"I may not like what you say but I'll defend to the death other people who I agree with's right to prevent you from saying it"

I'm pretty sure heckling a standup comic can get you ejected from the club and if you then didn't leave that would be illegal.

Mr wookie posting terribly

What else is new

They're also not trying to cancel the nfl draft. They express their displeasure and then eventually things proceed. If anyone gets too disruptive, they're escorted out. Seems like a pretty good system.

So when do you idiots realize it was Trump himself that canceled the event?

Both Rubio's and Cruz's reactions to this has been refreshing.

Trump supporters need a safe space so they don't have to confront their stupidity and/or rascism

And this has been what's happened at Trump rallies. Well, add some vigilante violence, and Trump's encouragement thereof. And then yesterday, Trump deciding he'd given tickets to too many disruptive people than he wanted to either speak over or deal with before speaking.

What announcement did they make at the rally that would make every protestor trespassing?

You realize that Donald Trump was on TV minutes later saying whatever he wanted to say, right? He wasn't prevented from speaking by anyone.

Not really. Basically saying "lol donald just outright saying all the racist and horrible things we deeply believe but are smart enough not to say openly."

That doesn't help all the people whose evenings were ruined who went and didn't get to see him speak in person.

Aw, those poor babies. What right of theirs was violated, again?

the PA system at his rally that kicks off in 45 minutes just instructed the crowd "not to harm protesters."

Crowd started booing loudly.

So the system "worked" in a sense, but the people who were actively trying to shut the event down are still seeking to repress speech they don't like, which is a bad value to hold regardless of whether you agree with the speech in question.

Remember the quote that's (probably wrongly) attributed to Voltaire that Wooderson twists upthread? That's a value a free society ought to hold.

Sando. Keeping Donald Trumps stupid, fat mouth from speaking is impossible. They are protesting his event because they don't like that he's spreading Santorum. It's political activism and is the basis for a democratic society. Sorry not sorry that it's your fearless fuhrer that is being protested.

There's a difference between "speech they don't like" and the hate-mining Trump is doing to try to make racism mainstream in the guise of being against political correctness.

No there really is no difference. This is tortured, Orwellian logic used to justify silencing an opposing viewpoint because you don't like it.

Again, these tactics are not new; they've been happening on college campuses for years. The fact that Trump is the latest target doesn't mean it's noble all of a sudden.

What is the principle of free speech?

Is suggesting we should kick millions of legal citizens out of this country compatible with the principle of free speech? Is killing family members of suspected terrorists compatible with the principle of free speech? Most importantly, and fundamentally, is holding massive rallies in which you knowingly encourage racists to commit violent acts in the name of "making the country great" - while (usually) stopping just short of literally suggesting it - compatible with the principles of free speech?

You know how Walter said "this isn't 'Nam, there are rules"? Well, as far as free speech goes, this is 'Nam.

You reap what you sow.

I disagree with the policies behind the first two, but I don't see the connection to free speech for either. I support being allowed to advocate both points of view.

The third, it depends how you define incitement. I'm pretty sure courts have done this in the past, but that's pretty obviously a gray area.

None of that justifies trying to shut down a rally because you don't like what the person says, no matter what kind of Newspeak you use in defense of it.

When you are holding a large political rally of massive public importance the freedom to protest trumps any imagined private property rights, especially when you haven't set up any kind of mechanism to screen invitees and have invited the general public with no real enforceable criteria about who can attend. That's a (healthy) reality in any democratic society that everyone but thin-skinned drumpf slappies seem to understand.

lol. Protesting a guy that panders to white supremacy isn't noble. Good to know where you stand.

You're crying about Drumpf's speech but you apparently don't care about the free speech of the thousands of protesters.

Note I'm not arguing whether any rights were violated or whose rights supersede whose - that's a boring argument for pedantic autists and lawyers to nit over until kingdom come.

Ar they allowed to protest? Of course. Is protesting for the explicit purpose of preventing someone else from speaking opposed to the spirit of free speech? Of course! Whether or not the man in question is a racist is immaterial.

Right, but Tut appealed to some principle that says Trump should be able to hold a largely attended public spectacle that is free from dissent or interruption because it's on private property and he "paid the money." That's a distinction you made that is lol here and the collective voice of the protesters is a valid counterargument to the pulpit Trump has been given.

Ludacris you might prefer some European countries where it's against the law to be racist. At least there you don't have to hide behind tortured logic for why some speech is NOT OKAY BIGOTS