I need to preface this article by first reassuring you that I am not a Trump supporter.

It's a sad reality, but if I were a Trump supporter, my words would not be taken seriously by my fellow liberals by and large. This in itself says a lot about our current polarized political atmosphere. If we decide someone isn't worth listening to even before they speak, we have a lot of work to do. So let's begin with one popular form of Trump opposition, stealing and vandalizing Trump campaign yard signs.

I have talked to several people who advocate this act as a legitimate response to the perceived racism, bigotry and xenophobia of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. In this article, the yard sign thief lays out her reasoning for stealing the Trump signs as an empowering act. "Yes, I was acting out, and I will face, with some humility, my day in court. But at the time, my act felt strangely liberating. I wanted to punish Trump and anyone who could support him. Especially now, knowing what we know about his treatment of women. Trump’s name is his power. I can’t strip him ... of his power, but I thought I could strip the median of that emblem of power."

The majority that supports and commits these acts are fellow liberals who believe themselves to be morally superior to these Trump supporters who so boldly place a sign in their yard supporting their candidate. So, their answer is vigilante justice. No doubt, this act is a criminal one, (trespassing, theft, etc.) but I am more interested in the broader ethical implications of taking these signs. If indeed you are a liberal and think it's okay to steal these signs, I posit that you are in fact against freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. It is illiberal to steal Trump signs because you are acting as an unappointed censor and silencing an opposing view, thus preventing the free exchange of ideas unilaterally.

Unfortunately, I must clarify here, because my fellow liberals have begun to obfuscate this issue by claiming that "freedom of speech just protects us from the government". Many people conflate the concept of freedom of speech and the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, like in the above comic. They are not the same thing, although they are related. The concept of freedom of speech was enshrined in the 1st Amendment because it is a good idea in general. At some point in history, advocating for abortions, gay marriage and women's rights (all liberal issues) was considered "deplorable" and those who dared speak about these issues were silenced by the opposition in various ways, including mob justice. Forming mobs to silence those we disagree with is also against the concept of freedom of speech, because it prevents the free exchange of ideas, thus harming society. This is why even hate speech should be protected, because today's hate speech could be tomorrow's revolutionary idea and the people currently in power may one day be the vulnerable minority.

I should also mention the other illiberal (and criminal) acts that my fellow liberals are committing against Trump and his supporters, such as the recent destruction of his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, the firebombing of a campaign office, the physical assaults against Trump supporters, and the attempted assassination of Trump himself. There seems to be a pattern emerging here, and it all seems to stem from the paradox of intolerance. How can you truly be tolerant if you can't tolerate intolerance? The problem is, intolerance is highly subjective, so it's not clear who is truly intolerant and if the information that was used to reach that perception of intolerance was actually valid. The people committing these acts often see themselves as morally justified in their actions because they believe Trump to be so dangerous that they must resort to such tactics. This is a real problem, because there isn't much of an answer to be offered ethically on the front of tolerance. All that remains is the practical answer of "don't break the law." It's a simple answer to a complicated question, but I think that practicality is often overlooked as a legitimate solution to many of our problems. Committing crimes against Trump and his supporters only makes them into victims, and in that sense, you are helping their campaign win.

I think that if we as liberals are going out of our way to censor the oppositions freedom of expression that it says that we are afraid to debate the issues in a free and open exchange of ideas. I know that this is not true and that the liberal position on so many issues is quite robust. So, if you really do think that Trump and his supporters are "deplorable," discuss the issues openly and calmly. Do your homework, though, otherwise you might find yourself on the losing end of an argument.