The six freedoms of the First Amendment sound pretty simple. They include freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but the “Black Lives Matter” article in “The First Amendment Encyclopedia” shows that exercising your freedom of speech and right to assemble can lead to a complex chain of reactions and can result in violence.
The “Black Lives Matter” movement began with the use of the hashtag: #BlackLivesMatter, in 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman, who had shot and killed a Black teen, Trayvon Martin, who had simply been walking by Zimmerman’s property one evening in 2012. Zimmerman got acquitted by saying he was defending his property, even though he had essentially murdered Martin for merely “walking while Black”.
First Amendment freedom issues entered the “Black Lives Matter” movement when demonstrations erupted after the murder of another Black teen, 18-year-old Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. A police officer shot and killed Brown, after stopping him for allegedly robbing a convenience store. To make matters worse, bystanders said, Brown had his hands raised in surrender, when the policeman shot him.
Outrage over that murder erupted in protests in Ferguson and then elsewhere across the country. In several cities, including Baltimore, police were accused of mistreating the demonstrators. In some cities, including Ferguson, police used military hardware in dealing with protesters. John Vile’s article says the militarization of police has a “chilling effect on First Amendment Rights” and distances police from the people. Some of the protests evolved into riots, destroying public and private property. Supporters of police began a “Blue Lives Matter” movement.
So, the killing of Michael Brown was the match. It led to fires erupting in Ferguson and across the country. Action by the one officer who shot Brown, led to thousands of officers having to deal with demonstrators, leading to more accusations of police misconduct.
The point is, under the First Amendment, protesters had the right to free speech, and to assembly—in other words, the constitutional right to stage public demonstrations against police abuse. But their First Amendment protections are not absolute, in that they do not permit violating laws of general applicability. That means that protesters who damage property or attack police, are subject to arrest. But police dealing with violence must also follow the law and are not allowed to violate it by mistreating demonstrators or using more violence to stop the violence than is absolutely necessary to calm the situation, and not further inflame it.
Demonstrations can become a double-edged sword by triggering the police violence they are protesting against. I’m glad that the “Black Lives Matter” protests sweeping the country today are mostly peaceful. The looting and violence by some, in the early demonstrations has been pretty much snuffed out by other demonstrators and police. And with a few exceptions, police have been mostly restrained.
The reduced violence and looting, allows the focus of the demonstrations to be on the causes they are demonstrating for, and not on the violence that developed. Television cameras and TV news reports will always focus on violence and looting. Those pictures are more compelling than just seeing peaceful marchers. But focusing on that often distorts the situation, making it appear more violent than it actually is. That’s why it’s so important that protesters restrain those who might become violent; and that police do not overreact. That way, aggrieved people can exercise their First Amendment rights and the focus will remain on their cause, instead of violent distractions.
Pictures:
http://www.americanyawp.com/text/15-reconstruction/
Websites:
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1512/black-lives-matter
Comments
Post a Comment