That's not an argument. These things are private events, held inside venues paid for by trump. If you are in there protesting, it's not a free speech issue, you are trespassing.
The guy is running for president and is a public figure and the public was invited. There are police there and Secret Service. It's not a private party. Public authorities are there for security, not to toss heckler's. Trump's brown shirts have to do that.
Neither is it correct. Fail. I'm right. In fact those VERY things were mentioned on the news and I thought about what I'd posted. Well "inducing panic" rather than inciting but essentially the same thing. On the other part of my comment, in 2012, H.R. 347, a federal law dealing with protest, was amended to make it a crime to 'disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions' in areas where the Secret Service is providing protection. I rest my case, bitch.
Well, according to your own article. "Some say those existing provisions made protests illegal at political events where the Secret Service is protecting a candidate for office. Our understanding is that this is incorrect. The law applies only to "cordoned off" areas or where a restriction is posted and where the general public has been cleared from. Additionally, it is unlikely the courts would uphold a restriction on access based on a political viewpoint."
Protesters are free to assemble outside of the venue and yell and scream all they want. They are free to hold signs inside the building but when they deliberately interfere with the right of free speech from the candidate or the right to hear of the people who came to hear then they should be ejected from the building. Whether or not it was an event that charged to get in. If if was a free concert by some band instead of a political speech they would have been ejected. If legally an event has to charge admission in order for those who interfere to be ejected or arrested maybe Trump should just charge everybody a dime just to make a paid event.
It's not that complicated. If you are causing trouble, you are no longer welcome, and you are then trespassing if you don't leave.
This is only slightly less intelligent than using Wikipedia as a source. "Inducing panic" has a very specific legal meaning and what you're using it for is a stretch. There was no riot. No one was hurt or killed in a panic. There was no evacuation of a public place. There was no threat of violence from the protesters. There was no report of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe from the protesters. It's wishful thinking. I'm so pleased that you provided the link. Did you even read it? I ask only because it contradicts your claim. This change was made to specifically add the White House and Vice President's residence to the list of restricted places. No restriction is posted and the general public was invited, thus HR 347 does not apply here. Protesting is not illegal and as long as protesters do not inflict bodily harm and/or incite mass panic, cause a riot, etc. they are breaking no laws. The moral of the story here is to actually read the information you post to support your argument to ensure that it actually does support your argument. Now, I'll leave you to respond in the only manner with which people who have nothing intelligent to say know how to respond: by calling me names.
