“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
As American citizens, one of our fundamental rights is the right to assembly. From the days of the American Revolution, when citizens protested King George’s oppressive policies, to the present, when citizens are protesting for women's rights, the right to assembly has been an integral part of American democracy. However, is there a point where the act of protest goes too far? The first month of Donald Trump’s presidency might be testing those limits. Protesting should not be a substitute for listening to opposing viewpoints and finding compromise.
People's inability to listen to and think about the merits of opposing viewpoints is a major issue in modern society. Instead of a reasonable, educated and methodical discussion on television, morning cable news has become a 'he said, she said' affair. This tendency to point fingers at the other side extends to public demonstrations. The Women’s March, which started out as a forum to discuss and celebrate the role of women in America, has been attacked by those who claimed people were only there to protest the newly inaugurated president and his alleged treatment of women. Women’s rights should not be a partisan issue, yet many people who supported President Trump turned it into one by refusing to acknowledge the protests as legitimate.
The flip side of protests is that sometimes they stand in the way of legitimate conversations instead of fostering them. When Governor Charlie Baker visited Tufts last week, protesters neglected to listen to the Governor’s policies. Instead, they decided to create banners chastising him and to walk out of his event. Outside of the auditorium, protestors chanted, "No Baker, no KKK, no fascist U.S.A.," linking Baker to fascism and the Klu Klux Klan. Their actions were offensive, irresponsible and inflammatory. This could have been a perfect opportunity to engage in bipartisan conversation with a governor who can greatly impact the future of the Northeastern Republican Party. Instead, this missed opportunity slammed the door shut on cooperation.
There have been many protests, especially in the wake of the election, that have walked the thin line between constitutionally protected free speech and unacceptable speech. Freedom of speech is something that has always been protected in America, but there is a limit to that speech. 'Fighting words,' defined as written or spoken words designed to incite hatred or violence from the group or person they are targeting, are expressly limited through the Constitution. At some campaign events, both anti-Trump and anti-Clinton protesters have targeted those with opposing views, harassing them verbally and sometimes even physically. Establishing this harassment as a legitimate form of political discourse sends our nation down a dark and even more polarized path in the future.
Protests are a hallmark of American democracy. Unlike the United States, many other countries do not grant their citizens the same right to assembly and speech. However, when protests replace bipartisan discussion and include violence, it is time to wonder if the right to assembly has a limit and if we have reached that limit.
