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).
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.
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.
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 Prosecution requires entry without permission or a refusal to leave once permission to remain has been withdrawn.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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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).)
No. “Potentially disruptive” is not disruptive. Here’s Startzell on the matter:
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.
Speaking as the OP, I can guarantee you your opinion is incorrect.
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.
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 as the “sucker punch”:
(1) Agreed.
(2) Cite?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.