used an example last night. There's an accident on one
side of the road, and you know that should not
affect traffic on the other side of the road, but
everybody has to take a good long look. Oh, I
don't know what's going on. It looks like an accident.
(06:41):
I wonder who's a fall. Well, you know, all that
does is tie the tie the traffic ups. You've been
in situations like that where you you've been tied up
for twenty minutes and you finally get up to the
end and you realize everybody's looking at the accident.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
Again, And to be honest, it's hard not to look.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
It's hard not to look. And it's human nature. And
if all of a sudden, you walk out your front
door and you see some sort of police activity or fire,
firefighters or or anything, that's normal. And all I'm just
saying is that the police officers that says to me, hey,
back up, Maybe it's for my own safety. I mean,
(07:22):
maybe there's somebody, you know, in the woods and they're
trying to arrest someone and they don't know where that
person is, and they they don't want to be in
a conversation with me. Why are you telling me to
back up? Officer? Yeah, I mean, like they're gonna turn me. Well,
the reason we're telling you backup is there's a fellow
in the woods here who we think is mentally disturbed,
(07:43):
and he has a butcher's knife, and at any moment
he may come out of the woods. I mean that's
that's now again. Attorney Sullivan said, well, the police officer
can can can charge you with interference or disturbing the peace, whatever,
But sometimes people are really played a good afternoon, officer.
(08:04):
Could you tell me what's going on here? You know that?
And I think the police officer you give them another
tool and say look, tell you later back up twenty
five feet for your own good or get get get
out of this area. Well, officer, now, why you bossing me?
And he's guy. The officer doesn't have to sit in
(08:25):
there and give you an explanation, you know.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
No, absolutely, And to your point about someone having a
knife in the woods, what if you are impeding that
officer from catching them because you're interrupting the police officer
from doing his job.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
Sure or putting the police officer more in jeopardy. He
might be five feet away from the guy and the
guy might say this is the time to try to,
you know, slash the police officer and escape. And his
attention should be on the job at hand, whether it's
saving somebody with mouth to mouth resuscitation or capturing somebody
who's a dangerous at the public. So, Eric, we're on
(09:01):
the same page. Man.
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Thank you, Thank you very much, sir, and.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Thanks thanks for continuing to call this program. What line
of work do you happen to be in law enforcement
per chance? Or no?
Speaker 3 (09:13):
I am not No, I just have a lot of
respect for it, okay, And.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Could ask you. I'm just curious how old you are?
You sounding like you're a young guy.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
I am forty six, but thank you for telling me about.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, I consider that to be a young guy. And
one of the things, the point, the reason I asked
that is that Greg Sullivan was making the point that
really the problem is we need to educate people, but
it's going to take decades to educate people because you know,
public education and has fallen down in terms of teaching
civics and respect for law enforcement and all of that.
(09:44):
So I just think the whole other topic.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
But you're absolutely right about.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
So it is a whole number of doc topic. Eric,
Thanks very much. Great great to talk with you, call
more often.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Thank you very much. Have a great night.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Thank okay, you too, well. Take a very quick break
coming back. I got Joe coming up, I got Jim,
I got Christine, and I got will I got room
for you at six one, seven, two five, four ten thirty.
Back on the night Side.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
After this, You're on Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ,
Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Back to the calls, go to Joe. Joe, you were
next on Nightside. What's your thoughts on this?
Speaker 5 (10:19):
Joe, Hey, Dan, thanks for taking my call. I have
mixed feelings on this. I was just talking. I'm going
to have lunch with my friend tomorrow from Brighton. We
were talking about something similar. I have mixed feelings. I
agree you should have respect for the police, but when
the police are wrong, like in the case. And I
won't get into but you know, they kill that black
man Tennessee. That's a different story. But there's so much
(10:42):
bitterness today.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
And by the way I think, and I was surprised,
I believe that they were acquitted or three yes, they.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
Were in That shocked me because I saw the they
were playing evidence and oh, but that's another issue we'll
get into some other times.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
We're really not talking about that here. In other words,
as if no, there are a lot of people out
there who feel that they have a right to in
some cases challenge law enforcement even though they are not
a party to what's going on. Uh, And even you know,
interfere and maybe in some cases they're trying to help
(11:20):
an e MT, but they're just making it more complicated
for the EMT.
Speaker 5 (11:25):
I agree with you. Yeah, I agree with mister Sullivan. Sorry,
we disagree, but that's okay. We can agree to disagree.
I agree with mister Sullivant on the abortion. You can
do it quietly, not get in his face, not in
the doorway. But see if we go twenty five feet.
Because he's right, we're already losing. There are cases where
people civil rights have been violent. We're already loving.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Let me maybe, let me make sure I understand what
you're saying. Okay. I brought up the buffer around the
abortion clinic.
Speaker 5 (11:53):
Abortion.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
So in other words, you have people who are so
called right to lifers who are so committed to the
concept of protecting unborn what they perceive as and what
I believe are unborn children. But they are so they
are prepared to stand in front of doorways, to stand
on steps, to to stand on sidewalks and prevent and
(12:15):
impede people from from going in and seeking the medical treatment.
If you want to call it that that that they
that they desire.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
Absolutely that's wrong.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
That's wrong.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
I agree with Hold no, what is wrong?
Speaker 5 (12:29):
Don't don't let.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
You explain. I just do me a favorite, Joe. I'm
just trying to I'm trying to make sure my audience
isn't confused. And I think if you let me finish, okay,
and you'll have a chance. In other words, somebody who
wants who's a pro lifer and wants to protest at
a at an abortion clinic, they have a right to protest,
(12:54):
but that protest cannot interfere with the medical practice that's
going on there or impede people who want to go
and unveil themselves of that service. So therefore, there are
buffer zones, buffer zones outside of these clinics. And I
(13:15):
may disagree with the protesters, or I may even agree
with the protesters, but I don't want those protesters interfering
with moral decisions that other people are making.
Speaker 5 (13:29):
And okay, now my point ahead. I agree with you
to a point. They're buffer zones, but we need education.
They shouldn't stand in front of the doorway, they shouldn't
get in their face. They should maybe be a little
on the side and protest, to do it prospectively and properly.
Not like Black Lives did all those terrible things. I
agree with mister Sullivan on that education. But I just
(13:51):
think we have so many laws, so many bills, twenty
five feet, next it'll be fifty. It's like with the
judge that the Karen Reid case. That case is they're
working on changing the buffer zone because somebody I heard
them talking today.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I understand that. But there's another
example where the jet has said to the demonstrators, look,
we want you to have the ability to protest, but
you can't protest uh and and interfere with the conduct
of the case. That's all all right, Thank you for
your points.
Speaker 5 (14:25):
All right, thank you, Joe, you and I can't wait
to get the other subject. Thanks, take care about you.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
Let me go to Jim and Kansas City. Jim, go right.
Speaker 6 (14:34):
Ahead, and thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
How are you good, sir? How you doing?
Speaker 6 (14:40):
I'm happy? Thank you? So okay. When I first heard
you described last hour's topic, I thought I didn't want
to listen to it or talk about it. But then
I did start listening to it, and I'm glad I
did because I just misunderstood it. I guess I don't
know I got six things to say about this, and
(15:01):
it's a very very important topic. The first one of them,
this is just an opinion because I'm not an attorney,
I'm not a legal scholar. But my second thing to
say is that y'all need to review the difference between
the First and the Fourth Amendment, because the third thing
I had to say is that I hear them confused
all the time. And the fourth thing I want to
(15:21):
say is that the First Amendment doesn't empower us to
force our way into an arrangement. It allows us to
It allows us the freedom from unreasonable search.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
The first hold it, you're confusing me. Fourth Amendment deals
with unreasonable searches. First Amendment deals with freedom of association, religion,
freedom of speech, freedoms, okay for all. The Bill of
Rights deals with freedoms essentially, and our limitations upon what
(15:57):
government can do. The Eighth Amendment freedom from uh you know,
excessive uh punishments.
Speaker 6 (16:06):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (16:07):
That's you know again, there's you know, the the Second Amendment,
the right to bear arms.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
They all, you know, pretty much, the the amendments, the
eighth Amendment. You know, you cannot have all usual punishments
and all of that.
Speaker 6 (16:24):
Okay, okay, Well you're getting a little off off the
topic there. But my point is, I hear the first
I hear the First Amendment confused with the Fourth Amendment
a lot, and that people think that somehow or another,
that the First Amendment powers you to just force your
way into a situation on what pretense. I don't know,
(16:47):
but it doesn't. That's the fourth Amendment. But even then
they're reversing the fourth, the fourth.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
The first and fourth Amendment. I'm going to read to you. Yes,
the First Amendment is very it happens a lot.
Speaker 6 (17:00):
It happens a lot.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
There, Jim, if you open your ears for a second here,
I want to read the First Amendment to you and
to and to the audience because it's coming straightforward. Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise there are, or abridging the freedom
(17:22):
of speech or of the press, or of the right
of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances. That's it. Amendment is search
and seizure, right.
Speaker 6 (17:34):
It's just separate, well, right, But I think people are
confusing that the First Amendment doesn't provide you with any
sort It doesn't empower you to just force your way
into an arrangement in order to express yourself or collect information.
It empowers you to express yourself. As I understand it, basically.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
I've studied this for more than fifty years. I just
read you the First Amendment, which deals with again, uh, freedoms,
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion.
Speaker 6 (18:12):
It doesn't it but it doesn't say anthing about freedom
to but your nose into some situation that you don't
have any business in.
Speaker 2 (18:22):
That That well, it's it gives you freedoms, okay, it
gives you freedom of the press, freedom of speech, but
freedom of.
Speaker 6 (18:32):
All freedom from the government, and bridging your your express
your self expression.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Basically, yes, four.
Speaker 6 (18:42):
Freedom.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
No the fourth Jim, Jim, please please. The Fourth Amendment
deals protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. Okay, that's
the that's that's the Fourth Amendment.
Speaker 6 (18:56):
Exactly, yeah, exactly. So it's just because somebody's walking down
the street and they hear a commotion going on in
the backyard or a sideyard, that doesn't empower the Fourth Amendment,
doesn't empower them to just run over there and stick
their nose into that business. They you know, they're just that.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
No, the Fourth Amendment is Jim, I feel like we're
doing law school here, and I feel.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
Well, people need to be informed because here's here's my things.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
They need to be informed accurately, Jim, And I think
you're confusing people here. Okay, Jim, Jim, don't let me
read to you the Fourth Amendment because it's very brief.
It's very brief, and if I don't know when the
last time you read it, but let me read it
to you. The Fourth Amendment deals with search and arrest warrants.
(19:43):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
And no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing a place to
be searched, and the persons are things to be seized.
So if the government thinks that you're doing something illegally,
(20:06):
let's say you have a meth factory in your basement,
and they get someone who can give them solid information,
they need to get a search warrant in order to
come into your house. Okay, that's the fourth in search
and seizures. It's got nothing to do with it.
Speaker 6 (20:22):
That's what I'm saying. People misunderstand it. It's it doesn't
got Nobody has the right to just butt their nose
into everybody else's business. Thank you for that part of it.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
No, thank you for that invaluable clarification. Jim, And I'm
up at my news break, so I gotta run, Thank
you very much. Okay, here comes the news. We'll be
back right after this.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
It's night side Radio.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Let's get a First Amendment expert in here. Harvey silver Light. Harvey, welcome.
How are you, sir?
Speaker 4 (21:02):
I'm fine, Dan. I've been listening to the entire discussion
and by coincidence. Let me just get it here. Today's
New York Times has an essay has an interview of Slsburger,
(21:22):
the publisher of the Times. Just one second, only get
it here? Oh no, no, no, you lost it.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Well just give it to us if you want, just
paraphrase it for a while. Well, we accept it. I
can find it as well. But what does the publisher
of the Times have to say?
Speaker 4 (21:41):
I found it. I had it here an interview with
our publisher on a free press. It's an interview with
the publisher of the New York Times, a g. Slsburger,
And let me just teat you a couple of things.
Right now, he's talking about the challenges of a free
(22:01):
press in the Trump administration. Now, on top of these
those challenges, we're facing the most serious direct assault on
the rights and legitiacy of journalists that we've seen in
at least a century. So it's the sheer volume of
pressures that worries me, especially when so many news organizations,
(22:23):
particularly local news, are vulnerable, and it ends that's why
press freedom matters. It's less about the right of the
press defines defined stuff. It's about the public's rights to
know it. And it's about the primacy of the First
Amendment over all other amendments and all other considerations.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Yeah, that's what many people say, you know, that's why
the First Amendment is primary. I just feel, and you know,
I've practiced with the First Amendment my entire career. I
just feel that this so called halo law basically gives
police EMTs and firefighters an additional tool to basically exert
(23:10):
some control of a crowd that particularly is going to
in some shape or form challenge what they are doing.
If they're going to arrest someone, that arrest is adjudicated
not on the streets, but if it's an improper arrest,
it's adjudicated in the court system.
Speaker 4 (23:30):
And I agree with you on that limitation to the
First Amendment. I actually agree with you on that. But
I think anybody interested in the First Amendment should read
this fabulous interview with some Silsburger. It's on page two
(23:52):
of the Today's New York Times.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
Yeah. I guess he delivered this speech at the University
of Dames Kiel School Global Effairs correct Tuesday.
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
Yeah, A free people need a free press. I would
I would agree with that. All I'm just saying is
that if if this uh so called halo law said,
when when police order you you have to stand back
a thousand feet, well that's unenforceable. It's it's vague, it's
a it's arbitrary and capricious. It's not vague. But twenty
(24:24):
five feet, I think is just another tool for a
police officer or any EMT or a firefighter to say, look,
we're engaged in our activity here that we're trying to
either effectuate an arrest or help somebody, and you're not
you're not helping the situation. Please stand back.
Speaker 4 (24:41):
I mean of the Supreme Court has always upheld limited
limitations on the on the First Amendment. Sure, right, you know,
falsely fire, shouting fire in a crowd in theater.
Speaker 2 (24:57):
Fighting words, we know, we know, you know, I can't
get in your face, and and what's so called fighting words.
There's some defamation, libel, slander, I mean those we know
there are limitations there. So I think we're I think
we're kind of an agreement on this. I mean, are
you horrified that the halo law could pass in Massachusetts?
(25:20):
As you understand it?
Speaker 4 (25:23):
Horrified?
Speaker 2 (25:24):
Well, yeah, yeah, I mean yeah, you're horrified. Yeah, would
be would be the way I phrased the question. No, okay,
you want you're concerned, I'm sure, right, yeah, but but
it's not I mean, it's it's not something that.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
You know.
Speaker 2 (25:43):
I I raised with Attorney Sullivan the idea that that
when police have pulled someone over the side of the road,
that we're now obligated to try to get out of
their way a little bit and and give them a
wider birth.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
With that in the Supreme Court would agree with that.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Yes, absolutely the buffers and abortion clinics. You know me,
I'm I'm pro life, but but I don't think pro
life demonstrators have a right to in any way, shape
or form impeded people who who need access or want
access to a to a medical clinic. And so that
buffer law, uh I think would stand. They even as
(26:24):
someone I think just mentioned in the in the in
the case down in the read case in Detam, the
judge had a buffer zone set up so that people
would not hear the yelling and screaming. And and I
guess the federal court has uh instructed the judge to
(26:45):
reconsider the distance from which the buffer clinic. They're not
saying they can't be a buffer clinic. They're saying that
the distance she uh that she imposed is unreasonable. Yeah, okay,
I think we're in I had of agreement on this
from my friend. I think right.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
But I I called mainly to point out this fabulous
essay interview will souls boggling. If you can get a
hold of Today's New York Times. Yeah, well they.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
Could also go on the internet. It's the pieces is
titled simply a free people Need a free Press. New
York Times.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
You can get the yes.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
Sounds great, Harvey is always Thanks, thanks for joining the conversation.
Appreciate it very much. We'll talk show talks to you. Okay,
let me get real quickly in here. I'm gonna go
for Will on Long Island. Will you were next on Nightsacer?
Right ahead?
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Hey, Dan, I wish Harvey was still on, because I
have to say, I just even especially when attorneys like yourselves,
you know, use the Oliver Wendell Holmes fire and a
crowded movie there from the nineteen nineteen Shank versus Us.
It really almost irritates me considering it was part of
a decision that was partially overturned because of its degregious
(28:03):
violations of free speech. Okay, I'm really not a big
fan of infringing on the First Amendment. Almost no restrictions
in my opinion.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Okay, so let me let me run a couple by
if I can. Okay, I'll start with shouting fire in
a crowded theater.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
We're going into what you're aware you're aware of where that,
where that term came from, that phrase came from, and
why later it was decided that you know, I understand
the analogy, right, but why it was decided that Brandon
urg versus Ohio in nineteen sixty nine. It was part
of a decision in nineteen nineteen that egregiously violated free
(28:46):
speech on the people that were right in the draft leaflets. Okay,
I understand the point that they're trying to make. But
depending on your motive, let yelling fire and a c Okay,
let me go back another.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Uh. I defame your character, Okay, I slander your character
in the radio tonight. Okay. Uh okay, I can't defend
my slander or my defamation, uh with the with the first.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
Amendment, right because because it's a lie. Well but New.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
York Times versus Sullivan modifies that a little bit and
it gives me, as a member of the press, a
wider birth if you happen to be a public figure.
Uh so I have.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
To which is unfair.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
I don't agree with New York Times versus Sullivan before,
But all I'm just saying, these are the rules with
fighting words.
Speaker 1 (29:48):
You know, you know it's a call to action. That's
that was actually what was pointed out in Brandenburg versus Ohio.
If it's a call to action to create imminent dan
your insight and violence to say, go kill that person,
go hurt these people, go start a fire, right those things?
May you know, I'm not gonna you know, I have
(30:10):
conflicted feelings even about that, because it requires the listener
of that feature of that order.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
Okay, I'd love to know what do you think about
this idea? Okay that in our current context here and
realizing the First Amendment still exists, okay, and we love
the First Amendment. Police officers are trying to effectuate an
arrest and the crowd says, we're not going to let
you arrest that guy. I mean, now, is there.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
A there's a crime there? Though, Look, there's obstruction, there's
interfering with the investigation, there's all types of crime there,
like Jimmy Sullivan pointed.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Out, exactly exactly. However, however, it seems to me that
another tool that can be given to the police officer
in that situation is to say, stand back. You know,
you're interfering with my job. Stand back. I'm not asking
to stand back a thousand feet stand back twenty five feet,
(31:08):
two Carlins.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Its twenty five feet, but it's five feet. It's twenty
five feet, right, you see. Now, maybe there could be
some type of invading the personal space of somebody trying
to perform a function that's important to the safety of
you know, the people of the of the state or
the municipality.
Speaker 4 (31:31):
Where this law has passed.
Speaker 1 (31:33):
Right, So it is twenty five feet though close enough
for you to get the video that you needed of
George Floyd, is twenty five feet close enough for you
to be able to hear the things that I'm not.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
Sure about it George Floyd is.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
And I think that this law, right, I think that
this law actually is an unnecessary law that's based upon
most of the arguments I've heard from the proponents of
this and the people that are in agreement with this
are hypothetical scenarios, Right. I don't see too many scenarios,
not in my state or yours, or anywhere around the country,
(32:05):
where this law would have done anything except give the
police officers an excuse, which I'm going back to blue.
By the way, I don't want to see officers in
any way hurt or interfered with. And I think that
you should listen and obey, and then obviously if there's
false arrest and things like that you pointed out, we'll
be handled in the court. But exactly by the way.
Speaker 2 (32:26):
You mentioned George Floyd. Okay, you mentioned George Floyd. I
was not there, But that I understand was a woman
with a young woman with her cell phone who was
able to hold that camera steady for a long time
and to chronicle Chauvin, Derek Chauvin with his knee on
(32:46):
the neck of George Floyd. She did not have to
get within five feet. As a matter of fact, if
she got within five feet, somehow, some way that that
camera she was smart to stay at a at a
bit of a distance. She could have been twenty feet,
you could, she.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Could have been with a zoom or whatever. But I
think that, you know, it's gonna I think that once
you start to draw these types of lines, right, which
is why I'm really against most restrictions on free all
of them points I do, Okay, And I understand it's
not a black and white thing either, right, That's why
we have these arguments. Right, Like other guys, I heard
(33:26):
the other guys, I don't want to argue with an attorney. Well,
I'm not attorney, but I have really good reading comprehension.
I like to read, and I could also argue really
well that's what you guys do really good, right. You
read things and then you argue. I think it's a
debate that has to be had, and I could maybe
concede to something some small perimeter, and maybe that perimeter
could be extended upon depending upon the circumstance. But I
(33:47):
don't think a blanket twenty five foot, thirty feet fifty
feet or upon request get back and it becomes illegal.
I think that opens up a great area for the
police to be able to misuse that a right, Thanks, then,
I appreciate it time.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Thanks very much. We to disagree. Thanks, okay, go and
take quick break here if you want to get in.
I got a couple of open lines. We're going to
wrap it up. I got Christine coming up on the
other side. I got room for you now. If you
really want to get in, dial right now six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty.
If you agree that the halo law is something that
(34:23):
would do little harm, uh, which is what my position is, uh,
and that it would give police a bit of breathing room,
that's great. If you want to go the other way,
that's fine as well. As I said, we have free speech.
There's yeah, this this free speech, but there's many examples
(34:44):
of where people go too far. It's like the clown
in Cleveland the other day that was yelling at Jared Duran,
the rid Sox center fielder who has had you know,
suicidal adiations, and he wanted to get uh, get his
point across. Well he did, but it was it was
(35:05):
improper in my opinion, and I'm glad that now you
can say, well, there's no government action involved here, that's fine,
but it was at a baseball park and the guardians
made the right decision to get the guy out of
there is as simple as that. We'll be back a
couple more callers here to finish out strong six one, seven, two,
(35:26):
ten thirty, six, seven, nine thirty. We've had two good
hours in this. Let's keep it going.
Speaker 3 (35:32):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on.
Speaker 7 (35:36):
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
Well, we're wrapping up a couple of hours. We talked
last hour with the joining Greg Sullivan, the president of
the New England First Amendment Coalition, and we're talking about
a law that is being proposed at the state House.
It would be very interesting if this came up for
the debate at the State House. But as far as
I'm concerned, it probably will, as it often happens in Massachusetts,
(35:59):
be be referred to committee, which means essentially that is
the end of the law. Let me go to Christine. Christine,
what do you think about this this proposal.
Speaker 8 (36:10):
I'm not show up at all that I'm kind of
just it's police to be respected, you know. I mean,
is I'm going to get to the point like a parade,
that we have a barricade all senes. You know it's crazy.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
Well, look that's another example. I mean, when there's a parade, generally,
I guess there are some parades where everybody is welcome,
but when there's generally a parade, the groups that are
allowed in the parade are the groups that apply, and
there's some owner there. It's the same way here we're
talking about. If a police officer, and again this is
(36:50):
more than police officer, police officer, firefighter, or an emergency
medical technician, they have a job to do and if
that and in most cases with EMTs, no one's going
to interfere intentionally with an EMT. They might try to
interfere with an arrest, but with an EMTY you can
(37:12):
always have that person who is there, Well, let me
help you. I don't what to do here. I'm not
a doctor, but you know, and the EMT is going
to say, excuse me, we have this under control. And
then the person continues, oh, you know what you could
be doing here, and at some point the EMT to
give the em T the additional authority say look, please,
you know, step step back, stand back for twenty five feet.
(37:36):
I think that's important. I think to have that's just
another tool in the toolbox. And I don't know if
you agree or not, but we.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
Can agree with this.
Speaker 8 (37:45):
I you know, I was We were always taught to
respect your police, your firement.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
Whatever happened to that, it went away, it went away,
maybe just as bell bottom pants went away.
Speaker 8 (38:00):
Yeah, I know all these things too, with people with cameras.
You know, it's it's so ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
I'm with you. I'm with you, Christine. Thank you much
as always. We'll talk soon.
Speaker 8 (38:11):
Okay, I'm back to blue and mullifying men as God
bless the market them all fake.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
Thanks Christine, appreciate it all right. I'm going to try GEO.
You have called in really late, I, honest to God,
have less than a minute for you, but I'm going
to give you the microphone go ahead.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 7 (38:31):
Regarding the First and fourth Amendment, the search, illegal search,
and seizure, what the protests at the clinic are actually
doing is stealing, and they're actually terrorists who terrorize the
person who's trying to involve themselves in their own life.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
I don't have heard that characterization, but that's am.
Speaker 9 (38:55):
The first Amendment that they're violating is the religion aspect.
They are trying to enforce their religion on another person.
God has a relationship with you. You don't have a
right to interfere with God's association with that woman.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Any rest to that article. I have expressed that point
of view. I happen to be pro life, Okay, that's
what my religion teaches and that's what I believe.
Speaker 1 (39:27):
Well, I was raised as a Catholic.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
But that's fine, and you don't have I mean, that's
the point that I'm making is that I don't feel
that I have a right, although I do believe that
that unborn fetus is a living, growing, developing person, that
I don't ever right to block other people. Gio do
me a favorite, would you do? Please call a little
(39:50):
earlier because I'm flat out of time and I got
to wrap the show. And I appreciate when you call it,
but call earliest so we can actually have a conversation. Okay,
thank you very much. Done for the night, Rob Brooks,
thank you very much, Marita, thank you very much. To
my guest attorney, Greg Sullivan, thank you very much as well,
and also to Brian short Sleeve, candidate for governor on
the Republican side. All dogs, all cats, all pets go
(40:12):
to heap. And that's why Pal Charlie Rais, who passed
fifteen years ago in February, that's why your pets are
who passed. They loved you and you loved them. You'll
see them again, see again tomorrow night. On night's side
of a great Wednesday, everyone,
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.