Protests in Enclosed areas should be banned

[EverCurious]

That would be their choice yes, and in fact, many social media groups are "violating" freedom of expression. So be it.

 

[Dragonlady]

If I'm not mistaken most airports are state/city owned but run by "private" groups under bidding. I don't think we need a law, merely the airport "managers" need to cite safety concerns and disallow protesting - I don't think the government would, or could, fight it since it is a 100% valid argument - especially since TSA can only control the gates so there's almost no security presence past them, which puts the burden on the local police which cities and states no doubt do not want to pay for.

The EO Trump signed violates the Constitution and that violation is taking place at airports, which are public buildings, whether or not they are publically or privately owned.

People holding green cards, and properly vetted and issued visas are being turned away from entering the US, and in the cases of refugees holding visas, they're being detained upon entry.

Damn skippy people are protesting. Judges are getting out bed to issue injunctions, and lawyers are filing motions from their laptops from airport waiting rooms.

The US is a nation of checks and balances, and of laws. Those laws shutting TrumbleThinSkin down for the moment, but Donnie Boy is too infantile to accept restrictions on his power, and apt to throw a TwitterFit over it all at any moment.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm looking at the protests in JFK Airport. How can this be allowed? It put travelers in danger and it is too easy for a terrorist to mingle withing the crowd and possibly cause a horrendous outcome.

President Trump's next EO should be that the nation's airports be free from demonstrations and should be outside one mile from the airports.

I understand that we have the freedom to protest, but when it poses a threat to the nation's security, federal guidelines should take priority.

Common sense should prevail.

Beginning to sound like the Third Reich

 

[Bob Blaylock]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, if you support an infringement of the Right to such peaceful protests, for common sense reasons, then we must presume you also support infringements on the Rights to the 2nd Amendment allowing common sense to prevail.

Interfering with the rights of others, or with the ability of others to go about their legitimate business, is not peaceful, and therefore not protected by any rational reading of the First Amendment.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Your rights end when they interfere with others

To life, liberty and property? So, when I take my grandson to a pizza restaurant and a man with a side arm comes in, his right to the 2nd A. ought to be infringed?

There is not any right that you or your grandson have, that is violated by the presence of a person carrying a sidearm.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

\No, a compromise could be used in both cases. What we need is another pamphlet like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"... that could even be the preface for making changes in our constitution...

Benjamin Franklin already gave the best answer to the sort of “compromise” that you propose.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.​