That's a pretty broad question, so I'm going to narrow in on what happened over the weekend, and use that as an example.
If you have a political rally, where a candidate is either invited by an institution to speak, or is paying to use a venue to speak, I think protesters are outside the building, and disrupters are inside the building.
Protesting against speakers or events outside has been going on since before this country broke from England, and I think it always has to be OK to do that. That's part of the whole free-speech thing. The guy who is speaking has a right to hold a rally, and the people who are against him, or what he's speaking about, have a right to state their opposing views outside, without preventing him from speaking, or preventing the people who agree with him from hearing him.
Disrupters are people who seek to completely prevent someone from speaking. Shutting down the venue, blocking people from entering, or attending the event with the express purpose of preventing those with an opposing view from having a voice is a disruption. It's not some sort of victory of one side over the other.
Having said all that, you sort of reap what you sow. If a speaker uses rhetoric that promotes violent behavior or hatred, eventually, that's going to come back and bite him in the butt.
