HOME | DD
CaciqueCaribe — Hmm. So That's How Chicago Defends Free Speech
#feelthebern #feelthebs #smellthebs #bs2016
Published: 2016-03-12 01:50:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 551; Favourites: 3; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Democracy has hit a new low tonight.For the record, I am not a Trump supporter. However, after tonight's display of rule of the mob, I might start considering it.
It was NOT a peaceful protest and it threatened the security of others assembled at a meeting. That is not what free speech and democracy are about. It was actually a clear example of the opposite, with mob rule stifling free speech and the democratic process.
I wonder what would happen if the same thing was done to a Hillary or a Bernie rally. I bet they wouldn't like it one bit if the shoe was on the other foot.
If this pisses off a middle of the road non-supporter like me, I can't even imagine how Trump supporters across the nation will react to this hostile attack.
Like I said, it's actually making me consider the possibility of throwing my lot with Trump. I guess it depends now on whether the other candidates voice condemnation for what was done tonight.
Bernie's "Move On" crowd were behind this political flash mob, as so many of the people there admitted was the case.
www.ajc.com/news/news/national…
Related content
Comments: 4
Trump has a right to speak, I agree with you about that. And in most cases, using ones freedom of speech to silence another is wrong. I recall back in college that the Conservative groups, like the College Republicans, would always reserve in advance as much of the traditional "free speech areas" of campus as they could, regardless of the number of programs which they intended to sponsor, simply to keep other groups out of those spaces. And the heckler who insists that his freedom of speech entitles him to keep others from speaking is a cliche.
And Trump has certainly angered many with his disparaging comments about just about any minority one can imagine, combined with occasional reluctance to denounce White Supremacists. Making his choice of venues, and open ticketing policy, appear as if he may have been hoping for confrontation to occur. But that is not what it is really about. Because Trump has done more that just disparage various segments of society. In his campaign he has disparaged the right to protest itself. He has disparaged the very rights to Freedom of Speech he claims he lost at The UIC Pavillion.
While Trump's campaign began with his attacks on Mexicans, and just got uglier from there, what happened in Chicago really began when a single Muslim woman went to a rally wearing a shirt which said that she came in peace, and didn't say a word. That silent protester was no threat to Trump's speech. And yet, she was removed. Black journalism students were told to leave, while their White classmates were undisturbed. A group of Black students at Duke planning a silent protest by there mere presence, were ushered out, and actually told to leave their own campus. More recently people have been beaten and removed. Trump himself seems to revel in and encourage violence against protesters. At various times he has expressed the desire to punch someone, and hearkened back to the "old days," when "someone like that would be taken out on stretcher." All the while decrying the "Political Correctness" which encumbers modern society. Just the other day one of Trump's fans struck a protester who was being removed from a rally by security, and later commented that if he came back, they might just have to kill him. Saturday mourning I listened to a Trump fan on the radio insisting that if Trump rented the hall, his supporters are free to hit anyone that isn't supposed to be there. (Another insisted that all of the protesters were illegal immigrants. To which a fellow responded that he was there with a Veterans group to protest Trump. Trump himself called the crowd "thugs." ) All of which creates the fear in society that the violence which Trump has encouraged will be carried into the community by his fans.
The point being that the protest against Trump was not just about his policies in general, but about the fact that he is encouraging violence against protesters. As if The First Amendment is his alone. But the protesters also have Freedom of Speech, and Friday were protesting to protect it. Students were protesting to protect Free Speech for all on their campus. They were protesting against violent responses to protests, and the candidate who encourages it. They don't like to see it on television, and they don't want it spread to their community. So it was not really Trump's speech which they tried to shut down, but his efforts to incite violence. And incitement to violence is not protected speech.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I might not agree with many of your points, and might even find the stretch on a couple of them rather disturbing (just me, mind you), but I will fight tooth and nail anyone and everyone who tries use to the guise of a peaceful protest to organize, synchronize and conduct a hostile occupation of your venue (specially when a few children were in the audience) and let them use violent intimidation bait tactics to create a security threat that brings about the cancellation of your event.
Edit: And the fact that Tump himself hasn't organized an event like that on a Bernie or Hillary rally kinda cancels out (to me) much of the "anti-hate speech" cause of the protesters and reveals their hypocrisy. I saw more hatred and hostility among the "protesters" -many of whom could not or would not voice a single factual base behind their aggressions - than what I've heard coming from Trump himself. And again, for the record, I am not a Trump supporter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your initial post doesn't say you were there. Your reply, which suggests that the use of " violent intimidation bait tactics" (which I am not sure I even understand, except to suggest that the protesters intimidated the Trump fans by "baiting" them into trying to intimidate them) ( "I saw more hatred and hostility among the "protesters" -many of whom could not or would not voice a single factual base behind their aggressions" )suggests claims of direct knowledge of how different people were acting. Are you claiming to have been there? I won't pretend that all of the protesters were angels. But I won't assume that all of the intimidation & violence came from that side either. Plenty of people who were there are happy to say that the crowds were mostly peaceful.
I also read of a man with a child who was frightened by the crowd, outside the Pavilion when they left. But I also know from police reports that the police outside had no warning that the show was going to be cancelled, and had no chance to set up exit paths through the crowd of protesters outside the arena; meaning that people coming out ran into a celebrating crowd of thousands of people. (I did find it odd that all of the people who identified as Trump supporters seemed to come from the same Southwestern suburbs.)
I would certainly separate the issue of the "hostile occupation" from the "violent intimidation tactics," and I don't believe that there was anything in what I said which supported violence, just the opposite. And even the term "hostile occupation" could be broken down. But what I did make pretty clear was the obvious difference between Trump & the other candidates, Democratic & Republican; That Trump has repeatedly advocated no tolerance for, and even physical abuse & violence against protesters. None of the others have done that. Only Trump. So for you to suggest that Trump is somehow the better candidate because his supporters have not tried to shut down a competitors appearance is to totally miss the point. I only hope that your suggestion does not become in the near future the basis of a Trump talking point, designed to encourage his fans to violently break up the events of others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"I only hope that your suggestion does not become in the future the basis of a Trump talking point, designed to encourage his fans to violently break up the events of others"
It is hilarious how what I said is being construed as a suggestion with implied responsibility and yet the open organization and execution of a highly disruptive event is Teflon. I find it even more ridiculous that the attack at the rally is being defended but a retaliatory reaction would be viewed as a "violent break up".
This has truly confirmed for so many how clueless the majority of "protesters" are about the reasons they show up and, worse of all how selectively myopic is their application of laws and ethics.
I think it's time for many of the so-called spontaneous protesters to start covering their faces at these events. The voice of the people is clearly just the voice of the same few. Despite the pro-protester clips the media keeps pushing on us all, the exact same professional agitators are showing up on raw footage over and over again. I even spotted Ayres a few times in the footage a couple of times, directing the easy to manipulate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0