America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

I watched the coverage of the riots at the Trump Rally last evening and noticed that these protests stem from the radical left who shout down all who oppose their agenda.

This occurs daily on college campuses throughout America.
For reference:http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/ca...s-resignation/

Colleges and liberal media outlets are "safe spaces" for progressive policies and thought. The SOP is to play the victim when any conservative expresses a view. Students and professors whine about how bad the conservative view makes them FEEL.

Meanwhile, as we saw at the Trump rally, they physically bully and intimidate ideological opponents, hurling curses and threats at a rapid pace.

Free speech is limited to a selected few, typically anyone who isn't white or male.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

I agree. More fuel for the fire. The powder keg is still being loaded. The US will likely never be destroyed from an external force, unless by an act of God, as a complete invasion and successful ground campaign is all but impossible, without a nuclear war and M.A.D.

I've thought for a long time now that the US will implode and collapse from within.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

I posted this just a while ago on Facebook as a response to seeing so many people rejoicing over the cancellation of Trump's rally in Chi-Town:

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

As a certain meme has made it clear, from the film The Dark Knight:

"It's all part of the plan" ~ Joker

Had nothing to do with 1A. 1A is about the GOVERNMENT, not fellow citizens. No one's 1A rights were trampled, unless you believe obama ordered the protests, and the protesters were govt agents.

And Trump can only point his finger at himself, since it's due to Trump's own rhetoric that there were protests at all. And it's Trump's incitement to violence which caused his own supporters to act out in violence.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

I'm not a Trump supporter, or think he's all innocent in anything he does or says.

My point was in that people are happy that the right to assembly was lost, as the bottom-line.

Whatever side one falls out on politically, a loss of rights is still a loss of rights, and that's what's so sad.

But there was no loss of rights. The people were allowed to assemble. They weren't restricted by the government. There were no loss of 1A rights.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

Not in any technical sense. I will give you that. But the fact that it had to be cancelled or risk being turned into a riot, when there were probably some very sincere and innocent people there who merely wanted a chance to support the man they want for president was taken from them, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Most there likely assembled peacefully with no harmful intent, but then had to watch their peaceable, good intentions to support a candidate get trampled on as they were dispersed due to the cancellation.

The few bad apples spoiled the barrel. That spoiling is where rights were lost. Wherever a crime takes place, rights are automatically taken.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

Any protestor from any camp, left or right that breaks the law or prevents others from having their rights should be punished by jail time and punitive fines, they should also be sued.

Protesters have the right to protest but not the right to destroy other people's rights.

Again, no rights were violated.

What law was broken? I'm not just disagreeing just to disagree here, I'd like to know what law you believe was broken which would have these protesters jailed, fined and sued?

I agree some honest people there were unfortunately denied the opportunity (not right) to hear their candidate speak; however, it is really hard for me to be sympathetic to people who's candidate has publicly called for violence against anyone who is against him.

I also doubt this was Trump's call to cancel. I believe the police made the decision to cancel.

I just asked on a post prior to this, but what crime(s) was/were committed?

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

Whether or not charges will be forthcoming, disturbing the peace, incitement to riot, disorderly conduct, and such misdemeanors? How bad did it really get, that no one has seen? Assault?

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

I looked up some Chicago ordinances:

8-24-1, Disorderly Conduct:
A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
A. Breach Of The Peace: Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace;

While this occurred in Nevada, this would apply to "provoking a breach of the peace," IMO

https://youtu.be/2yhZZwVAqMg


8-24-5: - BATTERY:
A person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means: 1) causes bodily harm to an individual, or 2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.

and

8-24-5A: - ASSAULT:
A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

Again, not in Chicago, but this likely applied even in the city where the dude with the ponytail did this

https://youtu.be/AoA_mjVrvs4


8-24-7: - DISTURBING ASSEMBLAGES:
It shall be unlawful for any person to disturb any lawful assemblage or gathering in the City.

Protesters may be charged with this. I disagree a lot with this ordinance, because it gives no allowance for any type of protest.


8-24-32: - MOB ACTION:
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in mob action. Mob action consists of any of the following:

A. The use of force or violence disturbing the public peace by two (2) or more persons acting together and without authority of law;

I have yet to see acts of violence from the protesters, but if there was any, this could apply.


8-24-37: - CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY:
A. Prohibited Acts: A person violates this Section when he performs any of the following acts:

1. Knowingly damages any property of another without his consent;

I couldn't find the definition of property, but, depending on the definition, the Trump supporters shown in footage trying to rip and destroy the protesters flags and banners could be guilty of this.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

Shouldn't this be in the Politics forum?

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

From my time working at the DA I learned that it is best to charge a person with as many crimes as possible, that way the person will be at least convicted of one. :D

That's true. I read that four protesters from the Chicago rally were arrested. All had one charge of "resisting arrest" which is typical at a protest. A couple others had interfering with police and battery of an officer included with the resisting.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

I would counsel the police to pile on the charges as many as they could think of and then some more. :D

Then I would counsel the trump camp to bring lawsuits against each individual person, then bring lawsuits to the organizations and then to bring more accusations against the protestors. Punish with the biggest hammer available each individual protestor and every organization involved, break them organizationally, financially, and spiritually. :D

So the iron fist of a dictator is what you want. You want Stalin. Putin. You don't want Democracy.

Trump has no standing to sue. If anything, the protesters have more cause to sue due to Trump's threats of violence against them.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

If I wanted Stalin or Putin, I would move to cuba or russia . and democracy means the right of each side to hold their own rallies, democracy means that each side is free to hold rallies without being disrupted by the other side.

Then Trump and his supporters need to find some legal loophole that would allow them to sue. :D

No, Democracy allows BOTH, the opportunity to peacefully assemble AND the opportunity to peacefully protest.

Hahaha! Low information, ignorant Trump supporter got slapped good.

Attachment 5087

Those claiming Trump's 1A rights were somehow trampled on by the protesters are misinformed and should probably take a few minutes to read the 1A.

Justin Amash has also been schooling Trump supporters on Twitter about 1A. He's hardly a leftist. He's the most conservative and best mind in Congress right now. But I'd say it's a hopeless cause though. Most are just too willfully ignorant and won't accept facts. They're too emotional to hear any kind of reason.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

could he be lying or twisting the truth?

Look him up. I did.

The lady deleted her tweet after he dropped the bomb and made her look stupid.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

she asked an intelligent question, I do not think at all that she was made to look stupid, that is your simple personal opinion.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

So what if he is actually a lawyer that is meaningless any two bit lawyer can twist the truth or a rule. no biggie.

Well, he's correct about 1A. Trump is wrong about claiming his 1A rights were shut down. The government didn't do anything to hinder his 1A rights.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

H.r. 347...

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

I find it disturbing that someone would organize people to "invade" a campaign rally for a candidate they oppose.

In my mind this would be the same thing as:
Carolina Panther fans invading the Super Bowl Celebration for the Broncos.
Pro LGBT activists invading a religious gathering opposed to them.
Christians invading a gathering of Muslim speakers.
Pro choice followers invading a gathering of those opposed to abortion.

In my mind it is one thing to protest outside an event.
It is entirely another to invade the event with the goal of stopping it.
I believe if this happened to one of the "pet" groups of the left, they would be intent on charging those who invaded with "hate" crimes.

Why protest then? You don't go to someone you support to protest.

If you're upset with customer service you receive from Sprint, you don't go to Verizon and complain about it. Or maybe you do.

Makes no sense to not protest against and in the presence of the person/company/agency with whom you have a grievance.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

So, you would be fine with protests at all of the above scenarios?

"""In my mind this would be the same thing as:

Carolina Panther fans invading the Super Bowl Celebration for the Broncos.

Pro LGBT activists invading a religious gathering opposed to them.

Christians invading a gathering of Muslim speakers.

Pro choice followers invading a gathering of those opposed to abortion."""

Absolutely. Though I doubt sports fans would consider doing something you described.

LGBT activists have protested churches and religious gatherings in the past. And pro-choice people have picketed churches and protested against businesses with whom they disagree.

I haven't heard of many Christian ministers protesting muslims. Most want to make nice and pretend they serve the same god.

But again, if you want to be effective in your protest, you do so at the point of reference. If you want to protest Trump, you do so at a Trump rally, not at a Bernie Sanders rally.

I don't picket, but I wouldn't picket an abortion clinic in front of Walmart.

Doesn't. Make. Sense.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

nd - there is a significant difference in my mind between picketing and taking over the venue.
I would have the same opinion if conservatives attempted to take over a Hillary or Bernie event.
Technically you do not have the right to take over the event, as usually these arenas are rented by the campaign staging the event.
Which would give them the right to eject you.

I agree there is a bit of a difference between that particular scenario. It's still protesting. I still say it makes no sense protesting Trump at an event for Hillary or Bernie.

You are correct. The Donald has every right to remove them and that doesn't violate their free speech. However, they may still buy tickets and wave their flags and hold their banners and shout their slogans and it doesn't violate his or his supporter's 1A rights.

Yeah, Bernie! Take that!

smh

Does the Donald have any proof of Bernie lying? Trump makes these claims and no one makes him provide the evidence to back it up.

I doubt Bernie is telling his supporters to go to Trump's events. Now, I do believe - and there is proof - that Soros (who backs Bernie) is telling people to go to these events.

But Trump isn't attacking Soros. With the recent news of Soros financing these protests, along with Soros' threats of more protests, one would think the Donald would have something to say/tweet about Soros.

I don't watch/listen to Trump's speeches, but his Twitter feed is silent and has nothing about Soros.

Interesting.

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

Yes, it is curious that the Donald hasn't called out Soros.
He does call out everyone else.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy between Trump and Soros.

It's just odd that Trump would threaten the owners of a pro team for spending money for an anti-Trump campaign, but not Soros, who is also spending money against Trump.

Perhaps Trump knows he can't bully or threaten Soros, or that Soros would sue if provoked.

A bit of a connection:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=332

Re: America 2016: Free Speech for a selected few.
 

In Chi-Town, people arrested at such an event, especially if they attacked a police officer, are more likely to get an "accidental" fall down some stairs at the precinct, i.e. a rubber hose or phone-book beating, than any actual charges, or a quick stomping in the paddy wagon and a release.