A couple of these patrolling the rally sites could help.
Posted on 03/19/2016 4:44:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Donald Trump can insult hecklers at his rallies, tell 'em to "go home to mommy" and even suggest they should have been roughed up.
But the increasingly heated, intense protests and insults at his events raise important questions about free speech, a cornerstone of American democracy: How far can a candidate or his opponents go?
After all, the political process is one where everyone has a right to be heard. Still, there are restrictions.
As long as a candidate's events are in a private place, or a public venue the candidate has reserved and paid for, no one can legally interrupt the event. Doing so would be akin to disrupting a wedding or screaming in the middle of a movie. It's Trump's show, and he can holler "get him out of here" all he wants....
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Even the ACLU agrees...
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/it-okay-kick-people-out-campaign-rallies-depends
“Campaigns can opt to exclude protesters from campaign rallies. The First Amendment doesn’t stop them — in fact, the First Amendment protects the campaign’s right to control its message. Generally, a campaign rents space for its rallies, which gives it the right to exclude people for “trespass” as well as get law enforcement’s help to do so.
A campaign can declare someone to be a trespasser if their presence interferes with the campaign’s chosen message. At a rally, for instance, enthusiastic sign-waving can be a requirement of attendance. A campaign has the right to control its own political theater, within the limits of nondiscrimination law. “
A couple of these patrolling the rally sites could help.
The disruptors can scream and shout all they want outside the event. They throw a rock, a punch, a cup of water it becomes criminal activity. Worse from the perspective of the disruptors, it’s also a civil tort.
And therein lies a strategy. If someone blocks traffic and delays someone from getting to a rally or getting to work, they incur a civil liability and are subject to being sued. If someone assaults an attendee, that is a tort as well. There are plenty of hungry lawyers out there. When the cretins start seeing their stuff going off to a sheriffs auction, it might improve the behavior of them and their friends.
If Conservatives or “Right Wing” were doing this to Sanders or Hillary, a alphabet soup of government agencies would be arresting and impeding them. The Justice Department would be looking at Rico charges.
I know what the article says, I’m just not certain that it’s accurate.
“Is there a well informed Freeper out there who could show a pattern of public comments by Bernie that clearly demonstrates his desire to eliminate first amendment rights to free speech that disagree with his Socialist movement?”
Simple, he refused to not only disavow his people after they shut down Trump’s rally, he denied they were involved. What more evidence could anyone need?
WRONG WRONG WRONG KC Star
Nobody has a right to be heard.
“hold jewboy nazi collaborator SOROS RESPONSIBLE...”
Don’t use that language. Use facts. It’s already been established that Soros collaborated with the Nazis. That’s enough. Call Soros a Nazi collaborator. That’s good enough.
Whether you “paid for the venue” or not is not the determining factor IMO. Now if it was an “invitation only” event, yes it would indeed be a private affair.
But being the fact that anyone can attend by definition pretty much desiganates it to be a “public event”.
Because Trump is renting the halls, buildings, places he has rallies, that makes them private...they are for his people which is the ones of us that are Trump Supporters...
That’s now what the lawyers they interviewed said.
Trump PAYS to rent the venue. Tickets are given out, it is a PRIVATE event.
In Arizona, if they had been threatening or violent, it would have been over and there would be no more protestors. Assume everyone carries in Arizona...
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended.
We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all."
These people aren’t really ANTI-TRUMP. They don’t even know who Trump is, They are ANTI-AMERICANS. Look at their signs.
How Governor Reagan dealt with the Berkeley protesters in 1969!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpg0UfpuUAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCr3nL78qWs
Reagan handles a protester in 1980
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEXOpm0H7QA
Perhaps the language could be changed a bit. But the fact is that Soros was a Jew who turned his fellow Jews over to the Nazis. That made his collaboration a great deal worse.
Do you know something that nobody else does?
It is a FEDERAL CRIME to disrupt a rally when Secret Service are there/try to attack the candidate.
Ether don't ask questions at all, or accept what many tell you is so.
#1:
For one thing, the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. For another, it’s almost impossible to predict what constitutes “disorderly or disruptive conduct” or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”
#2: There is another interesting Code/law that applies the conspiracy/violation of peaceful assembly and free speech.
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; .... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(a), title XXXII, §§ 320103(a), 320201(a), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.