Perhaps Donald Trump’s campaign would have been wise to avoid controversy and not schedule a campaign appearance at a dinner in Patchogue, New York. The venue of the event to be held on Thursday, a Republican Party fundraiser, is on the same street on which a gang of racist thugs, who had made a habit of attacking Hispanics, killed an immigrant from Ecuador in 2008. The crime was a huge story on Long Island at the time, and it is still remembered with anger by the immigrant community there. So When the Trump appearance was announced, it became the focus of protest by local activists. Having begun his campaign with a wild and vicious attack on Mexicans, Trump has made hostility to illegal immigrants and his vow to build a wall the centerpiece of his candidacy. So it is hardly surprising that a trip to Patchogue would generate condemnation from his liberal critics such as the editorial page of the New York Times. Are they right in demanding that Trump stay away from Patchogue?

The answer to that question depends on your position not only about Trump — his critics probably would prefer that he stay in his Fifth Avenue tower — but on whether sensitivity to the victims of a crime should be the governing principle when it comes to places identified with tragedy.

As James Taranto points out today in his Wall Street Journal “Best of the Web” column, when it came to building a mosque on the site of one of the buildings damaged by the attack on the shadow of the World Trade Center, too much sensitivity to what some saw as inappropriate symbolism was deemed hateful. The Times bitterly attacked the majority of New Yorkers that thought the choice of the site for a Muslim community center was inappropriate. By contrast, the same voices that defended the Ground Zero mosque consider Trump’s presence in Patchogue is to be intolerable offense and a reopening of old wounds.

Let’s specify that Hispanic immigrants have good reason for anger at Trump. His exploitation of the issue of violence by some illegals has been over the top and irresponsible. He might have been well advised to stay out of Patchogue though, to be fair, it’s unlikely that Trump’s staff (or that of any other national political campaign) was aware that they were stepping on a land mine by accepting the invitation. The troubles of that are not necessarily well understood by those not focused on Suffolk County.

The point is even critics of the Ground Zero mosque project acknowledged that the group that bought the site had a First Amendment right to build there. The question was one of judgment, and, as I noted at the time in COMMENTARY, an effort to recast the narrative of 9/11 by making Muslims the victims rather than the perpetrators. But the Times and other Trump critics don’t acknowledge Trump’s similar right to speak there even if he might be smart not to exercise it.

That’s significant because the effort to force Trump to stay away from Patchogue must be placed in the context of another disturbing trend that the candidate’s critics should also acknowledge. In recent months, protests against Trump’s message have morphed into efforts to actually prevent him from speaking at various venues. Threats of violence thwarted a campaign rally in Chicago.

Part of this is Trump’s fault because of the way he has encouraged his supporters to engage in violence against dissenters. But there can be no compromise when it comes to limits on political speech in this manner. Trump may be a repellent political figure, but his right to say as he likes wherever he likes is a basic tenet of American liberty. It cannot be discarded it in the name of sensitivity to the victims of a crime, however egregious. Shutting down Trump in Patchogue will only encourage others to try the same elsewhere, and that would be an intolerable infringement not only of his rights but an offense against free debate in a democracy.

Trump’s opponents have every right to demonstrate Thursday night in Patchogue and to let him know they don’t like his dangerous brand of identity politics. Moreover, Trump is making a mistake by going to Patchogue because it allows those critics to identify him with a crime with which he had no connection but which, thanks to the GOP frontrunner, will now be identified with his campaign.

But it ill-behooves those who defend free speech and insensitivity to some crime victims in other instances to lend their support to efforts to silence a presidential candidate. That’s true even if his name is Donald Trump.