Violence, defended as an expression of speech, has destroyed businesses. (Photo Credit: Flickr)
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
As a citizen of America, you have the right to speak your opinion; however, in light of recent riots, it is vital to recognize that there are limitations to speech explicitly stated within the Constitution. Contrary to the now widespread belief, destroying property is not within one’s legal rights. Burning down buildings, attacking bystanders, and destroying business owners is not getting your aimed point across; it is breaking the law.
Having the sole ability to exercise the right of Freedom of Speech is taken too lightly. Many countries do not protect this freedom. Instead of appreciating our freedoms, many Americans push speech beyond its legal limits. Not all speech is protected under the law.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that people have the right to assemble peacefully. This right to assemble allows the people to petition the government on account of their decisions, or fight for something they believes in. (In this context, fight means symbolic fighting, an unfortunate clarification that the times demand.) This amendment, as the first, is arguably the most important. The Founders foresaw that there would be a necessity to disagree with the government in order to fulfill their vision of a republic and limited government. Peacefully is a word of focus as well. What justification is there for the recent “peaceful” assertion of the first amendment. Arson, looting, and rioting are not practicing a lawfully abiding protest, but rather anarchy. It is understanding that people are passionate about what they are fighting for; however, the Constitution is meant to protect.
In late June, when protests over the murder of George Floyd began, anarchy followed. Outraged by the idea that his murder was one of racial bias and not justified, community members began to make their voices heard, a completely understandable and acknowledgeable method to voice their anger. The problem begins when protesting one’s beliefs leads to violence. Inciting violence is, under no circumstances, protected speech under the law. Instead, inciting violence violates one of the nine categories of unprotected speech. By inciting violence, you are subsequently subject to punishment under the law.
Leaders of the organization Black Lives Matter hold much blame for the current destruction. With leaders such as Hawk Newsome making direct statements such as, “if change doesn’t happen, we will burn this city down,” there is little help for the current situation. This statement is not protected under the law as it clearly and directly incites for violence. It is unfortunate that people unrightly hide behind the First Amendment as break the law.
The Equal Protection Clause (EPC) was formed as a clause to be added onto the Fourteenth Amendment. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that all citizens of the United States are equally protected under the law of our country, particularly all races of people. It is then the government’s due diligence to provide the people with the enforcement of this clause. In contemporary issues, property owners have been ensured equal protection of their rights to combat current, explicitly violent attacks. The EPC was marshalled in with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, for the purpose of extending and ensuring the rights to all citizens. Many will claim that there is a discriminatory basis under the EPC; however, recently, it is minority-owned businesses that are being destroyed. If one made the claim that the EPC was discriminatory in the process of implementing it into society, then why would the government be protecting these minorities? If the purpose of these protests is to form unity and create a call for change against “racist America,” why are minority businesses being destroyed? How would the direct governmental protection of these owner’s companies be considered racist? Moreover, the government must defend one’s right, even if that protection is not agreed upon by the majority. Simply stated, these protests are not to enact change; they are an excuse for destruction. These property owners are guaranteed protection under the EPC and are rightfully receiving it.
In attempts to protect these owner’s businesses, there are more leaders of the BLM organization calling for violence. Ariel Atkins, a BLM Chicago organizer, defended looting as “reparations,” and falesly noted that, “businesses have insurance.” These are words that are incitement to promote lawlessness and should be punished by the law.
Contrary to the rioters, the police protecting property owners are charitably responding to the violence. Although nearly impossible to reach them all, these criminals, who are causing destruction, need to be placed in jail. Some are under a different impression; in an article featured in The Marshall Project, Maggie Koerth claims that the protests escalated due to police arriving in riot gear. I defend the police. The men and women of the police force are putting their lives on the line to protect many minority owners, yet are victims of targetted violence. These noble people are doing their job by protecting people under the EPC and fulfilling the government’s role in defending their citizens. While Koerth’s piece further condems the use of rubber pellets against rioters, officers are engaging in a tempered response. Members of these violent protests break the law, and police officers are meant to enforce the rules. If someone were to rob a bank, officers would raise their guns at the criminal; if someone destroys and lootes a business, they receive rubber pellets or arrested. Police are justified in their response.
The Founders crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of citizens. One’s protection is not defined for the direct incitement of imminent lawless action.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.