Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Why Calling Something a Protest Does Not Mean It Is Protected Under Freedom of Speech
This week in class, we discussed the sticky issues that come up when discussing freedom of speech, such as the avenue it opens up to white nationalism and other hate groups and the ability it allows for people to inundate other people with racist and hateful propaganda. In class while watching the CNN report "The Dark Side of the Internet," Mr. Stewart mentioned that the protests of the white nationalists were allowed under freedom of speech; however, people can stop them through counterprotests of their own. I agree with this sentiment, but I wanted to add that counterprotests can create tension between the protestors and the counterprotestors, which could lead to violence. It should be stated that actions done out of a belief are not protected under freedom of speech; only the belief itself is protected under this civil liberty. When people become passionate about a certain subject or belief, they tend to forget that violence is not protected under free speech, such as in the Charlottesville protests that caused someone to drive his car into a crowd and in the Berkeley protests a few years ago against the right-wing social commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, which killed one woman and injured twenty-eight other people. As these types of violent protests potentially become more common (possibly due to the recent rise of alt-right groups throughout the country), people dangerously forget that while sharing in far right-wing beliefs like white nationalism and racism or disagreeing with Milo Yiannopoulos are both beliefs that are protected under freedom of speech, the violence and riots that may come as a result of these beliefs are not protected and should have consequences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ReplyDeletethis is interesting! So what you are trying to say is that the actual belief and ability to express this belief is protected under the first amendment as free speech, but actual protests (which are usually seen as a way to express belief) are not protected because of the possibility of a "clear and present danger"? Do you think this kind of thing needs to be decided by a case by case basis? Some protests have no risk of becoming a "clear and present danger", but can we say that all protests are not protected? Just wondering!
I think the distinction is, as you made clear, actions that violate a state of peace or injure the society. Insofar as a protest is nonviolent, it is protected. Counterprotesters may incite violence- which is when the line is crossed and the protest is no longer covered. I also think that it's hard to draw the line- if one out-of-line individual shoves another protester, and that's an isolated case, should the protest be stopped? Like many other manifestations of freedoms, it's hard to delineate exactly what is covered and what isn't. But as a general rule, nonviolent protests are protected, and violence robs the protest of its protection bestowed by the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about violence not being covered under the First Amendment even if it is to push a belief. However, it is important to realize that protests are still protected because they are not inherently violent (when using the word "protests", we might think of Charlottesville but we also need to remember the pride marches all over the country and global warming strikes). In fact, marches, strikes, and other forms of nonviolent protests are some of the effective ways of pushing for political reform and new laws.
ReplyDelete