Just a little food for thought, provided by Noah Feldman at Bloomberg:
The melee at the Donald Trump rally Friday night in Chicago raises a fundamental First Amendment question: When a speaker, such as the Republican presidential candidate, is confronting angry protesters, whose speech rights come first: the speaker’s or the protesters’?
The U.S. Supreme Court’s answer to this question has evolved over the years. At one time, the court was ambivalent, sometimes favoring the speaker and sometimes willing to shut down the speaker to avoid public disorder.
Today, however, the norm is clear: Protesters who disrupt a rally can be removed by police so that they don’t exercise what’s called a heckler’s veto over the rally’s organizer. It shouldn’t matter whether it’s the Ku Klux Klan interrupting a civil-rights speaker or civil-rights protesters interrupting a racist diatribe. The law considers the speaker’s rights as paramount.
I hold no truck with Donald Trump. I will not vote for him under any circumstances whatever. He shouldn’t encourage violence in his supporters. But he has a right to speak and “protesters” don’t have a right to prevent him from speaking.
And our arse-hat in chief here in Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, is wrong on the law. He’s defending the wrong people.