You need to defend Trump's freedom of speech even if you don't agree with what he's saying

You need to defend Trump's freedom of speech even if you don't agree with what he's saying

You need to defend his freedom of speech. Even if his policies are divisive you need to allow him to express his views. If you are threatening violence because something he something that angers you then your an authoritarian and you are no different from the two authoritarian parties.
I don't agree with his policies nor do I agree with Hillary,Cruz or Bernie.

If we are a free country we have to let people have freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

People using violence(or the threat of violence) as a means of political coercion is wrong. That is what the authoritarians do.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Threatening violence is illegal.

Freedom of speech is upheld as long as the government stays out of it.

The Amendment states: 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.

Emphasis on the word "Congress".

Has our government acted to curtail Mr. Trump's right to express himself?

That would be an act against (or to protect) freedom of speech.

Those who are behaving badly in response to the bad behavior of Trump and his followers are just paying tit for tat.

What is it the kids say "don't start nuthin, won't be nuthin."

Violence in politics is wrong. But the violence, in this instance, started firmly with Trump and his people. They are the instigators.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Hosea 8:7

a reply to: Grimpachi

So that bans our congress(the public's representatives)from being a theocracy like Iran or ISIL?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I completely agree.

It's also true Trump should allow reporters into his rallies. Keeping them out is stopping their freedom of speech.

a reply to: Gryphon66
I never said the government was censoring Trump.

There are people that are threatening him and telling to drop out or to not speak in public. Clearly violating his freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

a reply to: bucsarg

Good point.

But that is a blight on his resume to become president.

originally posted by: bucsarg
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I completely agree.

It's also true Trump should allow reporters into his rallies. Keeping them out is stopping their freedom of speech.

No presidential candidate allows press to enter rallies. You seriously know nothing about politics. Rallies are for supporters who pay to be there if the press wants to go buy a ticket and by the way some have. Rallies are for supporters press vobfrences are for the press. And supporters can't attend them either.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: Gryphon66
I never said the government was censoring Trump.

There are people that are threatening him and telling to drop out or to not speak in public. Clearly violating his freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

No, it is not. The "freedom of speech" is a guarantee that THE GOVERNMENT will not pass laws to contravene speech.

Our speech is limited by others in a myriad of ways on a daily basis.

a reply to: dragonridr

Anyone see how wrong it is to have a group of people threaten him to drop out or stop speaking in public?

a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL

originally posted by: bucsarg
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I completely agree.

It's also true Trump should allow reporters into his rallies. Keeping them out is stopping their freedom of speech.

That's not really the purpose of a rally. Trump has given almost unheard of amount of access to the press. People are complaining all the time that he gets too much air time. What is he supposed to do? Meanwhile the other front runner in the race has passed 100 days without a press conference, hasn't she?

There are plenty of valid criticisms of Trump; this and the "racist" labeling don't hold much water to me. But oh, how boring it would be if we weren't inflammatory.

I think you need to define defend, to be honest.
I'll support his right.

But I won't be defending his ilk with life and limb though.

originally posted by: dragonridr
No presidential candidate allows press to enter rallies.

I don't think that's completely true, but press attendance is usually low because rallies are generally predictable -- "rah rah team". It's certainly the candidate's prerogative to set access at levels they desire.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I agree.

I even started this thread, though it didn't get much traction.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Trump has every right to speak as he does.

As I have every right to disagree with him, and I do.

But the right to that stops when folks begin to attempt to intimidate, harass, and other wise attempt to block his rights to speak.

I can't say it plainer than that. These people, in their self-righteous fury, are completely missing the point of free speech...

originally posted by: seagull
Trump has every right to speak as he does.

As I have every right to disagree with him, and I do.

But the right to that stops when folks begin to attempt to intimidate, harass, and other wise attempt to block his rights to speak.

I can't say it plainer than that. These people, in their self-righteous fury, are completely missing the point of free speech...

What will you do to these folks who are "trying to shut down free speech" then?

WHat is the appropriate action against someone "trying to silence" someone? To silence them?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't know.

That they're wrong is beyond, to me anyway, dispute.

Funny thing is, I agree with what they're saying, just not in the way they're going about it.

It's intimidation. Or attempted anyway. Seems to me, there should be applicable city, county, state, and federal laws covering this.

How is this any different then the KKK keeping black voters from the polls? Not a great deal. It's a violation of peoples constitutional right to free assembly.

MNSHO, of course.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

John, this may be the most spot oN post of the entire election!!!

I could not agree more. How the majority has thrown this out the door is just typical..

Great thread, thanks for helping me see this from another angle!

S&F!!!

a reply to: seagull

Fair points. (And I don't essentially disagree.)

But that's the tricky part.

Protesters at Trump events were being beaten and abused. (I don't think any reasonable person would contest this.)

That happening repeatedly (and with the goading/approval of Mr. Trump himself) has engendered a counter-action in those people who fundamentally disagree with Trump and his followers approach, i.e. it's okay to kick, sucker-punch, etc.

It is the nature of xenophobic humans to oppose the Other Group and we do so in Ever Increasing Ways.

It's wrong to block a highway. Yes. It's wrong to kick a man being led out of a gathering for speaking his mind.

However, Mr. Trump, as opposed to any other reasonable leader, did not condemn his followers violence, he encouraged it.

He is painfully unfamiliar with the psychology of crowds, and almost everything we see in response is a result of that ignorance.