True, if a cop is off-duty and not acting with the authority of the police then the government isn’t involved, and the Constitution doesn’t apply.
I’m a government employee and what I do in my job is as a representative of the government. I have to be careful what I do with government resources and on government time. What I do with my own resources on my own time aren’t any different than any other private citizen. It should be no different for a cop.
It is different for a cop, because you have fixed hours of work. A police officer is generally considered to be “in the line of duty” as soon as he begins investigating or preventing a crime, even off shift. I don’t think it changes the analysis here though.
The idea that I can call the police and get someone removed for trespassing is false. We’ve tried that with a certain relative. Other people she would beg for money could not get the cops to help out.
That was the point. What if people disagree with the candidate but are not disruptive? Private security can escort them out but police escorting them out may be a 1st Amendment violation unless asked to remove them by the candidate.
Except it’s not. They have freedom of speech. But our shitty political system allows a public election function to be a private event. So, while they can’t stop you from speaking, they can kick you out.
They effectively limit your political speech without violating your freedom of speech. It’s a fucked up system.
This sort of thing is exactly where civil disobedience is the only recourse.
Since this is GQ, where factual answers are expected, do you have a cite for anything you’ve posted in this thread? 
If you are yelling loud enough to make it difficult for people around you to hear the speech - you are being disruptive. If you aren’t, nobody will notice your point of view.
Why should any election event automatically be “open to the public”, including allowing demonstrators to shout down the candidate? They are put on by private parties, for people who want to come hear the candidate. The only event put on by the government is the voting day polls.
I’m surprised that anyone even thinks they have a right to be disruptive; as I’ve said repeatedly, you can’t do it in a concert or play, you can’t do it during a sitting of the legislature from the gallery, you can’t do in in class at a state university; sure as heck you can’t disrupt a CNN town hall broadcast from the audience. In all cases you should expect to be escorted out quickly. If you resist that, you are assaulting the person doing the escorting and then resisting arrest. Besides, an person sitting in their seat antagonizing the people around them is a brawl waiting to happen, and is best ejected earliest for their own safety too.
it’s an unfortunate thing that seems to have evolved in US politics over the last few decades, that politicians find it necessary to hold their events separate, fenced off from those who object; but in a way, both sides have earned each other. Washington politicians ignored grass roots demands in favour of big business, fueling the anger that is now fueling Trump’s campaign. leftwing demonstrators stirred things at the Republican events with Bush, and right wing agitators drowned out the town halls Obama tried to have in his early days. The spirit of the original Boston Tea Party - masked vandalism as a protest - is alive and well in American politics. Good luck with that, guys.
Except that’s not the point NPR was talking to. You walk into a Trump rally wearing a “Cruz 2016” pin and do nothing else. If the police remove you without Trump asking them to remove you, is that a 1st Amendment violation? That is the question.
But heckling at political meetings is a long-standing tradition of electoral democracy. A political meeting is not a concert or a play or a sitting of the legislature; it’s an occasion at which candidates address electors, seeking to ginger up those electors who already support them and solicit the support of those who don’t. It’s understood that some of the electors whose support is solicited may be reluctant to give it, may in fact support another candidate, and may give the candidate’s speech a critical reception, leading to a certain amount of back and forth between the candidate and the audience.
I would have thought that pretty much part of the compact between the candidates who hold political meetings and the voters who attend them is that, if the voters find themselves unpersuaded, they can make this known.
(Indeed, one of the measure of a candidate is how well he deals with this. Dealing with it by calling on others to assault the awkward audience member is, um, not optimal.)
You can certainly tell them that they must say only the things that please you or you will ask them to leave. “In this house, any references to Forrest Gump, Anita Bryant, or Richard Nixon must be positive; references to Bernie Sanders, firefighters, or lady lawyers must be scornful. You don’t like it, you can get out!”
And trespassing. But yeah, totally. If people from rival campaigns could go and jeer at their competitors with impunity, the whole thing would disintegrate into a pointless mess and there would be no reason to even go to a political rally for anyone but those who enjoy getting into rowdy displays of primate aggression.
Who else would even consider going to a Trump rally? 
ahem Still in GQ.
“They” cannot “effectively limit” anything. All “they” can do is keep people they don’t want present out of their private events. You can stand outside the building and harague the attendees all you want.
A rally - particularly one at the primary stage - is not a “public election function.” It may be open to the public, but it is a private event. Think of it like a grocery store: open to the public, but that invitation may be curtailed by the proprietor for almost any reason.
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.
True. Hence “almost.”
Meant to expand, not contradict. 
You say you can’t tell them to shut up, but yet, that they don’t have the freedom of speech.
As for the “shut up or leave”, these two are irrelevant. The reason you tell them to leave is exactly because you can’t make them shut up.
You could also say to someone, at your house: “stop using the fork with your left hand, or leave”.
Or you could say at your daughter’s future husband: “cut that hair or leave my house”.
Using one completely different thing, to have your way. As a lever (or a form or blackmail, someone might say).
And what is this talk about swearing and assaulting people?
If you do that, wherever you do that, in the street, in party, on television, you could be charged or at least sued.
This has nothing to do with the conversation. But you probably already know that. Just a way to blur things 
.
And I see that some of you suggest that a property owner can take away your freedom of speech. I don’t know what the law is on this, but it sounds preposterous to me. What other freedoms can I property owner take from you? Can he also enslave you? Can he confiscate your belongings?
So, the world, as some of you envision it: The “master”, “boss”, “the guy in charge” commands, whatever he wants. Those beneath him have to obey, no matter what, or get punished. And don’t even thing of complaining, because this can be punishable, too. It’s in the discretion of the “owner” !!!
(the fascism I was talking about, at the beginning of the thread… or, maybe, watching too much BDSM porn; )
I can only assume you did not actually read my posts. To recap: a property owner cannot stifle your right of expression per se, but he can require that you express yourself somewhere other than his property.
Seems like people are talking past each other here. You are 100% correct, but it’s also misleading, in that there is no law against Democrats going to Republican rallies, or Bernie supporters going to Clinton rallies, or any of that. It’s the same as private property. There’s no law against a Democrat coming to my house. However, I can ask them to leave. I’m unsure if I can have a blanket “no Democrat” policy, or if I have to wait for individual Democrats to show up so I can ask them to leave. But either way this doesn’t apply to Trump, who had no such “no Democrat” policy in place for his events.
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. In fact, this sort of thing has been going on since our country was founded. There is only one candidate who incites violence and vows to commit war crimes and that’s the only candidate whose rallies have been plagued by violence this election cycle. Your contention that this is a general problem is wrong. It is a very specific problem. Attending a rival campaign is not an issue. Encouraging your followers to use violence against dissenters is.
We’re not talking past each other. As I already explained, it is irrelevant what Mr. Trump’s existing policy on Democrats is. The key is that he is (generally) free to exclude people once he determines that he does not want them to be present at his rally.
I’m not sure what you think is “misleading” about that statement. There is no law against Democrats attending Trump rallies, but there is a law against remaining on privately controlled property once the property owner or his assignee tells you to leave.
That may be true, but it is irrelevant to the discussion.
You think that is how democracy works? That’s adorable. 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.
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.