Reactions to the protests that have marked these contentious political times point out the need for everybody to take a deep breath and calm down a bit. This applies to both ends of the political spectrum in an age when outrage is quick to supplant discussion.
Since the November election of Donald Trump as president, numerous protests have taken place throughout the country, beginning the night of the election. In total, millions of people have taken to the streets to decry Trump’s election, his treatment of women, his ban upon travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, and various other actions.
In the wake of this unrest, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced bills designed to curb protests. In Washington, state Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, has introduced Senate Bill 5009, which would target environmental protests and increase penalties for those who block roads, railways, or other “legally permitted economic activities.” In November, Ericksen said he would submit a bill aimed at “economic terrorism,” but the actual legislation is not as extreme as he initially indicated.
Considering that laws already exist to punish those who block traffic or engage in vandalism, the various bills throughout the country seem to be an overreaction to people engaging in their constitutional right to peaceably assemble — a right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment. As Lee Rowland of the American Civil Liberties Union told The Washington Post, “The Supreme Court has gone out of its way on multiple occasions to point out that streets, sidewalks, and public parks are places where protections are at their most robust.”
There is nothing new about lawmakers seeking to curb protests. During the Civil Rights movement, several state legislatures in the South sought bills designed to limit the right of assembly or even outlaw civil rights organizations.
If protests devolve into violence, then appropriate punishment should ensue. But the right of the people to gather and protest must be inviolate; any attempt to quash that right must be viewed with a jaundiced eye by the courts and by lawmakers who are tasked with voting upon such proposals.
Meanwhile, the issue also has touched upon the modern wave of “fake news.” The Trump administration has claimed on many occasions, without offering proof, that uprisings are being driven by paid protesters. This is reminiscent of the Civil Rights era in which local governments were quick to blame “outside agitators” rather than recognize the genuine unrest of the public.
In addition, those who are leery of what they consider an oppressive government are quick to adopt a sky-is-falling approach. A “news” item that has made the rounds on social media claims that under a new law, all protesters can be charged with terrorism. Politifact has deemed this claim to be “pants on fire” worthy, noting that it is devoid of truth. The most Draconian action thus far comes from the Arizona Senate, which approved a bill allowing police to arrest anybody involved in a protest that might devolve into violence; the bill also expands racketeering laws to include protesters. Such a law would appear to be a clear violation of the First Amendment and unlikely to withstand scrutiny by the courts.
And yet, it reflects the times in which we live — times that are fraught with tension. Lawmakers charged with ensuring the peace should recognize that protests come along that tension; and protesters must recognize that there is a price to pay when the law is broken.
