@
Ximenajacoba Not that I needed to do this, but I searched "denied first amendment rights Minneapolis"
and this is the first hit that came up:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5755042-first-amendment-rights-debate/
The lengthy drama that has played out in Minneapolis in recent weeks has exposed yet again that too many Americans misunderstand what constitutes free expression.
The First Amendment was designed by the framers to give citizens the rights to express themselves politically, religiously and culturally. Those protections allow people to express their thoughts and ideas. But that’s all the Constitution guarantees.
Somewhere along the way, provocateurs bastardized the concept of free expression. They have confused unlawful incitement as “messaging” and falsely portrayed actual behavior as “free speech.” Apologists consciously obfuscate action and expression, lumping all approaches of dissent into the same category.
A close reading of the First Amendment should remind Americans of the wording “peaceably to assemble.”
Even a former anchor at a high-profile news channel has intentionally mischaracterized what the First Amendment means. Don Lemon intruded on private property and disrupted other citizens’ exercise of their rights, then tried to snooker the public with the claim that doing “journalism” allows such an invasion. Lemon’s stunt led to his arrest in Los Angeles by federal officials. Immediately, Mayor Karen Bass perpetuated the same inaccurate portrayal of Lemon’s actions, proclaiming Lemon was “just doing his job.”
Polarization happens when some citizens interpret free expression protections to include hostile action and incitement of unlawful behavior. Debate on issues ceases when mob behavior can be considered “expression” in a broad and unhealthy categorization. The forces of chaos thrive on these expansive interpretations of “expression” that justify dangerous behavior.
Delineating what is constitutionally protected expression from uncivil conduct really isn’t that difficult to figure out, if the various parties want to promote reasoned discourse instead of chaotic behavior. Assembling, demonstrating, holding signs and chanting slogans are all just fine, if done on public property or your own property. All of those things are expressions.
Blocking roads, vandalism, spitting, inciting violence, trespassing and organized interference with law enforcement officers are not OK. All of those things are actions — not expression or dissent. This should be simple enough to understand.
There is no First Amendment “right” to try to nullify enforcement of federal law. President Dwight Eisenhower made that clear to the governor of Arkansas in 1957, when the 101st Airborne was ordered to Little Rock to desegregate a school.
