I don't remember saying that I thought that law was GOOD. I didn't even remember that it was done. But it is done - it is now the law - and these thugs are taking protest to disruption. It is a disruption, and now I see that it's even a crime. Trump has the right to say something about it.
I just can't believe that there are people here that think that these little thug/tantrums to interrupt Trump's speeches are A-OK. That it serves him right.
I'm a bit surprised, in light of that, that Ted Cruz - the brilliant legal scholar and genius of all that is ethical and legal - didn't mention that when he gave his scathing opinion on Trump's protester problems. No, he took the opportunist road to try to score some political points - instead of standing in solidarity with Trump's right to have a rally without these disruptions.
Keep reading, the law some are wanting to apply now has zero to do with violence, rushing the stage, or mobs, it is directly aimed at speech deemed 'disruptive or protest'. It is left up to the discretion of the current authority. To many, this law is specifically aimed at protecting authority from challenge. Joe Wilson's "You Lie" moment could be criminalized under that law and called disruption.
Like I said, this isn't the law one wants to bring up in regards to stopping violent protests, punching protestors, and 'stage rushing'. This law is all about speech, period.
Use the role reversal test. If there were protests against Hillary and she called for quelling them under this law, would you be OK with it?