Recent events in violent Black Lives Matter protests have shown that no one is above the law (except Nancy Pelosi evidently). While most BLM protests are peaceful and lawful assemblies protected by the first amendment, there are still quite a few violent protests that haunt American cities. If violent protests are often called forms of expression, are they legal? Absolutely not.
A photo from USA Today of arsonist at BLM protests
While mainstream media rarely condones and even covers examples of BLM violence in current events, The Washington Times provided an example of rioters responding to police shooting an armed man in Lancaster, PA. "Activists" started fires, threw bricks through windows, and looted multiple businesses in response to police action. Media covers the peaceful side of protests, but these acts of violence should receive equal attention and strict condemnation. Destruction of property, arson, and theft are criminal acts and are not to be confused with assembly or freedom of expression. In fact, it is an insult to the law and peaceful protests to even compare the two.
BLM protestors and police unite in NJ
The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Peaceable assemblies include peaceful protests, not violent acts like looting and pillaging. The Constitution condones said violent protests, and these rioters should be punished harshly under the law. Change is made through nonviolent and symbolic resistance, a sense of strong unity that shows the world that the resistance is above their oppressors. Violence only breeds violence, and this fire will only be put out when activists turn away from looting and America condones it publicly.
This has been Mac, please come back!
No comments:
Post a Comment