State-level legislation in the United States designed to narrow various elements of freedom of expression is a direct threat to democracy and, thus, extremely concerning.
The Black Lives Matter movement caused a resurgence of public protests across the United States. As more individuals mobilized, state legislatures began introducing bills to suppress, restrict, or criminalize the right to protest at a steadily increasing rate.
Legislators often make it clear that their bills have been proposed with specific protests in mind. This often suggests the criminalization of tactics used at these protests, which highly resembles viewpoint-specific restraint on speech.
Criminalizing unpopular speech is a direct threat to our First and Fourth Amendment rights. Encouraging the viewpoint that today’s civil protests are acts of criminal disruption only continues to push ordinary citizens into silence and submission.
Peaceful protests are a way to make ordinary voices heard, and legislation is making it clear that those in power don’t care to listen and want to penalize this speech unless they agree.
Targeting Fourth Amendment rights is a threat to free speech and expression; similar tactics are often used in authoritarian governments. It is outright dangerous and unconstitutional to target citizens for criticizing government action or policy, no matter what political affiliations you have.
The legislation regarding anti-protest and voter suppression aims to silence voices and disproportionately affects people of color.
The Thurgood Marshall Institute found noticeable differences in police action at racial justice protests vs. non-racial justice protests:
- Police are 2.0 times more likely to show up at a racial justice protest than at non-racial justice protests.
- Riot police are 3.0 times more likely to be at racial justice protests than at non-racial justice protests.
- Police are 1.4 more likely to make arrests at racial justice protests than at non-racial justice protests.
- Police are 3.8 times as likely to use projectiles and chemical weapons at racial justice protests than at non-racial justice protests.
The increased likelihood of arrest and the use of violent force at racial justice protests demonstrate how anti-protest legislation disproportionately impacts people of color, as these protests are more frequently targeted for specific reasons.
Systemic racism is prevalent in society, and it becomes even more pronounced when we consider our constitutional rights, as people of color are often held to different standards regarding what is protected under the Constitution.
Voter suppression is a serious risk to upholding a Democratic society in which all voices are heard to elect government officials, voting for who they feel best represents their opinions and concerns.
Making it more difficult for people to vote should be considered a direct civil rights violation, as voter suppression makes it more difficult for otherwise eligible voters to have their voices heard on the ballots.
I don’t believe policy is the most appropriate avenue to regulate freedom of speech. In some cases of obscenity, illegal material, or hate speech inciting imminent lawless action, having a policy is more appropriate as these acts are not directly protected under freedom of speech or expression.
However, the right to think and speak freely and criticize or protest what you disagree with is directly protected under our Constitutional rights as Americans and therefore, should not be policed or silenced.
Leave a Reply