Free speech and the election: protests force canceling of Trump event in Chicago
What happened to cause the cancelation of the Trump rally at the University of Illinois for security reasons due to protests was a subset of a growing tendency of the left to shut down free speech on several fronts. Note that the canceled event was at a Chicago college; in recent years university students and political hangers-on and organizers from the left have been in the forefront of shutting down college speakers they don’t like by organizing huge and noisy protests. Trump’s rally is definitely an extension of this, although he’s not merely an extension of it; he has his own role.
I see Trump as positioning himself as a lightning rod for the violence and anger abroad in the land. But that’s not really a good metaphor because a lightning rod exists to channel the electrical forces harmlessly into the ground. Trump arouses strong feelings on both sides, and he uses and magnifies the already-existing anger on the part of many Americans, and to say that this is a fact is not to blame him for causing it but to state the obvious. He absolutely has the right to speak, and protesters have the right to protest what he says without shutting his speech down, and no one has the right to be violent except in self-defense.
Violence should be controlled before it ever gets to the point of stopping a speech or of causing a riot. But how? That is the question.
Those of us who were alive in 1968 and old enough to remember the protests near the Democratic Convention in the city of Chicago, as well as the police response to those demonstrations, know what can happen. And that’s by no means the worst that can happen with protests and the attempts to control them. I described the 1968 Convention protests here in some detail, but right now I’ll just summarize and say that the protesters were leftist activists with an agenda to provoke violence from the Chicago police and the police obliged them, and that the venue was not the convention itself but a park near it.
Here it explains how planned, widespread, and varied the demonstrations were, and how the police had expected them and prepared for them. There were also park permits the protesters applied for and in some cases were granted. In addition, there were plans by the protesters to involve the black neighborhoods of Chicago, and even a Ferguson-like incident (the shooting of Dean Johnson, a 17-year-old who had fired a pistol at police and was killed by police in return).
I have little doubt that those who organized the Trump protests were aware of some of the 1968 history, if not all the details. But this time one of their main goals is to shut down speech rather than merely protest it. The dilemma police and security face now with Trump is that these protests are going to happen, and in fact may escalate because of all the publicity around this one and as he comes closer to getting the nomination. A solution must be found and it’s not clear what it should be.
Already further rallies have been postponed because of the threat of similar problems at them. It’s not even clear what sparked the clashes at the Chicago event, because it seems that the bulk of the altercations occurred after the cancelation rather than before it:
Chaos ensued after organizers announced the rally was canceled shortly after 6:30 p.m. at the UIC Pavillion. Police ejected at least a half dozen anti-Trump demonstrators, including one man who snuck on stage and approached the podium…
…the scuffles were brief, and some protesters said the security concerns were overstated…
Anthony Guglielmi, a police department spokesman, said the Trump campaign did not consult the police department before canceling.
“They did not consult us at all,” he said. “The decision was made by the campaign on its own.”
While many dispersed after the rally was canceled, hundreds of people protested outside. They chanted and cheered, as supporters screamed back “Trump! Trump! Trump!”
Sorting this out and trying to get at the truth of what happened is beyond my powers at this point, but my guess is that there were a lot of protesters ready to disrupt the rally, there was not enough police presence nor was the presence effective, the Trump supporters were angered by the situation, it escalated rather than being calmed down, and there will be more of this because it suits everyone’s needs.
That includes Trump, who gets the opportunity to act like the free speech advocate he most definitely has never been. I wrote an article two months ago for American Thinker in which I said:
Remember back when Donald Trump was saying the following about Pam Geller, in response to the ISIS-inspired attack on her free speech get-together in Garland, Texas ”“ the attempt that ended with the perpetrators being shot dead by armed guards?
“The U.S. has enough problems without publicity seekers going out and openly mocking religion in order to provoke attacks and death. BE SMART”
And here are some further quotes from Trump. Note especially the first one:
This has nothing to do with free speech ”“ this is taunting, and all it does is cause trouble.”
“She should be much more responsible because what she’s doing is completely irresponsible!”
“She’s a person that is doing this for her own purpose and she’s doing a terrible thing for our country!“
“”¦if she went after, instead, JESUS, instead of the Muslim, went after JESUS, let’s see how long she’d last! If she went after the African-Americans, and went after the N-WORD, where she was positive on it as opposed to”¦ let’s SEE how long she would last! That would also be freedom of speech! Let’s see if she has the guts to do that. ”¦
All she’s doing, she is a provacateur! All she doing is provoking and taunting people!!”
In response to yesterday’s cancelation and turmoil, the other GOP candidates have said that, although the protesters are fully responsible for what they do, Trump has created a “climate” or “culture” or “environment” that encourages violence. Their statements, if you read them in full, are true as descriptions of the situation, and they were careful to make it clear that Trump can say what he wants and should be free to do so without violence. Contrast that with what Trump said about Geller and there’s no question that Trump is far less of a free speech advocate than the others, but this will not stop the criticism of them.
Trump himself has encouraged violence many times as a response to protesters, upping the ante, but even if Trump backed off on this (which I don’t predict he will do) it would not stop this. The protesters are determined to cause a scene and silence speech they don’t like (and not just with Trump, either), and/or to provoke police or security violence and make martyrs of themselves a la Chicago 1968. It’s a win-win situation for them, and it must be controlled.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a solution except to say that security must increase, it would be best that it be official and visible (police) rather than private or vigilante, and it must be in place in advance in order to prevent confrontations. Perhaps this means better screening of attendees and confining of protests to cordoned areas.
But the left will never give up, that’s for sure. Freedom of speech is one of the great things about America, but it’s a risky proposition and always was. The Founders knew that, but they decided it was well worth the risk. It still is, although it will never be easy.
Trump supporters are already trying to turn this into Cruz abandoning the 1st amendment because he pointed out that Trump had contributed to the environment.
They’ve even managed to rope Glenn Reynolds and Powerline into some semi-denunciations of Cruz et. al.
This is what you can expect 4 years (at least) of under president Trump.
Interesting developments. Although some are saying that Trump invites the violent reactions, one thoughtful blogger implicated some unspecified opponent’s campaign. I am not sure how he came up with that.
I do not accuse Trump, and certainly not his opponents. After all, if you claim to be a conservative, even with no evidence that you are, you will attract unwanted attention from the radicalized and aggrieved on the left.
I do not think it overly cynical, however, to say that Trump will benefit from this sort of thing. He seems to benefit from every outrage, whether his, or others.
Writes neo-neocon: “the protesters were leftist activists with an agenda to provoke violence from the Chicago police and the police obliged them”.
Isn’t it interesting that now it appears the roles are in some manner reversed, in the sense that the actions of today’s protesters oblige Trump and his supporters far more than detract from them? Perhaps that is the otherwise unseen solution to the problem, though one of which it’s highly doubtful we’ll see any recognition on the part of the protesters: that the protesters see their own actions creating more of what they say they do not want rather than less, and therefore these protesters seize the opportunity to cease their self-defeating behaviors. Again, not bloody likely, while still staring them stark in the face.
Hot Air posted this Rubio presser in which he talked about the problem:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/12/shaken-rubio-on-trumps-rhetoric-this-country-is-coming-apart-at-the-seams/
It is an excellent description. I hope that Cruze and Kaisich praise him for it. Not suppressing free speech does not mean that you have to applaud idiots and rabble rousers. It certainly doesn’t mean you should want them to be president.
“What can be done against force, without force?” Roman statesman Cicero
Increased security will prove insufficient. The Obama administration will do nothing to rein in its activists. Any state that uses its national guard, will find itself defending itself from federal prosecution. So too with local police, as Ferguson demonstrated.
None of this is accidental, Chicago demonstrated cooperative organization, just as Ferguson did before. ‘Protesters’ will be paid and bused wherever needed. In November, expect to see much more voter intimidation. BLM activists will be out in force.
The Left is not going to let criminality stop them from keeping control of the federal government.
Half of America is enabling its destruction. Once our societal fabric collapses, then violence will settle the matter.
None who value American liberties wish to see violence but since “the left will never give up, that’s for sure” and half of America will not cooperate with or tolerate a return to Constitutional governance, no other outcome is possible.
The choice will be simple; fight or submit. We delay the fight because it signals the end of what we hold dear but eventually, fight we shall or find ourselves submitting.
Enough Americans have and are throwing away their heritage. The proof of this is Obama’s recent 51% approval rating.
How many people inclined to vote for either Hillary or Sanders see that, characterizing sincere disagreement as ‘hate speech’ will ultimately disenfranchise their own ‘consent’ and, that a failure to protest the shutting down of Trump’s “hate speech”, foretells their own coming servitude and enslavement?
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” –Voltaire
Fascinating if true is that “several thousand” of the anti-Trumps were inside the hall, which holds about ten thousand. What a great neo-Nazi way to take control! So easy in this era of social media to mobilize the hordes.
Trump cancelled a meet in Cincinnati today, apparently for the same reason.
It may come down to the Brown Shirts vs. the Communists. It may indeed become necessary, because to be passive is to yield to the Communists. Some choice.
These incidents will benefit Trump. The more crazed and lawless the authoritarian left becomes, the more Trump will be regarded as the savior to replace our current messiah.
Parker…
That’s my ‘take,’ too.
Variations on this theme were used eighty years ago across Europe.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140857419526/gop-debate-scorecard-march-10-master-persuader#_=_
Scott Adams has disavowed Donald Trump — and goes on to predict a blowout victory — with some wiggle room pencilled in.
Plainly Rubio and Kasich are more determined to stop Cruz than Trump.
What’s THAT tell you ?
I also think that Trump is well aware of the dynamic, and it’s just fine with him because it benefits him. That is why he’s been stirring up talk recently of beating up protesters and carrying them out on stretchers.
While it took a lot longer than I expected, we’re finally reaching the point of becoming a third world “democracy”.
I was really expecting stuff like this to happen by 2006 or 2008 at the latest; after the two seminal moments of Al Gore trying to steal the presidential election of 2000 and the two minute hate that was the Paul Wellstone memorial in ’02.
Republicans need to aggressively attack this fascist evil by demanding Obama, Bernie, Hillary and Lynch renounce these Gestapo tactics. Get them on the record now! Use their tactics against them. Trump, Cruz,Kasich,Rubio, Preibus,Mitt- every damn one of them. Seize the opportunity!!
I am beginning to worry that we might see our first attempted assassination of a candidate in almost a century. I am also worried that whoever gets elected, may not live long afterwards. There is too much anger out there, now, and neither the Democrats, nor Mr. Trump seem to have any interest in it’s ending.
Both Trump and the Democrats are running on hate, and that leads to people killing, in the believe that their hate justifies the killing. I fear it is just a matter of time.
I am beginning to worry that we might see our first attempted assassination of a candidate in almost a century.
So George Wallace doesn’t count?
Just earlier today, at a rally in Dayton, Ohio, a man named Tommy Dimassimo tried to rush the stage Trump was on, before the Secret Service hauled him off in cuffs. Check out the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06d4t1704N8
Tommy Dimassimo has been involved in other radical leftist protests.
The larger point to take away from this, examining Chicago last night, and Dayton today, is that it might not matter what Trump says or does. The radical Left would be doing the SAME THING to an outspoken Republican front-runner candidate.
Trump could be home right now, in Trump Tower, eating Trump steaks and playing Trump the board-game, with never having bothered to run for President, and protests like this would still happen.
The radical Left is angry, and believes that Obama did not go far enough, or has been too nice to Republicans. They were angry long before Trump announced his candidacy in June of 2015. In many ways, the are like 1960s radicals, utterly convinced of their own moral superiority, and unwilling to listen to or respect others.
And see this for what can happen, when those on the other side get fed up with leftist protesters, like in New York, in May 1970:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot
‘I do not accuse Trump, and certainly not his opponents. After all, if you claim to be a conservative, even with no evidence that you are, you will attract unwanted attention from the radicalized and aggrieved on the left.’
Proof enough that the left isn’t very smart. They’re protesting the wrong campaign.
SCOTTtheBADGER at 6:53 pm,
My soon to be 94 yr old father said a few weeks ago that he had a feeling that another assassination is coming. I agree about the anger. But there was an attempted assassination of Reagan, remember?
Given that anger, I wouldn’t give odds that the next President will see the end of their first term.
I suspect that the anger on the right is greater than on the left but the willingness to resort to violence is much higher on the left.
blert Says:
Variations on this theme were used eighty years ago across Europe.
As the saying goes, “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.”
We aren’t Europe.
I think it’s more likely that as street brawls and riots occur more frequently, America will generally recoil from the parties involved.
Scott and GB:
Hell, if an assassination attempt is in the cards, why wait til after Obama?
Answer:
An assassination will be attempted ONLY if the next POTUS is Republican.
Lawlessness is now and always has been a Leftist trademark. Unions, their organization and their strikes more than 100 years ago now. “I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you and me” is a Woody Guthrie song ennobling a union organizer convicted and executed for murder of a grocery store owner and wife..
Who shot McKinley? JFK? RFK? Who tried to kill Truman? Or Wallace? They’re all leftwing and/or nutters. Sure, it’s a vast right wing conspiracy!
McKinley was shot by a raving anarchist — that era’s equivalent to Occupy Wall Street.
{ Notable for occupying a site owned by a trust-fund Leftist — and for getting gourmet catered meals from Leftists.
RFK was our nation’s first jihad casualty — and the Press didn’t even know what the term was.
Must I remind all that President Obama has been raising MASSIVE funds — Organizing for America ?
That’s the money pot that’s enabling these social media assaults.
Google is involved up past their eye balls.
IIRC, so too is Apple.
Which makes one wonder WHY Apple has flipped on cyber security for the iPhone OS.
BUT, just for America.
Not Red China.
The Leftist thugs did the same thing at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, when Bush was renominated. You know, Mr. Civility? Mr. “Never Fight Back”?
It. Did. Not. Matter.
This is what They DO.
Trump engaged in tough-guy talk, much of it humorous; all of it expressing the feeling so many of us have that we’re fed up to the back teeth with the Leftist goons. Not at ALL the same as Obama saying, for just one example, “If they bring a Knife to the fight, we bring a GUN!”
But yeah, Trump is the worst guy ever. Or something. Folks, we’re going to get rolled and kicked in the head until we’re spent, or we fight back. Somehow or other, we’ll have to get tough with the enemy within. You can’t have a conversation with someone who’s kicking you in the gonads.
Election 2016. Choose your poison.
At the Belmont Club, “sevenwheel” said this:
sdffer, I forgot about Wallace!
Geoffrey Britain, Point taken, I was only referring to candidates, but yes, Reagan was shot, and Squeaky, and Sara Jane Moore tried to get Gerry Ford. Again, leftists, and or Lunatics.
I don’t think Hillary will survive the campaign. She has more than one stroke already, and she has never been in a Presidential campaign where she was the target before, the current primary season being handed to her. Once she gets real stress, I suspect that she will stroke out. Which would probably be the best thing for all concerned, as a Hillary Administration would be Corruption, Inc unleashed to the point that I am not sure the country would survive, at least not in it’s current form. Twelve years of Chicago politics is a lot to ask of a nation.
sdffer, I forgot about Wallace!
Geoffrey Britain, Point taken, I was only referring to candidates, but yes, Reagan was shot, and Squeaky, and Sara Jane Moore tried to get Gerry Ford. Again, leftists, and or Lunatics.
I don’t think Hillary will survive the campaign. She has had more than one stroke already, and she has never been in a Presidential campaign where she was the target before, the current primary season being handed to her. Once she gets real stress, I suspect that she will stroke out. Which would probably be the best thing for all concerned, as a Hillary Administration would be Corruption, Inc unleashed to the point that I am not sure the country would survive, at least not in it’s current form. Twelve years of Chicago politics is a lot to ask of a nation.
To all those saying it is all on the radical leftists, don’t think that is a correct assessment.
.
Maybe memory is short, but don’t recall any such thing happening to this extent for GOP candidates in 2000, 2004, 2008, or 2012.
.
Yes, we can point to all kinds of other events in recent times, but why Trump and why now, rather than else-when for nomination campaigns over the last 16 years?
.
This just seems very different in its context that is hard to put a finger on other than to say…
.
It just seems that the tone and temperament that Trump engages in to motive his supporters is the very thing that motivates radical groups opposed to do these things, especially members of his rhetorical target groups and their sympathizers.
.
Scratch the surface of some of the justification for supporting Trump, and one wonders if there is not some desire to forcefully impose some view on everyone else, to be found.
.
The red flags hinting so, are to be found everywhere, coupled with a steadfast refusal by many admitted “very angry” supporters to even debate the issues, policy proposals, heck, even basic facts, and we have a recipe for more violence to come.
.
It is visceral that this is different…very different from anything most of us have experienced in our lives.
Beverly:
“Folks, we’re going to get rolled and kicked in the head until we’re spent, or we fight back. Somehow or other, we’ll have to get tough with the enemy within.”
“Somehow or other”?
The somehow is already known and there is no other way. Play the game – it’s the only social cultural/political game there is.
Social activist movement versus social activist movement, head-on competition, throughout the arena.
Activism isn’t the Left’s game. It’s the people’s game that always available to anyone for any cause.
It only looks like the Left’s game when they’re running up the score unmolested on a field that’s been left open by conservatives who restrict themselves to tut-tutting, finger-shaming, and stink-eyeing the Left while blaming the GOP for conservatives’ own neglect.
In fact, the Left is beatable in the activist game, just like any human beings are in any prosaic nuts-and-bolts worldly competition. But they’re only beatable once you compete with them for real.
Now that they’ve lightly scrimmaged for the 1st time versus the varsity Democrat-front Left, will the “jayvee” Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right activists up their game? Or, will it turn out that they’re only capable of bullying easy-picking conservatives who mostly defeat themselves in the activist game?
Again, there is only one somehow and there is no other way to compete for real. Collective embrace of Marxist-method activism by conservatives.
Stride into the arena zealously committed as a team to compete head-on with all comers, whether Left or alt-Right, and any one else championing an incompatible social condition.
Like any people, they’re all beatable, but only when you play to win the game.
Big Maq Says:
It just seems that the tone and temperament that Trump engages in to motive his supporters is the very thing that motivates radical groups opposed to do these things, especially members of his rhetorical target groups and their sympathizers.
I think I said this here before:
The problem with Trump, but especially his supporters, is that they are like enraged bulls. That makes them very easy to manipulate through provocation.
It’s exactly like the Palestinians and Israelis.
Trump’s rallies will be the only ones attacked because they are the only ones where the left will get a response. If this is attempted at another candidate’s rally, the BLM folks will look like dicks by comparison.
BTW, part of this that irks the shit out of me is the idea that I’m being manipulated by Trump as well. That man doesn’t give a shit about the 1st amendment, but he’s wrapping himself in the constitution, and his supporters are maligning everyone who doesn’t rush to their aid.
They are putting all the rest of us reasonable people into an untenable moral dilemma, and I don’t like it one bit.
The hypocrisy of it stinks, too.
Artfldgr:
Wonder if Trump’s seen the movie?
Whoops.
Wrong thread.
Correctly posted here:
http://neoneocon.com/2016/03/12/describing-the-trump-voter/#comment-997501
Ever since 2008, I’ve taken comfort in thinking that commu-facism (maybe more correctly, total statism) isn’t about to descend since there have been no brownshirts in sight.
They showed up in Chicago.