Trump team argues that roughed-up protesters infringed on Trump's 1st amendment rights, not vice versa. They claim that protestors “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies. These people are idiots.

Trump team argues that roughed-up protesters infringed on Trump's 1st amendment rights, not vice versa. They claim that protestors “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies. These people are idiots.
Trump team argues that roughed-up protesters infringed on Trump's 1st amendment rights, not vice ...

Unsurprisingly, the party that loves to tout being "constitutional" and make fun of liberals for playing victims are yet again acting unconstitutionally and saying their feelings were hurt. Classic projection as always from the right.

Ya Hillary for prison made a post about CNN backstabbing Hillary and I'll I said was " Hahaha yes let's keep focusing on the election that happened almost half a year ago. Let's make America great again by living in the past and not moving forward." And they banned me from commenting

I swear no one working with Trump knows how to run anything

Its time to stop pretending there are two equal sides.

There is the intellectually and morally superior side, and then there are the right wingers.

The right hates that we Reddit-browsing and NPR-listening coastal liberal "elites" are the winners in a service-based globalized multicultural society because of our superior intellect and open worldview, and they blame all their failures on minorities and undocumented immigrants. They are seeing how America is increasingly becoming vibrantly diverse, and how non-white people will soon be the majority and losing their privilege terrifies them. All of us liberal intellectuals who base our views on science will continue building robots and putting Trump supporters out of jobs and watch as their racist white communities die out. All of their kids will have to come to the big cities and be exposed to diversity and tolerance and see how much better it is than hate and bigotry that Trump represents. We will also grant citizenship to the tens of millions of undocumented immigrants, and allow more non-white people to come in, further solidifying a progressive diverse America that votes in universal healthcare, socialism, feminism and social justice policies that help everyone and dismantle white power structures that Trump supporters want to preserve.

I've come to realize that much of American history is made up of periods where liberals drag conservatives kicking and screaming into the future, then we try to compromise for a while, then we go back to dragging.

"No, conservatives, we're not going back to England."

"No, conservatives, we're not making George Washington a King."

"No, conservatives, you can't form your own country with blackjack and slaves."

"No, conservatives, you can't keep denying women the right to votes."

"No, conservatives, we're not going back to the way things were before the depression."

"No, conservatives, literacy tests aren't constitutional."

"No, conservatives, you can't deny homosexuals the right to marry."

The names of the parties change from era to era, but it's always been liberals dragging conservatives against their will into a better future. I grew up in one of the in-between eras, where we all thought that compromise was a possibility, but I'm more and more realizing how mistaken I was about that. It's time once again for liberals and progressives to stop being nice and drag our country into the 21st century.

The simple fact of the matter is that conservatives just aren't offering any good ideas any more. What's the compromise between "We need to stop climate change" and "Lol, climate change isn't a real?" Or "Homosexuals should have the right to marry" and "Homosexuals cause hurricanes?" It's like being in a group project with someone who didn't read the book and expecting them to do their share of the work.

Edit: Thanks for the gold kind stranger!

What about all of those "Get over it, he won" posts? It really seems like THEY'RE the ones that don't "get over it."

They seem to know how to run the country into the ground.

The specialest of snowflakes in need of the safest of spaces.

Edit: specialist specialest

What about all of those "Get over it, he won" posts?

Heh. That's what I'm going to tell the next person I hear complaining about Hillary.

I can't believe they're even trying that route. You'd think they'd have gone with the barely more plausible private public space defense.

Claiming only your opinion has the right to be heard is exactly what free speech is not. Even his fascist supporters believe this stupidity. Everyone has a right to their opinion and to be critical of yours. That is free speech. Trump is a pox on democracy.

Thats exactly what I do now. Its great-throwing it right back into their faces. Whenever I criticize the Trump administration and they respond, "but Hillary" I just say, "Trump won-get over it!" There is no reason to talk about Clinton at all-shes not President-He is, and they are going to have to get used to that. I dont recall Obama or his supporters talking about McCain/Romney, or Bush about Gore/Kerry like this (and Bush even lost the popular vote like Trump did-say what you will about him, but a least he wasnt a whiny bitch about that)

You mean "safe spaces"?

Did we really expect the Trump team to have any sense of basic logic?

We are the last bastion of free speech! Don't let Reddit censor you!







Please do not underestimate their intelligence. That only helps them. They are authoritarians, not idiots.

It's just like flying a plane

Sounds exactly like all these altright hate subs on reddit

"Nobody knew flying a plane would be so complicated"

- Trump, probably.

I know. Its like a republican mutant super power to accuse others of what they are currently doing. Also, we need upvote bots too. Lol.

It's his rally. He has a right to eject them if they are disruptive.

They're pretty good at enriching themselves. It's aggravating. These corrupt assholes will always have the support of the Republican base, and a fair number of independents will flip the next time Trump bombs a country or successfully reads a speech.

I really hope America manages to turn herself around before Trump nukes a country to boost his ratings.

They literally don't have that right... these are private rallies....

Everyone has a right to free speech in a public setting. That stops at private events, private buildings, private institutions.

He is actually correct.

My favorites are the ones with Confederate flags telling people to "get over it."

The simple fact of the matter is that conservatives just aren't offering any good ideas any more.

That's pretty much true, but- conservatives are just very bad at putting intellectual rigor behind actual problems that aren't being addressed and occasionally aren't even being stated. Rural areas being left behind economically, a breakdown of a sense of national community and unifying purpose (yes, some people really want that), and in general what's probably best described as anomie.

You also have the problem of what to do with people who would be economically liberal if they turned off Fox News for a few years but who are and always will be socially conservative.

Hate to be "that guy" but first amendment rights do not apply to campaign rallies on private property.

or successfully reads a speech.

It's little things like this that really grinds my gears. The bar is set so damn low for Trump that all he has to do is successfully read the words correctly from a teleprompter and all of a sudden half of the country will be calling him Presidential.

No, I'm sorry, that is not how it works. Maybe if he has 6 months of speeches where he doesn't spew diarrhea from his mouth and stops posting on Twitter for a month or more, then maybe I could concede that he might be turning things around and trying to do his job.

Someone put this fucking comment in a time capsule

Eject certainly. It's the "roughed up" part, along with the incitement of said violence, that's the issue.

The best spaces.

Holy shit nice way to look at it, it really is like one of their most powerful tools of noise making just up and dissolved when they could no longer bray variations on hilliarry.

Doesn't matter how logical it may or may not be, we live in a common law nation and if they win this case it gives them a dangerous precedent that they can use against anyone speaks out against Trump.

No we won't get over the alt right fascist who now go around spewing around their hate.

We will punch them in the face.

No we will not accept bigotry.

No we will not allow a man who raped multiple women to run our country.

No we won't give up our country to Russia.

No we will not get over it.

Were angry, we're mad, and we're coming for you.

Get ready to lose in 2018.

Wait so... CNN makes a non-positive remark about Clinton... and they COMPLAIN about it? Jesus Christ, its almost like they expect everyone else to act as tribal as they do. "HAHA YOU DONT HAVE YOUR MEDIA TO COVER YOUR ASS" no shit assholes, because they have integrity.

Totally agree. Trump spent his money to hold the rally. Those were uninvited guests that wanted to force their opinions on other people.

That's not what America stands for. The fact that you are allowed free speech regardless of how loathsome you or your speech is is why the ACLU has been representing the KKK for years.

But he cries when Berkley decides not to have a pedophilia apologist button pusher speak.

Don't get me wrong. I think Milo or Coulter should be able to speak at colleges so people can see how vapid and stupid their views are. But Trump threatened to withdraw funding from a prestigious university specifically in defense of that creepy douchebag. Now he claims his rallies are safe spaces. Same shit with him at once claiming voter fraud and no fraud when the recounts happened.

The issue seems to be Trump saying "Get them out of here" and the subsequent use of force by the crowd to remove them. It seems more like a "yelling 'fire' in a theater" kind of first amendment question than a "do you have the right to protest at a private event" type of thing.

If you want to have an anti-Trump rally on your property you have that right. A Trump supporter has no right to come to your property to disrupt your rally in an attempt to silence and prevent you from speaking. Disrupting someone else's rally is not a peaceful assembly nor is it petitioning their government in any way. You're not thinking this through. It helps to reverse the roles to understand if they have a point. In this case they do.

"Rural areas being left behind economically"

Only one candidate had a concrete plan to help rural structural unemployment, and she didn't win.

Plus this issue is overblown by the fact that rural white people have way more electoral power and we have a culture that glorifies small town white America. The data shows that urban areas were hit worse than rural areas in the recession, and non-white people fared worse than white people. Fivethirtyeight has done some articles about this if anyone's curious.

It's a rally on private property or even in the case where public property is rented it's equally valid that uninvited disruptions have no place there.

Which is exactly why they presented this logic, aka they are not idiots they are evil. There is a difference and its important.

This is the problem with a growing portion of the left.

You can convince most reasonable people that Nazis/Fascists shouldn't have a platform. Morally, I think most people would believe that you'd be in the right to do so. Nobody wants hate speech. But let's say Timmy next door isn't a fascist/Nazi/whatever, but he agrees with a few political points one of these guys say. A lot of people start thinking of Timmy as a Nazi/etc, and they'll try to quiet his opinion, based off of the morality I proposed initially. Well, then here comes fucking Johnny from down the street. He doesn't agree with the Nazi/etc crowds, but he shares some political views with Timmy, who has recently been associated with the Nazi/etcs. Johnny might now be associated with those fucks, so there might be an attempt to silence HIS opinion, despite his lack of agreement with the original offensive group.

This leads to a world where everyone who disagrees with you belongs to some faction of society that shouldn't be allowed to speak. This is censorship.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, no matter how hateful or backwards that opinion may be. That's the freedom I think many Americans are taking for granted right now. You've got to look at it through the right lens. What happens when YOUR opinion is deemed too offensive? What happens when people decide YOU shouldn't be allowed to voice your beliefs?

One of William Buckley's more notable quotes is that "a conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop..." but i think you are more accurate in describing them as someone being dragged kicking and screaming into the future (crying "No", most likely)

Fascism cannot be allowed to have a platform. When your belief is killing based on skin colour you dont deserve free speech.

"You have been banned from insert any non-liberal sub here"

For eight years, every single thing that went wrong in the USA was Barack Obama's fault. I heard Mitch McConnell stubbed his toe once and exclaimed "Thanks Obama!"

So yea I'm enjoying watching the Republicans flounder.

I don't know if this is a First Amendment type of thing. If a group of people want to have a big rally and talk about silly stuff, that's thier thing, let em have thier rally. If an uninvited guest shows up and starts talking against them, said rally attendents are well within their rights to ask the uninvited to leave.

Now, all that being said, nothing in that equation justifies violence. And even absent said violence, they sure are a bunch of whiney babies when someone brings up a contrary point.

At first, I would have agreed. But now, I lean a bit more towards, they're not so smarticle. Well, many of them.

Fucking genius. Need to remember to say this.

I'm confused, why would they have a right to talk at a private event?

That's not what the 1st Amendment is about ... You can't come into my business or home and say whatever you like.

Alright so here we go. First off, they didn't "break in". The massive majority of protesters buy tickets. They have every right to be there. Second, you have every single right in the world to disrupt it, you also have the obligation to face the consequences of expressing that right. Your first amendment rights are not being taken away, granted, but the protesters do not deserve to be brutalized. Nor do they deserve to have violence incited upon them by the speaker at the rally. All free speech in America is protected except hate speech and speech that incites violence. So, when Trump says that he will pay legal fees for anyone who beats up a protester, he is absolutely inciting violence against those protesters, and is thus waiving his right of having that speech protected by the first amendment. So to recap, protesters buy tickets, that's cool, protesters do their thing and protest, that's cool, Donald Trump says to get them out, that's cool, security escorts them out without harm, everything is cool. However, that isn't the series of events. What actually happens is Trump says get them out of here and offers to pay legal fees for any harm done resulting in a lawsuit, not cool.


From a party that often talks about being so much in favor of "You don't have the right to be not offended, safe spaces are bullshit" y'all mother fuckers sure do like your safe spaces. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that removes your ability to speak freely just because you are on private property, you just are required to face any consequences that come from causing a disturbance should the party that owns or operates the private property decide to render them. You don't get to be protected from non-violent, non-hateful speech. However, should that speech be excessive, the speaker can absolutely ask them to leave solely because they are disturbing the assembly, but again, you do not have the right to incite any violence against those people, which Donald Trump has done repeatedly,


TLDR; get fucked.

And every single time they spoke about their president they made a fantastic to do about mentioning his middle name, because of how arabic-y it sounds, and mis-spelling his name in a variety of cookie cutter school yard ways, i.e. Obummer. They're a trash fire I wouldn't piss on.

This type of logic is typical of the "esist" crowd. Just Unsubscribe and sub to more critical-thinking based political subreddits and you'll have a better time. It's mostly teens in here

Of course they did. That sub caters to the same people T_D does. They aren't interested in discourse unless it affirms what they already have decided must be true no matter what. Kneel before the god emperor or be silenced.

At this point, anyone still in that pool of misery is brainwashed. I don't think most of them are even Americans.

Yes but the charge is that he incited his supporters to forcibly remove them, causing injury. His argument is that he was within his rights to do so, and the case should be thrown out because they were violating his first amendment rights. So far the court has not ruled in his favor. He asked his supporters to remove the protestors. They did so in a violent fashion, as he had indicated in previous rallies. He doesn't want the case to go to the discovery phase because the general tone of his rallies will become the subject of debate.

His lawyers don't actually believe this to be the case. Anyone with any constitutional law training knows that this is a BS defense. It is clearly not a violation of 1st amendment rights.

His lawyers are being paid good money to make this BS argument.

On the other hand...not all progressive ideas are good ideas. There's a certain value in having a critical viewpoint to slow things down sometimes.

Consider that progressive ideas weren't all things we'd agree with. The womens' suffrage movement (good) was linked arm-in-arm with alcohol prohibition (generally bad). Daylight savings time came out of that, too. National parks, good; eugenics bad.

That highly depends on whether the rallies are public or private events. If it was a private event by a private person on his own or borrowed property, he has the right to ban who ever he wants. If somebody comes to my birthday party to insult me I can throw them out, thankfully. A band playing music can do the same thing on a big festival. Sadly the media likes to only put light on those areas in which Trump does not shine very well. I call that unilateral reporting.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I recall conservatives complaining about Obama's eloquence. The line went something like "we don't need a college professor lecturing us on..."

Maybe this is what they want.

"Open to the public" and "private" aren't exclusive. If you stand up in a Chili's and start shouting a bunch of political nonsense, they can kick your ass out too. They're both private, and open to the public, as well.


The protesters were not infringing on his rights, they are not congress or other governing body passing a law to prevent his speech which is usually the basis of precedent setting cases.

They were certainly ejected for being a disruption which seems to be within the rights of trespass law for the event organizers. If they refuse to leave, then they can be arrested for trespass.

Here is a great article on the subject.

So, like how he ran his businesses?

Just stop. Liberals can't comprehend common sense. Only hyperbolic headlines that fit a narrative. Please only speak in deceptive headlines from now on.

Yuppers. Anytime I see someone call themselves a constitutionalist, or otherwise use the constitution to support some bizarre concept, I instantly categorizing them as bumbling idiots who have views that would damage the constitution.

Ironic that people like that usually get the constiution wrong, too.

"No Billijobob, the constitution does not say you can say whatever you want whenever you want with no repercussions, it just says that the government can't censor you. And even then there are some things that you can't say like slander and things to incite violence..."

I wish the left could make this argument, but sectors of it have shown that this is not what they believe either.

I don't go to the alt-right subs. I can only take so much and these days just reading the news brings up a raft of Trump issues. However, I was thinking along these lines, that it sounds just like the Trump supporters.

That's my point. The first amendment doesn't apply here, so they don't have that right. He can ban any type of speech he wants in any budding he had ownership over (renting being temporary ownership), so they have absolutely no right to speak there.

"You know, my brother once told me that nothing someone says before the word 'but' really counts." -Benjen Stark

It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons to willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions

where paragraphs 1 and 2 are

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;

(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

And please don't try to say protesting at a rally during a speech is not disruptive. It's confrontational and begging for hostility.


tl;dr yes if its because of a difference in viewpoints

He's such a victim.

"The right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

-The First Amendment

I think it just means that he's dead inside most of the time.

FOX has alternative integrity, so.

What do you expect from people who think education is worthless and ignorance is a good thing?

Only one candidate had a concrete plan to help rural structural unemployment, and she didn't win.

She thought too highly of people. She believed that they would appreciate and understand the truth and would want to better their lives through education, safer work options and a change toward an economy that would better the lives of future generations as well.

Ironically enough, they wanted the status quo instead.

You're right that he has the right of privacy in a private setting, but it has literally nothing to do with the first amendment of free speech. The first amendment protects ONLY from the government infringing on the rights of speech; these are private citizens, so there is no first amendment issue.

Yes, I want them to have that right. That way in 50 years we can show their pictures in history books as our idiots who fought good change and failed. I want to use them as a warning to all future idiots. I want them to know that we fucked up the anti-integration idiots, the anti-sufferage idiots, the anti-gay marriage idiots, and now the anti-science in general idiots. I want them known and feeling shame for their actions, I want their descendants to know that their ancestors were shitty and that they need to be better than that. Also I want to be able to protest wherever the hell I want so long as it's peaceful. I will vehemently refuse any laws that go against my first amendment rights.

If all you have to do to bar someone from expressing their views is to accuse them of being a fascist, then neither they nor you have freedom of speech. Banning 'fascist' speech, or any other political speech, is probably the quickest possible road to actual fascism.

"rural areas being left behind economically"

This won't be popular, but sometimes people have to move. Oh your old coal town can't sustain the populace anymore, guess what the landscape is littered with ghost towns. I think we should help people move out of these areas and get job training or something, but why prop up unviable areas. I have sympathy with wanting to stay in your home, but why don't we have some sort of domestic refugee program?

People argue wether it's private event or not and if freedom of speech protections apply to protesters.

Even if you hate Trump, the right to assemble is one of the key rights in democracy. Protesters are infringing on the organizers right to speak and all attendees right to listen.

Disrupting an event is effectively silencing speech, and it can't be okay just because that speech is unpopular like Trump or Milo.

It's protected by constitution on a national level for large or small events and we want it to be.

Would it have been fine for white supremacists to interrupt and harass a minority group every time they organized? 100% no.

Well, everybody gets those protections, even unpopular people.

You're absolutely right - the problem is that Trump incited violence by telling the crowd to get them out of there. If it's an open forum, they have the right to enter, and you then have the right to eject them - through legal means, not vigilante mob mentality.

Por que no los dos

It would take more than just retraining. These people own property and structures which would be very difficult to sell at a reasonable price if the whole town just moved away. All the equity someone has spent a lifetime putting into their home (even if it was passed down to them, they put work and money into its maintenance) just vanishes overnight.

It's already starting to happen as these towns lose viability, but it would be disastrous on in individual level if these towns completely disappear.

Anyone with any constitutional law training knows that this is a BS defense.

It's a BS defense until you get enough Supreme Court justices on his side.

I mean, like really when you drop money to rent an area and give a speech, that's your speech time. He's president now so my views would be different that's public money and people can protest, just like they protest at city council meetings. But on the campaign trail....

This sets a precedent that anyone can disagree and just come and just fuck up your event. What if Trump Supporters came and disrupted a climate change conference, would you want them to have that right? I think everyone would agree they have the right to protest outside, but to run inside and just cause disruptions?

It's like that church that protests Soldier's Funerals, they have the right to do that. But they don't have the right to go in the funeral and steal the mic from the priest.

He's not stomping on anyones' First amendment rights. This is a political rally, not an open forum to express one's opinion. You raise $2 million for a rally if that is what you want to do.

Interesting that you think paid private venues are publicly owned. No one is arguing that they can't protest outside on the public sidewalk.

Your distinction is false, invented, and in no way related to law or the costitution. You are wrong. The reason he is holding a rally is 100% irrelevant if it is private, all feel good feelings aside. The first amendment protects your right to freedom from government interference with your right to speak. Private entities always can ban whomever they want, protected classes in some situations aside, which protestors are not. you suggesting that a person who rents a venue for a private event doesn't have the right to select which people can and can't come into said venue?

Bruh lol. This isn't how this works. This is bad and you should feel bad lol.

I just tell them theyre using the wrong flag for the south, it will always be a surrender flag.

People grow out of wanting to party? I have a family, kids, multiple businesses and full time job, and I live to party.

Those seeking suit against Pres. Trump aren't saying him ejecting them was what was wrong, it's that he inciting people to harm them on the way out.

Trump would claim someone interrupting him in conversation is in violation of his right to free speech.

Edit: Because some people don't seem to understand that, while it's private property, if anyone can get a ticket or anyone is allowed in, that doesn't mean you can "knock the crap out of them" when you decide you want them to leave. The plaintiffs' complaint is that Trump escalated the ejection to turn violent. He literally promised to pay legal fees for anyone that would "knock them the hell out"

If you and a bunch of friends go to a Taylor Swift concert and use phones and small speakers to start playing some Kanye really loud, and up on stage Taytay calls for security to remove you, that's fine, it's expected. If she also tell everyone if they beat you up, she'll pay their legal fees, she's accountable.

The argument isn't that the protestors couldn't be ejected or denied entry, the charge against Trump is that he incited violence against them. He had every right to ask his staff not to allow protestors in.

Perhaps we should start saying that to them.

So all I have to do to prevent my political opponents from speaking is to make the baseless claim that they want to commit genocide?

The "Constitution Party" is a party of people that want to do away with the Constitution and make the Bible the law of the land.

It's interesting because I did see it like yesterday... but yeah pretty epic calling out the republicans. Kinda hard to defend a platform you don't actually believe in and has little to no basis in reality


I have a family, kids, multiple businesses and full time job, and I live to party.

I'm sorry but that's just not possible. Do you mean that you occasionally party on the weekend?

When it's a privately rented venue, the patrons are subject to the rules of the venue and renter.