As a member of the silent generation born during World War II, I was brought up to believe that America stood for the principle espoused by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her comment on Voltaire: “While I disagree with what you have to say, I will defend until death your right to say it." Many scholars believe that powerful statement formed the underlying foundation of the U.S. Constitution.

Recently there have been major insults to this principle as well as our constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of assembly at Donald Trump’s rallies. Each side blames the other. At one rally in Chicago, hundreds of protesters filled an arena threatening violence if Mr. Trump spoke. At another, a young man tried to rush the stage, claiming he wanted to seize the podium and microphone to interrupt Mr. Trump’s speech. At another, Bernie Sanders experienced similar thuggery.

Where is Voltaire when we need him? We all have constitutional rights of freedom of assembly and free speech. Whose actions are appropriate, and who is wrong?

As a personal disclaimer, you have a right to know that as a centrist Democrat, I supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Martin O’Malley in 2016. Consequently, I have no agenda other than to call it as I see it.

One man’s or woman’s rights end where another’s begin. Constitutional experts will tell you that the very first purpose of forming governments was to prevent anarchy, to preserve order, to keep the strong from taking advantage of the weak. So how does that apply to the spectacle the whole world is watching and to U.S. presidential politics? Our country is obviously taking a hit, but who justifiably deserves blame? I think the answer is found simply by asking a few basic questions.

One: What have we become as a nation when people, regardless of their ideology, bully their way into a presidential candidate’s private rally with the avowed purpose of disrupting the event, thereby taking away the entitlements of free speech, not only of the candidate but also the tens of thousands who support him or her? Are they not really saying their view of the world is correct and no other should be heard, considered or tolerated?

Two: What have we become when the protesters apparently believe their constitutional right to protest trumps (no pun intended) any and all rights of anyone else? Let’s be clear, they have a right to protest outside of the rally in peace, but their rights end when they become disruptive and taunt others in the rally itself.

Lastly: What have we become when college students apparently believe by some twisted logic they have a right to rush the podium of a presidential candidate without retribution? It’s outrageous. Can our democracy function like that?

The word anarchy comes to mind, and I have to question what this young man learned in college -- certainly not tolerance, and certainly nothing about Voltaire or the Constitution of the land into which he was privileged to be born. As Warren Buffet has said, “Every American baby has won the lottery simply by being born into this great land of liberty and freedom.”

It is a shame he mistakes his “rights” as a weapon to deny all other Americans their right to make an intelligent decision by listening uninterrupted to each candidate’s stand on issues. I contend these protesters are so intellectually unprepared that they believe their arguments so weak they cannot withstand a fair airing of viewpoints. Or perhaps, as some have suggested, they have simply been paid to disrupt an opponent’s political event.

I know it is fashionable for many in the media and for Mr. Trump’s political opponents to lay the blame at his feet. This Democrat does not see it that way. Did his rhetoric stir up the protesters? Yes. Should he tone down his rhetoric? Yes, of course. But that’s not the constitutional principle at stake here. The seminal issue is that the man has a right to speak in peace without disruption at his own rally in a facility that his campaign has rented.

He may be a bully, rude, crass and rub some the wrong way, but none of those are reasons to deny him and his supporters the right to assemble without fear of violence by agitators. The man has a right to speak, and his supporters have a right to hear him without the speech being disrupted and being taunted.

One either believes in free speech or he doesn’t. If you do, it must be allowed to those with whom you disagree as well as those who adopt your viewpoint. Otherwise, it doesn’t mean anything and you’re really not for it. We must never forget any candidate has a right to speak, and his or her supporters must be able to hear without disruption if we are to have a democracy. Mr. Trump and his supporters should be allowed to meet in peace without interference from outside agitators.

F. Chris Gorman served as attorney general of Kentucky from 1992 to 1996. He was a Jefferson County commissioner in the pre-merger Jefferson County Fiscal Court.