Speech Suppression

I'm guessing "bishen cutter" means: "I didn't hear your question and I'll make absolutely no effort to answer it, but instead, I'll pontificate on my opinion in order to ignore all others". I could be wrong about that.

The First Amendment prohibits government officials from breaking into my house in the middle of the night and hauling me off to be imprisoned or murdered based on what I said, what they thought I said, what they thought I meant by what I said.

I'm no legal scholar, and it doesn't sound like anyone posting on this thread is either.

I don't understand DD's options, particularly the wording of item C.

I'm closer to what billryan said.

As an independent voter I have one question : I have heard that in years past it is notably the same demographic voter wise that always protest rallys and try to disrupt speeches and that group votes only for Democrats. Apparently this even goes back to the sixties? The other question is : When has a large group of Republicans ever protested a Hillary rally?
Do these so called "thugs" that interrupt speeches really think that they will change my mind who I vote for? If they think so then they truly are what they are called by many = thugs.

Why is it almost every time some starts by saying they are an independent voter, they end up attacking a democrat? You then say that someone protesting a republican isn't going to change your vote, from which I infer you were going to vote for the republican, with or without the protest. But you are an independent voter, right?

OK.

"The Constitution forbids the Government from interfering with free political speech, . . ."

Amendment I. 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.
QED

". . . citizens and citizen-groups should also refrain [from interfering with free speech]"

DonDiego is simply stating that people should allow others to express themselves, without interference, . . . especially in a political context.
In any speakers' venue, . . . a theater, a movie house, a lecture hall, a convention hall, a rally, etc. people should comport themselves in a civil manor in treating others - especially those with whom they disagree. Who knows someone might learn something.

DonDiego understands that the Trump Team has come up with a solution for future rallies. The official announcements will identify the events as "Job Fairs", and the protestors will have no interest in showing up.

For the record: DonDiego is puzzled by the prospects of the 2016 General Election. He is not particularly enthusiastic about any candidate. The only thing is is certain of is that The Hillary is one of the most corrupt human beings on the planet and utterly contemptible; he is unlikely to vote for her. n.b. This does not mean DonDiego would interfere with her speaking anywhere.

That is because most Republican can't stomach the term, so they pretend to be independents. In other words, it helps them cope.

Because they are good at rational analysis.

Protestors have interrupted campaign events for every candidate in this race (on both sides)....and its an everyday occurrence for the sitting US president.

You might recall a member of Congress screaming "You Lie! " in the middle of his first state of the union speech. It might be worth noting our president did not respond to that interruption by suggesting the rude person be "taken out on a stretcher."

One might say being the biggest grown-up in the room is an important attribute for someone seeking the most powerful office in the world. To date, Donald Trump hasn't shown he is any better than the lowest scumbag that interrupts him at any event. And neither was George Wallace when he engaged in similar behavior from the campaign trail. You can bet Mr Trump will have about as much success. The general electorate doesn't have much interest in such people running the country.

Some of the protesters, many of whom said they supported Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, said they planned to rush the stage when Trump came out to speak. They didn't get the chance, as Trump called off the rally before even getting to the venue.

The next morning, Trump was mid-speech when a man, later identified by authorities as Thomas Dimassimo of Fairborn, Ohio, jumped a barricade and rushed at Trump. He was able to touch the stage before he was tackled by security officials.

Link


PJ seems to downplay what is happening here.

Item 1.
One Senator shouting "You lie !" does not compare to hundreds of protestors screaming and yelling and fighting and eventually rushing the stage to disrupt a rally.
The Senator's intent was to correct the President. The recent "protestors' " intent was to disrupt the gathering.

Item 2.
pjstroh lies!!! It was not a State of the Union Speech.

Item 3.
The Facts of the Matter:

__On 9 September 2009 The Obama addressed a joint session of Congress concerning his proposed health care insurance reforms, under consideration as HR 3200 "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009".
The Obama stated: "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
Rep. Joe Wilson [R-S.C.] responded: “YOU LIE!”

__Approximately 2 weeks prior to The Obama's speech, the Congressional Research Service [CRS] had concluded that noncitizens who can be considered "resident aliens" under U.S. tax law would have to buy insurance - and unlike immigration laws, the tax code doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.
"Thus, legal permanent residents, and noncitizens and unauthorized aliens who qualify as resident aliens ... would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance."

If DonDiego may summsrize:
_The CRS concluded that unauthorized (i.e. "illegal) aliens would be required to have health insurance under HR3200.
_The Obama said the reforms in HR 3200 would not insure illegal immigrants.
_Representative Wilson exclaimed "You lie !"

But as another Senator once asked: "What difference does it make?"

"By 2014, . . . the Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell 'called for extending Obamacare benefits to DREAM-eligible illegal immigrants.' ”
Ref: National Review
DonDiego surmises, . . . maybe that was the plan all along.