In finding a difference between hooligans and protesters I think you are referring to those inside a venue as opposed to those outside of a venue with the former to be labeled "hooligans" who are to be denied the same rights to protest or engage in argumentative political speech as those "protesters" outside the arena. If I recall correctly, there was a negative reaction on Free Republic when this law was proposed as a potentially fascist weapon in the hands of the state.
It seems to me to be a utility in ensuring that the speaker has a chance to speak and even that the audience has a chance to hear. The question is, can the forces that control the venue suppress audience reaction they don't like while favoring audience reaction they do like? Can they shut down boos but encourage cheers? Once they permit the latter must they also permit the former? In other words, because a political candidate controls a venue does that alone imply the power to control all speech? If a speaker reacts with approval to one shout out from the crowd, may he then call on security to remove a heckler? What if the heckler does not leave his seat? What if he does leave his seat, does he become a hooligan?
Not all the hooligans or protesters behaved equally but here is a litany of some of Donald Trump's reactions collected from to left-wing sources but the source is not the issue, rather whether Trump actually uttered the words:
1.Trump, who encourages his supporters to surround and shout down protesters with chants of “USA,” has openly pined for “the old days,” when, he says, noisy demonstrators would be carried out of a political rally on stretchers.
2.“I’d like to punch him in the face,” he told a Las Vegas casino rally crowd last month when one protester was ejected.
3.As protesters have been led away by police or security, Trump has said he wishes he could punch them in the face, or that in the old days protesters went out on a stretcher, or that someone should "knock the crap out of them" and that he would pay legal fees for someone who did. http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470375065/a-campaign-on-the-brink-donald-trump-and-the-intersection-of-outrage-and-violenc and
4. "The audience hit back and that's what we need a little bit more of."
5."Part of the problem ... is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore."
6. the candidate bemoaned the fact that there were no longer "consequences" to protesting and insisted the "country has to toughen up."
7.“You know, part of the problem and part of the reason it takes so long is nobody wants to hurt each other anymore, right?"
8."In the good old days this doesn't happen because they used to treat them very, very rough."
9.“They used to treat them very, very rough, and when they protested once, they would not do it again so easily,” he said, before lamenting "we've become weak."
10."Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court, don't worry about it."
11."If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." He again promised to pay for any legal fees associated with an assault.
12.After a Black Lives Matter activist was kicked, punched and, he said, called the N-word at a campaign event in Birmingham, Alabama, in November, Trump expressed his approval. "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing,"
13."I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will." http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/#tjGh.egBFiqY
We are after all judging the qualities of a man who wants to become the most powerful man in the world and we are entitled to ask ourselves, could he have handled these situations better? Instead of inciting violence as he did, could he have converted the situation into an opportunity to edify the audience and by extension the whole nation on the meaning of the First Amendment? Can we judge Trump because he took the low road? Can we condemn Trump for encouraging the mob, for inciting violence?
Of course we can.
Indeed, we can even observe that Donald Trump inciting tens of thousands against one individual whether defined as protester hooligan, is guilty of inciting the mob, playing to its worst instincts, to falling short of the standards we require of the President of the United States of America. We can judge him unworthy of the office.
