Pages Menu
TwitterFacebooklogin
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 13, 2016 in Blog, Politics | 4 comments

Should Trump Rallies Be Targeted by Protesters?

 

trump-rally

When might political rallies be legitimate targets of disruption?  If a Ku Klux Klan rally were held in a town square, would it be acceptable for protesters to show up and counter-demonstrate?  Is is permissible for protesters to interrupt the speaker, or to engage in disruptive chants?  Under any circumstances, would it ever be permissible to engage in acts of physical violence, which might include rushing the stage and trying to stop a speaker?

 

Take a look at the photograph above.

When and where do you think it was taken?

Most of you will probably answer — Nazi Germany, sometime during the 1930s.

That time frame is correct.  The photo was taken in 1935.  However, the rally shown in this photo took place at Madison Square Garden, in New York City.  An organization known as the “German-American Bund” used to stage giant rallies there every year, along with an annual parade up and down East 86th Street in the middle of Manhattan.  Thousands of enthusiastic supporters showed up waving American flags while cheering the verbosity of tirades against immigrants, minorities, and liberalism.

Even with the threats posed by Nazi Germany apparent to many, and the prospect of another terrible war looming, American-Nazi rallies were for the most part peaceful.  Few, if any, protesters showed up.  No one was thrown out or arrested for causing a ruckus.  To be fair, no one comprehended the horrors yet to come.  How could they?  These assemblies appeared to be amiable gatherings packed with flag-waving patriots.

One could draw obvious inferences between then and now.  Shredding the Constitution and ignoring international law while embracing authoritarianism was a popular sentiment during the 1930s, even within some mainstream circles, just as those same reactionary ideas are now enjoying a disturbing revival.  Accordingly, the question becomes — when does protesting these ideas and disrupting their rallies become justifiable, if ever?

I’m a big believer in the First Amendment.  All citizens should enjoy rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.  With some consideration given to matters of public safety and slander/libel, the government must never restrict speech or assembly.  Even so-called “hate speech” should be protected.  That’s essential in a free society under the presumption that if the freedoms of any group or a single individual are denied, the rights of everyone become jeopardized.  Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and other fringe groups are entitled to the same rights as anyone.  As the saying goes, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

So, what are we to make of what’s been happening at Donald Trump’s campaign rallies recently, particularly the disturbance in Chicago this past weekend which nearly turned into a riot?  Who’s to blame?

Donald Trump, no matter how objectionable, is clearly entitled to his rights to speech and assembly.  Defending his words and actions, including bombastic oratory inciting others towards acts of violence (“I’d like to punch him in the face,” and “carry them out on stretchers”), is easy when he’s holding his events at private facilities, which have been purposely designed as “closed functions” with their own set of rules and methods of internal security.  We might not like nor approve of what’s going inside the closed doors at a Trump rally.  However, he’s entitled to host such functions without disturbance.

That said, Trump’s campaign event which turned violent last Friday night was held on public property.  The rally took place at the University of Illinois-Chicago, which is a public university.  This becomes a game-changer.  Access cannot be restricted to anyone on public property, particularly college students who attend the school full-time and have every right and reason to be there.  If protesters showed up prior to Trump’s event and took over entire sections of the arena, that’s within their rights.  Moreover, although certain to be construed as rude and inappropriate by some critics, those same protesters have the right to speak their minds during a political event.  This is pretty much analogous to fans from an opposing sports team showing up at an arena packed with the home crowd, and cheering for the other side.  Politics, by its very nature, is a competitive endeavor.

So, when might political rallies be legitimate targets of disruption?  If a Ku Klux Klan rally were held in a town square, would it be acceptable for protesters to show up and counter-demonstrate?  Is it permissible for protesters to interrupt the speaker, or to engage in disruptive chants?  Under any circumstances, would it ever be permissible to engage in acts of physical violence, which might include rushing the stage and trying to stop a speaker?

Let’s take this one step further.  What if a pro-ISIS group were to gather and hold a rally in your city?  Would protesters be justified in trying to disrupt the event?  If so, then why would one set of protesters be any more or less objectionable versus another, given the history of terror and violence propagated by both groups?

These are difficult questions indeed, which deserve answers which are both consistent and entirely non-partisan.  We can’t have one set of rules for those we agree with, and a different set of rules for those we oppose.

Based on what’s known about the events which unfolded in Chicago, I believe the following:

  1. Donald Trump should be permitted to say and/or do whatever he wants, so long as he’s holding a closed event on private property.  His campaign organization should be entitled to do what is deemed as reasonable to maintain security, although they should also be subject to the full legal consequences for any acts of violence against others.  In other words, if a protester gets assaulted, all the assailants should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  If acts of violence are directly incited by Trump and/or his confederates, they should be arrested and prosecuted also.
  2. Any Trump rally held at a public venue of any kind — such as a town square or a public university — becomes an open assembly.  This means protesters should be permitted to attend as free citizens and stand their ground.  Protesters are also entitled to express their rights to engage in free speech, even if that’s deemed by some to be annoying and objectionable to the majority.  This is the risk Trump and his campaign staff must take when they hold events on public property, supported by taxpayers.
  3. No person should ever be permitted to engage in acts of violence, which includes rushing the stage and attacking the speaker, no matter how objectionable the content might be.  Anyone who violates the rights of any speaker should be arrested and prosecuted fully.

Freedom of speech applies equally to everyone — Donald Trump and protesters, alike.

The right to assembly applies equally to everyone — Donald Trump and protesters, alike.

Maintaining civility in a democratic society demands that we better understand, and become willing to defend, the rights of everyone, including our political adversaries.

Once we abandon these fundamental principles, anarchy ensures.  Everyone loses.  The appalling events in Chicago recently should be a dire warning of the dangers that lay ahead should we abdicate our responsibilities as free citizens.

4 Comments

  1. “The rally took place at the University of Illinois-Chicago, which is a public university. This becomes a game changer. Access cannot be restricted to anyone on public property, particularly college students who attend the school full-time and have every right and reason to be there.”

    BINGO.

  2. Legally it is not a “public event”. You need to rethink the article.

  3. Once the secret service is involved, your rights are out the door. How about this, try standing near the president’s podium and shout him down in the name of your free speech rights. Good luck to you on that.

    Lets say there is a professor teaching evolution, so creationists be allowed to stand inside or outside that classroom shouting down the professors lecture in the name of free speech? I am pretty sure you would disagree with that.

    Also, these protestors are taking away the schools right to hold an event. That impedes the right to use the property as the administrators they intended (whether you agree with the event or not). And right of quiet enjoyment.

    I think you like the protestors and looking for a reason to support them. But it is too simple to just state public university so everyone can scream at everyone.

  4. Something tells me these protestors are paid to protest (By who – Who knows?) most likey the same would happily scream FIRE in a packed movie house if the price was right.

    Did you see the pic of the preacher floating around – (A dem) who clocked some dude? lol Crazy times!

    Like – ahhh.. We are all (All humans everywhere around the world) “free to kick a hornets nest'” – but who does this sorta thing?

    You articles are so interesting to read, I can agree with alot – and totally disagree with a lot too. (I’m sure it’s the same for you with my rants..) Live n let live..

    Peace Bro!

    A #podcast on POKER or POLITICS – or both.. if ever you like. Just say it – and it’s happening.

    Crazy times!

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

css.php