Amendment 1 Blues

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.
--Amendment 1



I believe that one of the most important rights that groups and individuals have is the right to publicly protest the policies of the government. Included is the belief that such protests should be non-violent. Hence, I admire and respect people such as Gandhi, Thoreau, King, and David and Phillip Berrigan.

In more recent times, I've grown to admire and respect Cindy Sheehan. As with the previously mentioned people, there were certain issues where I had disagreement with her opinions. But, in all of these cases, I recognize that no two individuals think exactly alike – unless only one is thinking.

At the same time, there are people who have opinions so different than my own, that I recognize we have very little in common. Even on this forum, I've seen personal attacks on, for example, Cindy Sheehan, that I consider to be ugly. When someone is doing the best that they can, especially under difficult circumstances, I think it's good to be supportive of them. If that's not possible, perhaps refrain from ugly personal attacks.

In January, the people of Egypt began public protests against their government. In February, people in Wisconsin began peaceful public protests against a rabid, right-wing republican attack on public employees. I think that these are both examples of democratic action that is worthy of our respect.
There have been a few OP/ posts expressing the opposite opinion on both cases here on the Democratic Underground. Again, these indicate not just a simple difference of opinion, but a type of thinking that comes from someone that I have very little in common with.

There is another interesting case involving public protest, which is currently illustrating the divide on this forum. While Secretary of State Clinton was giving a speech, Ray McGovern stood and turned his back on her. He was arrested, and removed by police.

Clinton was reportedly speaking about the right of citizens to exercise what we know as Amendment 1 rights. McGovern sustained, at very least, injuries that caused bruising and at least some bleeding.
I've had the opportunity to meet Hillary Clinton twice. I liked her. I also had an opportunity to be in a group of citizens in a federal court with McGovern, watching the trial of the St. Patrick's Four. (They were Catholics who engaged in an anti-war protest when George W. Bush invaded Iraq.) To be honest, I had no interest in talking with McGovern, for personal reasons.

However, even in the case of someone such as McGovern, I fully support his right to engage in public protests. I believe that an expected response to such protests in certain contexts is an arrest. (In fact, I am convinced that American citizens will need to fill the jails near Washington, DC, in the spirit of Dr. King, in order to achieve meaningful change. But that's another topic.)

Still, I am surprised – and, indeed, disappointed – that Hillary Clinton ignored the police's rough handling of Ray McGovern. I wish that she had spoken up, not only for an elderly individual being roughed up by the police, but for the essence of Amendment 1.

I am not surprised to read some ugly comments by some forum members, aimed either at McGovern, or simply attempting to distract attention from the Amendment 1 issues. One person, for example, noted that old folks tend to bruise more easily, as if that means the treatment McGovern received was somehow less offensive. As I noted in that thread, early in my career in human services, I investigated child neglect and abuse. Babies tend to bruise more easily than do teenagers.(I have this thing about not bruising babies, old folk, or anyone else.)

Amendment 1 isn't about protecting non-controversial public protests. It isn't about church picnics or “The Sound of Music.” It's about those things that tend to offend some people, even those in high political office. And it is essential for democracy.

I'll second that.

:kick:

when Dr. King had a heckler in the audience when he spoke, he would sometimes invite that person up on stage to discuss their concerns. I do not expect Clinton to do that. But if she had spoken up, I think almost everyone on DU could focus on the police roughing an elderly man up, and giving credit to Hillary for showing class.

I tried to make that point in several threads but it was difficult. If it were Rumsfeld for example giving the speech and an unknown citizen that protested and was subsequently arrested and roughed up, I wonder how much different those threads would have been?

I think that you are right -- some people are basing their opinion on emotions rooted in personality. And that is always a potential problem when it comes to Amendment 1 issues. One should always take a step back from subjectivity, and think in purely objective terms. That is, after all, the concept behind that wonderful Amendment .... and the primary reason that it was recognized as essential to include it as the first part of the Bill of Rights.

It is, I suppose, impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion of Amendment 1 rights with people incapable of objectivity. Odd that this happens so frequently on a progressive/liberal forum, eh?

and I am still reserving my judgment until more facts come out. But I support this brave man's right to peaceful protest and hope that Ms. Clinton does as well.