Where Should Pro-Speech Sympathies Lie When Protesters Shut Down Trump?

Listen to Matt Welch, Michael Moynihan, Greg Lukianoff and Jeffrey Blehar on Sirius XM Insight channel 121 at Noon ET

CNN

As happens sporadically, the SiriusXM Insight channel (121 on your satellite dial) is letting libertarians run amok all week between noon at 1 p.m. ET, otherwise known as the Insight Hour. I will be the host for these eventful five days, surfing through the choppy waves of campaign season with the likes of Kyle Smith, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Liz Mair, Gustavo Arellano, Kmele Foster, and more.

Today's episode will be focused on various angles to the same question: When anti-speech protesters apply a heckler's veto to an anti-speech speaker, who should you root hardest against, and how do you sort through the various free speech/First Amendment claims? Joining in that quest will be beloved ex-Reasoner Michael C. Moynihan for the duration of the show, plus Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President Greg Lukianoff, and Decision Desk HQ's Jeffrey Blehar, who was at the contentious Donald Trump rally in Chicago. Please call in at 877-974-7487 to join the conversation.

Some Reason commentary on the Trump/protesters/speech question from Nick Gillespie, Ed Krayewski, and Robby Soave.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

Why do you do this, Welch. YOU KNOW NONE OF US HAVE THAT CHANNEL.

[Citizen X]

To ask is to answer, Eugene.

[AlmightyJB]

Are you sirius?

[Rufus The Monocled Derp Slayer]

I have the channel but in the car and I'll be damned if I'm gonna go in a cold car in my underwear.

[Pope Jimbo]

So ditching the underwear then? Just asking, but won't that make the car colder?

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

Siriusly, it would be great if these were recorded and available for download. Not all of us can listen to Sirius radio at noon on a weekday.

Sure, I can waste my time in this shithole, but putting on some headphones for an hour is going a bit too far.

[Millennial Hipster Vanguard]

Shit hole? My home this is!

[AlmightyJB]

Obviously people are and should be allowed to protest. Trump has control of the speaker sysrem. He can be heard. Now if these are private events ie held on non-public property and not paid for with public monies, who can be on that property is under the control of the property owner or lesee if that is the argreement. You can still protest on public property outside of the event if that is the case. If you refuse to leave private property you can be forcefully remove in a "reasonable" manner. Even in a public event, intimidation, threats, physical force is not acceptable from either side.

[Zeb]

I think that about covers it.

[pronomian]

Yes, protesting should be allowed, but it's not protesting per se when you specifically go to disrupt. If anyone is yelling in my face, or shouting obscenities to my wife or in front of my children I would feel threatened. I would tell them once to back off. Then I hope I would be man enough to make them back off if they were to continue to do what I believe was a threat to my wife and/or children. Maybe trump should give them all a participation trophy.

[Jackand Ace]

My suggestion Matt is that you try to remember all the cover Reason gave to Tea Partiers when at town hall meetings they not only heckled, but shouted down and threatened speakers, and eventually achieved cancellation of these events. At no time that I can find did Reason even suggest free speech was threatened.

In the past few days I posted a number of links where articles in Reason suggested those protests were in fact free speech itself. Here is another that suggests nothing but nuance to these disruptions, this time from Walker.

http://reason.com/archives/200.....-mosh-pits

At least try to be consistent rather than selective.

[Citizen X]

Don't you have some cankles to lick?

[WTF]

So, Joe the midget is in favor of shutting down speech he disagrees with. Shocked, I am.

[Jackand Ace]

Here is the quote from Walker, Matt, you may want to pay attention to:

"It's entertaining to watch the same people who spent the Bush years smearing the antiwar movement as "on the other side" suddenly rediscovering the virtues of noisy protest. But at least they're moving in the right direction, no matter how haphazardly or hypocritically."

The right direction he is referring to is noisy protest. The warning he is sounding is don't be hypocritical when the other side uses it.

You may not want to be hypocritical.

[WTF]

I guess you think you are actually making some kind of coherent point. I bet you want cake.

[Jerryskids]

Where Should Pro-Speech Sympathies Lie When Protesters Shut Down Trump?

The same place they lie when any other anti-free speech speaker gets his free speech rights trampled on - on the floor, laughing their ass off. "Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."

[A Bloat of Rhywuns]

Yes but Trump is literally worse than Hitler so we must question all our assumptions.

[Fist of Etiquette]

First they came for Trump's hyperbole and we said nothing because holy fuck Trump is running for president.

[Just say Nikki]

This.

[Drake]

This Fall should be fun.

[Zeb]

I'm inclined to tell all of the people involved to get a fucking life. I can't think of any worse ways to spend your time and effort than either attending a Trump rally or protesting a Trump rally.

[Rufus The Monocled Derp Slayer]

Precisely.

I fall in the category of 'even' if you're free to protest that comes with certain risks. If you're gonna go protest a Hell's Angels gathering, for example, you can't act surprised when they knock you around a bit.

[See Double You]

For some, politics is the meaning of life. And those people are miserable.

[Antisocialist]

If your future well-being relies on government paying your student loan debt, you'd want to make sure the one candidate against the idea gets painted as Hitler The Sequel.

[straffinrun]

I'll be there with veins popping out of my temples and foam around the mouth. We've got to protest all this hate.

[SugarFree]

Zeb has the correct perspective.

[John]

I totally agree Zeb. We live in a society where it is easier to get your message out than probably any time in history. What is the point of showing up at a political rally of someone you hate? You are not going to convert anyone there. Your protest isn't going to convert anyone to your side. At best it is a pointless waste of time and at worst an assault on the other side's right to be heard.

[Zeb]

Especially in this situation. Do they not realize that their antics at the rallys will do nothing but rile up the Trump supporters more? No one there is going to hear them and say "gosh, Trump is racist? I guess I'd better find another candidate".

[thom]

This. It's strange to me that "political rallies" are events that still exist and that people still attend them. People are constantly complaining about how short their day is and THIS is how they choose to spend their scarce time?

[SIV]

Why do people go to live music shows?

[thom]

Yeah, I mean, to each their own I guess. But you're right, these people could be at a concert, or sporting event, or play, and instead choose to attend a political rally. That's really sad to me, but as I said, to each their own...

[SIV]

Or sporting events?

[SIV]

Or plays?

[Zeb]

Or church? I'm going to say that is a better analogy to political rallies than pure entertainment events.

[You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)]

That was my exact reaction. It's sad to me that thousands of people thought this was the best way to spend a Friday night in early spring (well, almost spring).

[pronomian]

Or protesting a trump rally by going to a trump rally.

[Eric]

Wait. Did the government attempt to shut anyone's "free speech" down? No? Then move on.

[John]

So your only measure of freedom is whether the government is involved? By your logic, if we lived in a society where being openly gay caused you to get fired from your job and risk getting beat up, that situation would in no way mean the society was not free, provided the government fairly prosecuted the people who engaged in gay bashing?

Sorry, there is more to freedom than the government being off your back.

[Cyto]

Yeah, being "not a first amendment issue" is not the same thing as not being a free speech issue.

If I go to a synagogue and loudly disrupt the rabbi every time he speaks, it isn't a first amendment issue, but that doesn't mean I haven't done something that harms freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If a group of fundamentalist Christians were to take up this charge and organize disruptions of Jewish services, I would fully expect the government to intervene in order to protect the rights of the Jewish citizens.

This is the identical situation, except it is politics instead of religion. (as if there is much of a difference)

[Eric]

Cyto. What you are arguing for are called positive rights. They "feel" really good. But generally, they are achieved by stepping on the negative rights of someone else. I shouldn't have to libsplain this to you.

[Cyto]

Not even remotely true. Your right to shout "I'm a macaroni" doesn't trump my right to have a conversation with Gilmore. Gilmore and I could enforce our right to peaceably assemble by punching you in the mouth, or more productively we could negotiate a truce directly. With the existence of the state, we have an independent third party to enforce "public order". This is the geneses of disorderly conduct charges.

If Gilmore and I are enjoying a coffee and danish on a park bench and having a pleasant conversation about what a dick Trump is, I'm not stepping on your negative rights by preventing you from screaming "I'm a macaroni" in my face the entire time. Kinda the opposite, in fact.

Our rights exist outside the government. With or without the existence of the first amendment, you have the right to your thoughts. You have the right to freely express those thoughts. I don't have the right to prevent you from doing so - with or without the aid of a government. The same is true in reverse. When we are both hell-bent on speaking at the same time, something is going to have to give. Most NAP-style folks would say that the person attempting to disrupt another person's speech is the aggressor, even if the speech being disrupted is hateful, repugnant or stupid.

[Eric]

"So your only measure of freedom is whether the government is involved?"

Kind of. As long as there are no institutional roadblocks to our Constitutional rights, then the government has no business getting involved.

[pronomian]

As a libertarian do you find the right of association a problem? Or am I wrong about you being a libertarian?

[GILMORE?]

When anti-speech protesters apply a heckler's veto to an anti-speech speaker, who should you root hardest against?

This question seems unanswerable the way its posed because every term is a mess.

First off.... what's an 'anti-speech speaker'?

Unless they're calling for censorship (including of themselves!) and requiring prior restraint against certain kinds of ideas, demanding people be banned from certain venues, certain media, insisting some topics are "too dangerous" to discuss, etc..... if all someone is doing is "speaking", then it would seem impossible to be an anti-speech "speaker".

Then you have the second category = the "anti-speech protestor"... which is just as messy and imprecise a term - because protest is just a kind of speech, no? *or isn't it*?

And a "heckler's veto" is just a fancy-man's "shutting people up", or "Anti-speech".

And why should anyone be obligated to "root against" anyone else? I have a far greater power = Not to Listen.

When you boil away all the self-contradictory, imprecise fluff, the question seems to be =

"When X tries to shut up Y, who should you listen to? should you listen to either?"

And even that is wrong. Because its then apparent the key term Matt was wrestling unsuccessfully with is "Anti-Speech"

the question really is, "What is "Anti-Speech"?"

[Cyto]

"What is "Anti-Speech"?"

Shorthand for "against freedom of speech". Trump is against certain types of speech, and thinks certain wrong-thinking folks should be prohibited from speaking their minds, or even jailed.

In reality both of these groups fall into the "anti-speech" camp. The protesters against Trump are not merely saying they disagree with Trump, or that they won't listen to Trump.... they are saying that nobody should ever be allowed to listen to Trump. They are willing to be loud and disruptive and even violent to accomplish this goal. And their lackeys in the media are willing to report that Trump is a jackbooted thug if the police arrest one of these protesters for disorderly conduct.

Go ahead and protest Trump. Call him out on all of the stupid that he represents. Confront his supporters and expose the dangerous and evil things that you see. But you don't get to prevent him from speaking, other than by convincing others to stop listening.

This whole thing is another of those "false equivalence" fallacies. By saying that they are equal, you absolve all wrongdoing. They are not equal, but more than that you cannot condone violent disruptions of peaceful gatherings - full stop. You don't need any modifiers.

Then we can separately talk about the things we don't like about Trump's authoritarian leanings.

[John]

Trump is against certain types of speech, and thinks certain wrong-thinking folks should be prohibited from speaking their minds, or even jailed.

I am not saying that is untrue. People keep saying it without providing any link or proof that it is true. What exactly does Trump want to jail people for and where did he say that?

[GILMORE?]

Trump is against certain types of speech, and thinks certain wrong-thinking folks should be prohibited from speaking their minds, or even jailed.

Could you provide an example

[John]

I was asking for one

[GILMORE?]

Sorry, i meant to second that.

[pronomian]

How dare you plagiarize John's question.

[Cyto]

I am admittedly not an expert on Trumps positions, if he has them. I got to "holy crap, this guy's an idiot" during season one of his "you're fired" reality TV series. I didn't really need anything more to realize he wasn't my guy for president.

But I do recall him opining recently that we need to curtail free speech on the internet. I think he said something like "shut a lot of it down". I think he has also expressed sympathies with or admiration for places like China and their level of state control.

But I'm not going to be one to accuse Trump of having a consistent and well thought-out position on anything. I'm sure he is fully pro 1st amendment when he feels that way, and he's fully against free speech when he feels that it is being abused against him. He doesn't seem to give a rat's butt about being consistent. He's much more of a "solve the problem in front of me right now" kind of person - if I were to put a charitable spin on it.

[EMD]

I think he has also expressed sympathies with or admiration for places like China and their level of state control.

So, he's Thomas Friedman's perfect candidate?

[american socialist]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....aws-219866

Yeah, he doesn't want the government to stomp on you if you say bad things about Donald trump. Just bankrupt you. Good distinction, guys. You two are the smart ones.

[John]

People seem to point to two things that make Trump "anti speech". First, they point to him telling his supporters to go after protesters who show up at his rallies. This charge makes a bit of sense but i don't see how it makes Trump "anti-speech" rather than just someone who is tired of protesters showing up at his rallies. If he were anti-speech, he would tell his supporters to disrupt other rallies.

The second reason is that Trump supports ending the public figure doctrine for libel law. I can't see how ending the reckless disregard for the truth standard makes you "anti-speech". It may make you anti-media, but not anti-speech.

[Cyto]

Trump supports ending the public figure doctrine for libel law. I can't see how ending the reckless disregard for the truth standard makes you "anti-speech".

I think it makes him a public figure. Wanting more power to shut up your detractors is probably inevitable if you are a public figure. Britain certainly has experience with this drive. It is so skewed over there that you can't even tell the truth about some things. Like "homeopathy has absolutely no possible chance of ever being therapeutic, other than as a placebo." Guy actually got found guilty of defamation for that kind of statement.

I get it. Having people slinging all kinds of crap you way all day, every day would get old. If you were in that position you'd love a more powerful weapon to make them stop. It doesn't make him right. But I certainly understand it. I'd bet you could get similar sentiments out of people like Angelina Jolie, Kim Kardashian, Sean Penn, Madonna..... being at the eye of the media storm can't be all fun and games.

[GILMORE?]

Are people actually protesting his view on libel laws?

Because when i go and look at what protesters are complaining about, its all about Minorities and Victims, not some complaint that Trump presents grave threat to freedom of the press.

[Zeb]

Are people actually protesting his view on libel laws?

Some libertarians on the internet are.

[GILMORE?]

When i said "protesting" i meant the people who feel compelled to go to his events and scream and otherwise disrupt his rallies.

People on the internet aren't really "protesting" as its impossible for them to force their message on you *(unless they have pop-up windows, those bastards)

[Zeb]

Yeah, I figured. It's just annoying that screaming morons get the attention and people with reasonable objections to actual things he's said don't.

[Cyto]

No, they are protesting "he's a Republican and a front-runner" and we found a way to put a racist label on it so we can gin up our tired, old tried and true strategy of whipping up the minority base.

They used the death of James Byrd to paint Bush as a racist clansman in 2000, even though the racist murderers were caught and given death sentences under the Bush administration. They've pulled out the "their guy is a racist" card in every single election in my lifetime. This is no different. They are just trying to capitalize on the #BlackLivesMatter movement in order to further their goals. Heaven forbid that BLM energy should be focused toward the Democrat mayors or the Democrat President... gotta have that Republican racist boogie-man out there to keep them busy.

[GILMORE?]

When i consider the actual characters in the recent drama that prompted this question, the thing most notable about both is that = neither seems to really be saying anything of particular substance at all.

Trump goes up in front of his supporters and bloviates incoherently for hours. After months of campaigning, no one sure WTF he's actually *for* or *against*, really. He's "Pro-Great", and "Anti-Weak" as far as i can tell. He supports "Awesomeness", and thinks America Should Suck Less.

Unfortunately, this message seems to rub some people the wrong way. Perhaps they think they're the unmentioned source of Suckiness? Maybe they're Pro-Suck, or at least feel that Sucking has gotten a bad rap.

What is their counter-view? I actually have to dig to find entire sentences explaining their purpose, and when i do, i find this =

[GILMORE?]

End Donald Trump's Campaign of Racism and Bigotry

Donald Trump has crossed the line one too many times. His campaign of racism and bigotry has caused a damaging surge against Hispanics, Blacks, women, our military vets and his recent comments towards a disabled journalist of the New York Times. The people that continue to support Trump need to understand the overall damage he has caused and the damage he will cause if he gets elected to the White House. This petition was created for the purpose of sending a loud message to all political officials of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, regardless of their affiliations, to not permit Donald Trump or his supporters to bring their campaign message of racism and bigotry anywhere in these three States

So.

What do we have there?

"The Donald is running a campaign of bigotry, and has 'damaged' entire categories of people. He therefore must be forbidden from speaking."

Since i'm not sure what a 'Damaging Surge' is, but it sounds bad.

It seems to amount to so much, "I don't like what this guy says = Prevent him from speaking".

Which gets pretty darn close to "Anti-Speech" as far as i can tell.

[Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe]

Well, it's been posited that Trump deliberately provoked the confrontation by booking a venue in an area that he must have known to be hostile to him. I don't consider that to be outside the realm of possibility.

Not that that changes the underlying free speech issues, but I'd think twice about casting Trump as a martyr. It's pretty obvious who's benefiting from the publicity.

[GILMORE?]

Trump deliberately provoked the confrontation by booking a venue in an area that he must have known to be hostile to him

So, his appearance there was no different than protesters showing up at his rallies, then?

Only Trump is responsible for "provoking" confrontation - whereas protestors who walk into a crowded venue full of people who paid to hear someone speak, and attempt to disrupt and 'shut down' the event, are merely exercising their rights?

[Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe]

Not at all. Clearly the protesters were out of line. Technically.

But I don't discount that it was a deliberately staged piece of political theater. Instead of telling the voters what he's running against, Trump demonstrated it.

Trump books venue in hostile area, protesters react predictably. Point to Trump.

[GILMORE?]

I don't discount that it was a deliberately staged piece of political theater. Instead of telling the voters what he's running against, Trump demonstrated it.

You're actually making my own point for me.

His choice to have a rally in a place obviously likely to attract lots of violent opposition is simply a larger macro-version of the people who choose to go to his rallies and "provoke violence".

The protestors do the same thing = instead of actually having any 'message' they want to get across, the protestors just *want to get their ass thrown out* so they can make accusations of violence and write articles about how horrible Trump supporters are.

[Nativist, Racist & Xenophobe]

It's trolls all the way down.

[GILMORE?]

Yes.

Its politics as-trolling.

And if that's the contest? Trump will win.

[Cyto]

Not at all. Clearly the protesters were out of line. Technically.

Uh, they weren't just a group of locals who don't like Trump. This was organized at the top levels of the progressive coalition. They said they were going to do it. They publicly recruited groups and people to disrupt Trump events. They notified the press that they were going to disrupt Trump events. Then they disrupted a Trump event.

And then they said they were going to do it again. They bragged that they were going to disrupt every Trump event.

Your take is silly. A national level group very publicly and very loudly proclaimed that they were going to disrupt these events. It is pretty egregious post-hoc reasoning to claim that they were provoked by the location of the venue.

[GILMORE?]

It is pretty egregious post-hoc reasoning to claim that they were provoked by the location of the venue.

I don't think its a rationalization suggesting the Anti-Trump people were 'provoked' into response and therefore aren't responsible ...as much as to suggest that the outcome/reaction was expected. And - maybe even desired.

My point was that the tactics here are all about trying to make the 'other guy' look bad. Protestors go to the Trump events in order to get punched.. They don't go simply to yell, "Racist"! and be lead quietly away. They desire conflict and over-reaction. They need something for the media to be aghast about.

I think the Trump campaign might possibly be savvy enough to realize that thing can also work in their own benefit = *make themselves the victim* by shutting down a select few events and blaming it on the leftist intolerance.

Its not like these trump-protestors are ever going to be able to generate similar critical mass elsewhere. As long as Trump avoids urban centers, he's going to have the mob on his side.

[Cyto]

I agree that they went there with the explicit intention of getting into an altercation that they could blame on Trump, be it with a Trump supporter, a campaign worker or the police.

I also agree that the whole race-baiting and rabble rousing thing plays right into Trump's hand. That's pretty much exactly in the wheelhouse of what the disaffected Trump voter would care about.

[John]

Funny how something like "make America great" could offend so many people.

[SIV]

It goes against everything they've ever been taught.

[Zeb]

It's the implication that what people who oppose him have been doing has been contributing to America's lack of greatness. Which I think is largely true as far as that goes. But it is going to bother those people.

Then there are the people who think America is the evil empire and that "making America great" means fucking over everyone else. Which is also bullshit.

Making America great is a fine thing. But the way to do that is to leave people alone to innovate and do business, not Trump's vague populist, protectionist stuff.

[John]

It's the implication that what people who oppose him have been doing has been contributing to America's lack of greatness.

Isn't that the implication of any political attack? Doesn't saying "Bush destroyed the economy" or "Hillary would be a disaster" necessarily imply the same thing?

Sorry Zeb this is just another example of how insane the reaction to Trump has been.

[Cyto]

Thanks Gilmore.... that was epic.

[Spartacus]

When anti-speech protesters apply a heckler's veto to an anti-speech speaker, who should you root hardest against, and how do you sort through the various free speech/First Amendment claims?

Can't we just root for a giant earthquake to bring down the building and crush them all?

[GILMORE?]

The New Yorker chimes in on the Trump-protests

As concerns about the violence at his rallies have grown, Trump has consistently denied responsibility. But he has also continued to say inflammatory things.

This whole thing seems to amount to a very large game of "IM NOT TOUCHING YOU IM NOT TOUCHING YOU IM NOT TOUCHING YOU" (Trump supporter punches protester) "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!! HE TOUCHED ME"

To many members of minority groups, the sight of Trump and Trumpism atop a national ticket would represent a grievous insult to their dignity, and a potential threat to their well-being;

I suppose I'm a minority group now. Though my well-being is probably not affected by Trump as long as i don't watch TV or have to listen to the guy. The mere sight is actually less stomach churning than Hillary, frankly.

Read the whole piece. Its another hot-mess full of veiled accusations and messy terms.

[EMD]

" But he has also continued to say inflammatory things."

Has he made a terribly stupid video about Mohammad yet? That would certainly make people kill other people!

[Eric]

"The mere sight is actually less stomach churning than Hillary, frankly."

This small backhanded compliment will likely morph into a vote for Trump in November. You'll be in the majority here too. Sad.

[GILMORE?]

Vox cites examples of Trump's "Encouragement of Violence"

""It is horrifying. And it needs to stop.""

It all seems to amount to, "people who protest at his rallies are not treated kindly".

She also admits she characterized the issue differently only a few weeks ago

Donald Trump is not directly inciting violence. But violence is happening at Donald Trump events ? with some frequency. It's alarming that Trump is not saying, repeatedly, that this is wrong and needs to stop.

The funny part is when she claims that it is not *her* view that has changed, but rather that Trump somewhere went one-toke over the line. But doesn't say precisely when.

If Donald Trump never becomes president, the people who would be harmed by his policies will be unharmed. But Rakeem Jones won't be unpunched. Mercutio Southall Jr. of Birmingham won't be unchoked. The harm is being done now. And it is not going to get less dangerous on its own.

Whats odd is that there was absolutely nothing in the entire piece about "his policies".

[GILMORE?]

to answer my own question about "What is "Anti-Speech"?" =

I think it amounts to "trying to prevent others from speaking, and to prevent others from listening"

Protests are not "anti-speech". A protest is a counter-point to a point.

A protest simply aimed at silencing others, or preventing people from listening, rather than presenting its own alterntive case is not, in my view, actual "protest" at all

When Trump advocates stronger libel laws, or censorship of the press, regulation of the internet, or something along those lines = those are policies that are inimical to free speech. Those proposals have no force to actually effect any restrictions by themselves until they are made law. And there is nothing restricting people from presenting argument against them.

When protestors insist that Trump is "Racist", and demand he be silenced, there is no similar 'counter-argument'. No one is interested in a point-by-point debate in the substance of Trump's racism, however obvious it may be. The only possible option presented is "silence him"- even if what he plans to speak about has zero racist content. Its the mere fact of "being" racist that means he loses his free speech 'privileges', in their view.

Trump may hold "anti-speech" views, but isn't *engaging* in speech repression (*tho people characterize the disruptions at his rallies as 'his fault'). Those people's views aren't silenced simply because they are booted from his events.

[GILMORE?]

What concerns me about the people protesting Trump is their unwillingness to actually formulate a case; or rather, when they do, you get things like the above-linked Petition which makes vague accusations of 'Racism and bigotry'.

You'd think that the trump-protest movement has gotten enough media-attention that they could hold their own "counter rally" the way the Yippies did in '68. They could hold press conferences. They could have speeches of their own in the park. They could hand out flyers.

But they don't.

[Cyto]

I don't get it either. Formulating an anti-Trump argument is not exactly difficult. He is not nearly as adroit at being content-free as Obama. Sure, he doesn't plant a flag on many policy specifics, but he's pretty good at spouting nonsense that can be refuted or at least countered.

[GILMORE?]

I just managed to get a Sirius demo downloaded and actually listen to this show.

[GILMORE?]

Greg (?) i think made the great point that = 'silencing people means they never have to defend their views'

If Trump was really a racist, then forcing him to *talk more* about his racist views would be the most effective way to undermine him. Silencing people who hold terrible views means those terrible views are never dealt with and subjected to the public jury.

[GILMORE?]

Michael Moynihan is on a predictable Hitler-kick.

And Matt is playing DJ

[GILMORE?]

Isn't the whole point of paid, satellite-radio that you don't have to listen to anti-baldness advertisements?

[Matt Welch]

There are no Safe Spaces.

[GILMORE?]

Jeff "Its pronounced Blair!" Blay-Har - attended the Trump rally and chimes in on the experience =

says it was clear 50% of attendees were obviously protesters when he arrived.

[GILMORE?]

it sounds a lot like the beginning of the Milo Y. appearance @ Rutgers where there were people smearing blood on their faces and screaming before he even got a single sentence out.

[GILMORE?]

Moynihan says media is hyperventilating over all this stuff being the "end of the republic"

when in fact, minor scuffles are fairly normal in other political climates around the world. Its hardly to the level of even soccer-hooliganism.

[Antisocialist]

The republic dies 103 years ago. Moynihan's a little slow.

[GILMORE?]

Blizzair-heir says = Racial epithets were thrown.

[GILMORE?]

Trucker Steve phones in = asks "Who should replace Brian Johnson to replace AC/DC tour"

Good question says Mike M. Proposes Bon Scott's theoretical son.

[GILMORE?]

Matt confesses that he once wrote a song about how much he dislikes Dave Grohl. there was a connection there.

I concur that Chris Cornell would make a better 'screamer' to tour w/ AC/DC

[GILMORE?]

"guy from Krokus" also considered

Mike clarifies that Krokus is actually a flower and not all that Metal a name.

[GILMORE?]

Best name ever for a Heavy Metal band was already a real band =

"Satanicide"

[GILMORE?]

"Sheet rock" is a stupid name

[Antisocialist]

Proper answer: the guy from Airbourne

[GILMORE?]

I have listened to this for 30 mins now and i'm not sure what i've learned of any value other than Matt once wrote a song about how much he hates Dave Grohl

[GILMORE?]

Blehey-hrrrr poses same theory as "Nativist/Racist" guy above = Trump LOVES what happened and they probably decided to have their rally there knowing what would happen and knew the publicity would generate.

I think maybe this attributes too much strategic brilliance to Trump, and not enough epic-stupidity to the protestors.

[GILMORE?]

Harlow from Idaho sez = "Trump had to know that a black community was going to freak out about him". This is Trump's version of a Southern Strategy.

Moynihan predictably brings hitler back up again only to say, "Trump is less hitler than george wallace"

I agree.

[John]

How do these people square the George Wallace charge with Trump doing better among black voters than any GOP candidate since Eisenhower in poll after poll?

[GILMORE?]

The "Trump is racist" thing isn't really about 'actual racism' in my view.

Its about "what's the worst insult a lefty/progressive has in their arsenal?" Racist. Trump is the worst, therefore he is racist.

[GILMORE?]

or, "Racists support him"= therefore he is racist. Same deal.

And he's running against Hillary, so = Sexist too.

[GILMORE?]

I think your point about "Trump actually has strong support among minority republicans" connects to something else i've been thinking about critics of his campaign

Things like the accusations of 'Racism' aren't really intended to be intended to undermine trump among his own supporters.

In fact, given that many trump supporters *are* racist, they'll just nod and go, "damn right"!

The criticisms of Trump really seem aimed at merely energizing Democrats/lefties to oppose him.

IOW, the "Racist" criticisms of Trump aren't really intended to sway independents or attract support for Hillary - they're just intended *to prevent current supporters from leaving Hillary/Bernie* to go to Trump.

Which strikes me as a completely 'defensive' posture, despite its appearance of constant attack against Trump.

And I think is a sign of real weakness in the Democratic base. They're so terrified of their own brand-quality that they're spending 100% of their energy trying simply to tarnish the opposition to prevent people from leaving.

[GILMORE?]

Its clear that Matt really always wanted to be a Radio DJ instead of editor of a political magazine.

[This Machine]

I mean, hey, can you blame him?

[GILMORE?]

It is indeed a far hipper gig, and doesn't require wearing ties.

[Matt Welch]

You know damn well I was wearing one, though.

[GILMORE?]

You're such a tease

[CE]

How is this even a question? Who is disrupting the events? Let them protest peacefully outside, or go home.
There's a lot of victim blaming going on.

[PapayaSF]

A good first-hand account of what happened in Chicago.

[pronomian]

Pro speech sympathies should lie with.......speech? Huh? Amirite? What do I win?

[Azathoth!!]

The thing that gets me is that there is a timeline of protesters going for political rallies during this campaign season--a timeline that clearly shows that the violence and shutting down of free speech does not and never has begun with Trump.

BLM protesters and their fellow travelers started down this path way at the beginning--rushing stages, pushing aside speakers, chanting so speakers could not be heard right from the get go.

Trump only became a focal point when he deviated from the standard practice of either letting them disrupt or allowing the police or security to take them away--which also disrupted and occasionally shut down rallies.

Trump basically said that yes, they have the right to protest--but they DO NOT have the right to disrupt and shut things down.

BOTH sides should get their voices heard.

This is what's referred to as Trump 'inciting' violence.

As much as I hate Trump, I cannot accept that telling your supporters that they do not have to allow protesters to disrupt and shut down the rally is inciting violence.

We are having the issues we're having because somewhere along the line it appears to have become acceptable that a valid form of protest is abrogating the ability of the other side to speak at all.

And this is unacceptable.

[contrarian]

Answer: With the protesters, unless they engage in violence. If violence occurs, the police must not allow a heckler's veto and arrest/repel those responsible.

[american socialist]

If X tries to shut up Y and if any subset of the set of X supports candidate Z1 or Z2, doesn't that we must ascribe the most wacky subset of opinions from X, which I'll refer to as W, to Z1 and Z2. Then, can't we arrive at the most outlandish subset of opinions, equal to set T, about Z1 and Z2..

[Azathoth!!]

Where Should Pro-Speech Sympathies Lie When Protesters Shut Down Trump?

Pro-speech sympathies should ALWAYS lie with the people getting silenced. If you think that it's different because it's Trump, then you don't actually support free speech.

[straffinrun]

I was gonna drink anyways, but...*pours a double

[A Bloat of Rhywuns]

Check your time-of-day privilege.

[straffinrun]

You fell ahead an hour. I stood still.

[straffinrun]

Kompai!