There are 6 freedoms granted by the First Amendment. The Six Freedoms are press, speech, from state religion, of religion, assembly, and petition. These freedoms are meant to grant individuals rights and prevent the government from infringing on those rights. They are necessary to America's core values. However, current Black Lives Matter protests have proven to be destructive in recent times, yet these protesters tend to use the first amendment to back them up. Does it really back them up? Specifically, the freedoms that apply here are speech, assembly, and petition. Let's take a look.
First, we'll start with freedom of speech. Typically, this is used to protect individuals from being silenced by the government or public property when the speaker is sharing opinions or complaints. After all, we don't want it to be a crime to criticize the government again. However, all opinions go out the window when destruction of property or threats become involved. Speech is just speech, but actions can have many consequences. The next freedoms are assembly and petition. Protests typically have large gatherings to show support. Plus, these large groups typically have a petition, or right to redress of grievance. Basically, it's the right of the public to attempt to fix a problem in the country. The first amendment condones peaceful protest, as in calm yet firm oppositions to rules and norms that may or may not be just. All of these are protected, again, as long as it all stays nonviolent speech. With that covered, let's take a look at the protests.
This first one is a clear example of violence. In Chicago, there was a riot that resulted in about 60 million dollars in property damage. This already prevents the first amendment from protecting it, because all protections go out the window when violence is involved. Plus, no constitutional claim can be made about this. The buildings destroyed were privately owned shops, like Macy's, Gucci, etc. State-Action Doctrine makes it so that the first amendment only protects individuals when it's the government, or public property that's involved(Aero).
"You ... have said that violence is sometimes necessary in these situations... What exactly is it that you hope to achieve through violence?"
Martha MacCallum interviewing president of BLM.
Let's look at another example. A president of Black Lives Matter, Hawk Newsome, speaks his opinion of violence in his protests. Newsome believes that it's hypocritical to say BLM are violent when America's history is full of violence. He goes on to say while he's indifferent on riots, if America doesn't give them what they want, they will "burn down this system and replace it" (Garcia). While Newsome may not be actively destroying anything, he is threatening the government by saying they are going to burn it down. This is not an example of free speech because what he said is a blatant threat.
All of these incidents show that the First Amendment is not absolute nor is it a shield against general applicability. It won't protect you if you commit any crimes in the process. By all means, if you want to protest, the F.A will protect you as long as it's about the government and its genuinely peaceful. No one is above the law. Breaking the laws to fix a broken system doesn't solve anything. All it does is discredit the cause you support.
Work Cited
Garcia, Victor (6/24/20) "Black Live Matter Leader States if the U.S 'Doesn't give him what we want, then we will burn this system down'" Fox, https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-leader-burn-down-system
Aero, Dario, (8/11/2020) "Black Lives Matter holds rally in Chicago to support those arrested after looting, unrest" Fox, https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-holds-rally-chicago-support-arrested-looting-unrest
No comments:
Post a Comment