Reply #85: How about trespassing then? The purpose of the meeting was for Ms.

[No Elephants]

Fudge to dialogue with her constituents, so that her constituents could get from her information about health insurance reform and also so that they could make their thoughts known to her. Chanting, etc. prevents that. No one was invited to do that. If you exceed the scope of your invitation, you are trespassing. People who wanted to chant or demonstrate should have done so outside, first obtaining whatever permits (if any) might be required by law.

BTW, disorderly conduct laws are not all unconstitutional. It depends upon how they are are worded and how they are applied.

"An arrest would have galvanized..." That is your supposition. You don't actually know what an arrest, properly carried out, would have done. If these people had not been escorted out, someone may have supposed and posted that throwing disrupters out of the meeting would have triggered some negative consequence or other. Doesn't make it true.

Besides, galvanized people is fine. It's what people do about being galvanized that makes a difference. If they behave unlawfully after being galvanized, they can go to jail.

As far as I know, the SCOTUS has never held any Constitutional right to be absolute, with one exception. The exception is your absolute right to hold--in your own mind--whatever religious belief you want. That right was declared absolute in a case which said Mormon men had an absolute right to believe in multiple marriage, but the state could jail them for bigamy if they married more than one woman. (I think that was the very first freedom of religion case the SCOTUS ever decided.)