Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heckling receives little attention in the vast literature on freedom of speech. But, in a recent contribution, Jeremy Waldron explores a positive case for the practice. Waldron asks us to see heckling as a spectrum of activities, some of which should be both protected and encouraged. In his view, a primary speaker’s right to speak is not a right to a perfectly tailored (or choreographed) presentation before a subdued audience. A great deal of heckling should be treated as legitimate counter speech, covered by audience members’ own expression rights. Waldron also sees heckling as making an important contribution to broader free speech values such as pursuit of truth and political accountability. I argue that the case for treating heckling as wrongful interference with the free speech rights of primary speakers and their willing listeners is much stronger than Waldron makes out. More boisterous forms of heckling should usually be restricted to presentations by political officials or state sponsored events. In other cases, heckling should be restricted to visual forms and displays that do not directly interfere with a primary speaker’s voice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".