Eight years ago Obamaism killed the Left Wing blogs. Many of them are still there, but their credibility is gone. Objective reality and the use of logic and reason fell victim to Koolaid intoxication. All because of Obama.
Now the Right Wing blogosphere is disintegrating in much the same way, all because of Anti-Trumpism (aka “Trump Derangement Syndrome”).
Here is an example from Taylor Millard at Hot Air:
Donald Trump is wrong for thinking supporters had their freedom of speech rights violated because his Chicago rally was canceled by protesters. Freedom of speech is one of the foundations of America. It’s something people cling to as a basic right of existence, except when they’re trying to silence those who disagree with them (hi SJW’s). But the notion the free speech rights of Trump supporters were infringed upon because of the protesters outside is laughable and simply not true. The First Amendment says so (emphasis mine).
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Section One of the 14th Amendment expands the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, but says nothing about an unruly mob trying to protest outside a political event. John may disagree with me on this, and I see where he’s coming from, but the Constitution is clear: the government can’t stop events. But this doesn’t mean the anti-Trump protesters are free and clear to simply barge into any event or home they see fit. Michigan Congressman Justin Amash points out how protesters do face consequences for hijacking rallies, especially if they’re private events.
So there you have it. Protesters are more than welcome to yell and scream until they commit a crime. Simply protesting outside an event, and forcing its cancelation, isn’t a violation of free speech. It’s simply using the First Amendment to protest against someone people don’t agree with. It’s like the Trump supporter deciding to throw up the Nazi salute to counter-protest the anti-Trump supporters: completely constitutional and not a violation of the First Amendment. It also means Trump can send supporters to try to shut down the next Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton rally, even if they might face charges of trespassing or assault if they attack someone. But for him to suggest otherwise is ludicrous and shows he either a) hasn’t read the Constitution or b) doesn’t care.
Wow! Stupid should hurt. The quality of writing at Hot Air has really declined of late.
Freedom of speech is a natural right enumerated (but not created) by the First Amendment. The concept of natural rights is the foundation of our whole system. it’s implied in the very language Millard quoted:
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . “
You can’t abridge what doesn’t exist. It doesn’t say “the people shall have the right” it says that Congress shall not take that right away.
Trump’s First Amendment rights may not have been violated, but his right to free speech certainly WAS violated. So were the rights of assembly and association. So what do people do when their rights are being violated by other people? They turn to the government to protect and enforce those rights.
That is why government can regulate the “time, place and manner” of speech. Anything else is mob rule.
Unfortunately, the government of late has refused to enforce the rights of all citizens in favor of a small but vocal subset who are allowed to do things like block roads and malls and disrupt assemblies featuring speakers they don’t like.
Then they wonder why the people who are being silenced and whose lives are being disrupted get angry and lose respect for the rule of law.
If it’s gonna be mob rule then the biggest mob rules.