Chicago Trump Rally Cancelled

[Baruch]

I often wonder if a functional democracy is outlined by just a thin line that society chooses to work within.  It's not a particular worry I have about Trump.  It's something that I've wondered about for a few years.  I see a parallel here to Nazi Germany in its beginnings, and I've been wondering about that parallel as I've watched politics become more irrational in recent years.  I always hope it will be contained, but I sense there is a balloon of rage that is on the verge of bursting.  It feels to me like a collective insanity.  There is no single particular cause for the rage.  It's more like a general frustration from losing control of our lives, our government, and our political system.  Our leaders feed on it, and ocean of despair and scapegoats they can point to.  That's why they don't fix it, and are even willing to make it worse.

This is called a psychotic break (nervous breakdown) in individuals.  But it happens in whole societies too.  This is what happened in Germany before 1933.  And any individual, or society, when under enough stress, can breakdown ... it isn't just for Germans or leaders with funny mustaches.

[chill98]

This is not relevant to the right to Freedom of Speech. You are citing policy here. That is the crux of what I am saying here. Freedom of Speech is not U of Chicago rules. I am stating no more, no less than this.

Quote from ACLU:
Some students are surprised to learn that the First Amendment does not protect unlawful conduct even if it’s done to make a political point. This guide provides a brief introduction to your rights in student discipline matters and some tips on navigating your school’s systems.When student protesters occupy buildings or disrupt classes and events, their actions may be punished through the criminal courts (if the conduct constitutes a crime, like trespassing or vandalism) and through the university’s disciplinary system, if university rules were broken.

https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/civil-disobedience-public-universities

Freedom of Speech does have boundaries.   Protesters inside the arena were trespassing, hence their legal removal from Trump and Clinton rally's across the country. 

I am not a student of any university and every university has a right to remove me from their premise' if I do not follow their rules.

[Mermaid]

I never said you did. I extrapolated your position based on past statements. If my extrapolation is false, then explain why. Otherwise, based on the evidence, you agree that feud behavior is a perfectly valid response to someone saying something you don't agree with.

Your extrapolation is false. I am discussing freedom of speech. I do not agree that "feud behavior" is perfectly valid response to someone saying something I do not agree with. I think it's very important that everyone has the ability to freely assemble and speak, which they did. That is in no way condoning any violent behavior or threats.

[Mermaid]

 
Quote from ACLU:
Some students are surprised to learn that the First Amendment does not protect unlawful conduct even if it’s done to make a political point. This guide provides a brief introduction to your rights in student discipline matters and some tips on navigating your school’s systems.When student protesters occupy buildings or disrupt classes and events, their actions may be punished through the criminal courts (if the conduct constitutes a crime, like trespassing or vandalism) and through the university’s disciplinary system, if university rules were broken.

https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/civil-disobedience-public-universities

Freedom of Speech does have boundaries.   Protesters inside the arena were trespassing, hence their legal removal from Trump and Clinton rally's across the country. 

I am not a student of any university and every university has a right to remove me from their premise' if I do not follow their rules.

I am aware that there are boundaries. Never said there weren't any.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Your extrapolation is false. I am discussing freedom of speech. I do not agree that "feud behavior" is perfectly valid response to someone saying something I do not agree with. I think it's very important that everyone has the ability to freely assemble and speak, which they did. That is in no way condoning any violent behavior or threats.

Then why are we arguing? The rally was cancelled because of the threat of violence, which you have now explicitly stated you disagree with.

Your mouth says you're on one side, but your actions say you're on the other. Which is it? Spit it out already!

[Mermaid]

Then why are we arguing? The rally was cancelled because of the threat of violence, which you have now explicitly stated you disagree with.

Your mouth says you're on one side, but your actions say you're on the other. Which is it? Spit it out already!

I think you are misunderstanding me. The threat of violence was wrong. This does not violate anyone's right to freedom of speech. They are separate issues.

[chill98]

I am aware that there are boundaries. Never said there weren't any.

I do not agree that this was a violation of anyone's right to free speech. Nobody was prevented from speaking by law. Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.

So which is it?  Were the protesters wrong or not?  Did they violate both the rules and Trumps Freedom of Speech, and violate the Trump supporters Right of Assembly or not?

It was the protesters actions that caused the cancellation of the event due to safety concerns.

[Mermaid]

So which is it?  Were the protesters wrong or not?  Did they violate both the rules and Trumps Freedom of Speech, and violate the Trump supporters Right of Assembly or not?

It was the protesters actions that caused the cancellation of the event due to safety concerns.

It seems to me that you are attempting to create a false dichotomy here.

The protesters who assembled due to outrage I support.
The protesters who threatened violence were wrong.
Nobody's right to freedom of speech was violated by the cancellation of this rally, either the audience or Trump. The right to freedom of speech prevents government interference. It is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.  That did not occur. What about this is this so hard for you to understand?

[chill98]

It seems to me that you are attempting to create a false dichotomy here.

The protesters who assembled due to outrage I support.
The protesters who threatened violence were wrong.
Nobody's right to freedom of speech was violated by the cancellation of this rally, either the audience or Trump. The right to freedom of speech prevents government interference. It is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.  That did not occur. What about this is this so hard for you to understand?

Its not a false dichotomy. 

Trump was advised there were safety issues because of the protesters.  He did the responsible thing to prevent harm by canceling.  It was the protesters INSIDE the arena that presented the concern for safety. 

Outside the arena, a zone for protesters was created.  Each and every protester inside the arena was there to disrupt the event. Trespassing in other words.  A criminal endeavor negating the argument of 'free speech'.

Edit:  Now you and I are just going around in circles so until a new argument is introduced, I am bowing out.

[Mermaid]

Its not a false dichotomy. 

Trump was advised there were safety issues because of the protesters.  He did the responsible thing to prevent harm by canceling.  It was the protesters INSIDE the arena that presented the concern for safety. 

Outside the arena, a zone for protesters was created.  Each and every protester inside the arena was there to disrupt the event. Trespassing in other words.  A criminal endeavor negating the argument of 'free speech'.

Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship.

That did not happen.

[Mermaid]

And yes, it is a false dichotomy. You asked if the protesters were bad or not.

[Nonsensei]

Donald Trump has gone so far as to offer money for his supporters to assault protesters. I'm not even sure he hasn't broken the law by doing so.

We have numerous examples of Trump whipping his supporters into a frenzy and pointing them at his detractors. Are we really to believe that the protesters are the ones who initiated violence or elevated the situation to a dangerous level? Lets see, furious unemployed blue collar southern religious bigots vs multicultural college kids. Who do you imagine threw the first punch here?

Frankly the whole thing is nothing more than a political maneuver by the trump campaign.

1) Trump spends every other breath, for months, saying the most racist, hateful bullshit he possibly can at any opportunity he is given.
2) Directly incites his supporters to do physical violence to protesters.
3) Holds a massive rally right next to a college campus, sits back and lets the inevitable happen.

Now for a full 24 hours the only candidate in either party that we are hearing about is Trump. He gets free air time, excludes everyone else from the airwaves, and also manages to appear to be a victim. Hes manipulated everyone in order to make himself seem like a big deal. He's used peoples stupidity against themselves and the people arguing in this thread about who was right and who was wrong at the protest are among those people being used.

The thing we should be focusing on is that Trump engineered a dangerous situation so he could cash in and gain the limelight. He took a piss on Americans last night, and we are handing him a big old thank you card in the form of free exclusive media and by indirectly acknowledging that he and his views are of any importance.

[josephpalazzo]

Donald Trump has gone so far as to offer money for his supporters to assault protesters. I'm not even sure he hasn't broken the law by doing so.

We have numerous examples of Trump whipping his supporters into a frenzy and pointing them at his detractors. Are we really to believe that the protesters are the ones who initiated violence or elevated the situation to a dangerous level? Lets see, furious unemployed blue collar southern religious bigots vs multicultural college kids. Who do you imagine threw the first punch here?

Frankly the whole thing is nothing more than a political maneuver by the trump campaign.

1) Trump spends every other breath, for months, saying the most racist, hateful bullshit he possibly can at any opportunity he is given.
2) Directly incites his supporters to do physical violence to protesters.
3) Holds a massive rally right next to a college campus, sits back and lets the inevitable happen.

Now for a full 24 hours the only candidate in either party that we are hearing about is Trump. He gets free air time, excludes everyone else from the airwaves, and also manages to appear to be a victim. Hes manipulated everyone in order to make himself seem like a big deal. He's used peoples stupidity against themselves and the people arguing in this thread about who was right and who was wrong at the protest are among those people being used.

The thing we should be focusing on is that Trump engineered a dangerous situation so he could cash in and gain the limelight. He took a piss on Americans last night, and we are handing him a big old thank you card in the form of free exclusive media and by indirectly acknowledging that he and his views are of any importance.

You're talking about a guy who spent 14 years in the reality show called The Apprentice. He was on the cover page of magazines more than three dozen times. He is a household name, and during those years, he learned every tricks in the books to promote himself and get into the headlines. One thing he's counting on is that his rivals will underestimate, they have at their own peril. This latest event, he has been able to muster it into his own advantage. At this point the only guy who can defeat him is himself, or maybe an act of God... ooops...

[Baruch]

I agree, that people have a right to peaceably assemble and make speeches.  I wish we had a Speaker's Corner like they have in London, where every loon can have their 15 minutes of fame.  Maybe then the Unabomber wouldn't have gotten violent.  But that peaceable assembly has to be done under the local municipal/county/state/national rules for that ... otherwise they are just taking the law into their own hands, and peasants can't do that .... only lords and ladies can do that ;-)

[chill98]

Donald Trump has gone so far as to offer money for his supporters to assault protesters. I'm not even sure he hasn't broken the law by doing so.

Link Please.  It seems to me you are mixing things up.

Now for a full 24 hours the only candidate in either party that we are hearing about is Trump. He gets free air time, excludes everyone else from the airwaves, and also manages to appear to be a victim. Hes manipulated everyone in order to make himself seem like a big deal. He's used peoples stupidity against themselves and the people arguing in this thread about who was right and who was wrong at the protest are among those people being used.

True dat!  And the protesters HANDED it to him.  Idiots. 

The thing we should be focusing on is that Trump engineered a dangerous situation so he could cash in and gain the limelight. He took a piss on Americans last night, and we are handing him a big old thank you card in the form of free exclusive media and by indirectly acknowledging that he and his views are of any importance.

Engineered?  LOL.  Read the facebook posts below.  The Democrats walked right into this one.  If they would have  held a rally SOMEWHERE else, Trump would have been speaking at a half empty arena and the media would have played it as LOOKIE Trumps popularity is falling in the state of Illinois.  Instead, every undecided working class person in Illinois is going to vote for Trump in the primary Tuesday because of the students depriving Trump the venue. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2016/03/donald_trump_comes_to_campus_and_students_fear_for_their_safety.html

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160307/near-west-side/trump-protesters-plan-uic-rally-takeoverour-strength-will-lie-numbers

http://dennismichaellynch.com/highlight-one/chicago-protest-fueled-by-moveon-org-illinois-congressman-gutierrez/

Its kinda interesting to see the connections politically amongst the protesters and organization of the protest vs school policy on protests linked to in an earlier post.

https://www.facebook.com/stoptrumpchicago/timeline?ref=page_internal
https://www.facebook.com/events/1060752830629598/
I already posted info on the colleges rules on interrupting events and code of conduct.