Do even the most odious among us, including incipient fascists, Trump, have a right to free speech

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Let everybody be heard; the powerful and the powerless, the protesters and the protested, now, always, and forever.

Your free speech is a hill I would die for.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. That's the point of free speech.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. Free speech doesn't extend to yelling fire in a crowded theater or inciting a riot

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. That's the holding of Brandenburg V Ohio.

That's the holding of Brandenburg V Ohio but while placing limits of free speech it never placed limits on speech that merely makes us uncomfortable.

[annabanana]

60. UNCOMFORTABLE??

"Gettem outta here!!".. In the old days we coulda roughed 'em up.

I'm pretty sure that's incitement.

[MuttLikeMe]

64. HE'S TELLING PPL AT HIS RALLIES TO BEAT UP PROTESTORS

How the FUCK is that just "uncomfortable "?

OMG I swear ::headdesk::

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

66. So... Telling his supporters to beat up protesters is merely "making us uncomfortable"?

That's a unique way of looking at things.

[malaise]

97. Until they do and they did

so I don't get the discussion. And Trump has been egging them on...for months.
Now they're attacking people.

[rock]

94. And the point is

That rule applies to everybody and is not dispensed according to whom the speaker is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. You're seriously wrong about that.

The correct quote is that free speech does not extend to the right to *falsely* yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Free speech importantly *does* extent to speech likely to make people angry, and even to speech likely to result in riots (although not to speech that explicitly, as opposed to implicitly, incites riots).

[underpants]

3. The protestors do and they have a right to not be punched in the face

I don't mean directed or questioning you but I suspect we are going to have the "does he have a right to say it" news time killer instead of talking about real issues.

[PoliticAverse]

6. BTW, the person who punched the protestor at the Trump event was arrested. n/t

[underpants]

14. Yeah I know

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017337784

[annabanana]

61. . . . . eventually, after the clip went viral. . .n/t

[noamnety]

76. Exactly - without the video & intervention from the outside world

Drumpf, the rally goers, and the police would ALL have blamed the victim, and celebrated the violence.

[marions ghost]

111. yep

--the assaulter is not going to get away with it -- only because of the video.

[awoke_in_2003]

148. Only because video was released...

and there was an uproar about it. They had no intention to arrest that guy- they were too concerned about tackling and cuffing a black guy.

[WinkyDink]

89. Anti-Trump protestors don't have a right to be violent.

[underpants]

118. Were they in Chicago? They haven't been anywhere else

[WinkyDink]

129. No angels on either side. But without the protestors would there have been any violence?

Democrats better watch what they wish for. Trump is on record as being very pro-choice. Is Cruz? Rubio? Kasich? HAHAHA. No.

Trump is on record as wanting to tax the wealthy more. The others? GMAB here.

There's more to the anti-Trump movement than just grassroots loathing. IMO.

[underpants]

141. Blaming the victims ?

I'm confused about the rest though. The protestors are clearly from the Dem side. Are you implying that they are Repiblican plants?

[octoberlib]

4. So do protestors.

[daleanime]

62. +1

But some how I suspect that that point will be lost on Dumpft's followers, those who aspire to wear white sheets are not known for deep thought.

[WinkyDink]

91. I agree, but protestors don't always "peaceably assemble." Anyway, lest we forget:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/protesters-interrupt-obama-event/

https://www.facebook.com/NBCNews/videos/1144227418930620/

http://www.businessinsider.com/heckler-ejected-from-hillary-clinton-event-2015-7

https://www.rt.com/usa/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/

[Chan790]

5. Sure, and others have the right of free speech to disrupt and shout him down.

Free speech is not a promise of polite discourse, but rather the opposite, a war of words and ideas--including those waged to disrupt the speech of others.

Further, the notion that free speech is legally speech unfettered by opponents is incorrect...it is speech unfettered by the state.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Actually you don't have a right to disrupt and shout-down someone at their event.

Which is why people who do can be forcibly removed.

[Chan790]

16. It's not illegal.

It's just grounds to have you removed. If 200 people showed up and shouted down Trump...he's be powerless to stop it and there would be no legal ramifications of it.

I'm in favor of that disruption. He's a fascist. Also, my understanding was that this was in the public space. He has no rights of removal in that space.

[PoliticAverse]

29. Well "civil disobedience" can be effective even if it is illegal. Whether one can be removed...

from a "public space" is a bit more complicated.

[treestar]

18. but they aren't being removed for what they said

and they are on private property. Out in public they can say anything.

[oberliner]

17. Would you have the same response if right wingers disrupted a Sanders rally in a similar way?

A group of white nationalists start shouting for Trump at a Sanders rally. They rip up Sanders campaign signs and shout in the faces of Bernie supporters causing Sanders to cancel the rally for safety reasons.

Your reaction to such behavior would be the same?

[treestar]

19. I would think so

though you are adding in ripping up signs which might be a crime.

But everything they said - they can't be arrested for that.

[Chan790]

20. Yup.

Or a Clinton rally or a Cruz rally or a Rubio rally.

I do not believe in political niceties that you apparently do. If you want speak of your ideas, you need have the expectation of opposition to those ideas being expressed.

[oberliner]

25. I think candidates for president should be allowed to give speeches

Protestors could make their voices heard outside of where the speech is given and/or hold competing rallies or speeches decrying what the candidates is saying.

Let people hear what everyone has to say/wants to do and then make an informed judgement accordingly.

If white nationalists shut down a Bernie Sanders of Hillary Clinton rally, I would find that to be very alarming.

[X_Digger]

83. You're in favor of bushco 'free speech zones', aren't you? Ick.

Fuck that noise. Public space is public space. It's mine (and yours), not some pol's.

[berningman]

88. I had exactly the same reaction. thank you.

[oberliner]

90. No, of course not

Free speech zones were areas set aside in public places that are used to restrict the ability for American citizens to exercise their right of free speech in the United States by forcing them into these zones.

I am not in any way expressing support for anything like that.

Protestors should be allowed to protest in public spaces. That has nothing to do with the point I am making.

Are you deliberately manipulating what I am writing for some reason?

[X_Digger]

107. Have fun walking it back. We saw it. n/t

[tularetom]

8. Why are you suddenly so concerned about Trumps right to free speech?

Wouldn't have anything to do with who those protestors were supporting, would it?

And by the way, the protestors also have a right to free speech.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I am defending everybody's right to free speech.

My old man contacted malaria and was blinded in one eye during the North African Campaign in WW ll to protect that right.

[HooptieWagon]

123. Protesters were exercising their free speech.

Trumps speech was offensive... strange that you'd defend it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. I would defend anybody's right to be heard.

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”


― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Trumps speech was offensive... strange that you'd defend it.

Strange you want to abridge anybody's freedom of speech, actually it's not.

I don't do enemies of freedom...My old man gave up his eye battling em...Least I can do is call em out on a bulletin board.

[pampango]

9. And who makes the decision as to who has the right, who does not and

what speech is allowed?

We are all dismayed that Trump is giving credence to the racism and xenophobia that traditionally have stayed relatively hidden in the dark corners of our society.

Trump has unwittingly, IMHO, exposed the persistence of those attitudes. Should we control his free speech in order to keep those attitudes confined to our 'dark corners' or trust that 'sunlight' is the best 'disinfectant' in the long run?

[Chemisse]

11. He has the right to say all of that

(with the exception of the incitements to violence).

Ideally he would be shunned for his disgusting comments. What's truly disturbing is that he has an avid audience.

[Iliyah]

26. T-rump will probably become stronger among his supporters as more of hero

Non-violence is the key to sanity. Majority of the protesters were hands off while protesting and I commend them for that. But alas, some protesters were hands on.

[marions ghost]

125. what would it be like if

NOBODY in America objected to what we are seeing?

It's already alarming to people in other countries that we have allowed this to get as far as it has. They know all too well that this fascist Trump thing has the ability to metastasize.

Would you want everybody to cower behind their TV screens while tRump gathers steam?

For every onlooker who likes what they see, there is one who gets off the Trump train after this. Rachel was right--the strongman image failed--tRump didn't look like a hero in the Chicago incident. Looked like a wimp.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. His sentiments are odious and will be rejected in the marketplace of ideas.

[Enrique]

10. Trump gets heard more than anyone else anywhere

the news media are falling all over themselves for "access".

And you are suggesting his free speech is being denied. Absurd.

[peacebird]

13. Yes.

[Hoppy]

21. Not on D.U. --- if your posts criticize St. Hillary the Annointed, you get hidden.

[leftofcool]

24. No they don't

Someone just called her a "homophobe." It was not hidden. I have seen her called many things here on DU. None of them hidden.

[oberliner]

35. Wow - this is preposterous

How can anyone actually believe this?

[Glitterati]

22. Sure he does. So do the protestors.

One never, ever lets a racist spew their racism without pushback.

You confront them, tell them they are NOT allowed to call your neighbor names!

You NEVER, EVER tsk, tsk, tsk and walk away to let them repeat, repeat, repeat their racism because NO ONE CALLED THEM ON IT.

What ever else Donald Trump is, he is first and foremost a RACIST. He made that abundantly clear on the day he announced his candidacy.

Sorry, Donald Trump, I will not stand by silently while you call my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans racist things.

I will stand against racism in every form.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Points

1) Donald Trump is an incipient fascist, and homophobe, racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, anti-semite, and nativist to boot.
2) But even an incipient fascist, homophobe, racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe, anti-semite, and nativist has a right to be heard.
3) Of course, so do the protesters.
4) Let everybody be heard. I believe good will win out.

[treestar]

23. Yes.

For sure it is dangerous. But we can remind ourselves that in the end the highest percentage of people are against Trump and those for him ultimately are a minority of the entire population. They are even a minority of Republicans. Best to know who they are.

[leftofcool]

27. Yes they do.

[DCBob]

30. Yes, and we have the right to protest against those incipient fascists.

Even to the point of shutting down a fascist rally.

Dump the Trump!

[oberliner]

37. Shutting down political rallies is OK?

Is this really the direction we want to go?

[Glitterati]

40. Yes, yes, and yes

As a child of the 60s and the Democratic Convention in Chicago, with scars on my head from the police billy clubs, YES!

Absolutely YES.

It is NEVER OK to stand idly by and watch fascism take hold. NEVER.

We MUST speak up. In any way, any form, and at every opportunity provided to us.

[oberliner]

42. False choice

Shutting down rallies and standing idly by are not the only two choices.

One can organize a massive protest outside every Trump rally. One can organize counter-rallies to go on at the same time as a Trump rally. One can organize a large scale social media campaign designed to discredit the falsehoods being spread at Trump rallies. One can organize marches against fascism in every city and town across the United States.

One can do all of that while still allowing Trump to give his speeches. Not letting him speak at his own rallies is counterproductive. The same tactic could be used against us to prevent Bernie from speaking.

[Glitterati]

49. No, it's not.

The protesters did NOT shut down the rally. Chickenshit TRUMP shut down the rally.

You ALWAYS push back on a bully. ALWAYS.

THIS is what your tsk, tsk, tsking produces:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[oberliner]

51. Obviously it is

The idea that "standing idly by" and attempting to shut down all of Trump's speeches are the only two options is, by its very definition, a false choice.

There are many other things that one can do besides those two options.

Lots of ways to speak out, as I pointed out above, while still letting his speeches go on.

Protest outside. Hold another rally next door at the same time. Spread the truth on social media.

[Glitterati]

53. Tsk, tsk, tsk, behave nicely children

And that got us TRUMP.

No thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Trump will not be president. The better angels of the American people will prevent that.

That being said the antidote to hate speech is not stifling that speech but countering it with love speech.

[Glitterati]

59. Bwahahahahahaha!

Have you ever heard of Hitler?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Yeah, my old man was awarded a Purple Heart for being blinded in one eye and contacting malaria...

Bwahahahahahaha!
Have you ever heard of Hitler?

Yeah , my old man was awarded a Purple Heart for being shot and being blinded in one eye and contacting malaria fighting him and his pal, Mussolini's, armies in North Africa.

Hitler came in power through a putsch ... Trump is unsuccessfully running for pres...


If Hitler would have ran for pres , as a matrilineal Jew, I would have protested his Jew baiting/hating ass but I would not have deprived him of the right to speak.

[Glitterati]

65. Then you need to wake the hell up and recognize this little Hitler

in the making.

NOW is the time. Not after the man is allowed to kill like Hitler did.

NOW.

TODAY.

BEFORE HE GETS THE OPPORTUNITY.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. The people will reject him at the ballot box.

Protest away...

I just don't want to see anybody silenced... Let good speech drown out bad speech.

[Glitterati]

70. And, in the meantime, continue to call him out

displaying the COURAGE to do so, all the while being told to behave by the tsk, tsk, tskers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I don't think I am one of the TSK, TSK ers...

I donned a black arm band went to a Moratorium March in NYC when I was 11 years old.

But free speech is a hill I would die for.

[Glitterati]

73. Yet, throughout this thread you've done EXACTLY that

pffft

[WinkyDink]

109. You do not grasp in the slightest what American democracy is about. Trump has legitimately won

many primaries. Actual citizens, same as your Constitutional right, have voted for him

Who made you or anyone else a Nostradamus?

[Glitterati]

110. Wow, amazing

defending Trump on DU.

What's next?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Agree and disagree.

You should always stand up to bullies. However continuing with the rally would have been logistically impossible. It literally would have turned into a riot.

[Glitterati]

56. Bullshit! You cannot know that. More tsk, tsk, tsk, behave children

You don't stand up to these kinds of people by behaving nicely.

[WinkyDink]

102. Um, shutting down political rallies IS Fascist. And you raise a false comparison. Chicago was a

police riot, officially designated as such by a govt commission. Who were the Fascist politicians whose rallies you would have shut down in 1968?

Oh, that's right; NOT the ones with the convention violence.

P.S. Nixon was elected on my 19th birthday. I remember the political events very well, even if I didn't get clubbed. I wonder what Hillary recalls.

[Glitterati]

105. Chickenshit Trump shut it down, NOT THE PROTESTORS

n/t

[WinkyDink]

108. Do you not even read what you post? "Yes, yes, yes" to the question "Shutting down political rallies

is okay?"

[Glitterati]

113. I know exactly what I said

and I DO believe it is appropriate.

I repeat..........YES, YES, YES.

[WinkyDink]

115. Then your above reply to me is a non sequitur.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. That's where the balance will/should come in.

The Trump(ists) skew older and consequently they are less likely to organize on social media and disrupt events but he has enough young followers to create havoc on our side.

I hope we avoid this spiral into the abyss.

[DCBob]

43. In this case yes.

Trump is dangerous and most people know it.

[oberliner]

45. Make the case without preventing him from speaking at his own events

I don't see why there can't be a massive campaign to spread the word about how dangerous Trump is without having to resort to preventing him from being able to give a speech as a candidate for president.

[DCBob]

46. There is no defending this lunatic.

Protest on.

[oberliner]

52. Agreed

Just defending the idea that even the most odious presidential candidates ought to be allowed to give speeches.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. I can see both sides of the argument...

We don't get to be the civility police and circumscribe the parameters of the debate. But if anybody thinks there isn't an opportunity for blowback they are delusional.

As a partisan practice this is great for us. Few voters will knowingly sign up for four or eight years of chaos.

[MuttLikeMe]

71. Damn right it is

When those "rallies " incite violence and are undercover Nazi/Klan rallies then YES they should be shut down

[oberliner]

92. Undercover Nazi rallies?

Come on now.

[FlatBaroque]

32. Thank you! No one wants to seem to give Trump a platform for him to get his message out

I salute you for fighting for the voiceless. But no free college for his damn kids.

Bemused.

[Enrique]

33. oh I get it now

I just made the connection: a lot of the anti-Trump protesters in Chicago were Bernie supporters, so what happened in Chicago must be made to look like a bad thing.

[oberliner]

38. Not everything needs to be viewed through a Bernie v. Hillary prism

That is less than useful - especially on what is ostensibly a discussion forum.

[Enrique]

95. of course not

but for this particular thread, the Hillary v. Bernie prism helped me understand why this OP was posted.

[m-lekktor]

34. Free speech means the government can't shut you up or arrest you. It has nothing to do with private

citizens protesting private citizens who are running for political office, unless the government tries to shut it down.

[Iliyah]

36. I'm always hearing on the DU about MLK

Great grans and grandparents who were there can assure that non-violence protesters were the key. As a Liberal Democrat, I prefer the peaceful protest.

[JFKDem62]

39. Trump has a right to speak, people have a right to protest.

What went wrong?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. From a purely partisan perspective it's great.

This will NOT redound to his benefit in the long run. He is associated with chaos and that is not a good thing. I am afraid of the precedent it sets though.

[JFKDem62]

47. Trump is treating America like his own reality TV show.

And he is going to milk this latest violence as much as he can.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. His devotees will love it but most Americans don't want four or eight years of chaos./nt

[MuttLikeMe]

74. You seriously underestimate the stupidity of the American ppl

And the anger of white supremacists

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. No and no. I just question their numbers...

Americans will not knowingly vote for chaos, at least not enough of them to swing an election.

Tactically I am glad Trump's noxious speeches are being shut down because it makes him look like a candidate who courts chaos. I just am concerned what happens to the right to peacefully assemble in the process.

[awake]

48. Trump decided not to speak

He was free to speak no police or other official stopped him from speaking!

I am not really sure what you are concerned about, Trump is given much much more free tv time to speak than any candidate in history.

By the way many people on this site lost love ones who fought fascism and would be turning in there grave if they knew how much air time was given to this incipient fascist.

[DCBob]

93. +1

[artyteacher]

54. first amend ment

Government shall not abridge freedom of speech. The protesters were not the government.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. Trump canceled his own rally: his speech his choice

He didn't want people speaking back to him, that's all.

[elehhhhna]

78. That's what he claims but it was CPD and the Secret Service who shut it down

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. CPD shut it down?

Really? I thought they denied that. Is this new information since last night?

[Glitterati]

86. CPD did NOT do so. It was chickenshit Trump

A spokesman for the Chicago Police Department says the agency never recommended that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump cancel his campaign rally in the city.

CPD spokesman Anthony Guglielmi tells The Associated Press that the department never told the Trump campaign there was a security threat at the University of Illinois at Chicago venue. He said the department had sufficient manpower on the scene to handle any situation.

Guglielmi says the university's police department also did not recommend that Trump call off the event. He says the decision was made "independently" by the campaign.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/chicago-police-say-they-advise-canceling-trump-event

[alcibiades_mystery]

96. That's what I thought...In was responding to this previous poster who said CPD shut it down

CPD did no such thing, as I understand it.

[lame54]

68. I can't turn on my tv or go online w/o hearing this windbag...

he has more speech than any of us
and thanks to the complying news ratings whores it's usually free

[salinsky]

80. ^^this^^

[WinkyDink]

101. What a total crock. Do you think we should have a limit to our speech?

[lame54]

106. we already do...

but that's not the point of my reply

Trump has a YUGE arena to speak in
he is the last one to whine about being shut down - because it is not happening
it is an absolutely disingenuous argument and he knows it - too bad you don't

[WinkyDink]

112. No, you weren't speaking of "fire, theatre," blah blah. You were speaking of TIME and AMOUNT.

Are you keeping detailed track of minutes allotted by the MSM?

[lame54]

122. I'm completely lost...

I haven't a clue what you are talking about

[WinkyDink]

133. "He has more speech than any of us." What is "more speech" to mean, in a democracy? Are there

allotments? Has someone calculated his minutes compared to Hillary's or Cruz's? Etc.

All this anti-democracy and anti-Democratic talk saddens, frightens, and exhausts me much more than any Trump rhetoric.

[lame54]

145. then take a nap...

Sounds like you need it

[Hydra]

77. Everyone should, but there's always been that human impulse to shut people up

The Trumps of the world should be free to speak, and so should any and all who object to their words or behaviors.

[noiretextatique]

79. Free speech includes inciting and encouraging violence?

I don't think so. That's why Drumpfenstein is not welcome on Canada.

[IdaBriggs]

82. This is not a Free Speech issue. We are past that.

The speeches have been made. They have been heard.

As Trump explained while accepting the endorsement of a man whose religion he had mocked and likened to a child molester (http://la-kabylie.com/2016/03/12/former-presidential-rival-carson-endorses-trump-in-united/)

"We've had enough debates. Enough debates. How many times do you have to give the same answer to the same questions?"

Time to shut that shit down!

[WinkyDink]

100. I can't beleive how stunningly anti-democracy this post is. Do you think your attitude looks good on

a Republican who wants to "shut ,...down" a Bernie Sanders event?

[IdaBriggs]

130. If Bernie Sanders starts spewing Anti-American hate speech,

I will join them in working to shut him down.

My grandfather fought in WWII. I have friends who lost family in the Holocost. I have neighbor's who are "immigrants" due to wars started by the last administration, which were dependent on hatred and bigotry. Oh, and I am a woman.

If you think, after months of rhetoric from Trump, including initially gleeful acceptance of KKK endorsement, that I have ANY PROBLEM with protesters shutting down hate speech and anti-American rallies, you are mistaken.

I understand the power of the demagogue. Silence becomes approval. We are not going to do another civil war over this grifter.

Trump's message has been heard, and his troops want to march all over the rest of us.

I support the protesters.

[Matrosov]

84. Conservatives have spoken enough

Everybody knows their message: Hate, hate, hate.

You'd hear absolutely no complaints from me if protesters shut down every single Republican event from now until the end of time.

[WinkyDink]

99. That's pretty darn Fascist.

[CoffeeCat]

85. Protesters do not impede free speech

Protesters are also exercising their right to free speech, as well.

If you want to stand on the street corner and shout racist, hateful slurs--I have just as much right to voice my opposition.

In fact, we owe a debt of gratitude to those who spoke up when it came to fighting for women's right to vote, civil rights, worker rights.

History is full of atrocities that happened because people were too afraid to protest or were peer pressured into shutting up for fear of rocking the boat.

We need to support all free speech; especially those who dare to fight against racism, Fascism, violence and those who attempt to divide us.

[WinkyDink]

87. Yes. Everything short of the delineated "incitement to riot".

[raging moderate]

103. I'd rather know what they are thinking.

You never know; they might have a legitimate grievance that they just don't know how to handle or articulate. Maybe somebody is cheating them somehow, and help from the rest of us could win them over. Or some of them. And I'd rather all voices could be heard.

[vdogg]

104. I don't agree with it.

If they shut down one of our rallies we'd be screaming bloody murder. All speech needs to be protected, no matter how vile. That said, Trump decided to shut down the rally, not the protesters. He could've gotten some courage and gone up to speak but instead he cancelled. Not their fault.

[WinkyDink]

114. Trump called it off because of the violence and potential for more. And that prudence makes him a

coward?

But had he gone ahead, he'd be called, here, on this board, a rabble-rouser.

GMA*B.

[vdogg]

147. Are...are you defending Trump?

[TalkingDog]

116. As long as the Government does not try to suppress his speech his Right is intact.

As to whether WE want that rot being spread in our neighborhoods: We have a right to counter his rhetoric.

If it gets messy, that's what happens.

[WinkyDink]

119. "Messy"? Is that you, Donald "Democracy is messy" Rumsfeld? Man, when we start parroting Right-

wingers,......

"Shut it down!"

"We've heard enough!"

"Hitler!"

"Too much speech time!"

Never mind the Constitution; I'm ashamed that Democrats (purported) cannot grasp the self-preservation fact that, while the goose is in power now, the gander might be tomorrow, and then who will be shouted down and whose rallies will be shut down?

[TalkingDog]

126. Give me a list of allowed words (ironic that) and I'll dutifully toe the line.

Didn't realize "messy" was forbidden speech Fuhrer WinkyDink.

To have been on a Democratic board as long as you have, I'm surprised that you don't understand the basic structure of our government.

I'mma let XKCD 'splain it to you

[WinkyDink]

138. It was famously uttered by Rummy; sorry you don't remember. You want IRONY? READ THIS THREAD.

Alleged Democrats demanding that Trump be "shut down." Wondering if he has "too much" speech time. Und so veiter.

Calling ME "Fuhrer"? Bwahahahaha!

You must not be following my posts here, as I am about the lone voice TOTALLY PRO-FREE SPEECH.

Bah.

[TalkingDog]

139. Execpt for hyperspecific words you personally find obejctionable.

So, either apologize to me, or surrender your "totally pro-free speech" crown.

Because you can't have it both ways. Either I'm allowed to use any kind of speech I want, be it: libertarian, right wing, anarchist, left wing, without censure or I am not.

If I am not, then you are an obvious hypocrite.

[TalkingDog]

144. And the expected *crickets*

*chirp*

[WinkyDink]

117. The problem with the OP query is the clairvoyant assumption of the words "incipient Fascist."

[HooptieWagon]

120. The Government didn't shut down his free speech.

The people shut it down with THEIR free speech, because they found his offensive.

[Lint Head]

121. There is always an exception to the rule.

If only Hitler was never heard.

[WinkyDink]

124. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF POLITICAL FREE SPEECH HERE.

[Lint Head]

134. There are exceptions.

Of course we have free speech but only to the point of not calling for people to beat others or shouting fire in a theater when there is no fire as to cause a stampede or death. Or threathen the President of the United States. political speech that incites violence should not be permitted. That's exactly what Hitler did.

All caps? I'm not hard of hearing.

[JustAnotherGen]

128. Agree but I'm going to go dark

I want to know "who" they are so I can prepare for their arrival on my front door step.

[Cleita]

131. Yep. This is why we must endure the likes of Rush Limbaugh on the radio.

The problem is that he has more free speech than say Thom Hartmann who airs at the same time, with no accessible AM station carrying him in my area, nor many across the nation. So I would argue that free speech is more available to some people like Trump and Limbaugh and not so available to the likes of Bernie and Thom.

So unless free speech is available to all, it shouldn't be available to just some. Trump and the other Republicans have been on the news almost 90% of the time the elections are being covered. The Democrats get the other 10%. So shouldn't we be defending their right to equal time for free speech instead of Trumps?

[gwheezie]

132. I don't see this as a 1st amendment issue

The government is not preventing trump from speaking. The government is not stopping his supporters from holding a rally. Trump called off his rally because protesters showed up and when he did, his supporters blamed protesters.
Trump and his supporters can assemble and people can confront them.

[WinkyDink]

136. See, the problem is the word "confront."

[aikoaiko]

135. For once, in a long time, I agree with you.

People should be allowed to assemble and share information within the bounds of law.

There is a difference between protesting outside an event or a temporary interruption and effectively preventing the event from occurring.

[Lizzie Poppet]

137. Yes.

Unless someone's public speech falls into narrowly-defined categories of prohibited speech (incitement to riot, slander, etc.), they must be permitted by anyone who pays more than lip service to the concept of freedom of expression. Sure, counter-protesting, etc., must also be protected...but when the latter actually prevents one side from expressing its views, I can't approve.

Let me risk Godwinning my own comment by saying, "You know who else shouted down the speech of those they disagreed with? The brownshirts, that's who."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

140. I am matrilineally Jewish...

About twenty years ago the Klan wanted to march past the Jewish Community Center in suburban Orlando (Maitland). The community was all aflutter... About ten Klansmen showed up while hundreds of counterprotesters did.

Trump is a bigot. Expose him for that. But don't shut em up because if he can be shut up so can we.

[Lizzie Poppet]

142. Exactly!

Let them air their bile as publicly as possible. It's better when roaches don't get to hide under rocks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. It does make Trump look like the chaos candidate and that's good for us...

That being said , I just don't want to see anybody's right to speak be abridged and I don't want to see anybody got hurt.

[Macattack1]

146. why is this even a question?

didn't everyone learn this in like first grade? Of course a candidate should be allowed to speak, even if what they say is vile....what do we want for a society? Goon squads roaming around looking to shut down political discourse? Any attempt to silence free speech is in itself a fascist tactic...um..no thanks

[liberalfromaustin21]

149. Of course

And we also have the right to call Trump and his cronies a bunch of utter morons.