Ever since the adoption of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment has been under attack. Especially the right of the citizen to gather in groups and to hear speakers expressing views contrary to those held by another faction.
Down through the years one group or another has been trying to shut down meetings and rallies, by disruptive tactics, to which it didn't want people exposed. In the 19th and through the late 20th century it was the political far right for the most part. The KKK, for a brief period the American Nazi party, the big manufacturers who attempted suppression of the labor movement, the enemies of civil rights and similar organizations that attempted to disrupt, intimidate and harass any speaker and their listeners who tried to hold a meeting, or a rally in support of reform. They tried to suppress any demonstration of citizens that were campaigning for equality of races and/or gender or better working conditions. They attempted and were frighteningly successful, at least for awhile. in disrupting rallies and demonstrations for a position on critical human rights issues that contradicted their preconceived notions, prejudices and greed. The crusaders persevered however, and with the backing of the government with legislation was able to gain many, if not most, of their objectives.
Now, however, a new dynamic has entered the political arena. It is the left wing, the so called liberals, that are the biggest impediment to free speech in America today. These are the same groups, that at one time, where the recipients of bully boy tactics attempting suppress their drive for a change of the status quo.
The evidence is everywhere. The disruption at a Donald Trump rally just the other day in Chicago is just one example, but there are many. They want to make sure the no one is exposed to political positions that they don't agree with. They did not choose a peaceful demonstration outside the hall where Trump was to speak, but rather, infiltrated the hall and disrupted the meeting, causing enough violence and threat of violence that the meeting had to be cancelled. Of course Donald Trump's problem is- He turns on his mouth before he engages his brain. So, he is far from being politically correct. But, he has the right to be so. Most speakers caught in the same position as Trump, with demonstrators trying to disrupt his or her meeting, might have thought the same things that he said out loud. But, most politicians know that those types of pronouncements are not politically correct and would have handled it differently. Of course in Trumps case, the motivation may be more than just disagreement for some of his "speech before thinking pronouncements" and may have the objective of keeping him from getting the nomination.
Conservative speakers who don't toe the liberal orthodoxy are shouted down and even banned from campuses. A former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Condolleezza Rice, was asked by a major university to withdraw from a commencement address because the left leaning students threatened to disrupt it and didn't want to hear what she might say. This was a woman who was instrumental in American foreign policy for almost eight years, who was also a recognized expert in that field before she ever became part of the administration. She was a person who had something to say and should have been allowed to say it. This is far from the only example. This is happening at the same time socialist professors and speakers, a completely failed system every place it's been tried, are welcomed with open arms. In many colleges and universities across this country, conservative talk is labeled as "Hate Speech" and is not to be allowed.
The university is supposed to be the citadel of discourse and ideas discussed freely. They should be the greatest defenders of the right of the students to express their thoughts and to have free and open discussions on all points of view. The student should be exposed to, and asked to dissect, the positions of the right and the left of the political spectrum. However, the left is not willing to engage the people that they disagree with in civil discourse, but rather use the tactics that were used by the fascists in Germany and Italy prior to WWII and despots around the globe. The left employs these tactics to make sure ideas that are counter to their positions would not be heard. That's probably because in a civilized debate their position would be shown to be full of fairy dust.
Some people in the organized, and it was clearly organized, disruption at the Trump political rally were carrying signs that equated Trump with Hitler. Of course that comparison is ludicrous, and is used extensively by left wing groups that don't like the political views of another. When you think about it, it is the crowd that is using the methods of fascists, not the scheduled speaker.
The liberal media immediately blamed the near riot on Trump. That the disruptive people were exercising their constitutional right in staging the interruption and breaking up the political rally. Frankly that argument holds no water at all. The group with different beliefs have a perfect right to hold rallies and demonstrations supporting their own views, with out disruption from any other group, but they don't have the right to infringe on another person, or groups, in an effort to prevent them from their right of free speech. Bernie Sanders has the right to spout socialism at organized rally's and should be able to do so without organized hostile crowds trying to prevent him from giving his point of view. As should Hillary. Martin Luther King had a right to organize and lead the famous marches for which he is famous without violence and threat of violence dogging his every move.
As a side thought, I wonder what the media would say if a right wing group attempted the disruption of a Sanders or Clinton political rally to the point it had to be cancelled. I'm sure that the group that staged the protest would have been labeled with unflattering names.
I believe it was Hamilton who said, "I might not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
