Speech Suppression

Seeing Donald Trumps political rally in Chicago was shut-down yesterday, DonDiego is curious as to how his fellow LVAers feel about suppression of free political speech by public policy groups and political action committees.

What comes closest to your opinion:

__A. All political speech should be permitted without interference from anyone.

__B. All political speech should be permitted without interference from anyone, except for advocates of sedition whom the Government should silence.

__C. The Constitution forbids the Government from interfering with free political speech, and citizens and citizen-groups should also refrain.

__D. Although the Constitution forbids the Government from interfering with free political speech, individuals or citizen groups may engage in counter-speech to prevent someone with whom they disagree from speaking.

__D1 . . . . counter-groups may also use fists, feet, and blunt hand-held weapons.

__D2 . . . . counter-groups may also use sharp hand-held weapons.

__D3 . . . . counter-groups may use handguns to intimidate political speakers and their supporters .

__D4 . . . . counter-groups may use long-guns to intimidate political speakers and their supporters.

__D5 . . . . counter-groups may employ explosives, as needed, to silence the opposition.

__E. Groups with which I agree may do whatever they please; groups with whom I disagree are not permitted to silence the opposition.

__F. Anything goes in Chicago.

__G Might Makes Right.


For the record DonDiego is a strong advocate for C.

DD, we've discussed this issue in the past on this site. Best I can tell, Liberals believe that it's acceptable to make so much noise that the Conservative voices may not be heard.

I don't always agree with what many politicos have to say, but, I will defend their right to have their say in public. I believe that to me a citizen's basic right (freedom of speech) and a citizen's basic responsibility. In the same vein, I will not defend the silencing of a citizen's right to express her opinion in public, no matter what. Keep in mind, that expressions of intent or desire to do harm or damage to another is not an expression of opinion, but a threat, and does not constitute expression of opinion (INHO).

It really isn't that hard:

When a politician speaks, it's free speech.

When supporters cheer, it's free speech.

When protesters boo, it's free speech.

I suppose I feel that if a group think their opinion's supercede others and want to extinguish someone else's right to speak is completely wrong. I absolutely cringe when I hear HC on stage pandering and lying (saying whatever it takes) to the ostriches, er ..followers. I would never dream of anyone trying to limit what she says. EVER.
Everyone should be afforded the same respect.

There are plenty of Liberals who believe that they are free to eliminate the ability of others to communicate freely.

For a guy who repeatedly shows he knows jackshit about pretty much everything, bm certainly thinks he knows an awful lot about liberals.

They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind.

Yet there are thousands of Liberals in Chicago eliminating the right of others to communicate freely. Boiler would never support Conservatives doing so.

Gabby Johnson is right.