Should Citizens have the right to protest?

This is one of those "debates" on an issue that is not OPEN to DEBATE.

People have the absolute, inalienable, inherent right to protest against governmental actions that they believe are harmful to themselves and others. Even if people live in a totalitarian regime where dissent is squashed with a deadly iron fist, their right to protest still exists . . . they might be afraid to exercise their right to protest, but the right still exists.

In our Declaration of Independence, our forefathers essentially wrote that all people have inalienable rights and we form government to SECURE those rights; that we might tolerate some governmental transgressions against our rights, but when government becomes tyrannical and oppressive, we also have the right to overthrow that government and form a new one that will better secure our happiness. Our founding fathers' peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances fell upon deaf, tyrannical ears. The American Revolution was therefore a violent protest against being governed by an oppressive King and the people in the United States won their freedom to form a more perfect union.

We value the inalienable right to protest.

During a political debate, a Vietnam War protestor and draftee said the following:

"They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."

The protestor was charged and convicted of making a threat against the life of the President. Our Supreme Court reversed the conviction and wrote the following:

Quote:

. . . The Nation undoubtedly has a valid, even an overwhelming, interest in protecting the safety of its Chief Executive and in allowing him to perform his duties without interference from threats of physical violence. See H. R. Rep. No. 652, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (1916). Nevertheless, a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech. . . .

. . . We do not believe that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner fits within that statutory term. For we must interpret the language Congress chose "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). The language of the political arena, like the language used in labor disputes, see Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U.S. 53, 58 (1966), is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact. We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was "a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President."

WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

0 Replies

Protesting is a form of organized complaining against the government, often with the press in tow so that a group or individual's opinion can be heard by others.

Well all have the right to complain, yes? Or at least we should -- could you imagine living under a government that didn't allow you to say that the government was less than perfect? A government that rewarded your family and neighbors if they turned you in? Think that never existed? 'Course it did, it was called East Germany. Lots and lots of people informed on their friends, families and neighbors for the Stasi (secret police).

So complaining should be okay, yes? It shouldn't be a jailable offense, right?

What about assembly? Should that be allowed? Well, of course! Imagine a government wherein any group of more than 3 people would be looked upon with suspicion. Soccer games would be investigated by the police. Large families would be watched closely. Class reunions would be considered suspect. Of course that's a ridiculous kind of a situation for a democracy. Shouldn't people be able to get together without arousing suspicion, even if they are talking about the government? Even if what they are saying about the government is not flattering?

Put the two together - complaining and assembling, and you have protesting. Protests need not include picket signs or chanting. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King and their followers sometimes staged what are called sit-ins. They'd just go someplace where supposedly they weren't supposed to go, and wait and see what happened. They'd just be there. Nothing else.

As for whether protests work, sure they do. Remember the 60s? It used to be, in the South, that lunch counters, water fountains, bathrooms, etc. etc. etc. were segregated. They aren't any more. Why? It isn't just because the law has changed; it's also because attitudes have changed. Protests are often aimed at hearts and minds. Start to change hearts and minds, and eventually something will come of it. You have to be patient; it doesn't often happen overnight -- but it does happen.

0 Replies

Debra Law the right is not absolute is it?

People do not have the right to protest in the middle of a highway do they?

They do not have the right to protest in a suburban neighborhood at three in the morning and thereby awaking all the neighbors do they?

Of course not. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held the First Amendment rights of speech, press, religion, and peaceably assemble are absolute rights. In fact they have acknowledged through a string of opinions the rights cannot be absolute in order for society to operate.

Now while I agree with you as to the importance of having the right to peaceably assemble and protest I disagree that it is an absolute right.

0 Replies

James Madison wrote:

Debra Law the right is not absolute is it?

People do not have the right to protest in the middle of a highway do they?

They do not have the right to protest in a suburban neighborhood at three in the morning and thereby awaking all the neighbors do they?

Of course not. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held the First Amendment rights of speech, press, religion, and peaceably assemble are absolute rights. In fact they have acknowledged through a string of opinions the rights cannot be absolute in order for society to operate.

Now while I agree with you as to the importance of having the right to peaceably assemble and protest I disagree that it is an absolute right.

What is a protest? It's speech. Specifically it is speech that asserts a grievance against government and demands redress.

You have an absolute right to protest, but you don't have an absolute right to protest at any time, place, and in whatever manner that you choose.

The right to protest is absolute; you don't, however, have a right to obstruct a highway and endanger the safety of motorists.

The right to protest is absolute; you don't however, have a right to disturb the peace of a sleeping neighborhood at 3:00 in the morning.

The right to protest is absolute; you don't, however, have a right to be violent or to make true threats against the lives and safety of public servants.

The right to protest is absolute; you don't, however, have a right to bomb an abortion clinic.

The government often imposes reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on rights protected by the First Amendment. The government may criminalize certain conduct regardless of the speech that accompanies that conduct, but the government cannot take away your right to protest and demand redress of grievances. The right to protest is absolute.

If you live in a totalitarian government where your absolute right to protest is NOT protected or secured by law, you might be afraid to exercise your right, but it still exists.

We are all born with the inalienable--absolute, inherent--rights to life, liberty (including the right to protest), and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among the people. The absolute right to protest belongs to you to be exercised or not exercised at your own discretion. The government doesn't confer it; the only role of government is to secure it. Whether the government protects or secures your absolute right to protest, or to what extent it protects or secures your right, is not dispositive of the issue of whether it exists.

0 Replies

James Madison wrote:

...The U.S. Supreme Court has never held the First Amendment rights of speech, press, religion, and peaceably assemble are absolute rights....

An additional note:

There is no such thing as "First Amendment rights." You are falling prey to the notion that the Constitution confers rights. It does not. It SECURES some of the inherent, inalienable rights that we as human beings are endowed with by virture of our existence--and RETAINED--when we formed government.

Take a look at the First Amendment:

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 does NOT confer rights. It is a LIMITATION on Congress. It absolutely prohibits Congress from infringing on rights retained by the people. It absolutely prohibits Congress from making any law that establishes a religion, prohibits the free exercise of religion, abridges the freedom of speech, abridges the freedom of the press, abridges the right of assembly, or abridges the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

See also the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Therefore, if you don't want to mislead people, you should use the correct phrasing: Inalienable rights to speech and to petition for redress of grievances, et al., SECURED by the First Amendment against governmental abridgment, denial, or disparagement.

0 Replies

Quote:

You have an absolute right to protest, but you don't have an absolute right to protest at any time, place, and in whatever manner that you choose.

This is an inherent contradiction. It is completely contradictory to assert the right is absolute and then seek to place limitations on it. The very fact the right has limitations demonstrates it is not absolute. I do not really need to address the rest of your post on this topic because it is entirely contradictory to say the right is absolute and then at the same time place limitations upon it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Therefore, if you don't want to mislead people, you should use the correct phrasing: Inalienable rights to speech and to petition for redress of grievances, et al., SECURED by the First Amendment against governmental abridgment, denial, or disparagement.

Mislead people? What on earth are you talking about? The First Amendment "secures" rights from government infringement and since it does many people use the phrase of "my first amendment rights". Why do they use such a phrase? Because they recognize the First Amendment protects some "rights" against government infringement.

Even James Madison, who composed the first ten amendments and were later revised by the Senate, understood he was enumerating "rights" the people possessed and could not be infringed by the federal government. This is why James Madison was so opposed to providing a list of rights the people possessed. So yes it is correct to say "First Amendment" rights because the First Amendment acknowledges what those rights "are" and that the government cannot take them away.

That is what is meant by "First Amendment" rights. It is not used to convey the idea the Constitution confers rights but rather to convey the idea the First Amendment enumerates some of the rights I have and that the government cannot infringe upon them.

Quote:

There is no such thing as "First Amendment rights." You are falling prey to the notion that the Constitution confers rights. It does not. It SECURES some of the inherent, inalienable rights that we as human beings are endowed with by virture of our existence--and RETAINED--when we formed government.

As I have already demonstrated there is such a thing as "First Amendment rights". The fact you attach some meaning to this phrase the rest of America does not, or attach some meaning to this phrase I do not, does not make the reference erroneous. The fact is James Madison knew when he drafted the First Amendment he was enumerating rights the people possessed, as was the case with the rest of the amendments, and so it is not incorrect to say "my first amendment rights" just because you construe it to say something in particular.

The fact is the First Amendment mentions what rights I have and therefore, I can say "my First Amendment rights".

Quote:

The First Amendment does NOT confer rights. It is a LIMITATION on Congress. It absolutely prohibits Congress from infringing on rights retained by the people.

Boy if this is not circular reasoning then nothing is circular reasoning. First you assert the First Amendment does not confer rights. Then two sentences later you assert it absolutely prohibits Congress from infringing on "rights" retained by the people. Well why not just say the First Amendment mentions rights people have and prohibits these rights from being infringed by Congress?

But there is another point to be extrapolated from this fact. How do we know what "rights" the First Amendment is prohibiting Congress from infringing upon if the First Amendment never mentions what the rights are? See in order to protect the rights retained by the people from Congressional infringement is going to require we know what the rights are, that the rights be mentioned, and that there exists language specifically prohibiting Congress from abridging these "rights". So to protect our "rights" from Congressional abridgement or prohibition is necessarily going to require these "rights" be mentioned.

So this just illuminates what I have been saying thus far. The First Amendment, when it prohibits Congress from abridging speech, press, and Free Exercise of Religion is necessarily acknowledging each are a "right" retained by the people and protected from Congressional infringement.

That was the entire point of the First Amendment, well in fact most of the first ten amendments. The entire purpose of a majority of the first ten amendment was to "protect" the rights of the people from Congressional infringement. James Madison understood this is what he was doing. James Madison was doing it at the overwhelming request of Anti-federalists and the majority of American's who wanted their rights protected from Congressional infringement.

So when the First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging speech, press, or the peaceably assemble it is thereby acknowledging it is a "right" the people possess. That was the point of the First Amendment to protect the rights fo the people from Congressional infringement.

If these were not "rights" the people possess then there would not be any mention of what Congress is forbidden from prohibiting or abridging.

So contrary to your assertion I think the phrase of "first amendment rights" is perfectly okay. It refers to my rights mentioned in the First Amendment, which are speech, press, and others.

0 Replies

James Madison wrote:

Quote:
You have an absolute right to protest, but you don't have an absolute right to protest at any time, place, and in whatever manner that you choose.

This is an inherent contradiction. It is completely contradictory to assert the right is absolute and then seek to place limitations on it. The very fact the right has limitations demonstrates it is not absolute. I do not really need to address the rest of your post on this topic because it is entirely contradictory to say the right is absolute and then at the same time place limitations upon it.

It's not a contradiction at all.

I have the absolute right to contact members of the Senate through the normal channels of communication and protest the President's nomination of Ms. Meirs for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Are you saying that I don't have that absolute right?

You fail to understand that time, place, and manner restrictions with respect to speech are NOT limitations on my right to protest. The restrictions on speech are always CONTENT NEUTRAL, narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and always leave ample alternative channels of communication open. I might not be able to stand in the middle of the highway and obstruct traffic and endanger the motoring public, but if the government prohibits me from doing so, the government's purpose is NOT to infringe or limit my right to protest, but rather to protect the public.

The same goes for freedom of religion. You have an absolute right to believe in God or not believe in God according to your own conscience, do you not? Even though the government might prohibit you from engaging in human sacrifice in the practice of your religion, you still have the absolute right to believe what you want to believe.

Perhaps you might disagree with abortion. You may write to your representatives in Congress and protest a proposed funding bill that lends governmental support to abortion --which is your absolute right to do --but you may not bomb an abortion clinic. I'm sorry if you don't understand the distinction and want to find contradictions where none exist, but that's your problem, not mine.

0 Replies

James Madison wrote:

. . .

So contrary to your assertion I think the phrase of "first amendment rights" is perfectly okay. It refers to my rights mentioned in the First Amendment, which are speech, press, and others.

Again, when you refer to "First Amendment rights," you are implying that the rights at issue find their source in the First Amendment which is NOT TRUE. The amendment secures rights, it does not confer rights. Accordingly, the phraseology is misleading.

0 Replies

No that is not what I am implying. That is simply how you misconstrue the phrase!

When I use the phrase of "first amendment rights" I am specifically referring to those rights secured in the First Amendment. Just because you give it a different spin does not make my use of it "wrong". Right now all you have is your "subjective" opinion as to what the phrase means to you and this carries absolutely no weight.

I have given a detailed analysis of how and why the phrase of "First Amendment rights" is referring to those rights secured by the First Amendment and I stand by it. Simply telling me you construe it to mean something differently and nothing more is not an argument much less a halfway convincing one.

Second of all it is one thing to say, "I absolutely have this right" and quite another to say, "the right is "absolute". These two phrases do not say the same thing.

Do you "absolutely" have the right to peaceably protest? Yes.

Is your right to peaceably assemble/protest/whatever absolute? No. The right is not "absolute". It is important to understand the distinction between the two phrases.

I am stating the right is not "absolute". You cannot peaceably assembly anytime you want, anywhere you want, and so forth. Since there are some "limitations" on the freedom to peaceably assemble then it is not "absolute".

To admit there are some limitations on the freedom to peaceably assemble and then simultaneously exclaim this "freedom" is absolute is contradictory and makes absolutely no sense. If you still disagree look up the meaning of the word "absolute".

While you are at it start righting the U.S. Supreme Court about their glaring error of using the phrase, "First Amendment rights" in a considerable number of their opinions, and their obvious error of stating the First Amendment rights of speech, press, and peaceably assemble are not "absolute".

So not only I am wrong but those highly educated Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, some of which were English majors in undergraduate school and possess a mastery of the English language even if they did not major in English, are wrong for using the phrase "First Amendment right freedom of speech" and also saying, "the first amendment right freedom of speech is not absolute." All of this brilliance is wrong and you are right? Highly doubtful.

0 Replies

The phrase, regardless of how often it is invoked or repeated, is misleading. Stand outside your local mall and poll a thousand people in the parking lot and ask them: Where does your right to free speech come from?

More likely than not, most people will respond that the right to free speech comes from the First Amendment. The use of the phrase is misleading because people have come to believe that the First Amendment CONFERS the right rather than secures the right.

The use of the phrase is misleading. Period. We have an uneducated, uninformed public that believes that the Constitution confers rights and if a right is not listed in the Constitution, it doesn't exist.

You are free to mislead uneducated and uninformed people and contribute to the ignorance of your fellow citizens through the use of loosely constructed phrases if you want to. I would rather use language that educates and informs rather than misleads.

0 Replies

Yeah it is misleading according to "you". Again sez "you".

Second that is not the best way to phrase the question. The best way to phrase the question to get people's opinion, as if it actually mattered and was relevant, is to ask, "Does the phrase 'First Amendment right' imply your rights are given to you by the First Amendment or refers to the idea the First Amendment mentions some of the rights secured from congressional infringement." That is how the question should be phrased.

Second of all have you personally polled the public? If so, how scientific was it? What was the size of the poll? Was it from only one state?

See you assume the public is uneducated and uninformed on this subject. Second of all the only way you reach your conclusion I am contributing to the ignorance of my fellow citizens is by first assuming they are uneducated and misinformed, and second the statement suggests what you "say" it does. That is a lot of unproven assumptions.

The fact is the phrase "first amendment rights" is probably open to interpretation and one such interpretation is the one I have espoused here. It does not necessarily "imply" the spin you give it, although it is possible.

0 Replies

JM wrote:

Yeah it is misleading according to "you". Again sez "you".

It's misleading because people are in fact being misled to believe something that isn't true. Misleading is misleading. Look up the definition of the word.

Quote:

Second that is not the best way to phrase the question. The best way to phrase the question to get people's opinion, as if it actually mattered and was relevant, is to ask, "Does the phrase 'First Amendment right' imply your rights are given to you by the First Amendment or refers to the idea the First Amendment mentions some of the rights secured from congressional infringement." That is how the question should be phrased.

You have no idea how a question should be phrased. Leading and/or compound questions are inappropriate. I didn't tell you to go out and give people a multiple choice test.

The phrase is misleading. The fact that most people are mislead by the frequent use of the phrase and have come to believe something that isn't true proves my point. That is indeed relevant. Why don't you look up the word "relevant" at the same time you're looking up the word "misleading."

Quote:

Second of all have you personally polled the public? If so, how scientific was it? What was the size of the poll? Was it from only one state?

See you assume the public is uneducated and uninformed on this subject. Second of all the only way you reach your conclusion I am contributing to the ignorance of my fellow citizens is by first assuming they are uneducated and misinformed, and second the statement suggests what you "say" it does. That is a lot of unproven assumptions.

No assumption; it's a fact. The majority of the people in this country are indeed uneducated and uniformed concerning vital issues with respect to our constitutional republic. You don't have to conduct a poll--you can read tons of drivel from tons of people on the internet that clearly demonstrates a high degree of ignorance. The fact that the majority of the people don't understand that the constitution secures rights rather than confers rights is but the tip of the iceberg.

0 Replies

For some reason, this thread reminded me of an "Onion" article:

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3690/rightsonion0ag.png

You can read the rest of the article HERE

0 Replies

Should Citizens have the right to protest?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know