Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
On Jan. 6, 2020, the U.S. Capitol was stormed, taken over for a period of time and vandalized. Those supporting Trump and the MAGA movement did not consider the actions criminal but rather believed the act to be “tourists” entering the capitol.
When students and others recently broke into Hamilton Hall on the campus of Columbia University in New York City, took it over and vandalized the building, the persons supporting the protestors were the ones who believed students did nothing wrong and were instead “peacefully” protesting.
As someone who has participated in many protests, I can tell you that if you truly want to convince someone to take your position or to show that you and others care about an issue, the means of the protest cannot be allowed to swallow the message. Practically speaking, when protestors are vandalizing property or yelling antisemitic slurs or throwing stuff at police before they have done anything, no one is going to focus on the issues.
I believe in freedom of expression, but not even the constitutional promise of the fundamental right of free speech is unlimited. If your protest stops other students from being able to attend classes or use the campus for an extended period, or if it presents a physical danger to others, your right to express yourself will be limited.
The government has the power to apply time, place and manner restrictions upon free speech. The crackdown by police was not about the message but rather how the message was being delivered.
I support the right of protest, but it cannot be allowed to go unfettered. If the police used excessive force, that should be addressed. But on the other hand, if you refuse to leave the scene and resist being escorted off the property, you should not be surprised to find yourself handcuffed and forcibly removed. Our protestors need to learn the lesson of passive resistance.
When a protest devolves into a scene of chaos and destruction (as we saw firsthand in Indianapolis in 2020), it is usually because some of the believers are so committed that they look at anarchy as the way to fix the problem—tear down the institution and rebuild without first knowing what the next steps will be. To avoid such destruction and threat to public safety, it is necessary to enforce time, place and manner limitations.
When I took my niece to her first protest, the first thing I told her was to run away if there was any violence or vandalism. The students have the option of refusing to continue participation when the protest veers into the realm of criminal acts. The issue is not one of free speech but rather of enforcing the law within constitutional constraints.
The other part of the problem is, many of the protestors are unfamiliar with how and why Israel came into existence. Most of them do not understand that the phrase “from the river to the sea” references Palestine taking over the lands of Israel. It is essentially a cry to make the Jews homeless once again as they were before Israel was founded.
Yes, Netanyahu needs to go, and, yes, we need to address assisting Palestine. But the former can only be done by the citizens of Israel, and the latter requires the Palestinians to reject Hamas. In the meantime, protestors should continue protesting but do it in a time, place and manner that allows the world to focus on the message.•
__________
Celestino-Horseman is an Indianapolis attorney. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.