This blog post is the one that is going to elicit the most negative responses. A lot will depend on the reader’s understanding of certain everyday words and their use.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment is, as is the entire Constitution, elegant in its directness and simplicity. The problem today is the we as a nation have replaced common sense with agendas.
Take for example the hue and cry against the new laws proposed in various cities and states, in response to the sizable uptick in demonstrations which have devolved in short order, into riots, and wanton destruction of private and government owned property, along with physical assaults on individuals.
The first reports on such laws have the media experts claiming a “chilling effect” on the First Amendment’s right to protest. It seems we are living today in the Twilight Zone episode, Wordplay, where the meaning of words are not what we are used to. The words protest and riot are, it seems when reported by the media, interchangeable. That setting fire to cars and buildings, or beating people in the streets are the equivalent of someone standing on a street corner with sign saying XYZ is unfair.
We have elected officials calling for fighting in the streets, and in the same breath saying doing so is protected speech. Isn’t that conspiracy to riot, and commit felony assault?
We have officially entered the Orwellian world of Newspeak, and no one seems to care.
So, my question to all, is when did the First Amendment protect the burning of cars, the breaking of windows and looting of stores, or someone pushing another to the ground while screaming “Get off my F-bomb street?” when did it protect pulling someone from a car and beating him to the point of needing hospital care?
When did it become unconstitutional to pass laws the protect citizens from the criminal actions of others?
But, some say, the organizers are not responsible for the actions of the attendees. Why not? When billionaires are paying people to attend and cause problems, are not those making the payments guilty of criminal conspiracy? Would not a prudent person be expected to know hiring people of questionable stability could lead to criminal activity?
Take note, the protests against our last election have resulted in assaults, and destruction of property. The Occupy groups committed crimes even to other participants of the movement. Now note, the Tea Party protests were claim, with no reported crimes, and in general, the area of the protest was cleaner after than before.
The laws these cities are contemplating are in response to a real problem, a problem created by those so unhappy with an election result, they are willing to hurt people, and communities to make their point.
Maybe, just maybe, the Arizona law, calling for asset forfeiture of those planning and or bankrolling criminal activities will bankrupt the trouble makers, or at least take enough of their wealth, that paying people to riot is no longer cost effective.
Protesting is a fine time honored action by citizens; been there, done that. Rioting is a criminal act, and has no place in civil society, and therefore, not a protected right.