The Right To Peacefully Protest

For years, the right to peaceful protest has been oft contested. There have been many protesters arrested and even attacked by police in the name of “keeping the peace.” This is a clear violation of the first amendment - the right to free speech.

If our right to free speech is taken away, we as a people are in fact being oppressed. Free speech is what allows us to disagree with our government, something that our Founding Fathers considered to be one of the most important rights. Think of our history as a country - without the decision to speak up against the ruling power, our country would not exist at all.

The question becomes - what is considered peaceful, and when does it push past the protest to become a disturbance?

We have several current events to consider. First, let us look at the protests after the election. Some of these have been peaceful gatherings - candle light vigils and the like. Others blocked streets, leading to injuries. There was a report that an ambulance couldn’t get through the protest and the patient died because of it (though it seems it has not yet been proven, and such reports often pop up during and after such protests; regardless of actual outcomes, the story returns because it is a believable one). When does a peaceful protest cross the line to violating the NAP? Most interpretations include acts that indirectly cause the harm of another, including unforeseeable circumstances. Blocking roadways without proper detours in place could lead to harm of another, so caution and consideration should be taken here.

The Standing Rock protest #NoDAPL has, for the most part, been a peaceful one. Recent reports suggest the U.S. Corps of Engineers intends to close this land to “protect the general public.” They would instead have a “free speech zone” south of that area. We must ask ourselves - if we need a zone to have free speech, how can it be considered free? In fact, the first amendment clearly states that the people have a right to assemble peacefully. If our locations are to be moved away from the very thing we are protesting, how is our free speech being observed?

The purpose of a peaceful protest is generally to stop an action, to influence an action, and/or to let the world know of an action. If the protest is to stop an action, it would be necessary to assemble in or near the location where the action is to take place. We should consider property rights of the area in order to avoid damage to unrelated parties, but should the economic consequences of a protest come into question while deciding the legality of the protest? There is no such clause in the first amendment. One would have to make a NAP argument with several hypothetical connections in order to adequately argue the legality of interfering with such protests.

We have a right to speak against actions we believe to be unjust. The government should not be allowed to move us out of their way or arrest peaceful protesters. It is a violation of the first amendment and an insult to the Founding Fathers.