Before you deem me a racist and stop reading, let me say that I’m in no way a Donald Trump supporter. I find his ideals repulsive, disturbing and downright offensive to the human race. My reasons for this can be found on my Facebook page where I spend too much time writing angry statuses that then disappear into the abyss of ineffective political noise.
Abby Johnson
My purpose is to bring attention to a component of protest that has yet to be realized by Trump opponents: the potential to inadvertently neglect freedom of speech. Many opinion columns have featured articles on both sides of the issue. While the First Amendment grants Trump supporters the right to host a rally, it also grants his opponents the right to host a counter one. The recent debacle in Chicago which saw the cancellation of Trump’s political event has particularly helped start this conversation.
As a Chicagoan, I was proud to see so many people actively standing up against Trump. But at the same time, I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe my pride was only a result of my disdain for the candidate. Considering that I see myself potentially working as a First Amendment lawyer in the future, this thought was worrisome.
I saw loads of Facebook posts from people at home, congratulating the city for preventing the rally, calling the event “despicable and embarrassing.” Others posted live video feeds of the police desperately trying to calm the situation, applauding protesters for being relentless until their goal was reached. There was little attention given to Trump’s supporters. It seemed people’s determination to stop the candidate overshadowed a question worth considering: Should they even have tried to stump the Trump?
This question is based solely on our responsibility as citizens to ensure the protection of our rights. From a legal standpoint, my argument makes no sense, as both parties have the right to assemble. Though I should note here that nobody has the right to encourage violence on others and its incitement from both sides in Chicago weighed most heavily on Trump’s decision to cancel.
But there is a blatant contradiction within the protesters’ approach: They are using their own right to free speech to take that same right away from others. Arguably, this is the First Amendment at its finest, providing the perfect platform for people to openly express their beliefs. But in this particular instance, we find ourselves at the top of a slippery slope. As we encourage the majority to silence those they disagree with, we pave the way for our own rights to someday be threatened. To neglect a fundamental right protected by the Constitution also suggests we are failing to do our job as citizens.
The point I am trying to make here is there is a difference between what the law says we can do and what we should actually do. My likely unpopular opinion is the protesters never should have gathered in the first place. Neither side should have resorted to violent measures. The protesters should have stayed a reasonable distance from the supporters so as to let them enter the arena. And the supporters should not have taunted the protesters.
I’m not writing this to discourage somebody from attending or protesting a political event. I’m just suggesting that perhaps we are standing against more than just a candidate’s ideology — perhaps we are standing against freedom of speech itself. We should put more effort into educating ourselves about the candidates, increasing voter turnout and volunteering for campaigns. These methods will ring louder than all angry demonstrators combined.
What I am proposing is we give less attention to this form of political discourse and encourage these issues to be discussed elsewhere. But my suggestion is just that — a suggestion. The growing number of participants in these events is proof that thousands of people depend on this method in order to express their views. For this reason alone, the rallies and their protesters must be allowed.
Some of you may agree with me. Some of you may have already rolled your eyes several times. If that’s the case, I applaud you for reading to the very end. But regardless of which side you support, I just ask that you respect the buffer zone. It’s in our best interest.
—
Abby Johnson, ’16, is an associate lifestyle editor for The Brown and White. She can be reached at [email protected].
Comment policy
Comments posted to The Brown and White website are reviewed by a moderator before being approved. Incendiary speech or harassing language, including comments targeted at individuals, may be deemed unacceptable and not published. Spam and other soliciting will also be declined.
The Brown and White also reserves the right to not publish entirely anonymous comments.
2 Comments
Abby, now how is it I know your hometown better than you do, and I don’t even live there? Here’s what I know about your town:
When you talk about Chicago, you’re talking about a profoundly racially divided city, by which I mean a city which has devoted itself, and I do mean devoted, to punching black neighbors in the face with a sweet pair of brass knuckles every day for a century, literally and figuratively. Chicago is also a nonpareil in America when it comes to protest; that town knows how to throw a protest, and it has the photojournalism to match. (Take note, photography students.) If a man comes there claiming to be a presidential candidate and wants to turn up the heat under that racism, he will absolutely be greeted by proficient protest. That is testament to free speech.
When a government is violent with its people, is brutal, starves its schools and clinics, corrals by race, traps people in poverty and violence, its people will protest violently. I’d recommend you spend some time back home in Chicago, which, as you know, also has a rich tradition of journalism, a literate and gritty journalism that’s died out most other places. While you’re there, see if you can tag along with Steve Bogira and Mick Dumke from the Reader. Spend time on the margins of Hyde Park and Englewood (and don’t tell your mom). Take the train too far south and see what happens — well, you know not to do that. Or take the Green Line out past that secret place where the cops were imprisoning black men without due process, check the archipelago of frightened little white enclaves. And then go back where you’re supposed to be, on the North Side, on Michigan Avenue, in Lincoln Park…Oak Park…Naperville…Downers Grove…all the many Glen Whatevers with their prim Moffitt houses and high test scores. Whiter than Short Hills, mighty white, full of money. And when you’re safe and sound there, remember what you saw on the edges of Englewood, and in that long Green Line stretch beween downtown and Oak Park. Then think about why protests turn violent.
I hear there’s an underproduced Lorraine Hansberry play going up in Chicago this spring. The channel ain’t changed, you know.
Amy Charles ’89
Hello,
I only saw this response now. Obviously my article is no longer relevant, but if you read it you would see that I acknowledged that everyone should have the right to protest (look at the second to last paragraph) and that such protests must be allowed. Nor did I suggest that the counter protestors have no reason to protest. So while I agree with you about the disgusting racism, I don’t see its relevance to the article.
Also, I assure you that you do not know my city better than me.
Abby Johnson ’16