“It is the duty of the officials to prevent or suppress the threatened disorder with a firm hand instead of timidly yielding to threats…. Surely a speaker ought not to be suppressed because his opponents propose to use violence. It is they who should suffer from their lawlessness, not he.”

It is 'NOT' the duty of the officials to prevent or suppress threatened disorder with a firm hand or otherwise. It is the duty of the officials to function at justice representing individual sovereign's rights (not in prevention but, at justice concerning relevant acts that are happening or have already occurred) It is to the land of the free and home of the brave's individual sovereigns to act by duty in harmony with natural law and justice, even / especially when confronted with violence and lawlessness. The American Bar is a lawless criminal cartel of privilege.

So I give it a five. For one to stay free...he/she must settle their own differences or the law of justice will bind us all. The law of justice will only grow to larger chains in seeking that course for equitability. Freedom as a child is lost the minute Mom/Dad or some other authoritarian steps in to serve justice and same with the law. Free men must be their own guide and only moral men will be free. Or one is served and bound in the chains of the law. Anytime one hollers help to stop an action....suppression of freedom is there forever. As our forefathers said, government is a necessary evil. I give it a five.

Not easy to rate this one. However , I remember back in the 60's when a bunch of leftwing hippies managed to chain themselves in the Dean's office, I believe at Yale, demanding God knows what. This certainly would qualify for a firm hand from the local police. Many times a firm hand is needed.

jim, you are right, a firm hand was needed. The needed action was not to prevention of man's future actions but rather, to deal at justice with current affairs.

I am wary of anything the ABA may say about 'officials' and 'preventing' or 'suppressing' THREATS. They assume their own correctness. Not sure of the context of this quote -- it is vague enough to be used by either side of an argument -- as long as it validates the 'officials' whether lawful or not. Frankly I am getting tired of 'officials' of no authority dictating public behavior -- and people have every right to threaten these armed officials for unlawfully using their office to coerce people to surrender more of their power and rights to 'officials.'