Image 01 Image 03

Trump Supporters Disrupt Event by Heckling California Attorney General

Trump Supporters Disrupt Event by Heckling California Attorney General

“a continuous and persistent chorus of boos, slogans, and insults”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra was giving a talk with questions and answers at Whittier College. Trump supporters who were easily identifiable in the audience loudly heckled throughout the session which was ultimately cut short.

This was more akin to the rowdy town hall events of 2010 and recent months than to campus shout downs but it was still handled badly. We demand respect for free speech from the left and we should do the same from the right.

Adam Steinbaugh reports at The FIRE:

Hecklers shout down California attorney general, assembly majority leader at Whittier College

Last week, Whittier College — my alma mater — hosted California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, in a question-and-answer session organized by Ian Calderon, the Majority Leader of the California State Assembly.

They tried to, anyway.

The event ended early after pro-Trump hecklers, upset about Becerra’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over DACA, continuously shouted slogans and insults at Becerra and Calderon. A group affiliated with the hecklers later boasted that the speakers were “SHOUTED DOWN BY FED-UP CALIFORNIANS” and that the “meeting became so raucous that it ended about a half hour early.”

The event, held in Whittier College’s Shannon Center theater, was free and open to members of the community, and featured introductions from both Whittier’s president and student body president. Becerra and Calderon were to have an hour-long question-and-answer session using audience questions randomly selected from a basket. As soon as they began the discussion, however, hecklers decked in “Make America Great Again” hats began a continuous and persistent chorus of boos, slogans, and insults.

This short video will give you an idea of what happened:

This video is almost 20 minutes long and shows more detail:

While the actions of these hecklers are rude, it is important to point out that they didn’t destroy property or set fires like we saw in Berkeley last winter:

They also didn’t rush the stage or use violence like the student mob at Middlebury College:

Professor Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit offers some insight on what happened at Whittier:

On the one hand, I think that all campus speakers should be free to speak without interruption. On the other hand, I can’t help but note that in California, that rule hasn’t been observed equally, and quite a few left-leaning government and university officials have taken sides with lefty disruptors. So I have to hope that this sort of thing — a sort of mutual assured destruction — will cause them to rethink their positions and endorse free speech for all.

Principles that apply only part of the time aren’t principles at all, and tit-for-tat is a robust strategy for encouraging cooperative behavior, as Axelrod & Johnson have found. I’ve warned the left for years of the incentives their unprincipled behavior was creating; perhaps now that people are starting to react to those incentives, they’ll finally listen, instead of denouncing civil society and free expression as obsolete bourgeois values. Because I’d like to live in a world where everyone can be heard, but I don’t think you get to that world by giving free rein to (government-supported) bullies who want to shut down the “wrong” people.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



What Professor Glenn Reynolds said! ^^^

    rinardman in reply to rinardman. | October 16, 2017 at 8:56 am

    Although…this would mean the left would need to react rationally, something they rarely do; so it may take a while.

Not a big fan of this but it is nice to give the liberals a little taste of their own medicine!

Two can play this game…can we get back to Free Speech Now!

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to Merlin01. | October 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Notice no black bandanas, clubs, fire bombs, bottles of human excrement hurled at opponents or property destruction. So no, not like the Antifa thugs at all.

I was thinking paid shills, posing as Trump supporters. Nope, these people look like the real deal.. Some pics of them.

They were rude, but not violent. Guess they just had enough.

I do not like what is happening but we are in a war with the crazy anti-Trump folks. So we might have to fight fire with fire.

This is a first!Polite and kind is not going to work today.
I am sorry I have to express that feeling but it’s the truth.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Common Sense. | October 16, 2017 at 11:37 am

    A first, and it comes after about 3 whole years of taking it from crazy Leftists, Progressives, and Democrats.

Ahem. In an order to be morally consistent, I shall now chastise the vocal critics of the CA AG, (who seems to think his position is to prevent the law from being enforced).

Ahem. Please stop shouting.

There we go, that should do it. Peace and tranquility once again reign over the theatre. My work here is done.

    amwick in reply to georgfelis. | October 16, 2017 at 9:46 am

    So CA does have an anti disturbance of meetings statute. California Penal Code 403 PC. hmmmmm.

      thalesofmiletus in reply to amwick. | October 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm

      Rules are only for the Right. The Left can get away with amazing antics that, if the Right were to do, would be hit with the full force of law.

      Sometimes the Left forgets this and eats its own once a while, but mostly…

The Packetman | October 16, 2017 at 9:42 am

“We demand respect for free speech from the left and we should do the same from the right.”

We *have*, Mike … to no avail. This is the behavior the Left practices and understands. If this is the only way to move forward with a conservative agenda, then we’ll roll up our sleeves and get with it.

It is the Left who has made peaceful revolution impossible …

I have finally come to the conclusion that those who deliberately do not respect the free speech of others (particularly in a violent fashion) do not deserve free speech themselves.

I am sick and tired of Leftists abusing others and denying them free speech and then using the Independents/Conservatives respect of free speech to blithfully demand that only their speech gets to be respected.

I think it is time to administer a correction regarding respecting others which so many of the Leftists never received from their parents. Put them in time out until they can behave. No more free speech, free stuff, govt subsidies for Leftist causes until they can start respecting the rights of others. Also, call them out on their racism, bigotry, sexism, and don’t just roll eyes and ignoring their hypocrisy.

I cut my cable and make sure I do not spend where it can be helped any $ at Leftist establishments. Plus time to push to cut tax payer subsidies.

Their rules. I hope they get it good and hard, if just to give them an appreciation of why *we* don’t like it.

    Exactly. Everything in me hates this sort of thing, but on the other hand, it was the left who made up these new rules. A lot of people on the right warned the left, “you’re not going to like having to live by these new rules yourself… are you sure you want this to be the new normal?”

    Well. Welcome to the left’s new normal. ::shrug::

buckeyeminuteman | October 16, 2017 at 10:04 am

Good for them. The Left doesn’t understand politeness, only agitation. It’s about time this starts every time Hillary, Barry, Bernie and Lizzy go anywhere to open their yaps.

“I’m for free speech, but…”

The “but” negates the declaration. You’re either for it or you’re not. No “but”, no rationalizations, no equivocations.

It’s always interesting to see how plastic some people’s principles are.

    There is always a “but” to anything in life.

    What most people do not understand about free speech, as embodied in the 1st amendment, is that it was never meant to be absolute. All the 1st Amendment did was to prevent the GOVERNMENT from restricting speech. And, as the courts have decided there are restrictions on speech if it is gratuitous and dangerous to the well being of others.

    See, speech was always supposed to be regulated, unofficially, by society. Speech which did not meet the standards set by society could lead to ostracization and even a punch in the nose, if it was too egregious [inflammatory speech is still a legal defense for assault most places]. Social standards and taboos have always been applied to “speech”.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2017 at 8:52 pm

      Nobody mentioned the First Amendment.

      And nobody (but especially me, who’s commented on this a good deal) confuses “freedom” with license.

      But you just can’t hep delivering the condescending lecture that’s completely vacant, can you?

      We don’t do the right thing for the wrong reasons. We do the right thing because it is right.

      Not one of your stupid catalog of exceptions applied here.

      I believe in free speech as a natural right, and there’s no buts. For most here, it’s all just a matter of situational convenience. So many buts.

        ““I’m for free speech, but…”

        The “but” negates the declaration. You’re either for it or you’re not. No “but”, no rationalizations, no equivocations.” – Rags

        Don’t hurt yourself backing up so fast. This is exactly what you posted.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2017 at 10:12 pm

          I didn’t…and won’t…”back up”, you moron.

          People are free to express themselves. I’ve VERY often noted that they are NOT free from the consequences of their expression.

          Many, many times. Right here. If you weren’t such a newbie here, you’d know that.

      Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2017 at 9:05 pm

      “And, as the courts have decided there are restrictions on speech if it is gratuitous and dangerous to the well being of others.”

      That’s the SJW’s argument.

      Plus, it’s a lie. Cite to a case where the “courts” have ruled against “gratuitous” speech.

        Are you having a problem with reading comprehension, today? What I said was “gratuitous AND DANGEROUS TO THE WELL BEING OF OTHERS.” This is the whole “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire” argument. And, it has been upheld in courts around the country. Now, either you failed to read and comprehend what I wrote, or you are taking part of what I wrote out of context in an attempt to make a point which would be negated by citing the whole passage. Either way, I am not going to waste any more time on your foolishness. Buh bye.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2017 at 10:15 pm

          I’m not responsible for your lack of writing skill. You could have said “BOTH gratitious AND dangerous…”

          You didn’t.

          But you STILL are making the SJW argument for them.

          And your bullshit does NOT apply here.

          Now, run for the tall grass, nutter.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | October 17, 2017 at 5:38 am

    Sorry, Rags, there’s always a “but”; there are always circumstances in which the rules are different. I’m for free speech, and therefore for heckling that allows the speaker to proceed but against shouting people down, but when your opponents set different rules, they are estopped from complaining when you play by those same rules.

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 17, 2017 at 5:53 am

      OK, I’ve thought about it some more and realized where our difference lies. I don’t regard shouting a speaker down as inherently wrong. It’s uncivil, it shouldn’t be tolerated, but if the opposition do it and get away with it then it’s OK to do it to them. Initiating violence, though, is inherently wrong, and is therefore wrong regardless of what they do. Beating them up when they haven’t started anything, breaking up their meetings, is not acceptable.

      And yet, I can see circumstances where things have degenerated to a point where even that becomes acceptable, just as in war the rules are different. What’s unacceptable even in war is deliberately targeting innocent bystanders. “You killed my grandmother so I’ll kill your grandmother” is never OK, not even when there’s no other way to stop them. Not unless their grandmother is lending them support, at any rate.

        Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | October 17, 2017 at 8:27 am

        “I don’t regard shouting a speaker down as inherently wrong. It’s uncivil, it shouldn’t be tolerated, but…”

        It IS uncivil, and it SHOULDN’T be tolerated BECAUSE it is inherently wrong.

        The obvious…completely overlooked…answer here is that NOBODY should be shouting down speakers. Anyone who does is committing a breach of the peace, and that should be dealt with by law enforcement.

        But the idea of a tit-for-tat being a “good” way to go is simply daft. The FRACTION of Collectivists who actually engage in this behavior will be delighted to see the escalation. It simply will not…indeed cannot…work. You don’t restore civility with rising incivility.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2017 at 2:49 am

          There’s a big difference between civility and morality. Civility is conditional on the other person’s willingness to be civil in return.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 18, 2017 at 10:17 am

          There is a difference between the two.

          You’re full of shit as to civility. It isn’t conditioned on a second person. That person is often held as a criminal if they fail to abide by the rules of civility.

If one of the modern Conservative ideals is letting people speak, in accordance with law … and it is … then this isn’t really very useful. The Left isn’t going to learn any lessons from it. The Left would be perfectly happy if everyone was shut up, and the Left could go about its program of subversion and domination unopposed.

On the other hand, suppressing the violent and disruptive activities of Leftoids who are trying to suppress speech could be useful. That means attacking the antifa types when they try to break up a speech. Useful, but not advisable … it’s all too 1933 Munich for comfort.

Yeah, this is not a good thing. I appreciate their frustrations, but they need to do better.

If not for principle, then for the fact that the left seems to have an unending army of useful idiots given space to destroy and will win that particular war of attrition.

This is not a good sign… first some on the right feel it is warranted to “fight fire with fire” when it comes to the shouting down of speakers. From there it’s a slippery-slop to fighting the left’s antifa violence with violence. Where does it end?

    Common Sense in reply to Paul. | October 16, 2017 at 11:30 am

    Ask the left were it ends?
    Ask the IRS when they tried to stifle conservate’s speech.

    Get the idea

      Oh I “get” the idea. The IRS goons should be prosecuted. The antifa thugs should be prosecuted. Enforcement of the law equally is the solution to this problem, not escalation of illegal behavior.

        Vancomycin in reply to Paul. | October 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

        Apparently you *don’t* get the idea. Since we’ve been waiting for the prosecution of those doing these things to US, and those prosecutions aren’t forthcoming, what do you recommend?

        That people bend over and take it? Or maybe that they start getting belligerent. I’m in favor of the latter.

          Milhouse in reply to Vancomycin. | October 17, 2017 at 5:45 am

          Well, do you advocate initiating violence against the far left, just because they do? Note well that I have no objection to defending oneself from them when they attack, but attacking them first? Granted they’re estopped from complaining, but it’s still wrong. Now I’m seeing Rags’s point that I just argued against; but to my mind there’s a significant difference between shouting a speaker down and initiating violence, and the line has to be drawn somewhere in that gap.

    Mac45 in reply to Paul. | October 16, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    I’m reminded of the dialogue in Roadhouse. Essentially, it was; be nice… be nice…be nice… until it is time to not be nice. Well, most of the people in this country have been nice for the last 50 years and things continue to get worse. Perhaps it is now time to stop being nice.

You will see more of this. Why? Because politicians refuse to listen to people who speak softly.

We have all heard the expression “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”. Well, if our politicians will not listen when the people make their feelings known quietly, then they will make their feelings known by loudly shouting them in public.

The liberal/Progressive left has moved this country to a near welfare state by ignoring the rest of the citizens of this nation. They ignore them and when they can’t do that, they use violence to intimidate them. This is a predictable backlash. For the last 50 years, the common people have argued against the radical social experiments of the left. It has all fallen upon deaf ears. So, the common folk are left with two choices. Go along and watch this country be destroyed. Or fight back against the liberal/Progressive agenda. The liberals made the rules, so they can not complain if the rest of us follow them.

    tom_swift in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    The liberals made the rules, so they can not complain if the rest of us follow them.

    I don’t much care if liberals complain. They complain about everything.

    But we should listen to the conservatives who’re complaining, because they might actually have a point.

      Mac45 in reply to tom_swift. | October 16, 2017 at 2:53 pm

      Which “conservatives” would that be? The ones who allowed the Republican Party to give us G.W. Bush, J. McCain, M. Romney, M. McConnell, and Barack Obama? The “conservatives” who allowed this country to slide farther and farther into the morass of socialism and did not speak out? Those “conservatives”?

      Conservatism, as a movement is dead. It has been dead since Ronald Reagan beat Goldwater. and it has been powerless to achieve anything since. I know that some people have a lot invested in identifying themselves as a conservative. But, it jut doesn’t mean anything anymore. Sorry.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | October 16, 2017 at 10:43 pm

        Look up “Citizens United” you poor little nutter prig.

        Some people have a lot invested in delusions. You are one of the most apparent here.

        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | October 17, 2017 at 5:55 am

        It has been dead since Ronald Reagan beat Goldwater.

        Um, what? Seriously, wtf?

Paul In Sweden | October 16, 2017 at 12:51 pm

Why was the California AG talking about North Korean Missiles? The crowd was asking relevant questions on the topics when the AG got around to California topics like when the AG brought up sex trafficking and the crowd asked for the AG’s cooperation with Sessions. When the AG discussed a gas distribution monopoly issue the crowd demanded answers on the gas tax.

The video below is 19 mins and gives a good picture of what happened. This crowd was nothing like the leftist protests mindlessly droning out conservative speakers.

CA Attorney General Xavier Becerra SHOUTED DOWN By Fed-Up Californians @ College Forum

Love the slogan American Dreamers First.

re: #1 “We demand respect for free speech from the left and we should do the same from the right.”

re: #2 “…and tit-for-tat is a robust strategy for encouraging cooperative behavior…”

Since when has the ‘right’ demanded respect? I think I’ve missed that part of the social debate… The ‘right’ consistently whines and begs for respect, the ‘right’ constantly points their finger at Antifa and the SJW…but demand respect? What the ‘right’ is really doing is puffing out their chest and saying, “Hit me again, I can take it!” – and the liberals accommodate them. Then the ‘right’ goes off into the corner whining that someone hit them. Geesh.

Respect doesn’t play a big role in the liberals thinking process, how could it with Soros+Hollywood+Obama+Clinton active in that movement. What do they pay attention to? Money, scandals and power are the most obvious tangents it seems.

For those who have not figured it out yet the world is run by hot chicks, brute force, and money.

Nice guys finish last.