Does he make them raise their hand in loyalty too? 
Ultimately, I think it’s going to redound to his benefit. MoveOn is making a tactical mistake by trying to shut down Trump’s events.
Edit: Link.
Well, the country club set couldn’t have Bush & couldn’t have Christie.
I didn’t think it would even take them this long to start looking around for an almost-believable-if-you-don’t-look-close Oswald patsy so they can have “their” candidate instead.
It couldn’t be one of their own spawn: Too much blow-back that would hurt their goals.
Still, someone left of center, shot dead seconds after the assassination, with an unfired rifle in their hands? That would probably make some people happier than shooting 40 on the back 9.
Bonus points if the patsy is a person of color, male, and dies wearing a BLM T-shirt…
“Mildred, could you fix us some Chinese food instead? We’re feeling a little Manchurian today…”
This should be posted every time free speech comes up in contexts like this:
You really don’t get it do you?
Seems to me you are the one missing it.
Yeah. Nobody here is defending criminal assault, or disturbance of the peace, or any other illegal actions perpetrated against a public speaker.
But they don’t constitute violations of the speaker’s free speech rights.
If you won’t let a speaker speak by yelling or booing or whatever such that they can’t be heard…or you intimidate the listeners (or the speaker) by implied threats of violence…or you physically block access so that people that want to hear what the speaker is saying can’t get into the event…
Well, “you” don’t believe in free speech.
Moving the goalposts. This side argument has been about your misinterpretation of WreckingCrew’s perfectly valid rebuttal in post #4 of doorhinge’s claim that the Trump protesters were “denying free speech” to Trump.
You claimed that was “bull malarkey”, and ever since you’ve been trying to obscure the distinction between denying free speech rights and individuals interfering with other individuals’ speech, whether legally or illegally.
Nobody is defending illegal interference with a speaker. Nobody is saying that the laws ought to be changed so that it’s okay to assault a speaker you disagree with. Nobody is supporting the denial of free speech rights or any other kind of illegal behavior.
We’re just trying to educate you on the difference between illegal obstruction of a speaker and actual denial of First Amendment rights.
I KNOW the difference.
Note when I say First Amendment. Note when I say “free speech”. Heck, one of my first post here in this thread, if not THE first one here noted the difference between the two.
Personally I would go even further. It bothers me when people disrupt a speaker where the people there presumably want to hear that speaker. Even if it is crap I disagree with.
That said they are not denying free speech. Indeed they are engaging in their own free speech.
People protesting other people engaging in free speech is as old as the republic. Nothing new about it whatsoever. Recall things like the KKK marching in Skokie or people counter-protesting Westboro Baptist Church protesters and so on.
I would also agree with what was suggested up-thread that this is probably counter-productive. Trump supporters will be energized by these protests and become even more motivated.
“Free speech” doesn’t have a legal meaning except in the context of the First Amendment.
“Free speech” doesn’t mean that nobody should ever stop anybody else from saying anything. By that reasoning, a disturbed person screaming on a street corner and taken into custody by police would be having their “free speech denied”.
Legally obstructing another person’s speech, as in the case of the cops and the street-corner screamer, is not “denying free speech”. Illegally obstructing another person’s speech, as in the case of the protestor who assaulted Trump, is also not “denying free speech”.
Yup, me too.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
That said they are not denying free speech. Indeed they are engaging in their own free speech.
[/quote]
Exactly.
Actually, he gets it. Seconded that You Don’t.
Your right to free speech is a legal concept. It is spelled out in the US Constitution. It protects us from the government.
As such a protester at a rally cannot deny Mr. Trump his free speech rights (unless they did so in an official capacity as a government employee).
Period.
Is the protester being disruptive? Definitely. Is the protester being a dick? Maybe. Has the protester broken any laws? Quite possibly but they did not violate first amendment free speech protections.
He had his own secret service detail? At what point do candidates get one? Does the rest of the candidates have one too? Does the guy with the rubber boot on his head get one?
Your “right” to free speech might be a legal concept.
The idea that free speech should be allowed does not require any legal construct.
It is a courtesy the Secret Service extends to political candidates. They have their own rules for when they do this (e.g. they do not extend it the instant any schmo throws their hat in the ring). It is really up to them. IIRC they gave Obama SS protection sooner than they normally would have in 2007 because of specific threats Obama was getting during his campaign.
Clinton has SS protection because she gets it for life as the former First Lady. I believe lifetime protection has since been rescinded and ex-presidents and their spouse now only get protection for ten years after they leave office. I think that started with Bush (the younger).
Manfully conceded, thanks.
[QUOTE=billfish678]
The idea that free speech should be allowed does not require any legal construct.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it kind of does, if there’s going to be any workable definition of what counts as “free speech” and what is “allowable”. I presume you’re not arguing that all forms of speech should be allowed in all circumstances. I mean, in that case we’re right back in “yelling Fire in a crowded theater” territory.
Clearly not since billfish678 seems to want to restrict what a person can or cannot say at a political rally.