Freedom of speech has been hotly debated in this presidential election. Candidates, especially the ever-controversial Republican candidate Donald Trump, have blasted the so-called “politically correct” society we live in as destroying this very American ideal and natural right. Yet it seems like Mr. Trump is a champion of freedom of speech only when the amendment works in his favor. This apparently did not happen at his rally in Chicago.
The Trump campaign canceled a scheduled rally Friday at the University of Illinois at Chicago in response to an anti-Trump protest occurring both inside and outside the arena, The New York Times reported. Protesters had been colliding with Trump supporters inside the arena for about an hour before the rally was set to start, causing the campaign to announce the event’s cancellation to protect the “safety of all of the tens of thousands of people that [had] gathered in and around the arena,” according to a statement from Trump.
While many applauded the protesters for making a statement against Trump’s campaign, others reacted unfavorably, accusing the protesters for acting un-American. FOX News anchor Megyn Kelly claimed Trump’s “First Amendment free speech rights [had] been shut down.” Newt Gingrich tweeted that the groups protesting were made up of “real American fascists.” In an interview with FOX’s Sean Hannity, Trump said, “I think this not a good group — [it’s] really spiteful of First Amendment rights.”
I definitely do not agree with people who claim the First Amendment protects everyone and everything, or that people should not be held accountable for the things they say. People like this remind me of my sixth-grade classmates. In sixth grade, when we had just learned about the Constitution and were forced to sing that horrid preamble song, some of my classmates decided they could say horrible things to each other without getting in trouble. Why? Freedom of speech, of course!
Trump continued his First Amendment diatribe on Twitter, where he tweeted that “the organized group of people, many of them thugs, who shut down our First Amendment rights in Chicago, have totally energized America!”
We’ve seen before how racists like to degrade people of color and their grievances by characterizing them as “thugs,” an occurrence made common after the multiple police brutality-related tragedies that took place in the past year. When Trump referred to the protesters, many of whom were people of color, as “thugs,” he basically told the public that he did not care about their right to speak freely or their right to assemble. Trump’s version of free speech is reserved only for some people, himself included, while everyone else who protests his words is classified as a deviant and is therefore undeserving of these natural-born rights.
But if the word “thug” is supposed to be affiliated with causing unnecessary violence, shouldn’t Trump himself be characterized as a thug? After all, during a February rally in Iowa, Trump urged his audience to “knock the crap” out of anyone who looked like they may throw a tomato. He even promised to pay for the legal fees.
CNN reported that a Trump supporter at a North Carolina rally punched a black protestor in the face Thursday, later saying, “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him.”
Trump’s campaign draws on violence and prejudice to fuel its success. He has encountered resistance on social media and from a few protesters in the crowds of his rallies, but at his Chicago rally on Friday, he could no longer hide from the protesters or deny their importance. Enough people felt so marginalized by Trump, so dehumanized, that they shut down his event. And instead of listening to these protesters — who, if Trump gets his way, may become his constituents — he degraded them even further.
Trump personifies the line where freedom of speech becomes hazy and where its limits become clear. Yes, the First Amendment guarantees every citizen of this country the right to speak without being stopped by the government, but it does not encourage using that right for hate, violence or prejudice. And, in a world where not all people are as privileged as we are to have a constitution assuring free speech, we are abusing our rights if do not use them the way they were intended to be used.
The drafters of the Constitution had had enough of their government treating them like second-class citizens. The First Amendment provided the first American citizens with the rights they had deserved for so long but did not have. Donald Trump and his supporters are not preserving the sanctity of the First Amendment or ensuring its longevity. Instead, they are demeaning its value by using it to spew ignorance and to discourage dissatisfied citizens from demanding more from their government, which is, at the end of the day, perhaps the most American ideal of all.
“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
– John F. Kennedy, former President of the United States
“… demanding more from their government, which is, at the end of the day, perhaps the most American ideal of all.”
– Sarah Burstein, a person who believes that Sanders supporters attacking Trump supporters isn’t a violation of the First Amendment, but the latter defending themselves is
Sarah, you seem to place an overwhelming focus on the sanctity of free speech and protecting everyone’s right to it throughout the first half of this article. This view is an understandable one; it is logical to argue that everyone is entitled to that right, however, I don’t know if it should extend to becoming a safety issue. You appear to have no issue with that notion based on the defence you establish for Trump protestors rallying directly outside the arena. Fair enough, I see the validity in your points.
You then argue that Trump using his free speech is a negative aspect, though, and you lost me there. We should have no bias on the First Amendment. You’ve unintentionally juxtaposed views within the same article. It seems that everyone, including both you and Trump (and I imagine any American), prefer free speech to extend only to a certain demographic. Calling someone a racist is just as derogatory as calling someone a thug.
Also, for future reference: A “Hate Speech” exception provided by the First Amendment is a common misconception. There’s no such thing. If something did not contain (or was not perceived to contain) “hate, violence or prejudice”, there would be nobody so adamantly against the saying of it that free speech would not be an issue in such a case. The purposeful shutdown of the arena (if it was so) is much more of a stance against free speech than any words used by Trump, as his words do not impede others’ ability to use their words (unlike actions to close an arena). Instead, you expect Trump to listen to those impeding his ability to speak in public as there must be some valid reason they are impeding it. Such action would be forfeiture of the First Amendment.
The intended use of the First Amendment is to say whatever you would like to say; the only exceptions are that it must not be defamatory and there are certain limits on obscenities.