I saw a CNN clip that captured problems with how all sides discuss public discourse and protest in Minneapolis.
The Republican shouting head insisted that “protest” does not mean going into the streets. It means writing letters to the editor, starting a substack, or hosting a podcast. This is moronic. It ignores the “peacefully assemble” piece of the First Amendment. And it suggests that the First Amendment only protects the right (at least when exercised by critics of the current government) to speak when and where people are less likely to see or hear.
The Democratic shouting head responded by talking about the long history of civil disobedience, including MLK’s Letter and lunch-counter sit-ins. While less moronic, it misunderstands events or concepts and thus misses the critical point. Much (most?) of what we see in Minnesota is not civil disobedience. They are watching, following, and filming officers in public spaces, usually from distances that cannot constitute interference; they are communicating with the community to warn about ICE presence and whereabouts; and they are singing, dancing, chanting, shouting, and heckling officers. None of that constitutes disobedience –civil or otherwise–because none of it is against the law; the First Amendment protects everything described. Framing this as civil disobedience surrenders too much ground. If this is civil disobedience, ICE is within its power to seize and arrest people or push them out of these public spaces (albeit without using excessive force). If this is protected constitutional assembly and protest, ICE’s actions violate the First and Fourth Amendments. (Put aside the glaring absence of judicial remedy).
So both commentators from both sides are wrong. Neither recognizes or understands a realm of lawful public expression.
If some of this is civil disobedience (intentionally unlawful behavior intended to prompt arrest and thus to draw attention to a moral wrong), we encounter a different problem: A lack of acceptance for “disobedience,” civil or otherwise. Segments of people watching never pass the illegality to look at the immorality. And modern law enforcement–especially untrained thugs such as ICE agents–treats all violations of all laws as a serious breach of the peace justifying (if not requiring) massive force. ICE uses similar force against a driver blocking traffic as it would on someone carrying out an active armed robbery. Images of large numbers of Southern officers bearing down on non-threatening individuals with batons and police dogs and firehouses contributed to Northern support for civil rights 65 years ago. Images of ICE doing similar things have become daily occurrences. Whether they affect public opinion in the same way remains to be seen.
(Stated differently: Are we at the point in which people are horrified by Bull Connor or horrified by the Watts Riots?)
Update: Case in point. I have no idea what occurred before this. And it appears Fantastic Mr. Fox is blocking the street, although I cannot tell. But four agents in battle gear–two to drag him to ground and two to threaten the people around him–seems excessive for an unarmed dancing guy in an animal costume. But this is the norm–all violations of all laws are equally bad and justify the same degree of state force.