Posted on 03/20/2016 2:01:02 PM PDT by drewh
LOL
BTTT
He is correct. Stating a fact is not crying. If Cruz were seen as a threat to the uniparty ruling order his rallies would be disrupted too and I am pretty sure he would comment too. Apparently, Cruz rallies are not seen as a threat to the uniparty.
These protests have nothing to do with the first amendment.
The protesters are violating Trump’s civil rights.
He’s not crying. He’s highlighting the double standard applied to republican candidates and specifically himself. We’ve only been discussing this very point on this forum since its inception. I know it’s a task, but try to see through your bias.
So you say.
I sued someone for violating my First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly and won in Federal Court.
This person was not a member of Congress.
And again Congress can't pass any laws against peaceful assembly. The first amendment is about what Congress can't do. Protestors can be arrested for non-peaceful assembly but can't deny anyone's constitutional right peaceful assembly.
I think that in legal terms, the argument would rest on the terms and conditions of entry to a Trump rally. Freedom of association would come into play more than freedom of speech. It is really freedom of association that the protesters attempt to deny other citizens when they disrupt a rally.
Now if the rally is free to all comers and there are no tickets or conditions, then what any given person does in the event is pretty much up to their free will and if they break a law (let’s say by robbing or assaulting somebody) then that has nothing much to do with the Trump organization and its rights. However, if the Trump people sell tickets for a nominal fee and attach conditions such as the undertaking to maintain peace and good order, then protesters who break those terms are in breach of a legal contract or else perhaps they gained unauthorized entry.
As to disruptions outside rallies of any candidate on the public streets and spaces, that is a matter for the police to determine appropriate levels of response and proactive security. I imagine that in the real world this is done in consultation with event organizers but it could be done entirely independently too. If a clump of protesters were trying to block access to walkways into a stadium or parking lots, then this would not really require much contact with event organizers, the solution readily suggests itself.
I haven’t been to a Trump rally but some television coverage suggests to me that he tends to spend a bit too much time in the “watch what those guys are doing” mode which might become a bit tedious after a while when all those guys are doing is milling around with a few signs almost out of view. But of course it’s his call what to do at his events. I would advise him to recognize that media coverage of rallies tends to focus on short clips for news and analysis shows, and you need to have sound bites of policy available to reach swing voters who wouldn’t probably consider attending events.
Trump can only lose to Hillary Clinton if he fails to communicate basic policy alternatives. So that’s all he really should be trying to do at this point. Saying that he doesn’t appreciate the efforts of radical leftists to disrupt his events will probably not change the votes of even one per cent of the electorate — they have already crossed that bridge at some point in one direction or the other.
That roadblock should have been taken care of in 15 minutes. Get a pumper in there and a hose and get the job done.
Wrong. Constitutional rights are for each individual. Congress can not make a law abridging any rights defined. I person or entity can violate an individual’s constitutional, God given, rights.
The Donald says he wants to gut the first amendment protection of the press so he can sue them for libel. Hard to complain that his rights are now being violated.
Sad Rat with his Sad Rant!
Incorrect. He wants to tighten the libel laws for public figures. Right now, anyone with a blog can outright lie and defame your character, especially a public figure without any threat of recourse.
Thanks for the verification that these ‘protesters’ are breaking the law.
I am livid that the MSM, GOPe, other candidates, left - everyone but us voters - are not blaming these thugs.
Because of this, I will only vote for Trump, even if i end up writing him in. All others are siding with the left.
That’s a constitutional protection though, just as is his right to speak publicly.
Second time. America got tired of them around 1980, also. They're just bringing their kids and grandkids along for the ride this time around.
America's getting tired of them right about now, too.
Libel is not protected. It’s against the law and has been successfully prossecuted.
I like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.