"Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."
-- Proverbs 29:18, King James Bible (KJV)

Sunday, March 13, 2016

A Suggested Political Rally Disruption Solution: Explicit Trespass Instructions on Tickets viz. Via Site Venue Rules

If you buy a ticket to the Super Bowl, can you as a spectator viz. fan at the event do what you want as a matter of "free speech"? The answer is no. What about running on to the field? How is that to be prohibited? See below.

You are buying a ticket to "see" the game as a fan under normal conditions and with normal spectator behavior. That is what you are paying for.

If you get out of line, you are essentially a common law "trespasser" on premises belonging to others and you are behaving in a manner for which you have no permission from the premise owner. A clear case of trespass.

An example is the Unviersity of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, which was the site of Super Bowl XLIX (49) in 2015, the stadium guide of which at Game Day - University of Phoenix Stadium provides:

"Playing Field - No Trespassing Fans are reminded that attempting to enter or accessing the playing field without the proper credential will be considered trespassing and is grounds for immediate ejection and arrest."

One way for political parties to eliminate the problem of the despicable disrupters at rallies is to make the conditions of trespass clear via venue i.e. site rules (which then catches non-ticket holders), and perhaps also via explicit rules and conditions of ticket entry, etc., especially including any disruptive activity as constituting trespass and being grounds for immediate ejection and arrest.

Trump Rally Disruption and Free Speech Law: The Difference Between Legal Protest viz. Demonstration and the Intentional Illegal Disruption of Other Persons Carrying Out Legal Activities

There is a great deal of difference between the constitutionally protected right of protest viz. demonstration as opposed to the intentional disruption of what other people are doing in carrying out a legal activity.

We get tired of reading in the often clueless mainstream media about the alleged "rights" of disruptive protesters and demonstrators, who, pursuant to common law principles, are in essence nothing more than trespassers, and who are interfering with the legitimate "rights" of other people to carry out legally permissible activities, including THEIR right to free speech.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized -- in the case of its OWN interests -- that the free speech right to protest and demonstrate must have SENSIBLE boundaries, and that free speech does not permit people to obstruct others in carrying out their legally permissible activities or professions. See Protesters have no free-speech rights on Supreme Court’s front porch.

Free speech is intended to maintain people's right to expression, BUT NOT to enable them to use their free speech right to obstruct the free speech rights of others or to hinder them in any way in their legally permissible activities.

When disrupters interrupt another person making a speech at a rally, they are doing nothing else than violating that person's free speech rights.

We once went to a paid theatre performance with a large group of people only to find a small competing theatre group from another company in seats behind us whose sole reason for being there was to loudly disrupt the performance of the competing players for selfish reasons -- the same motivation that guides political protesters at a rally -- the selfishness to obtain THEIR objectives at the cost of other people.

Obstructing or hindering others or keeping them from the enjoyment of their legally permissible activity is NOT free speech. It is a crime, and should so be treated by the legal system. We are a nation of laws, not primitive thuggery.

We have no understanding for society's legal or otherwise tolerance of these despicable hypocrites, regardless of their political party, religion, belief, or whatever. Our view is: "get them out". We do not care if it is a Democratic Party Rally, a Republican Party Rally, or any other rally.

It is time that the U.S. Supreme Court properly define the free speech right as ending where the free speech rights of others are violated by the actions of disrupters viz. disrupting thugs, camouflaged as "protesters" viz. demonstrators.

Let protesters hoist their banners somewhere in the non-disrupting geographic vicinity of the legal activity they are protesting or demonstrating about, but by no means should they be permitted to obstruct that legal activity of others.

The activities of these disrupters have in principle nothing to do with their exercise viz. expression of "free speech" but rather are clearly the INTENTIONAL VIOLATION of the RIGHTS of OTHERS.