You’re jumping the gun. Assuming a non-violent protester, Trump can only ask them to leave. Security escorts them out. End of story. No arrest. Going to a Trump rally is not a crime. being led out by police is not being arrested.
For people who got arrested, you’d need to look at each individually. Did they refuse to leave, did they resist, did they assault an officer, was their conduct disorderly, ect.
That’s not quite how it works.
“Your couch is ugly.”
“Please leave.”
“No.”
“Officers, please come and arrest these people.”
Refusing to leave is a criminal trespass. Saying that the couch is ugly is not. Refusing to leave is a criminal trespass even if you are being asked to leave merely for insulting the couch.
I am not jumping any gun (ok, I don’t really know what that means, but I can guess)
Did you people ever bother to read the initial post?
That claim is untrue. Happy?
You contradict yourself.
Which of my posts do you believe are contradictory?
Free speech is not always free. Time, place, and manner restrictions have been upheld many times.
Protesters have the same right to free speech as everyone else. No one has the right to free speech on private property against the wishes of the owner. A political rally is held on private property. Those who rented that property for a specified pupose have every right in the world to exclude those who are interfering with that purpose.
Regards,
Shodan
Not necessarily. That right would depend on the rental contract and might still belong to the owner of the property. And whether or not Trump or his minions have the right to ask for protestors to be removed, they do not have the right to “incite to violence”, which is actually a crime in many jurisdictions.
I can’t imagine a political organization renting a venue under a contract that says ‘you have to allow counter-protests on the property’. Or indeed, anyone else - if I rent a reception hall for a gay wedding, I don’t have to allow anti-gay marriage protestors on the premises. Etc.
Regards,
Shodan
This would describe the “Causing a disturbance” law.
I’m not sure I understand where you’re coming from. Rowdy people or people disrupting the enjoyment of others are asked to leave all the time - theatres, sports events, concerts, you name it. In sports events, where audience yell and scream all the time, there are still certain behaviors that can get you tossed. (Swearing and personal insults is one of the quickest) What those limits are, is the discretion of the persons organizing the event and the demands of the event. People screaming when others are trying to hear (outside of the “pause for applause” moments) can get you a warning or instant ejection.
In the case of Trump rallies, the people doing the ejection (except for the bystander punching a protester in the face) are the security hired to keep things orderly. In what world would you presume they do not have the authority of the building owner and the Trump rally organizers?
Probably for the protesters’ own safety, as soon as they act up, they are removed. Leaving someone in the seats to argue with those around him that their favorite politician is XXXXX is a recipe for fistfights or worse, so that person is not welcome.
(Whereas, if it’s just someone talking noisy on their cellphone during a Broadway play, maybe they’d just ask him to shut up the first time…)
What constitutes “private property”? I thought (could of course be wrong) that the rally in Chicago was held at a University of Illinois facility. As a citizen of Illinois, my tax dollars help support this facility. Is it public property or private property? If a rally is held at City Hall are the rules different? Suppose that a state legislature rents a hotel ballroom for an event and pays for it out of state funds. The hotel is private property – does the fact its use is paid for with public dollars make it public property for that event?
I don’t know about the USA - but here in Canada, you could for example rent an area in a public park for, say, your company picnic. While doing so, this is a private event and you have the right to limit attendance and request anyone who is not a valid participant to leave. “Private” I assume by virtual of the rental agreement.
OTOH, if you have a spontaneous gathering and make a speech on the steps of city hall (a “public place”) you cannot limit people walking by on your own say-so, or even with the collusion of the police. They could, however, suggest “troublemakers” move on, and there is a risk that if they don’t, then creating a disturbance is a possible charge. If you act disruptive - yelling, heckling - in a way that could invite a brawl, you are creating a disturbance.
Not everywhere that is paid for by public funds is a “public place”. The students cannot march in and occupy the dean’s office just because the university accepts tax dollars. AFAIK, IANAL, public place refers to somewhere the public is habitually allowed to go - with the proviso that the people owning, running, or renting said public place have the right to exclude anyone, provided it is not discrimination against a protected group.
I believe an actual lawyer can probably weigh in with a clarification - but if you are a public institution - i.e. paid for by taxpayers, agent of government, yada yada - then they must make reasonable accommodation for freedom of speech. This does not mean that students are allowed to shout down the professors in class with impunity; but by the opposite token, the university for example cannot “unreasonably” forbid free speech, enforce religious rules, or anything else the government or its agents cannot do. So they could ask “demonstrations to be kept to the following areas” but (IIRC, a recent situation) requiring a hard-to-get demonstration permit and making the demonstration are tightly time and space limited is “unreasonable”.
No.
John Kerry’s office is paid for with public dollars. Drop by and explain your thoughts on how he’s doing with the China policy.
If a private organization rents it, it becomes their property for the duration of the contract. That is, they gain the right to exclusive access and use. IANAL.
Then the state legislature would control the space. But if it were for a state function, then the laws on what they could prevent or exclude would be different, because the First Amendment applies to governments.
If I rent a pavilion in a state park for a picnic, I can still exclude people who want to harangue me about how meat = murder while I am grilling the bratwurst.
I am entitled to the quiet enjoyment of my property, owned or rented, for the duration of my ownership or rental. That doesn’t mean I have to be quiet - it means that no one can prevent me from doing anything legal on my property, especially if I didn’t invite them.
Regards,
Shodan
Protesters (and the press!) were gassed and beaten but nobody was killed.
I have no problem with rowdies being asked to leave. I don’t even have a problem with them being selectively targeted; that is, anti-rowdies being asked to leave more than pro-rowdies. What I’m getting at is that statements by Trump like “I’d like to punch him in the face” and “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don’t know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization.” "I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.” are highly inflammatory and are definitely not the way to ask for someone to be removed. It is likely more of a recipe for fistfights than allowing the protestor to speak.
Iggy got it but I just want to point out that NPR recently did an article discussing whether police (on-duty or off) working security and removing people who disagree with the candidate but not disruptive may be infringing on 1st Amendment rights. I assume private security doing the same thing is not violating rights.
The 1st Amendment gives you the right to “peaceably” assemble, people causing a disturbance are doing the opposite.
That’s a separate issue. He’s probably coming mighty close to inciting violence, where he could be held accountable. But for incitement, he’d have to advocate specific action (IANAL) like actually telling people “punch that guy”. Otherwise, he’s expressing an opinion.
First amendment limits the government’s ability to limit your free speech (and right of assembly). A political party is a private group, so we’re back to my analogy - like a concert or play, you’re at someone’s private function by invitation (or open invitation). As such, you must follow their rules or be ejected. Police generally in these situations are simply hired to enforce those rules.
This, ( Shawinigan Handshake - Wikipedia ) on the other hand, was at a public park with no attendance restrictions. Thus the protesters could not be “escorted out” or shut up, although the Prime Minister afterwards dealt with some, especially the guy who attacked the prime minister’s hands with his neck and the ground with his teeth.