In First Amendment law, a heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the reaction of the heckler. Under the First Amendment, this kind of heckler's veto is unconstitutional.' [ 5 ]
University of California, Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky has invoked the concept in an editorial following an incident in which heckling by individual students disrupted a speech by the Israeli ambassador, Chemerinsky explained that broad freedom exists to invite speakers and hold demonstrations, but that once a speaker has begun an invited lecture, “You have the right – if you disagree with me – to go outside and perform your protest. But you don’t get the right to come in when I’m talking and shout me down. Otherwise people can always silence a speaker by heckler’s veto, and Babel results.” [ 6 ]
Michigan State University professor of political science William B. Allen has used the phrase verbal terrorism to refer to the same phenomenon, defining it as "calculated assault characterized by loud side-conversations, shouted interruptions, jabbered false facts, threats and personal insults." [ 7 ]
Danny Ayalon has suggested that the tactic be combated by videotaping the shouters. [ 8 ]