Rand Paul's version of free speech vs. civil rights tends toward discriminatory government thuggery
Republican senatorial nominee Rand Paul, M.D., of Kentucky, essentially argues here that police should have been, and should now be arresting or escorting away by force peaceful protestors dubbed trespassers by private business owners practicing open segregation or discrimination in public accommodations, on whatever basis the business owner decides--age, race, color, language, disability, etc.--instead of providing redress for those discriminated against.
That don't fly, it's not just an "intellectual discussion," it's backing putting government on the side of moral, civil, political, practical evils, if its implications are to be entertained seriously. Ridiculously, as both Maddow and Paul point out, this isn't and shouldn't even be a current political or legal issue, as this question has been long decided in accordance with the Constitution, and most people aren't dumb enough to be shooting airy gratuitous pie-in-the-sky what-ifs off into the civic stratosphere about it for the sheer intellectual stimulation--if they want to win a modern election.
So if you're keeping score, that's Kentucky Secretary of State Jack Conway for Senator by default, and I don't even know much of anything about the guy except he's the superior American major-party candidate in the contest.
UPDATE: Since I focused in this post on the focus of Maddow and Paul's conversation, I've seen many others point out problems in Paul's approach for issues of discrimination in employment, housing and the provision of medical care (Dr. Paul), which are equally troubling.
Choose Our President 2012