On a public street outside their home? Absolutely. Why should their homes be sacrosanct when their legislation affects what I can do at home, what kind of home I can have, and so forth?
When it comes to activists disrupting town hall meetings and other political gatherings, I'm inclined to agree with what Trump once said during the campaign. Encourage supporters to physically remove the disruptive bad-actors from the meetings. When it comes to legal remedies to assholes demonstrating outside people's homes, I expect that legally speaking it's complicated. There are laws about demonstrating without permits, about blocking streets and public accessways like sidewalks, noise ordinances, laws regarding public nuisances, about civil and criminal harassment, and all kinds of laws that might be applicable. One would have to consult with the lawyers I guess. But liberal judges are apt to side with the demonstrators and call the demonstrators' targeting political opponents' homes, families and neighbors "free speech". The alternative might be to do the same thing to Democrats. Plant permanent demonstrations outside Democrats' homes and disrupt their neighborhoods and neighbor's lives as much as legally possible. You can just imagine the howls of outrage you would hear in all the media and from all the pundits if the alt.right behaved the same way that the mainstream Democrats already do, outing opponents' home addresses, trapping their families inside their homes and being as disruptive as possible in their neighborhoods. The hypocrisy once again wouldn't be lost on the American people.
There's a very fine line between an ordinary citizen physically removing someone from a public meeting and an assault charge. Step lightly.
They'd call it that for good reason. And it wouldn't deserve scare quotes no matter who was doing the speaking and who they were speaking to.
Which is? I wasn't trying to "scare" anyone. I was expressing my opinion that the concept of 'speech' has been expanded by ideologues (including ideologues in black robes) to include sometimes dangerous things that aren't even remotely speech. I doubt that you would want to argue that the asshole that ran his car into a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville should be Constitutionally protected for doing so, because his behavior constituted 'speech' expressing his forceful political disagreement with the protesters. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. So like every question, this turns into a philosophical question. My answer to my own implicit question would be that Constitutional rights of free political "speech" (the quotes are there to indicate that lots of things that aren't literally speech are being included in the 'speech' category) need to be limited when the actions deprive other people of equally valid rights. Disrupting a political gathering deprives everyone else present of their own rights of assembly and political free speech. Disagreement with a political representative's politics doesn't justify depriving not only the Representative, but his/her family and even their nearby neighbors from pursuing their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Anger at capitalism doesn't justify arson and looting.
'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.' has been a quote popular with libertarians. Where, in this case, does the nose end. Lots of nice quotes here: FREEDOM KEYS
