Peaceful Protest and the First Amendment

[rangerx]

Is the right to peaceful protest under the First Amendment being violated at Trump rallies?

 

In recent days, there are increasing reports of peaceful protesters being removed for wrongful reasons.

 

It seems T-shirts get under the skin of Trump supporters. In a piece I just read, there were a couple of you girls wearing Bernie and Hillary shirts. They were friendly with those sitting next to them even though they were Trump supporters, often exchanging comments in a civil, respectful manner. However, a group of rabble rousers were not content with these shirts in their midst. After numerous cat calls and threats, the befriended Trump supporters intervened and chastised the the rowdies. This led to a heated discussion where the Trump supporters were painted with the same brush as the Trump protesters, hence the girls were removed even though they never spoke to the rowdies or did anything else wrong. As they were being escorted out, Trump was yelling "GET OUT" over the PA system. All of the Trump supporters were allowed to stay.

 

While I only gave one example, there seems to be a trend here and that does not sit well.

 

Sure, some protesters being disruptive or inciting uncivil behavior are rightfully removed, but there appears to be an alarming tolerance for harassing and advocating violence toward otherwise peaceful attendees at these events. Trump cannot be blameless for this, after all he has the burden mitigating, not exacerbating unrest while organizing large gatherings in public spaces. While "I'd like to punch them in the face" doesn't rise to the level of actually punching anyone in the face, is this not disturbing if not inciting behavior?

 

I wasn't there. Hell, I'm not even American, but it seems to me they were treated unfairly on their constitutional rights under the First Amendment while trouble makers were given special treatment for their political alignment.

 

 

1- Should the Trump protesters have been removed? They did nothing wrong.

 

2- Should the anti-protesters protesting the protesters have been removed? They were openly disruptive within the group.

 

3- Should the anti-protesters protesting the anti-protest protesters have been removed? They defended the Trump protesters rights, but were openly confrontational within the group.

 

4- Should all of the anti-protesters have been removed and the Trump protesters allowed to stay?

 

5- Should all have been allowed to stay under a condition to keep the peace?

 

 

What should have been the fair resolution to this scenario?

[swansont]

Is the right to peaceful protest under the First Amendment being violated at Trump rallies?

 

 

 

The right to assemble refers to meeting in public places. Are Trump rallies being held in public places, or are they private venues?

[rangerx]

 

 

Are Trump rallies being held in public places, or are they private venues?

 

I'm not sure, but even if they were private would being open to the public not actually be a public function?

[swansont]

 

I'm not sure, but even if they were private would being open to the public not actually be a public function?

 

 

I don't think that counts.

[rangerx]

 

 

I don't think that counts.

 

You're probably right and I'd think it's reasonable to expect anyone to leave one's property for any or no reason when asked. I supposed I've already answered my own question, but in this case the Trump protesters didn't promote or act upon anything illegal, disruptive or innuendo-laced, materially or substantially. So I will further the question by asking whether "open to the public" American political rallies are merely "enclaves for totalitarianism" by any description merely because they occur on private property? Is there no circumstance where the expectation of privacy is foregone where the public interest is involved? Especially since these events are held for nothing other than "publicity" purposes for election to a public office?

 

I gathered this from wikipedia, as it applies to protesting in schools and represented events away from schools.

 

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969),^[135] the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not "materially and substantially" interrupt school activities.^[136] Justice Abe Fortas wrote:

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate . . . . chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students . . . are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.^[137]

In Healy v. James (1972), the Court ruled that Central Connecticut State College's refusal to recognize a campus chapter of Students for a Democratic Society was unconstitutional, reaffirming Tinker.^[138]

However, since 1969 the Court has also placed several limitations on Tinker interpretations. In Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986),^[139] the Court ruled that a student could be punished for his sexual-innuendo-laced speech before a school assembly and, in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988),^[140] the Court found that school newspapers enjoyed fewer First Amendment protections and are subject to school censorship.^[141] In Morse v. Frederick (2007),^[142] the Court ruled that schools could, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at school-sponsored events, even events away from school grounds, if students promote "illegal drug use".^[143]

[swansont]

Public schools are government-owned property, run by the government. Not the same thing as a political rally.

[rangerx]

Public schools are government-owned property, run by the government. Not the same thing as a political rally.

 

Agreed and we need not discuss private schools. However, the First Amendment speaks to private property and reasonable restrictions on expressive activity by political speakers and petition-gatherers. The Trump protesters did not rise to this level. They did not speak publicly. They did not gather petitions. They were allowed into the event "whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum". They were removed solely because others were intolerant and disruptive.

 

 

Edited to include source: from wikipedia

 

Private action

State constitutions provide free speech protections similar to those of the U.S. Constitution. In a few states, such as California, a state constitution has been interpreted as providing more comprehensive protections than the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has permitted states to extend such enhanced protections, most notably in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.^[188] In that case, the Court unanimously ruled that while the First Amendment may allow private property owners to prohibit trespass by political speakers and petition-gatherers, California was permitted to restrict property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum (often shopping malls and grocery stores) from enforcing their private property rights to exclude such individuals.^[189] However, the Court did maintain that shopping centers could impose "reasonable restrictions on expressive activity".^[190] Subsequently, New Jersey, Colorado, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico courts have adopted the doctrine;^[191][192] California's courts have repeatedly reaffirmed it.^[193]

 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by rangerx

[Endy0816]

Probably doesn't apply. Depends on how the location is routinely used.

 

Do you have a link to the story?

Edited March 8, 2016 by Endy0816

[swansont]

That's California, not the whole country. I recall an event some years ago at a mall in upstate NY where someone was arrested for trespass after refusing to leave, because he was wearing a politically-themed t-shirt (I think it was protesting the Iraq war)that was contrary to the policy they had set up. (And despite the fact that he bought the shirt in the mall)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/

 

edit "Give Peace a Chance" isn't particularly controversial politics.

[Phi for All]

Personally, I love hearing that peaceful people are being kicked out of Drumpf rallies. Even his staunchest supporters should see the thuggery in that.

 

And why should Drumpf care? Doesn't having people wearing opposition shirts at his rallies imply he's swaying voters (as long as the people aren't actively protesting)? That he's reaching even Clinton and Sanders fence-sitters?

 

That's California, not the whole country. I recall an event some years ago at a mall in upstate NY where someone was arrested for trespass after refusing to leave, because he was wearing a politically-themed t-shirt (I think it was protesting the Iraq war)that was contrary to the policy they had set up. (And despite the fact that he bought the shirt in the mall)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/

edit "Give Peace a Chance" isn't particularly controversial politics.

 

Wow, those mall cops really need Bernie Sanders to make sure they're better educated. Of all the footwear available in that mall, they chose jackboots....

[rangerx]

 

Do you have a link to the story?

 

Unfortunately not. It was a couple of days ago appearing on my Facebook timeline posted as liked by a friend. I scrolled back considerably, but couldn't find it again.

[Endy0816]

Wow, those mall cops really need Bernie Sanders to make sure they're better educated. Of all the footwear available in that mall, they chose jackboots....

 

Not really...

 

Should say I presently work in Security(not a mall, though having a seaway would be awesome) and we're just enforcing whatever our own bosses tell us(provided it is within the law). I've seen plenty of arbitrary rules that make little to no sense and change at the drop of a hat.

 

Just a job. Really don't care personally. We'll ask politely, try to reason with someone and if all else fails get the cops involved. As long as we've acted legally and decently in attempting to enforce the rules, we are in the right. Half the time we ourselves think a rule is stupid, but have neither the authority nor frankly the time to debate the matter.

 

We've had protesters out before and likely well again. Most are pretty knowledgeable in terms of knowing exactly how far they can go in exercising their rights. Decent folk.

 

How it is supposed to be. Not people getting trespassed off or hauled away in handcuffs. We don't want the negative publicity, you don't want to spend time in a cell with "Bubba".

 

 

 

Unfortunately not. It was a couple of days ago appearing on my Facebook timeline posted as liked by a friend. I scrolled back considerably, but couldn't find it again.

 

Yeah, I went looking for it, there is just so much out there associated with "The Donald" that I have no desire to shift through.

[Phi for All]

 

Not really...

 

Should say I presently work in Security(not a mall, though having a seaway would be awesome) and we're just enforcing whatever our own bosses tell us(provided it is within the law). I've seen plenty of arbitrary rules that make little to no sense and change at the drop of a hat.

 

Just a job. Really don't care personally. We'll ask politely, try to reason with someone and if all else fails get the cops involved. As long as we've acted legally and decently in attempting to enforce the rules, we are in the right. Half the time we ourselves think a rule is stupid, but have neither the authority nor frankly the time to debate the matter.

 

We've had protesters out before and likely well again. Most are pretty knowledgeable in terms of knowing exactly how far they can go in exercising their rights. Decent folk.

 

How it is supposed to be. Not people getting trespassed off or hauled away in handcuffs. We don't want the negative publicity, you don't want to spend time in a cell with "Bubba".

 

Really? You wouldn't have done anything different? Sort of shocking, coming from you.

 

Tell me, when the guy mentions he bought the T-shirt in your mall, wouldn't that suggest that one of your tenants is going to be harmed by your actions? When the guy tells you he's a lawyer, and that you're overstepping your authority, shouldn't you be reconsidering just how important it is that nobody in your mall see the guy with the message about giving peace a chance? When the most controversial word on the shirt is "peace", do you dig out the Stupid Manual, flip to page duh, and demand that a mall customer remove a peaceful shirt he just bought there? How does that EVER get to be SOP for people with brains?

[swansont]

 

Really? You wouldn't have done anything different? Sort of shocking, coming from you.

 

Tell me, when the guy mentions he bought the T-shirt in your mall, wouldn't that suggest that one of your tenants is going to be harmed by your actions? When the guy tells you he's a lawyer, and that you're overstepping your authority, shouldn't you be reconsidering just how important it is that nobody in your mall see the guy with the message about giving peace a chance? When the most controversial word on the shirt is "peace", do you dig out the Stupid Manual, flip to page duh, and demand that a mall customer remove a peaceful shirt he just bought there? How does that EVER get to be SOP for people with brains?

 

 

You're equating management with brains, though. The lower-level workers don't get to question policy. I'll bet the policy was modified when the prospect of losing business reared its ugly head.

[Phi for All]

You're equating management with brains, though. The lower-level workers don't get to question policy. I'll bet the policy was modified when the prospect of losing business reared its ugly head.

 

From the (current) Code of Behavior at the Crossgates Mall near Albany, NY:

http://www.shopcrossgates.com/uploads/pdf/Behavior_Rules_9_2013.pdf

To promote the shopping center atmosphere, customers, guests and employees shall be fully clothed. The wearing of apparel which is likely to provoke a disturbance or embroil other groups or the general public in open conflict is prohibited.

 

 

I question that the actual guards, and not the management, chose to stretch this "code of behavior" to the degree where "Give Peace A Chance" might "provoke a disturbance" or "embroil other groups or the general public in open conflict". If the shirt said, "FUCK BUSH!", it might make more sense.

 

But I'm not simply incredulous. This decision, made on the ground at the guard's level of authority, seems to far exceed their instructions regarding apparel likely to cause a disturbance. The fact that the t-shirt in question was sold in a shop that pays rent to this mall also suggests the mall cops doubled down on their own stupidity.

 

I think this is a probably a case where small town mall cop issues an order that isn't complied with, and he decides his pissiness is more important than being smart.

[Endy0816]

I'm hoping they updated the rules. This was awhile ago now.

 

I read it as largely intentional. These were shirts he had made rather than innocently purchased off the rack and he was provided an "out" from any legal proceedings.

 

I think I read the mall dropped the charges, but at any rate feel the officers acted reasonably.

 

 

It all began when Mr. Downs and his son, Roger, 31, an ecology consultant, ordered custom T-shirts at a store in the mall and wore them over their clothes to the mall's food court. Upon a security guard's request, his son later removed his T-shirt, which read ''No War With Iraq'' and ''Let Inspections Work.''

 

The older Mr. Downs, a firm believer in free speech, said he wanted to see what would happen, because he had heard that people sporting antiwar messages on their clothing were being asked to leave the mall. He stressed that he and his son did not pass out fliers or try to convert anyone. ''I didn't want to get arrested,'' he said. ''But I didn't know what the situation was and that gnawed at me.''

 

Tim Kelley, a director for the Pyramid Management Group, which runs the mall, said today that security guards had received a complaint about ''two gentlemen bothering customers.'' He said their concern was over Mr. Downs's behavior, not his clothing. ''It was not an issue of us asking him to leave because of what was on his shirt,'' he said. ''That's not our policy.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/nyregion/mall-case-creates-antiwar-celebrity.html

 

[Phi for All]

I think the key to this is his real behavior. If he was being obnoxious about his new purchase, or too loud, or if he really was annoying customers in the food court, they'd be right about asking him to leave, and if not, calling the police is a fair SOP.

 

But if he really was bothering other customers, asking him to remove the shirt doesn't seem like the solution.

 

I wonder if the mall cops figured the messages on the shirts basically conveyed the same anti-war sentiment, so when the son removed his (which was very specific to the Iraq invasion, and controversial at the time) but the father didn't, they forgot that promoting peace in general shouldn't be considered controversial, ever.