# What is the law regarding protesters at political rallies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 13, 2016, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851 "2016-03-13T10:01:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/81 "2016-03-15T16:36:06Z")
The misleading part is that this ever happens outside of Trump rallies. People have been attending rallies for politicians they disagree with since before this country existed. It has never been illegal. The idea that it is somehow illegal (or should be) to go to a political rally if you disagree with the politician in question is what started this thread. The OP said that the fact that this was a private event (even if open to the public) made all the difference. It doesn’t. It’s just as legal for someone to attend a political event they disagree with in a private venue as a public one. Donald Trump may ask you to leave, but that doesn’t make it illegal to go there in the first place, which is, in my opinion, what the OP is advocating or implying (I’m not sure which). ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/82 "2016-03-15T16:39:51Z")
The attempts at one-line answers to this question are inevitably wrong or incomplete. The answer depends on where the rally occurs since many rallies occur in limited public forums and on what constitutes protest–wearing anti-Trump messages and even occasionally shouting anti-Trump things, may, depending on the context, be protected activities in a limited public forum. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/83 "2016-03-15T16:40:34Z")
> [@](#): > > Donald Trump may ask you to leave, but that doesn’t make it illegal to go there in the first place, which is, in my opinion, what the OP is advocating or implying (I’m not sure which). I think it’s fair to say that Trump is more active in removing protestors than prior candidates (though I seem to remember similar events at GWB’s rallies). But that’s not the point. The question, as phrased by the OP, is whether Trump is legally entitled to remove protestors. > [@](#): > > I’m seeing a lot of people claim that protesters at a political rally have every bit as much right to free speech as the person speaking up on stage. > > \ > > …once they start trying to shout down the candidate, they are no longer welcome at this private event, and have become a trespasser and can be arrested and prosecuted as such. The first statement is correct to the extent that all persons have the same speech rights, but demonstrably untrue insofar as their right to speak (or a least remain) _at the event_. The second statement is true other than the last clause. Prosecution requires entry without permission or a refusal to leave once permission to remain has been withdrawn. You can’t turn somebody into an immediate trespasser by revoking permission; they have to be given a chance to depart voluntarily. ETA: All this ignores the point raised by **Richard Parker** , and previously mentioned in the thread, which is that publicly owned event spaces may be subject to differing rules. I am speaking in very broad generalities. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/84 "2016-03-15T16:51:18Z")
Of course Trump has the right to ask protesters to leave his events. The misleading part (in my opinion – I’m not saying you’re being misleading, I’m saying the overall tone of this thread has the potential to be misleading) is using that fact to imply that it is illegal, immoral, or unethical to attend an event whose message you don’t agree with, or with the intention to speak up in opposition to that message. Both of those things are legal (and morally sound, in my opinion) up until the point where you are asked to leave by the event organizers. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/85 "2016-03-15T17:33:25Z")
from [Speech Plus - The Constitutional Law of Leafleting, Picketing, and Demonstrating :: First Amendment -- Religion and Expression :: US Constitution Annotated :: Justia](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/53-leafleting-picketing-and-demonstrating.html) > [@](#): > > 1204 Dicta clearly indicate that a hostile reaction will not justify suppression of speech, Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 502 (1939); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 551 (1965); Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U.S. 564, 567 (1970), and one holding appears to point this way. Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969). On the other hand, the Court has upheld a breach of the peace conviction of a speaker who refused to cease speaking upon the demand of police who feared imminent violence. Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951). In Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 273 (1951) (concurring opinion), Justice Frankfurter wrote: “It is not a constitutional principle that, in acting to preserve order, the police must proceed against the crowd whatever its size and temper and not against the speaker.” > [@](#): > > Government may also open property for communicative activity, and thereby create a public forum. Such a forum may be limited—hence the expression “limited public forum”—for “use by certain groups, e.g., Widmar v. Vincent (student groups), or for discussion of certain subjects, e.g., City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin PERC (school board business),”1205 but within the framework of such legitimate limitations discrimination based on content must be justified by compelling governmental interests.1206 Thirdly, government “may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.”1 IANAL but… Reading through reams of legal summaries, it appears “limited public forum” and all that sort of issue again, only apply to the government and its agents. So if the university offered a political event (a) they cannot limit it to certain candidates, they must accept all requests within reason, and (b) they can’t limit the free speech (i.e. t-shirt, button) worn by an attendee. But if the event is held by a private group, then they have rented the (otherwise public) hall, they set the rules, and they can limit access and eject people (subject, of course to discrimination against protected class prohibitions). So you can’t bar someone for being black; but if they arrived in a group with a bunch of guys carrying “Black Lives Matter” material, or if you have a T-Shirt of the group, I suspect they can reasonably assume you are part of the same potentially disruptive group and refuse entry. Why they would bar someone with Rubio or Cruz button, makes no sense. these would be the prime targets for “conversion”. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/86 "2016-03-15T17:46:50Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Of course Trump has the right to ask protesters to leave his events. The misleading part (in my opinion – I’m not saying you’re being misleading, I’m saying the overall tone of this thread has the potential to be misleading) is using that fact to imply that it is illegal, immoral, or unethical to attend an event whose message you don’t agree with, or with the intention to speak up in opposition to that message. Both of those things are legal (and morally sound, in my opinion) up until the point where you are asked to leave by the event organizers. Oh. Well, on that we are in agreement. I hope people continue to attend Trump rallies and engage in (civil) protest. I don’t really see where you drew that implication from, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/87 "2016-03-15T18:08:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I don’t really see where you drew that implication from, though. From people like the OP saying things like “If people from rival campaigns could go and jeer at their competitors with impunity, the whole thing would disintegrate into a pointless mess…”. It happens all the time and simply isn’t a problem. There is no mess. No one is guaranteed a wholly supportive audience, and our democracy still works. Dissent is important, and as such there is no law against it. Trespassing is something else altogether. It’s like if we had a thread on whether stealing boats was illegal, and 80% of the responses were “well, if the owner said you could take it, that’s borrowing, it’s not illegal”. It’s technically true, but it’s misleading. Borrowing is not stealing. And protesting and political disagreement are not trespassing. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/88 "2016-03-15T18:27:29Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > IANAL but… Reading through reams of legal summaries, it appears “limited public forum” and all that sort of issue again, only apply to the government and its agents. Yes. But that includes having police or state-school campus officers eject someone for their non-disruptive speech. See, e.g., _Startzell v. City of Philadelphia_, 533 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008). (Note: that’s a traditional public forum case, but lots of other cases explain that limited public forums operate by the same rules on this issue. See, e.g., Liberty & Prosperity 1776 v. Corzine, 720 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D.N.J. 2010).) > [@md2000](#): > > So you can’t bar someone for being black; but if they arrived in a group with a bunch of guys carrying “Black Lives Matter” material, or if you have a T-Shirt of the group, I suspect they can reasonably assume you are part of the same potentially disruptive group and refuse entry. No. “Potentially disruptive” is not disruptive. Here’s _Startzell_ on the matter: > [@](#): > > The right of free speech does not encompass the right to cause disruption, and that is particularly true when those claiming protection of the First Amendment cause actual disruption of an event covered by a permit. The City has an interest in ensuring that a permit-holder can use the permit for the purpose for which it was obtained. This interest necessarily includes the right of police officers to prevent counter-protestors from disrupting or interfering with the message of the permit-holder. Thus, when protestors move from distributing literature and wearing signs to disruption of the permitted activities, the existence of a permit tilts the balance in favor of the permit-holders. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/89 "2016-03-15T19:19:42Z")
That depends. When a private function hires police to assist as “security guards” are they still agents of the state, or simply employees of the function provider? If the former, then the free speech issues apply. If the latter, then the private function rules apply. My experience has been that except for “big events” on open public property (i.e. street parades) the police as security is a private deal with the police personnel themselves; the city simply has a tacit agreement they can use their uniforms to emphasize their authority. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/90 "2016-03-15T22:03:27Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Donald Trump may ask you to leave, but that doesn’t make it illegal to go there in the first place, which is, in my opinion, what the OP is advocating or implying (I’m not sure which). Speaking as the OP, I can guarantee you your opinion is incorrect. > [@DrCube](#): > > Of course Trump has the right to ask protesters to leave his events. The misleading part (in my opinion – I’m not saying you’re being misleading, I’m saying the overall tone of this thread has the potential to be misleading) is using that fact to imply that it is illegal, immoral, or unethical to attend an event whose message you don’t agree with, or with the intention to speak up in opposition to that message. Both of those things are legal (and morally sound, in my opinion) up until the point where you are asked to leave by the event organizers. I think it’s \*not \*morally sound, for the same reason it is illegal to remain there, heckling, after being asked to leave. This is the reason for the law. If a thousand people went to such a rally, and a few at a time piped up, stopping the proceedings cold until they could be ushered out, but they left without resisting arrest, and then when the speaker started up again, the next group started, it’s hard for me to see how this can be considered morally sound if it prevents the speech from ever finishing. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The second statement is true other than the last clause. Prosecution requires entry without permission or a refusal to leave once permission to remain has been withdrawn. You can’t turn somebody into an immediate trespasser by revoking permission; they have to be given a chance to depart voluntarily. Yes, I agree and I should have noted that caveat there, as I have done in many other posts. But people are definitely getting charged with trespassing, including [at the same event](http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/donald-trump-protestor-punch-face/) as the “sucker punch”: > [@](#): > > Two protesters were also arrested and charged with trespassing and resisting arrest unrelated to the incident involving McGraw. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Two things worth noting here: > > (1) Ejecting attendees because of their race or religion is still illegal. So, profiling some young black women as likely protestors and ejecting them based on this suspicion is illegal. > > (2) Some venues constitute limited public forums (for example, the auditorium or stadium of a public college). In those venues, the power to eject people is not plenary. You cannot, for example, eject people for wearing t-shirts with counter-messaging or for handing out flyers–even inside the venue. (1) Agreed. (2) Cite? > [@DrCube](#): > > And yet people who don’t support Hillary, or Cruz, or Sanders still go to their events with no issue. The “disintegration” you predict hasn’t occurred. It hasn’t occurred because we haven’t changed the law to forbid candidates from having hecklers thrown out. On one of these threads, a video was posted showing Sanders doing just that to a Trump fan who was heckling him at his rally. So my point was, if Sanders did not have the power to do that, if no candidates did, it would degenerate as I described. **If**. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/91 "2016-03-15T23:19:53Z")
Yeah, but you said it was the very fact that dissenters attended which caused or would cause that disintegration, not some hypothetical world where it was illegal to ask people to leave. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2016, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/92 "2016-03-15T23:22:27Z")
But you’ve already said that dissenters and potential protesters shouldn’t attend in the first place, to be enforced either morally or legally, so we disagree on the main point anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/93 "2016-03-16T00:16:14Z")
**SlackerInc** , my cite is in post #88. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851/94 "2016-03-16T01:38:12Z")
> [@kurtisokc](#): > > Seriously, political rallies are (and have for some time been) highly choreographed events that are designed to make the candidate look good, and provide some positive sound bites for the 6 o’clock news. Sure, that’s how the candidate wants it to play out. But I don’t see that those attending the meeting are bound to play along. If the candidate wants to hold a meeting confined to his selected, invited supporters, he can do that. But we have evidence upthread that people are admitted to Trump rallies even if they acknowledge when seeking admission that they are not Trump supporters and do not intend to vote for him. You can’t admit a cross-section of the public which you know includes critics or opponents, and then act all outraged if they don’t greet your psychotic clowning with delirious rapture. > [@kurtisokc](#): > > Nothing for me to argue about there. But as to the issue of whether candidates are legally obligated to allow protestors at their rallies, the answer is generally no. Of course, it is fair to judge a candidate on how he exercises his right to exclude protestors, and inciting violence against them is definitely crossing a line. I think we’re in agreeement. If they don’t feel your contributing to the positive atmosphere, they can ask you to leave. They just can’t claim that you are doing something you have agreed not to do, or are not entitled to do. And, obviously, they can’t assert that anyone is justified in hitting you for what you are doing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-law-regarding-protesters-at-political-rallies/748851.md?page=4)