It's not a "Free Speech" denial

[JohnStOnge]

Today Fox News is predictably adopting a theme holding that protestors disrupting Trump rallies is a denial of free speech. Saying it's a threat to a Constitutional right.

It's not. As we know, the Constitutional right to free speech involves government. Congress can make no law abridging the right to free speech. The protestors are not Congress. Trump has a right to spout his nonsense. And protestors have a right to show up and attempt to shout him down, etc. That's part of THEIR right to free speech.

At some point the line is crossed. If they start getting violent that's different. But people have a right to go out and scream at a politician if they don't like what he's saying.

[CAA Flagship]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Sunday threatened to send his supporters to the campaign rallies of Democrat Bernie Sanders, showing no sign of toning down his rhetoric after clashes erupted at his own events over the weekend.

Trump blamed supporters of Democratic candidate Sanders for the incidents in Chicago, where scuffles broke out between protesters and backers of the real estate magnate. He called the U.S. senator from Vermont "our communist friend".

On Sunday, he went a step further in an early morning post on Twitter: "Bernie Sanders is lying when he says his disruptors aren't told to go to my events. Be careful Bernie, or my supporters will go to yours!"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-digs-w ... 02672.html

[93henfan]

Obsess much?

[kalm]

It's not a free speech denial, but there are probably better ways to protest. Trump's rhetoric invites this to happen and as I mentioned previously, I'm guessing he is perfectly fine with it.

Here's an example of denying rights from the same event.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEVZvsiwI0[/youtube]

[Baldy]

It's not a free speech denial, but there are probably better ways to protest. Trump's rhetoric invites this to happen and as I mentioned previously, I'm guessing he is perfectly fine with it.

Again, that's just an excuse. It's in the Progtard DNA to do things like this.

[CID1990]

It's not a free speech denial, but there are probably better ways to protest. Trump's rhetoric invites this to happen and as I mentioned previously, I'm guessing he is perfectly fine with it.

Here's an example of denying rights from the same event.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEVZvsiwI0[/youtube]

It most certainly is. Police departments used to be sued all the time (successfully) by the ACLU for not providing security for Klan marches, etc. Always on the grounds of safeguarding 1st Amendment rights.

The suits used to be over the refusal to issue permits, but the courts almost always agreed that adequate security had to be provided because controversial groups would be shut down by the mob, thus a violation of their right to free speech.

If this wasn't the mob shutting down a political rally then I don't know what is.

[kalm]

It's not a free speech denial, but there are probably better ways to protest. Trump's rhetoric invites this to happen and as I mentioned previously, I'm guessing he is perfectly fine with it.

Again, that's just an excuse. It's in the Progtard DNA to do things like this.

Yep. Liberals love them some protests.

And conks love them some mocked indignation.

[Baldy]

Again, that's just an excuse. It's in the Progtard DNA to do things like this.

Yep. Liberals love them some protests.

And conks love them some mocked indignation.

Now the Liberals are playing the mocked indignation card. Because, "Rhetoric" .

[Ivytalk]

Battles between mobs in the streets, just like Weimar Germany in 1923 and Russia in 1917. Put them in a coliseum, charge admission, and let them kill each other.

[kalm]

Yep. Liberals love them some protests.

And conks love them some mocked indignation.

Now the Liberals are playing the mocked indignation card. Because, "Rhetoric" .

Huh?

[93henfan]

It's not a free speech denial, but there are probably better ways to protest. Trump's rhetoric invites this to happen and as I mentioned previously, I'm guessing he is perfectly fine with it.

Here's an example of denying rights from the same event.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEVZvsiwI0[/youtube]

It most certainly is. Police departments used to be sued all the time (successfully) by the ACLU for not providing security for Klan marches, etc. Always on the grounds of safeguarding 1st Amendment rights.

The suits used to be over the refusal to issue permits, but the courts almost always agreed that adequate security had to be provided because controversial groups would be shut down by the mob, thus a violation of their right to free speech.

If this wasn't the mob shutting down a political rally then I don't know what is.

/thread. - CID wins.

[BDKJMU]

Obsess much?

Yeah, I think this is JSO Trump thread #10. Ibanez can update..

[Baldy]

Now the Liberals are playing the mocked indignation card. Because, "Rhetoric" .

Huh?

[Chizzang]

General Observation:
In a country where it's citizens DON'T VOTE in droves... I find this hilarious
If a candidate makes YOU this angry then vote for somebody else

I'm curious what percentage of these very angry people end up not voting ..?

[Pwns]

Having a rally shut down is probably a boon to Trump's campaign.

[JohnStOnge]

t most certainly is. Police departments used to be sued all the time (successfully) by the ACLU for not providing security for Klan marches, etc. Always on the grounds of safeguarding 1st Amendment rights.

The suits used to be over the refusal to issue permits, but the courts almost always agreed that adequate security had to be provided because controversial groups would be shut down by the mob, thus a violation of their right to free speech.

If this wasn't the mob shutting down a political rally then I don't know what is.

If you're talking about the Skokie, Illinois thing I don't think that's a precedent saying that Trump was being denied free speech. As I understand it Trump was not told he could not speak. He was advised of the situation and voluntarily opted not to.

I think that, to make it like Skokie, the authorities would have to have told Trump before hand that he could not have his rally because it might incite violence. I think that the Skokie precedent is that if Trump had insisted on having his rally the police would have to have let him. They also, though, would have had to let the protesters protest. And they'd have been responsible for controlling the situation.

The First Amendment does not apply to people protesting a politician. It applies to Government. A mob is not violating the candidate's First Amendment right by showing up at a political rally and trying to shout him down.

An article on Skokie:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey- ... 88739.html

[JohnStOnge]

Obsess much?

It's important. Donald Trump is a serious problem. I guess one could say that an even more serious problem is that there is a substantial number of people who would support somebody like that to be President of the United States. But either way it's a serious problem.

And from a "partisan" standpoint Trump single handedly turned what looked like a really good election outlook for Republicans into a really bad one. Absolutely no question that the prospects for the Republican Party would be much better right now if Trump had never come on the scene. Or I guess one could say they'd be a lot better if people would've had enough sense not to support him.

[YoUDeeMan]

Obsess much?

It's important. Donald Trump is a serious problem. I guess one could say that an even more serious problem is that there is a substantial number of people who would support somebody like that to be President of the United States. But either way it's a serious problem.

And from a "partisan" standpoint Trump single handedly turned what looked like a really good election outlook for Republicans into a really bad one. Absolutely no question that the prospects for the Republican Party would be much better right now if Trump had never come on the scene. Or I guess one could say they'd be a lot better if people would've had enough sense not to support him.

Dear John,

The Republican Party IS the problem.

The Democratic Party IS the problem.

Two sides of the same coin.

You're welcome.

[YoUDeeMan]

Th way to resolve this problem is to have Trump supporters go to Bernie and Hillary rallies.

They should shout down both of those candidates with the following items:

Hillary:

1) SUPER PREDATOR! SUPER PREDATOR!

2) CLINTON PUT MORE BLACKS IN JAIL...RACIST!

3) PEOPLE WHO BEHEAD PRISONERS, DENY WOMEN RIGHTS, and HATE AND KILL GAYS SUPPORT YOU! WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?

4) BIGOTS WHO TEACH THEIR FOLLOWERS TO KILL OTHERS SUPPORT YOU!

5) THE 1% SUPPORT YOU!

5) YOU GAVE GUNS TO PEOPLE YOU KNEW WERE GOING TO KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN!

Bernie:

1) LET ME SHOUT YOU DOWN!!! DEMOCRACY IN ACTION!

2) GIVE ME FREE SHlT, TOO!

[kalm]

t most certainly is. Police departments used to be sued all the time (successfully) by the ACLU for not providing security for Klan marches, etc. Always on the grounds of safeguarding 1st Amendment rights.

The suits used to be over the refusal to issue permits, but the courts almost always agreed that adequate security had to be provided because controversial groups would be shut down by the mob, thus a violation of their right to free speech.

If this wasn't the mob shutting down a political rally then I don't know what is.

If you're talking about the Skokie, Illinois thing I don't think that's a precedent saying that Trump was being denied free speech. As I understand it Trump was not told he could not speak. He was advised of the situation and voluntarily opted not to.

I think that, to make it like Skokie, the authorities would have to have told Trump before hand that he could not have his rally because it might incite violence. I think that the Skokie precedent is that if Trump had insisted on having his rally the police would have to have let him. They also, though, would have had to let the protesters protest. And they'd have been responsible for controlling the situation.

The First Amendment does not apply to people protesting a politician. It applies to Government. A mob is not violating the candidate's First Amendment right by showing up at a political rally and trying to shout him down.

An article on Skokie:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey- ... 88739.html

Congress shouldn't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

[CID1990]

t most certainly is. Police departments used to be sued all the time (successfully) by the ACLU for not providing security for Klan marches, etc. Always on the grounds of safeguarding 1st Amendment rights.

The suits used to be over the refusal to issue permits, but the courts almost always agreed that adequate security had to be provided because controversial groups would be shut down by the mob, thus a violation of their right to free speech.

If this wasn't the mob shutting down a political rally then I don't know what is.

If you're talking about the Skokie, Illinois thing I don't think that's a precedent saying that Trump was being denied free speech. As I understand it Trump was not told he could not speak. He was advised of the situation and voluntarily opted not to.

I think that, to make it like Skokie, the authorities would have to have told Trump before hand that he could not have his rally because it might incite violence. I think that the Skokie precedent is that if Trump had insisted on having his rally the police would have to have let him. They also, though, would have had to let the protesters protest. And they'd have been responsible for controlling the situation.

The First Amendment does not apply to people protesting a politician. It applies to Government. A mob is not violating the candidate's First Amendment right by showing up at a political rally and trying to shout him down.

An article on Skokie:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey- ... 88739.html

I wasn't talking about Skokie. I was there for a number of attempted decisions to not provide security for controversial groups in Charleston and they were shot down every time. Government has to provide reasonable accomodation to these groups in terms of security because not doing so is a tacit approval of the mob. I don't have the case law so I'll let you look it up. Now maybe CPD being on scene and trying to keep the protesters away qualifies, in fact I'm sure it does- but a defendant in a civil rights case does not have to be the government. Individuals can also violate people's rights to free speech- the reason the case law always deals with government action is because that is where the deep pockets are.

[houndawg]

Obsess much?

It's important. Donald Trump is a serious problem. I guess one could say that an even more serious problem is that there is a substantial number of people who would support somebody like that to be President of the United States. But either way it's a serious problem.

And from a "partisan" standpoint Trump single handedly turned what looked like a really good election outlook for Republicans into a really bad one. Absolutely no question that the prospects for the Republican Party would be much better right now if Trump had never come on the scene. Or I guess one could say they'd be a lot better if people would've had enough sense not to support him.

You're from Mars, dude. The bad election outlook comes from a slate of clown-candidates that proves the Republicans don't want to win the election.

[kalm]

Burn!

[GannonFan]

Burn!

Two pretty much buffoon candidates in a Twitter war. My, what a great election.

[JohnStOnge]

I wasn't talking about Skokie. I was there for a number of attempted decisions to not provide security for controversial groups in Charleston and they were shot down every time. Government has to provide reasonable accomodation to these groups in terms of security because not doing so is a tacit approval of the mob. I don't have the case law so I'll let you look it up. Now maybe CPD being on scene and trying to keep the protesters away qualifies, in fact I'm sure it does- but a defendant in a civil rights case does not have to be the government. Individuals can also violate people's rights to free speech- the reason the case law always deals with government action is because that is where the deep pockets are.

I'm still not seeing what you're talking about as indicating that the "mob" is violating First Amendment rights. I don't see how the Courts saying government has to provide security equates to the "mob" denying free speech.

The whole thing about the Bill of Rights is Rights with respect to government. You don't have a right to speak without other people shouting you down. Especially if you're a friggin' politician.