Protesters gather in NYC to protest Trump's 'SNL' appearance

[rooster59]

Protesters gather in NYC to protest Trump's 'SNL' appearance

NEW YORK (AP) — Demonstrators are marching through the streets of New York City to protest Donald Trump's views on immigration hours before he hosts "Saturday Night Live."

Dozens of protesters held signs and chanted Saturday evening as they marched from Trump Tower to NBC's studio.
Outside Rockefeller Plaza, they chanted: "Donald Trump has got to go."

Some of the protesters say Trump's statements about immigration are racist and offensive.

NBC has faced pressure from a coalition of advocacy groups calling for Trump to be dropped from "SNL" over his comments that cost him his role hosting "The Apprentice."

The network has not responded, and Trump says he believes the controversy will boost the audience for the episode.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-11-08

[NeverSure]

Dozens of protesters held signs and chanted Saturday evening as they protested freedom of speech for anyone but themselves.

They are lucky to live in a country that allows freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to do what they are doing. They just don't understand that the same freedoms apply to people they disagree with.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to be disagreeable or we wouldn't need the freedom. They would take those freedoms from the media and from Trump which would be the ultimate travesty.

They just don't get it.

Cheers.

[Ulysses G.]

The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.

-Hugo Black

[CaptHaddock]

Dozens of protesters held signs and chanted Saturday evening as they protested freedom of speech for anyone but themselves.

They are lucky to live in a country that allows freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to do what they are doing. They just don't understand that the same freedoms apply to people they disagree with.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to be disagreeable or we wouldn't need the freedom. They would take those freedoms from the media and from Trump which would be the ultimate travesty.

They just don't get it.

Cheers.

I don't think you get it actually.

No one is denying that Trump has the right to speak about his ideas. However, he does not have a right to be paid to do on network TV. Government suppression of Trump's speech that would indeed be a violation of his First Amendment rights, but no one is calling for that. They have the right to request the program not hire Trump and the right to request they hire someone else whose views they support. Neither is an impingement on Trump's rights.

Freedom of speech certainly includes the right to be offensive, but as well the right to oppose the ideas of others. If citizens can not request others to turn away from ideas they oppose, of what else could freedom of speech consist?

[NeverSure]

^^^ Because they object to a marketplace of varying ideas. They want only what they agree with to be aired.

In a free society it's important to let all views get aired.

Cheers.

[CaptHaddock]

^^^ Because they object to a marketplace of varying ideas. They want only what they agree with to be aired.

In a free society it's important to let all views get aired.

Cheers.

The protestors are not in any way objecting to a marketplace of ideas. No one is saying that Trump should be locked for his opinion or that his books should be burned.

They are using moral suasion, not force, to persuade the tv program not to give Trump that particular national platform to promote his ideas which the tv program is free to grant, but to which Trump has no right. Respect for freedom of speech does not oblige citizens to stand by passively or silently in the face opinions to which they object.

Suppose the shoe were on the other foot and and Bernie Sanders were invited to the VFW to present his recommendation that Ed Snowden be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, a policy which I am guessing you would oppose. Would you believe that you should not be allowed to march peaceably down to the local VFW hall with a sign calling for Snowden to be tried for treason instead? It makes no sense. The street protest is part of the marketplace of ideas, too, otherwise free speech could only be exercised in tv studios.

Edited November 8, 2015 by CaptHaddock

[Chicog]

Already sounds like fun, I'll d/l it.

Donald Trump was called a racist during his opening monologue as he guest-hosted US sketch show Saturday Night Live.

But the off-stage heckler turned out to be comedian Larry David, who moments earlier impersonated Democrat Bernie Sanders, who is also bidding to run for the White House.

"Larry, what are you doing?" Mr Trump asked on the NBC TV show.

"I heard if I did that I would get 5,000 dollars," said David, echoing an offer reportedly made by pro-Hispanic groups protesting at Republican Mr Trump's appearance.

"As a businessman, I can fully respect that," Trump said.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Chicog

[godden]

the man is the saviour of America

[Shaunduhpostman]

If they don't like him they should be happy he gets on national tv, he's his own best negative publicity.

[h90]

Dozens of protesters held signs and chanted Saturday evening as they protested freedom of speech for anyone but themselves.

They are lucky to live in a country that allows freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to do what they are doing. They just don't understand that the same freedoms apply to people they disagree with.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to be disagreeable or we wouldn't need the freedom. They would take those freedoms from the media and from Trump which would be the ultimate travesty.

They just don't get it.

Cheers.

That is a main problem for idiots.....Right wing and left wing cry for freedom of speech (for their opinion) and of hardest punishment of any speech that isn't their opinion. That freedom of speech means that you have to accept another opinion as well doesn't go into the brains, currently more the liberals and lefts, but the rights aren't better.....

[daoyai]

It is a comedy show and he is a funny guy, Obviously he is working for Hillary, she loves him.

[chuckd]

Just wondering where all this outrage was when Jon Stewart was using his so called comedy to try and destroy the Republican Party.

[arjunadawn]

Dozens of protesters held signs and chanted Saturday evening as they protested freedom of speech for anyone but themselves.

They are lucky to live in a country that allows freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to do what they are doing. They just don't understand that the same freedoms apply to people they disagree with.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to be disagreeable or we wouldn't need the freedom. They would take those freedoms from the media and from Trump which would be the ultimate travesty.

They just don't get it.

Cheers.

I don't think you get it actually.

No one is denying that Trump has the right to speak about his ideas. However, he does not have a right to be paid to do on network TV. Government suppression of Trump's speech that would indeed be a violation of his First Amendment rights, but no one is calling for that. They have the right to request the program not hire Trump and the right to request they hire someone else whose views they support. Neither is an impingement on Trump's rights.

Freedom of speech certainly includes the right to be offensive, but as well the right to oppose the ideas of others. If citizens can not request others to turn away from ideas they oppose, of what else could freedom of speech consist?

Ah, no; "I don't think you get it actually." Freedom of Speech does not "include the Right to be offensive." Freedom of Speech was only designed for offensive speech. No one ever imagined agreeable speech needing protection. This has been consistently upheld to refer to offensive, disagreeable, repugnant speech.

Trump most certainly does have a right to be paid, or not, to speak on network TV. The First Amendment includes Freedom of Association. Suggesting Trump was paid seems a bit fantastical in any event.

Trump's rights were not affected, you are correct. However, this was exactly the stated goals of those who protest him and it is a well worn path of the liberal playbook- demonize, protest, boycott, shut down. There are countless- too numerous to count- examples of this type of contrived public outrage used as a Rules for Radicals lever in the social forum to shut down speech they oppose (in its evolved form these are the same mechanics used by the left to their endless Color Revolutions). Evidence the entire disruption of America into polarized politically correct camps. Nearly all the issues underpinning this "liberal speech" involved pressure, boycott, contrived protest, contrived outrage, and the effect of infringing on other's Rights under the color of their own Freedom of Speech/Assembly.

From campuses to factories, from politics to the public space, contrived/manufactured dissent/opposition has aimed to absolutely shut down opposing points of view. To miss this context is a gross oversight, or convenient. This is what was attempted to Trump- legal, protected, but base, Trotsky-like tactics for sure.

Your conclusion is sensible, but unrelated to the OP. This was not a meeting of minds on the battlefield of ideas- Trump with his views over time, the protesters assembling to denounce his views. This NBC protest outside was the final breath of a militant pressure campaign to silence opposing speech that included (of course) "demonizing, protesting, boycotts, and even bounty/reward for demonization (contract)." Yes, equally protected speech, but lets not decorate it with the trappings of public forum soapbox speech. It was a manufactured effort to malign, leverage, and boycott a presidential candidate. Because they lost their entitled bid and then appeared in a contrived protest outside, it is a bridge to far to suggest they just wanted citizens to turn away from idea they oppose. Yea, free speech, but of a markedly militant variety.

[chuckd]

Any surprise here?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Donald Trump gives SNL its biggest ratings in years

BY JAMES HIBBERD

With Donald Trump hosting, Saturday Night Live jumped to its biggest overnight rating since 2012.

According to NBC, SNL had a whopping 6.6 household rating on Saturday night, easily beating the season’s previous high: the 41st season premiere last month, hosted by Miley Cyrus and with a guest appearance by none other than … Hillary Clinton. In fact, Trump’s overnight rating was 47 percent higher than the Miley/Hillary episode.

The previous high was held by an episode that aired Jan. 7, 2012, hosted by Charles Barkley with musical guest Kelly Clarkson.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/08/donald-trump-snl-ratings

[Chicog]

Just wondering where all this outrage was when Jon Stewart was using his so called comedy to try and destroy the Republican Party.

Oh, was John Stewart a racist too?

[stevenl]

He did very well.

[Jingthing]

Big ratings.

Boring Trump.

Bottom line ... I don't think the show helped his chances. The Trump utopia in the white house parody reminded Americans that if elected they're going to get an eye candy BIMBO as first lady.

That may have been acceptable in the 1950s.

It's too RETRO for now.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Jingthing

[55Jay]

I saw parts of it on Youtube last night. Was not a soapbox for Trump to advance his agenda.

In SNL style, he was the brunt of jokes and parodies, hell they even had him dancing on a Bling spoof video. Good for him if he got paid. SNL certainly benefited.

[chuckd]

Just wondering where all this outrage was when Jon Stewart was using his so called comedy to try and destroy the Republican Party.

Oh, was John Stewart a racist too?

And when did you stop beating your wife?

[Chicog]

Just wondering where all this outrage was when Jon Stewart was using his so called comedy to try and destroy the Republican Party.

Oh, was John Stewart a racist too?

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Can we say 'non sequitur'?