Anti-free speech protesters shutdown Trump rally

[hankrichter12]

I don't support Trump, and I say freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly was disrespected and infringed upon in a shameful manner.

Yes, he chose to postpone the rally. That was his choice. He claims he made it under advisement of others, but it was his choice. He could have gone ahead with the rally, and perhaps contributed more volatility to an already toxic set of circumstances, but in any case, he chose to postpone. But that isn't the point--context is missing. "Protest" organizers numbering in the thousands, from a number of different groups deliberately planned, forewarned, and executed this. The intent was clear: to shut down the rally--to prevent Trump from speaking, and to prevent constituents from listening to what he has to say. This is not even in dispute, as it has been widely affirmed. This is silencing. This is censorship. This is obstructing someone, and an entire group of people from voluntary activity through intimidation, force, and/or the threat thereof. So, the choice he made was made as a consequence of the interference of others whose purpose was to make him make that choice. To ignore all of this context makes you look like the idiot, not Trump's supporters for crying foul. They may be idiotic in a lot of other ways, but not when it comes to this. And, it is you who is failing to understand the nature of free speech.

What do you mean, "in a libertarian sense?"

According to you, no one has rights on public property, is that it? In what "libertarian sense" does that make sense?

Even when those who manage and operate said public venues have clearly reached some kind of voluntary agreement to permit use of said venue for the purposes of a candidate's rally? In what "libertarian sense" does that make sense?

In any case, that would also then mean the "protesters" certainly had no right to protest, anyway, wouldn't it?

Now CPUd is posting Rachel Maddow videos. LOL.

As if she would not be bashing Rand if he was the front-runner over CRA, his fathers newsletters or whatever other bogus false accusations of racism she could make up.

Good posts guys, wish I could +rep you but I guess I am not worthy of doing that just yet, but anyhow, the funniest of all of this is that these same members would having heart attacks if Rand or Ron had gotten this far and all the media and Soros and Rep elites were organizing violent and destructive mobs to interrupt Ron's rally. It's just as amusing watching them trying to cook up justifications for their blatant hypocrisy.

[Cabal]

Blah, blah, blah, you gigantic wall of text saying the same thing everyone else said. The protestors don't get to speak. Only Trump gets to speak. What would you like to see happen next time? Maybe have the cops spray water on them? Arrest anyone who disagrees with Trump? After all, they are breaking the law and violating his 1st ammendment rights correct? They should all be arrested and only Trump should be allowed to talk!!

Oh, spare me your $#@!ing dramatics and absurd hysterics, and just stick to the substance of the post if you want to respond to me. All I want is for people to stop trying to silence each other. All I want is for people to respect each other's rights. So you can shove all of this drivel right back up your ass from whence you pulled it. "Free speech" that prevents "free speech" isn't "free speech." I don't mind that people disagree with Trump and want to protest his ideas. In fact, I encourage it. I mind when they use that as a justification for silencing him through coercion and intimidation, and if you gave a $#@! about liberty in any legitimate sense, you would too.

Do you consider anti-abortion activists who block the entrances to abortion clinics to be exercising their right to free speech? Court precedent protects them.

I'm not sure I'd just tuck that into an issue of free speech. Sounds like more than that. But yes, they're probably in the wrong. Not that the issue of abortion is at all analogous with this. So thanks for introducing a very irrelevant tangent into the discussion, I guess?

I'm also not getting why one activity is judged to be coercive and the other is not. In fact, I could see a case being made that blocking Trump's rally is an exercise in self-defense and free expression to stop someone who would be ruling over all of us. (I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with all aspects of that argument.) Trump supporters (not Trump himself) are in fact the only ones hiding behind the "free speech" flap, which only serves to show how confused they are. He has already demonstrated he doesn't have any respect for the principle of free speech himself, which is why you don't hear him whining about what happened more.

Oh, yeah? While you're at it, could you see a case being made for assassinating Trump as a measure of self-defense, too? That'd certainly stop him... dead in his tracks. What other violence would you like to rationalize today? And all on the basis of talk (campaign talk, no less) considering Trump hasn't actually even done anything one way or another, except for talk. Tell us all how much violence you think is appropriate when people say things you don't like. Oh, right, you're just playing devil's advocate. I nearly forgot.

I don't care what he has said. I don't care how authoritarian or hateful he is. I don't care if he gets up behind every rally podium and promoting the censorship and shut down the internet, and nationalizing all news media. I don't care if he uses the harshest language full of racial slurs. I don't care if he hates free speech. None of that matters. None of that gives anyone any right to silence him, or prevent others from voluntarily hearing what he has to say.

Now, by all means, argue against him. Expose his ideas as intellectually and morally bankrupt ones. Oppose them as you see fit. But no one has a right to silence him. If you're following "free speech" with a "but" or an "except," you're simply doing it wrong.

It's amazing to me how so many here fail so miserably at understanding one of the most fundamental--and perhaps even the most easily understood--principles of liberty there is. Liberty movement, my ass. Just another group of people who are totally fine with force of all kinds (though most wouldn't themselves have the balls to carry it out on their own), so long as it's being used to do their bidding where all of their preferences, inclinations and pet issues are concerned.

Embarrassing.

[twomp]

Oh, spare me your $#@!ing dramatics and absurd hysterics, and just stick to the substance of the post if you want to respond to me. All I want is for people to stop trying to silence each other. All I want is for people to respect each other's rights. So you can shove all of this drivel right back up your ass from whence you pulled it. "Free speech" that prevents "free speech" isn't "free speech." I don't mind that people disagree with Trump and want to protest his ideas. In fact, I encourage it. I mind when they use that as a justification for silencing him through coercion and intimidation, and if you gave a $#@! about liberty in any legitimate sense, you would too.



I'm not sure I'd just tuck that into an issue of free speech. Sounds like more than that. But yes, they're probably in the wrong. Not that the issue of abortion is at all analogous with this. So thanks for introducing a very irrelevant tangent into the discussion, I guess?



Oh, yeah? While you're at it, could you see a case being made for assassinating Trump as a measure of self-defense, too? That'd certainly stop him... dead in his tracks. What other violence would you like to rationalize today? And all on the basis of talk (campaign talk, no less) considering Trump hasn't actually even done anything one way or another, except for talk. Tell us all how much violence you think is appropriate when people say things you don't like. Oh, right, you're just playing devil's advocate. I nearly forgot.

I don't care what he has said. I don't care how authoritarian or hateful he is. I don't care if he gets up behind every rally podium and promoting the censorship and shut down the internet, and nationalizing all news media. I don't care if he uses the harshest language full of racial slurs. I don't care if he hates free speech. None of that matters. None of that gives anyone any right to silence him, or prevent others from voluntarily hearing what he has to say.

Now, by all means, argue against him. Expose his ideas as intellectually and morally bankrupt ones. Oppose them as you see fit. But no one has a right to silence him. If you're following "free speech" with a "but" or an "except," you're simply doing it wrong.

It's amazing to me how so many here fail so miserably at understanding one of the most fundamental--and perhaps even the most easily understood--principles of liberty there is. Liberty movement, my ass. Just another group of people who are totally fine with force of all kinds (though most wouldn't themselves have the balls to carry it out on their own), so long as it's being used to do their bidding where all of their preferences, inclinations and pet issues are concerned.

Embarrassing.

You are embarrassing with your gigantic walls of text and babble. He had an event that was open to the public. In the middle of Chicago, what did you think would happen? He based his entire campaign on making controversial remarks and this was the backlash he got from it. Maybe next time he should make it a private event that was invite only. Maybe he should charge people money to get in so at least he could profit from it. Maybe he should have carried on with his speech and then he would have legitimate gripe if something actually did happen. But no, he cancelled and cried that his rights were violated. NEWSFLASH! At an open public event, people are going to gripe (freedom of speech, it applies to other people too not just Trump).

Stop being a crybaby about it.

[misterx]

You are embarrassing with your gigantic walls of text and babble. He had an event that was open to the public. In the middle of Chicago, what did you think happen? He based his entire campaign on making controversial remarks and this was the backlash he got from it. Maybe next time he should make it a private event that was invite only. Maybe he should charge people money to get in so at least he could profit from it. Maybe he should have carried on with his speech and then he would have legitimate gripe if something actually did happen. But no, he cancelled and cried that his rights were violated. NEWSFLASH! At an open public event, people are going to gripe.

Stop being a crybaby about it.

If someone comes to town to give a speech whom I do not like, I simply don't go listen to them. If other people want to go listen I respect their right to do so in peace without being harassed. People really need to learn to respect those who have different beliefs.

[twomp]

If someone comes to town to give a speech whom I do not like, I simply don't go listen to them. If other people want to go listen I respect their right to do so in peace without being harassed. People really need to learn to respect those who have different beliefs.

I am glad you feel that way. Next time Trump goes into someone's hometown, he should respect their beliefs. He knew where he was going and he knew it would cause a stir. He could have simply avoided all this by making his event a private event. He opened it to the public and the public came. Now he is crying that his rights was violated and you all are crying with him.

[misterx]

I am glad you feel that way. Next time Trump goes into someone's hometown, he should respect their beliefs. He knew where he was going and he knew it would cause a stir. He could have simply avoided all this by making his event a private event. He opened it to the public and the public came. Now he is crying that his rights was violated and you all are crying with him.

People shouldn't come to cause trouble and disrupt things. People should leave other people's events alone. You shouldn't have to make something private to keep people from bothering you. If you have a family gathering at a park is it ok for another family that doesn't like yours to follow you to that park and surround you and push you and taunt you? You need to learn civility and respect. It's not like Trump went to these people's events and said stuff they don't like, they went to his event.

It's a sad day in America when so-called Libertarians are arguing that political speech should be censored by mobs of angry, raving zombies, foaming at the mouth.

[timosman]

I am glad you feel that way. Next time Trump goes into someone's hometown, he should respect their beliefs. He knew where he was going and he knew it would cause a stir. He could have simply avoided all this by making his event a private event. He opened it to the public and the public came. Now he is crying that his rights was violated and you all are crying with him.

He should have set up a free speech zone (or a cage) - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...AGE-in-Florida

You can be sure both conventions will have them.

[twomp]

He should have set up a free speech zone (or a cage) - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...AGE-in-Florida

You can be sure both conventions will have them.

Hahah its his event. He can do what he pleases. He should have never made the event a public event. In Chicago of all places. More proof that he isn't the sharpest knife in drawer.

[misterx]

Hahah its his event. He can do what he pleases. He should have never made the event a public event. In Chicago of all places. More proof that he isn't the sharpest knife in drawer.

Really? It has done nothing but help him. It was a brilliant move, it's been amazing PR. Ted Cruz has lost so much support Trump will probably win Ohio now.

[hankrichter12]

If someone comes to town to give a speech whom I do not like, I simply don't go listen to them. If other people want to go listen I respect their right to do so in peace without being harassed. People really need to learn to respect those who have different beliefs.

These guys are all a joke and they know it. They would never say these things about anyone else, or any other similar type situation.

[twomp]

These guys are all a joke and they know it. They would never say these things about anyone else, or any other similar type situation.

Really? Please show us another type of similar situation then. Typical Trump supporter...

[Rothbardian Girl]

People shouldn't come to cause trouble and disrupt things. People should leave other people's events alone. You shouldn't have to make something private to keep people from bothering you. If you have a family gathering at a park is it ok for another family that doesn't like yours to follow you to that park and surround you and push you and taunt you? You need to learn civility and respect. It's not like Trump went to these people's events and said stuff they don't like, they went to his event.

It's a sad day in America when so-called Libertarians are arguing that political speech should be censored by mobs of angry, raving zombies, foaming at the mouth.

He's running for public office. His supporters don't like the backlash? They better get thicker skins. Bunch of crybabies defending the supposed alpha male candidate.

I could possibly see the point if Trump's free speech rights were actually violated. They weren't. No one actually prevented him from speaking. They didn't rush up there and rip the mike from his hands or beat him up. No one is crying about the Trump supporters who actually did sucker punch people for peacefully protesting.

[misterx]

Really? Please show us another type of similar situation then. Typical Trump supporter...

How about this one? Is this ok, or no?

[misterx]

He's running for public office. His supporters don't like the backlash? They better get thicker skins. Bunch of crybabies defending the supposed alpha male candidate.

I could possibly see the point if Trump's free speech rights were actually violated. They weren't. No one actually prevented him from speaking. They didn't rush up there and rip the mike from his hands or beat him up. No one is crying about the Trump supporters who actually did sucker punch people for peacefully protesting.

You edited out the part about bigotry not being protected speech just in time. I was about to quote that bs.

[twomp]

How about this one? Is this ok, or no?

The violence part? No. Violence is never okay. But its a public forum and people started yelling in a public forum. It may not be civil but it didn't violate his rights. Sorry, freedom of speech and all. Bad etiquette? Definitely.

[misterx]

The violence part? No. Violence is never okay. But its a public forum and people started yelling in a public forum. It may not be civil but it didn't violate his rights. Sorry, freedom of speech and all. Bad etiquette? Definitely.

At least for Milo you are willing to admit that these people are uncivil, and he shouldn't be to blame. Now here's a question. Do you think disturbing the peace is a legitimate law?

[twomp]

It least for Milo you are willing to admit that these people are uncivil, and he shouldn't be to blame.

Did he claim his rights were violated like you and the Donald are claiming? Crybabies...

[misterx]

Did he claim his rights were violated like you and the Donald are claiming? Crybabies...

I don't know, what does that have to do with the legitimacy of the protestors' actions?

[Ender]

The violence part? No. Violence is never okay. But its a public forum and people started yelling in a public forum. It may not be civil but it didn't violate his rights. Sorry, freedom of speech and all. Bad etiquette? Definitely.

1000% in agreement.

[Rothbardian Girl]

You edited out the part about bigotry not being protected speech just in time. I was about to quote that bs.

I edited it because the wording was ambiguous (good thing too, since you missed the point in your paraphrasing there), but I was saying that bigoted speech has very real, violent consequences for certain people (assault, deportation, murder, etc) and so in order to maintain a libertarian order, bigoted people should be physically removed, so to speak. Before taking that last statement too seriously, note that I'm sarcastically playing off of Hoppe's writing. Bigots will never be morally equivalent to anti-bigots in my eyes.

In short, I don't have the same energy or desire to defend people like Trump, versus his antagonists. I don't even particularly like the protesters; there's a lot that goes wrong within leftist social movements. Those movements suffer from popularity contests and the accumulation of what's called social capital. However, I believe they are serving a needed function within the current climate.

Side note - watching the rightist meltdown over this is really entertaining. I can't wait for Cantwell, Milo and that other guy in Florida to be the vanguards of the revolution. Such a winning team there.

[twomp]

I don't know, what does that have to do with the legitimacy of the protestor's actions?

See I keep having to explain the same thing over and over to you Trump supporters. I must try to keep patient because I know logic is difficult for you guys. So let's recap shall we?

A.) Trump makes controversial remarks and gains a lot of support because of them. He is revered for "saying the things no one will" even if they aren't "politically correct." People love him for it. (Freedom of speech and all.)

B.) Those comments needle a portion of the population. They hate him for it.

C.) He goes into Chicago where a large segment of that population lives and has a PUBLIC forum.

D.) Those people attend that PUBLIC forum and make a lot of noise. (Freedom of speech and all.)

E.) He cancels and cries that his first amendment was violated and his army of brain dead supporters start crying too.

You see the problem with public events is that there is a chance the public comes. In North Carolina, where there may only be 1 protester, it is okay. He gets escorted out and punched in the face. In Chicago, there are thousands of them and all of a sudden, its a violation of his free speech. Hypocrites! Not the brightest bunch you all are huh?

[misterx]

See I keep having to explain the same thing over and over to you Trump supporters. I must try to keep patient because I know logic is difficult for you guys. So let's recap shall we?

A.) Trump makes controversial remarks and gains a lot of support because of them. He is revered for "saying the things no one will" even if they aren't "politically correct." People love him for it. (Freedom of speech and all.)

B.) Those comments needle a portion of the population. They hate him for it.

C.) He goes into Chicago where a large segment of that population lives and has a PUBLIC forum.

D.) Those people attend that PUBLIC forum and make a lot of noise. (Freedom of speech and all.)

E.) He cancels and cries that his first amendment was violated and his army of brain dead supporters start crying too.

You see the problem with public events is that there is a chance the public comes. In North Carolina, where there may only be 1 protester, it is okay. He gets escorted out and punched in the face. In Chicago, there are thousands of them and all of a sudden, its a violation of his free speech. Hypocrites! Not the brightest bunch you all are huh?

Did anyone say it was ok for the guy to punch someone in the face? To be honest I haven't even seen that video, but I know that not all Trump supporters are innocent either. The difference between us is I expect civility from both sides, you only want it from one.

[cajuncocoa]

You are embarrassing with your gigantic walls of text and babble. He had an event that was open to the public. In the middle of Chicago, what did you think would happen? He based his entire campaign on making controversial remarks and this was the backlash he got from it. Maybe next time he should make it a private event that was invite only. Maybe he should charge people money to get in so at least he could profit from it. Maybe he should have carried on with his speech and then he would have legitimate gripe if something actually did happen. But no, he cancelled and cried that his rights were violated. NEWSFLASH! At an open public event, people are going to gripe (freedom of speech, it applies to other people too not just Trump).

Stop being a crybaby about it.

[Antischism]

If someone comes to town to give a speech whom I do not like, I simply don't go listen to them. If other people want to go listen I respect their right to do so in peace without being harassed. People really need to learn to respect those who have different beliefs.

Protests—if they're to be effective—are supposed to be disruptive in some way. A protest is meaningless if it's walled off somewhere to be out of sight, out of mind. They don't like Trump's message, and they want this to be known. Why shouldn't they protest? It was a public event, and people organized to show their disdain for a presidential candidate. This is the perfect time for people to protest someone who could potentially be the next president. Trump isn't up there talking about kittens and fluffy pillows, he's talking about expanding torture, killing families, branding Muslims and throwing them in a database, altering the First Amendment, expanding the surveillance and police state, and wanting boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. I say there's ample reason to protest Donald Trump. He voluntarily canceled an event that the police themselves said they could have easily handled.

[Ender]

Did anyone say it was ok for the guy to punch someone in the face? To be honest I haven't even seen that video, but I know that not all Trump supporters are innocent either. The difference between us is I expect civility from both sides, you only want it from one.

Not so- twomp is only pointing out the hypocrisy on BOTH sides.

[twomp]

Did anyone say it was ok for the guy to punch someone in the face? To be honest I haven't even seen that video, but I know that not all Trump supporters are innocent either. The difference between us is I expect civility from both sides, you only want it from one.

Oh yeah? Where is your post complaining about the guy that was punched then? I don't see you crying up a storm over that? Hypocrite!

[misterx]

Protests—if they're to be effective—are supposed to be disruptive in some way. A protest is meaningless if it's walled off somewhere to be out of sight, out of mind. They don't like Trump's message, and they want this to be known. Why shouldn't they protest? It was a public event, and people organized to show their disdain for a presidential candidate. This is the perfect time for people to protest someone who could potentially be the next president. Trump isn't up there talking about kittens and fluffy pillows, he's talking about expanding torture, killing families, branding Muslims and throwing them in a database, altering the First Amendment, expanding the surveillance and police state, and wanting boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. I say there's ample reason to protest Donald Trump.

Aren't you the guy who was arguing for socialism the other day?
You must have read this book

[misterx]

Oh yeah? Where is your post complaining about the guy that was punched then? I don't see you crying up a storm over that? Hypocrite!

I'm not that worried about one guy.

Edit: I just watched the video. That guy deserves to be prosecuted, and he is being prosecuted, so what is there to complain about?

[Antischism]

Aren't you the guy who was arguing for socialism the other day?
You must have read this book

Oh, you're that guy who thinks libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. I wasn't arguing for/against socialism, either; you should go back and re-read.

[cajuncocoa]

People shouldn't come to cause trouble and disrupt things. People should leave other people's events alone. You shouldn't have to make something private to keep people from bothering you. If you have a family gathering at a park is it ok for another family that doesn't like yours to follow you to that park and surround you and push you and taunt you? You need to learn civility and respect. It's not like Trump went to these people's events and said stuff they don't like, they went to his event.

It's a sad day in America when so-called Libertarians are arguing that political speech should be censored by mobs of angry, raving zombies, foaming at the mouth.

No one is advocating censorship but you. You're the one saying the protesters have no right to be there (in a public place) ... that they have no right to speak their opposition. Trump didn't get censored. He censored himself. And the reason he felt he needed to do so is because he's beginning to feel the effects of the schoolyard bullying tactics he's been using in his rhetoric. He's reaping what he sowed. When he talks about wanting to punch people in the face he can expect those words to stir his opponents up. It's not right; I don't condone violence. But it is what it is. He set the table for it.