CDZ Where one's rights begin and end re: the 1st Amendment's guarantees

[320 Years of History]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

So now you think you can determine what tactics they will use? It was a public event. The public was allowed to attend. Even the ones who disagree with trump.

 

[Stratford57]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

, OP.

Pretty darn often where my freedom starts, your freedom may end and vice versa.

What happened on Friday night in Chicago? Over nine thousands of Trump's supporters had to stand in the long line for two hours to be able to listen to theircandidate. While just a few hundreds of hateful thugs basically sh*t on their parade and did their best to make the decent people waste half of their day without accomplishing anything. So, freedom of one side to protest violated freedom of the other side to enjoy their evening with their candidate.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's like the dude who went on t.v. and said that "Trump was not welcome in Chicago".

Who died and left him the keys to the city? Was there not one, single Chicago resident who honestly supports Trump?

I don't agree with Trump either, but I'll defend his right to open his mouth and prove his foolishness.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

, OP.

Pretty darn often where my freedom starts, your freedom may end and vice versa.

What happened on Friday night in Chicago? Over nine thousands of Trump's supporters had to stand in the long line for two hours to be able to listen to theircandidate. While just a few hundreds of hateful thugs basically sh*t on their parade and did their best to make the decent people waste half of their day without accomplishing anything. So, freedom of one side to protest violated freedom of the other side to enjoy their evening with their candidate.

That's the way freedom of speech works.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

When you get right down to it, you have no 1st amendment rights. Almost none, anyway. No rights are unconditional, and when you look at the conditions under which first amendment rights are protected, they're really narrow, and almost always subject to interpretation which, if interpreted in a questionable manner, renders them almost nonexistent.

We are talking about free speech rights here, not freedom of press or religion, so let's limit ourselves to free speech. What are some of the limits?

1- Fighting words. This is where Mr. Trump might get himself in trouble, if he were a poor man.
2- Defamation. Be careful what you say about Bernie Sanders, Trumples, it actually has to be true, you know.
3- Sedition. In wartime, interpretations of your rights are likely to be different, as Eugene Debs and Charles Schenck could tell you, if they weren't dead.
4- Antonin Scalia. The king of judicial sophistry is dead. Long live the next king, whoever they should prove to be. If I had to depend on a Scalia led court to interpret whether my words crossed the line or not, I'd just hang myself and get it over with. Neither the constitution nor the interpreters of the constitution are carved from stone.

What do I believe? Trump is inciting his hateful and fearful followers with his irresponsible rhetoric. Any violence that follows from his hate speech should be laid at his doorstep. Is such hate speech protected? I'd have to say yes, were I on the court. Trump asking only people who agree with him to attend his fascist rallies? Ha! They're held in a public space. He has no right to insist on a loyalty test for attendance. The protesters? What should they do, mutter to themselves? Trump has microphones and a biiiig mouth that would make Ralph Kramden green with envy. They better protest loud and clear, if they want to be heard over the herd noise. I'm not thrilled with the vague goals, aimless strategy or crass tactics of the BLM movement. I think they do a disservice to themselves and whatever the hell cause it is they espouse with their moronic mic-grabbing, but when it comes to Drumpf, it couldn't happen to a more deserving person. He's a dangerous demagogue.

 

[MarathonMike]

Moveon.org and George Soros showed at Trump's Chicago rally to do what Liberals do. Silence the opposition whom they fear. Liberals need spineless Politically Correct complicity from the center and the right in order to maintain power. When a man like Trump appears and inspires the previously quiescent to rise up, it is their worst fear realized.

 

[BULLDOG]

Moveon.org and George Soros showed at Trump's Chicago rally to do what Liberals do. Silence the opposition whom they fear. Liberals need spineless Politically Correct complicity from the center and the right in order to maintain power. When a man like Trump appears and inspires the previously quiescent to rise up, it is their worst fear realized.

The entire company, and George Soros too? Did you get pictures?

 

[320 Years of History]

Moveon.org and George Soros showed at Trump's Chicago rally to do what Liberals do. Silence the opposition whom they fear. Liberals need spineless Politically Correct complicity from the center and the right in order to maintain power. When a man like Trump appears and inspires the previously quiescent to rise up, it is their worst fear realized.

Blessed is the man who, having nothing worth saying, abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the fact.

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm not as wordy as you, that's for sure.

 

[Agit8r]

I would think that the right of free expression extended to the families of fallen soldiers, as they might wish to express their grief without their children's funerals being interrupted.

But our Supreme Court thought otherwise...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Where one's rights begin and end re: the 1st Amendment's guarantees"

What has been occurring at Trump events has nothing to do with the First Amendment or the right to free speech.

The doctrine of free speech and First Amendment jurisprudence apply solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not the relationship between and among private persons and organizations.

One private person cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person.

Consequently, the protesters at Trump events are not 'violating' Trump's right to free speech.

Only government can seek to restrict or preempt speech consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence; and when government overreaches and goes beyond its Constitutional limits, and its actions are invalidated by the courts, then and only then has the right to free speech been violated.

There are no First Amendment 'guarantees' in the context of private society and discourse between and among private persons.

 

[Mac1958]

It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.
.

This is not a constitutional/First Amendment issue, it's a cultural issue.

There is a movement of people in this country who are more than willing to exercise their freedom of expression to stop others from expressing theirs. Worse, they're also more than willing to find legal ways of punishing others for expressing their opinion. It's Constitutional, but it clearly flies in the face of freedom of expression. They don't care.

The two proud, honest liberals in my sig agree. This is a sad time.
.

 

[320 Years of History]

It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.
.

This is not a constitutional/First Amendment issue, it's a cultural issue.

There is a movement of people in this country who are more than willing to exercise their freedom of expression to stop others from expressing theirs. Worse, they're also more than willing to find legal ways of punishing others for expressing their opinion. It's Constitutional, but it clearly flies in the face of freedom of expression. They don't care.

The two proud, honest liberals in my sig agree. This is a sad time.
.

Red:
True, it's not a 1st Amendment issue in an interpretive sense. The SCOTUS has the exclusive say on what the 1st means and doesn't mean, and on what it allows and disallows with regard to individuals' exercise of their rights under the 1st.

It is a 1st Amendment matter in the sense that these protesters are, exercising their right to prohibit another from exercising theirs. Doing that, as the protesters at the Trump events have done, is tantamount to censorship and book burning. In short, it's just very un-American.

It's also a 1st Amendment issue in the sense that the protesters demonstrably showed they don't actually understand and respect the right of freedom of expression as given in the Constitution and as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Their attempts to drown out and disrupt Trump's events imply that the issue is more than that, however. MoveOn.org's (Mrg's) attempts to squelch Trump and his supporters remind me of the 1950s and 1960s era stories about the KKK's acts to silence civil rights activists. The Klan went farther than did the Mrg folks, but the ethos behind their actions is no different: both feel that the rhetoric of those whom they oppose is wrong, and they found themselves fed up with hearing it, and so they took action in an attempt to effect an end to it.

Note to the "peanut gallery":
NO!! I am not comparing Mrg to the KKK. NO!! I am not saying or implying Mrg is like the KKK. I'm identifying one thing both groups share as goes why they feel/felt compelled to do as they did. People, places and things can and sometimes do have things in common, all the while not overall being remotely similar.

P.S.
I have no idea why my chosen acronym for MoveOn.org converted into a smiley....I didn't intend that to happen, it has. Whatever....though it's not what I wanted, it still works as an abbreviation/symbol, and that's all I wanted.

 

[Mac1958]

It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.
.

This is not a constitutional/First Amendment issue, it's a cultural issue.

There is a movement of people in this country who are more than willing to exercise their freedom of expression to stop others from expressing theirs. Worse, they're also more than willing to find legal ways of punishing others for expressing their opinion. It's Constitutional, but it clearly flies in the face of freedom of expression. They don't care.

The two proud, honest liberals in my sig agree. This is a sad time.
.

Red:
True, it's not a 1st Amendment issue in an interpretive sense. The SCOTUS has the exclusive say on what the 1st means and doesn't mean, and on what it allows and disallows with regard to individuals' exercise of their rights under the 1st.

It is a 1st Amendment matter in the sense that these protesters are, exercising their right to prohibit another from exercising theirs. Doing that, as the protesters at the Trump events have done, is tantamount to censorship and book burning. In short, it's just very un-American.

It's also a 1st Amendment issue in the sense that the protesters demonstrably showed they don't actually understand and respect the right of freedom of expression as given in the Constitution and as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Their attempts to drown out and disrupt Trump's events imply that the issue is more than that, however. MoveOn.org's (Mrg) attempts to squelch Trump and his supporters remind me of the 1950s and 1960s era stories about the KKK's acts to silence civil rights activists. The Klan went farther than did the Mrg folks, but the ethos behind their actions is no different: both feel that the rhetoric of those whom they oppose is wrong, and they found themselves fed up with hearing it, and so they took action in an attempt to effect an end to it.

Note to the "peanut gallery":
NO!! I am not comparing Mrg to the KKK. NO!! I am not saying or implying Mrg is like the KKK. I'm identifying one thing both groups share as goes why they feel/felt compelled to do as they did. People, places and things can and sometimes do have things in common, all the while not overall being remotely similar.

Agreed. I think the mistake that people make, however, is arguing against this behavior from a Constitutional perspective. While I don't claim to be a Constitutional expert, I don't believe it could be proven that they're doing anything illegal. They have merely weaponized the Constitution for use against fellow Americans.

I also often wonder what the true goal is. Do these people think they're changing any minds with this behavior? I give them the benefit of the doubt and say no -- surely they're intelligent enough to see they're only making things worse -- so this is not to change minds, it's to punish and intimidate.

Hopefully at some point some cooler heads on both sides will prevail. Until then....
.

 

[320 Years of History]

It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.
.

This is not a constitutional/First Amendment issue, it's a cultural issue.

There is a movement of people in this country who are more than willing to exercise their freedom of expression to stop others from expressing theirs. Worse, they're also more than willing to find legal ways of punishing others for expressing their opinion. It's Constitutional, but it clearly flies in the face of freedom of expression. They don't care.

The two proud, honest liberals in my sig agree. This is a sad time.
.

Red:
True, it's not a 1st Amendment issue in an interpretive sense. The SCOTUS has the exclusive say on what the 1st means and doesn't mean, and on what it allows and disallows with regard to individuals' exercise of their rights under the 1st.

It is a 1st Amendment matter in the sense that these protesters are, exercising their right to prohibit another from exercising theirs. Doing that, as the protesters at the Trump events have done, is tantamount to censorship and book burning. In short, it's just very un-American.

It's also a 1st Amendment issue in the sense that the protesters demonstrably showed they don't actually understand and respect the right of freedom of expression as given in the Constitution and as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Their attempts to drown out and disrupt Trump's events imply that the issue is more than that, however. MoveOn.org's (Mrg) attempts to squelch Trump and his supporters remind me of the 1950s and 1960s era stories about the KKK's acts to silence civil rights activists. The Klan went farther than did the Mrg folks, but the ethos behind their actions is no different: both feel that the rhetoric of those whom they oppose is wrong, and they found themselves fed up with hearing it, and so they took action in an attempt to effect an end to it.

Note to the "peanut gallery":
NO!! I am not comparing Mrg to the KKK. NO!! I am not saying or implying Mrg is like the KKK. I'm identifying one thing both groups share as goes why they feel/felt compelled to do as they did. People, places and things can and sometimes do have things in common, all the while not overall being remotely similar.

Agreed. I think the mistake that people make, however, is arguing against this behavior from a Constitutional perspective. While I don't claim to be a Constitutional expert, I don't believe it could be proven that they're doing anything illegal. They have merely weaponized the Constitution for use against fellow Americans.

I also often wonder what the true goal is. Do these people think they're changing any minds with this behavior? I give them the benefit of the doubt and say no -- surely they're intelligent enough to see they're only making things worse -- so this is not to change minds, it's to punish and intimidate.

Hopefully at some point some cooler heads on both sides will prevail. Until then....
.

Red:
As a practical matter, I think it'd be insanely difficult to prove at trial that the protesters, Trump and Trumpeteers have breached the law with regard to their acts and words being 1st Amendment violations. The SCOTUS has set the bar very high for what one must show to prove that in court.

Blue:
I suspect the goal is much the same as Trump's goal for saying the outlandish things he's said, particularly early in his campaign: to get additional news coverage for their cause. Mrg and Trump are quite media savvy. Both are keenly aware that the more sensational one's words and deeds, the more likely the news networks will report on it.

Trump's reason for doing that is that in large part he's financing his campaign using his own money and, like anyone, he wants to achieve his objectives (interim and final) at the lowest cost possible. The man has billions of dollars at his disposal, but that doesn't mean he wants to spend all of them on ads and the rest of what a run for President costs if he can effectively get all the press he needs by just being sensational. The news industry can't not cover outlandish remarks made by plausibly viable Presidential candidates.

Mrg likely just wanted the publicity, but there's no denying they publicity it got by disrupting Trump events cost less than would have trying to get its message heard by purchasing air time on radio, television, etc.

Note:
Despite conservative claims about "the liberal media" and how it supposedly conspires against conservative candidates and elected officials, were there any merit to those claims, Fox would have been the only network talking about Trump, other than to report his results in the actual primary elections. Trust me, the heads of the major media outlets like NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, ABC, and others absolutely know each other personally. If they wanted to, they could have gotten together and agreed not to cover Trump other than to report his primary election results. They didn't, but as private organizations, they most definitely could have.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

So now you think you can determine what tactics they will use? It was a public event. The public was allowed to attend. Even the ones who disagree with trump.

Actually the person who paid for the venue has the right to allow or not allow anyone they want into said venue

These people don't understand that while they may have the right to free speech, no one is obligated to provide a venue for that speech

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

So now you think you can determine what tactics they will use? It was a public event. The public was allowed to attend. Even the ones who disagree with trump.

To the best of my knowledge, Trump's events are private events. An example of a public event is the Fourth of July concert and fireworks display hosted on the National Mall. That contrasts with, say, the New Year's party I went to last year whereat the host had a somewhat well known band perform and provided a 10 minute fireworks display over a body of water. Sure, people who weren't attending the party could see the fireworks and to some extent hear the band, but that didn't make it a public event.

• Trump Can Keep Any Non-Supporters Out of His Rallies and It’s Perfectly Legal
  
• Crown Complex :: Donald Trump Presidential Rally

Basically, if the host of the event exercises any discretionary control over who can attend/participate in the event, it's a private event. Mr. Trump's campaign rallies may not be as private as his dinner parties, but they are nonetheless private events.

The Mrg folks aren't breaking any laws, but because the events they have been disrupting are private, Trump can have them ejected from it. Compare that with the National Fourth of July celebration which anyone can attend so long as they do not break any laws in the course of doing so.

FWIW...
If you happen to be British and are interpreting the concepts of public and private in the same way the U.K. applies those to to schools, the meanings in the U.S. are exactly the opposite of what they are in the U.K.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm not as wordy as you, that's for sure.

Getting an inch of snow is like winning 10 cents in the lottery.

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm no fan of some of the rhetoric I've heard this election cycle, most especially Mr. Trump's; however, I have to say that I don't agree with one major aspect of the behavior I've seen among some of the candidate's supporters. It seems to me that too many people quite simply do not understand that one odious person's right to express their equally odious ideas is neither superior nor subordinate to another's right to refute those ideas. In equal measure, they each have the right to say what they want to say.

If anyone genuinely believes that Mr. Trump's remarks at his rallies, or on other occasions is wrong, I suggest they move to have him arrested and charged with violating 18 US Code Section 2101, not respond with instigations of their own that aim to deny him his right of expression.

Also, insofar as I know Mr. Trump requires all entrants to his events to pledge to be a Trump supporters before being granted entry, I don't cotton to the protesters appearing at his rallies via subterfuge. I don't at all approve of their lying to gain entry. This isn't a matter for which espionage and prevarication is appropriate. The protesters do not need to be inside the rally event; they need to get the press to cover their protest and air their remarks, but they don't need to be inside the rally venue, and they definitely don't need to disrupt the rally/speech, to make that happen.

"He's rude, vulgar and despicable, so it's okay for me be that way too." How is that a mature way to approach one's dissatisfaction with another adult? That's pure childishness. Plain and simple.

So now you think you can determine what tactics they will use? It was a public event. The public was allowed to attend. Even the ones who disagree with trump.

Actually the person who paid for the venue has the right to allow or not allow anyone they want into said venue

These people don't understand that while they may have the right to free speech, no one is obligated to provide a venue for that speech

As I stated in my earlier post, none of this is written in stone. Change the members of the SC, and poof, your so-called rights vanish. Declare a private institution a "public accommodation" and their right to discriminate vanishes. Should a presidential campaign have the right to discriminate? Should a private club have the right to refuse membership to women? Once upon a time there was no question about this. Now? The firm ground that such private organizations used to stand on has turned to jello. Personally, I say good. Screw them. This is how power is denied to entire groups of people, based solely on their identity. Power to the people is the principle I support, not power to the powerful.

A presidential campaign has the right to make sure everyone who attends their functions is a supporter, merely because they paid a fee? Absurd. And what if someone is uncommitted, and wishes to attend the event in order to help them make up their mind? What if someone enters the event with one position, and then, based on what takes place at the event, changes their mind? Aren't there practical limits to such so-called rights? Are there not important rights on both sides of the equation which need to be balanced? Does the status quo represent a perfection of the underlying principles, or a perversion of them? According to whom, Clarence Thomas or Notorious RBG?

None of this sick garbage should be tolerated. There should be public funding of campaigns, and only public funding of campaigns. This is an exercise of democratic principles, not an infomercial.