Home > Political Editorial > First Amendment Under Attack

First Amendment Under Attack

March 13th, 2016 Leave a comment Go to comments
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

March 13, 2016 Original publish date
March 20, 2016 Title amended from First Amendment Under Attack in Chicago as news story expanded outside of Chicago into other cities.

2016-03-11 Trumprally-Chicago-A2

First Amendment Under Attack

Editorial by Net Advisor

EXCERPT: This is about the attack on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in Chicago that occurred on March 11, 2016. We also look at what the law says regarding speech and public assembly; what may be driving this behavior, and the groups doing the driving.

CHICAGO, Illinois. First we need some media clarity. A CBS News reporter, Suzanne LeMignot seems to misinterpret what GOP Presidential contender Donald Trump said. The reporter seems to have two conflicting paragraphs:

Parr 4:
Reporter Statement (PDF): “Chicago Police say they never talked with Trump, nor did they tell him to pull out.”

Parr 5:
Reporter Quoting CPD (PDF): “In fact, I can tell you we did assure the Trump campaign that we had more than adequate resources outside the UIC Pavilion and that we guaranteed them we could provide safe access and exit for Mr. Trump.”

In other words, Chicago Police Dept. (CPD), DID talk to the Trump campaign. Whether one talks to a campaign representative about security or to a candidate directly is inconsequential.

There were reports of INSIDE security risk where groups of people intended to rush the stage with Trump on it. Many protesters barged their way in, according to Mr. Trump speaking in a Fox News interview that same evening.

The CBS reporter should understand that police are not going to tell a presidential candidate or any lawful assembly to cancel a public event. That would be using the power of the state to silence speech and a violation of the First Amendment. That was not the case.

Ultimately it was Mr. Trump’s decision who cited public safety concerns for ALL parties present and canceled the event.

So who were these people really protesting at, and was Trump the target or was it everyone but the protestors?

[1] Protesting Against Who Again?

After the event was shutdown, the protestors began fighting with police. Several Chicago police officers were injured by rocks or bottles thrown by those “peaceful protestors.”

[2] The Political Left’s Anti-Police Rhetoric

This Anti-Police rhetoric seems to be common – for example: (Fresno, 2013), (Seattle, 2015),(Baltimore, 2015), (Nebraska, 2016). Police in general have been targets of what many in the media falsely calls “peaceful protestors.”

Few examples of officers under attack:

This was no different than what had occurred during the Chicago Trump Campaign rally. I cited observing audio footage of a female “protestor” outside the event:

Anytime you have 1,000’s of angry people (a mob), where such radical and aggressive organizations including but not limited to (Answer Collision, BLM, Democracy Now, Liberation Army, Socialist Workers Party, Workers World Party, and MoveOn) where some have participated in past public demonstrations and whereas a number of those associated participates led to violence, civil disorder including New York, Boston, and rioting in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Seattle, that is a security risk to be managed. Together they represent more Anti-American ideology.

[3] Political Left Goes Off the Deep-End

Here are random examples over the last few years of how far the Political Left has gone.


[4] The Law

Like many, I watched some of these protestors chanting one expletive and another. One person even jumped in front of a news camera and said “hate speech was illegal.” This was clearly someone who was ignorant of the law, as well as being part of a censorship protest.

Free Speech lawyers, Gary T. Schwartz, Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law, and Geoffrey R. Stone, Law Professor at the University of Chicago, co-wrote an insightful piece about Freedom of Speech and the Press with the Constitution Center.org.

Schwartz and Stone stated, “The First Amendment restrains only the government.” Meaning, government (not individuals) cannot restrain or punish those for speech with a few exceptions. Examples:

  • Public defamation that can harm one’s reputation is NOT protected and could subject one to a civil lawsuit, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
  • In-person language or insults that may lead to immediate physical altercation or “Fighting Words” are NOT protected by the First Amendment, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). This also includes threatening to commit a crime Watts v. United States (1969).

The one exception to “Fighting Words” has to do with political speech.

  • For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).”

Protected Speech

Although such may be highly offending to some or many, “hate speech,” is protected by the First Amendment.

“…entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment.”

— Said Law Professors Gary T. Schwartz and Geoffrey R. Stone. Source: Constitution Center.org. (Red emphases added.)

Peaceable Assembly

People have the right for “peaceable assembly,” De Jonge v. Oregon (1937), however the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted police to regulate public assemblies such as to maintain civil order says Burt Neuborne, Professor of Civil Liberties at New York University.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that it is the job of the police to protect an assembly from a “heckler’s veto.” Where, however, hostile response threatens to spill over into violence, inevitable pressure exists to shut down the assembly.”

John Inazu, Associate Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis. Source: Constitution Center.org.

Basically the Heckler’s Veto is what happened at the Trump campaign rally in Chicago. Protestors decided to exercise their free speech in order to silence Trump and the attendee’s rights of their free speech.

Chicago police could have ordered the disruptive crowd or person(s) to disassemble (Disorderly Conduct§8-4-010) in order to protect the public and the lawfully organized function without threat or harm to the participants, including the speaker, Feiner v. New York (1951).

Chief Justice Vinson for the majority in the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police acted within their authority to arrest Feiner under New York Penal Code §722 who was ‘inciting a breach of the peace.’ The Court said the motivation by police was solely to ‘preserve order and protect the general welfare’ of the people.

Now that we touched on what is and is not protected speech and assembly, let’s looks at what the real issue may be.

[5] Psychology. What’s Going On?

We see the radical Left use words like ‘racism,’ and ‘Nazism’ which have been an ongoing pattern of defense mechanisms relating to matters of their own Projection. Some on the political Right use their own terms to describe the Left.

However, some of this extremist language may suggest that people are probably experiencing some level of deep emotional pain, environmental condition or both. Environmental factors could include living conditions, neighborhood, or a challenging economic situation where they are just trying to afford the basics.

Such pain is often brainwashed by so called “leaders” who tell them that all their pain is the fault of someone else – politically this would be “Republicans.” This is where Projection comes in.

Republicans on the other hand, might be angry at liberals for trying to take away their Constitution-given rights and liberties such as protecting their right to bear arms, how their tax dollars are being spent, and why do their have to pay for the welfare of those who are in the USA illegally?

Note the difference here. It seems one side (the liberals) just go for the ad hominems (attack on the person instead of the argument). That is the liberal answer, and no proof is necessary to support their claims. Of course attacking people with extreme words doesn’t solve anything and never will – never.

What solves problems is to clearly define them and come up with sound rational solutions. Yes that requires work as well as thought.

I would argue that their real underline anger is probably more due to economic condition, and that is quantifiable.

[6] Underline Anger Isn’t Racism or Nazism, It’s the Economy Stupid

I would argue the underline reason why many people are angry is the lack of jobs, the high crimes driven much by gangs, (illegally imported) drugs. Such has resulted in a high homicide rates in many neighborhoods such as Chicago, Baltimore, Ferguson, Detroit, etc. There seems to be no major protests to change any of that is there?

Yet, we find that Chicago [Report, Point 12] and Detroit for example, continue to vote the exact same way (Democrat) for decades, yet they expect a different result. Obviously that ideology has led to city failure, higher taxes, higher crime, and higher homicides. This has led to many businesses leaving the area, which results in lack of quality jobs, which results in low income. James Carville, Bill Clinton’s Campaign Manager said in 1992, it’s the economy stupid.

I studied this issue covering especially over the last 7 years to help explain what the true U.S. economic picture looks like. The data is just math, it’s not politics, and the results are quite disappointing. The lack of growth in the U.S. economy means a lack of real jobs, and real wages. However, if one listens to the wrong people, citing fantasy jobs data, they will blame anyone but Washington DC’s failure of “leadership,” and reckless spending that has produced these poor economic results for the People.

[7] Social-Marxism

We often see similar organized protestors, as we did in the Trump Chicago rally where we see people flying FOREIGN flags, holding up signs of hate, while these same people claim to be protesting against hate?

Many of these radicals fit the behavior of Social-Marxists.

Social as in subscribing to the Socialist ideology (derived from Leninism) including forcing social change, (Mob Rule) not lawful change. Then Marxists, as in Marxism including the use of force (compliance) to suspend the rights, liberties, freedoms of anyone and thus oppress those who are not part of the communist ideology. Such actions lead to a Communist or Socialist State. Hence we can frame the radical political Left’s actions and goals to reflect Social-Marxism.

Try going to North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, other Middle-eastern countries and protest using the same tactics used by the Left in the USA. They would be in jail, likely with no bail, have little to no rights, and in some of these countries they would be executed without trail. That is the end game of Social-Marxism – to strip away said liberties and freedoms so that everyone is in compliance to a single (radical) ideology at ALL costs.

This is also called GroupThink where innovation, creativity is stifled because that would require out-of-the-box thinking. Show me a county that has an economy larger than the U.S. (Answer is none).

Those pushing anti-American values, don’t support the U.S. Constitution except for their own purposes, and such is not extended to anyone else. These radical groups interject their own rules via “street justice.”

That is not America.


For the record, as an education, media non-profit organization NetAdvisor.org® does not endorse any political candidate. Any inference to the contrary would be misinterpreted.

Page top graphic credit: Copyright ©2016 Fox News. We the People graphic unknown origin or owner if any. Please advise for credit.
Original article content, Copyright © 2016 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.


Related posts:

Categories: Political Editorial
  1. Aiden P.
    August 6th, 2017 at 23:04 | #1

    I cοuld not resist commenting. Exceptionally well written!

  1. No trackbacks yet.