A pro-Trump right wing group, Patriot Prayer, planned a "Freedom Rally" for August 26th, in San Francisco, only to cancel the event to mitigate potential violence that might occur from a build up of counter protesters on the same day. Recent Charlottesville events led the group to avoid following the precedent, and instead reschedule the rally to a different location later in the day, but was once again blocked, this time by city officials. Patriot Prayer has released statements accusing city officials as falsely representing their group as violent and extremist, and accusing Antifa and BAMN (left wing groups) of preventing Patriot Prayer from gathering. Few major violence or arrests occured throughout the day.
This event once again brings out concerns of the city of San Francisco and surrounding locations becoming much to polarized, and unable to accept different opinions. This issue regarding SF's governing policies revolves around First Amendment rights of free speech, but also government duties of keeping the peace and providing safety to residents. Thus, the central question of whether SF government is limiting free speech or protecting the peace depends on the nature of the planned Patriot Prayer rally. This event also calls into question the legal authority that counter protesters have in limiting free speech.
Since the event, Mayor Ed Lee has called the Patriot Prayer gathering part of a "shameful, anti-American trend of hate-filled extremist rallies." Yet Patriot Prayer founder and leader Joey Gibson has commented that the group canceled their rally to prevent "a lot of innocent people [getting] hurt." The contradictory statements of both parties makes the intent and potential violent consequences of the event difficult to judge. However, the actions of Patriot Prayer, canceling and relocating the rally to prevent violence, indicate peaceful gathering on their behalf. Perhaps the city government, while dutifully ensuring peace, has also prevented a rightful act of free speech.
The counter protesters also had a major role in preventing the rally, flooding the streets of SF, and, according to Washington Post, initiated the few violent outbursts that there were. This seems like a trend for the Bay Area in general, as past examples such as Milo Yiannopoulos's speech at Berkeley also canceled due to violent left wing extremists. Are these counter protesters considered vigilantes? In order to ensure a democratic and educated society, the government must maintain neutrality during times of social struggles.
The potential consequences of last weekend's demonstration may have widespread consequences. A people empowered by their ability to influence free speech with no legal authority, may be pushing the city towards a even steeper slope of polarization. City government while maintaining order, if biased in its actions, could further lead to instability. Yet it could all be necessary for the sake of safety. Does any group have a right to free speech, even with potential violent consequences. How preemptive should local authorities be in protecting peace, and will this inevitable encroach on people's rights? Do residents have the legal authority to prevent an event by force? These questions must be navigated in order to maintain unity in our cities, and to ensure that the people are free and safe.
8 comments:
I feel like one of the big issues with the Patriot Prayer group's meeting in Crissy Field was that they received their permit from the National Park service because Crissy Field is part of national park land. The City of San Francisco didn't like this because they would be the ones expected to take financial responsibility for all the security that would be necessary to keep people at the event safe. I think that Patriot Prayer should definitely have been allowed to held their meeting (which they were actually able to, if they had not canceled) but that the National Park service should have consulted with the City before issuing the permit. Free speech, especially speech that is unpopular, must be protected, but there also must be protection to keep the public safe when such speech is likely to cause problems. Who should be obligated to pay for that protection is a question we have yet to answer, but I suspect we will begin to figure that out as tensions between the alt right, and the left continue to escalate. I'd like to know what all of you think about who is ultimately responsible for keeping the peace?
Regarding many recent, high profile protests, I’m quite tired of the violent, anti-police tactics of factions of antifa. Antifa stands for anti fascists. Who were fascists? In part, people who forcefully suppressed dissent through violence often committed anonymously. What do the antifa often do? Oh yeah!
I agree that all “isms” (racism, authoritarianism, etc) must be passionately resisted. However, acting out violently is counterproductive not only because it violates the very beliefs that the antifa supposedly hold, but also because it plays right into the narrative of a breakdown of law and order, which only empowers those with authoritarian aspirations.
Perhaps the proper way to counter protest is to let those you oppose have their own protest in one place, and you have your own in another. Let your orderliness, acceptance and superior size demonstrate that you possess the moral high ground.
While I imagine that most of us are opposed to "hate-filled extremist rallies," assaulting people and shutting down rallies is not a good way to voice your opinion. Staging attacks against members of the alt-right only provides them with martyrs, and legitimacy. While the alt-right succeeds in being vocal, (mostly due to the media's obsession) their ranks are thin. In Charlottesville they only had a few thousand protesters in a country of over 300 million. They have no possibility of "taking over" the Bay Area.
They only choose places like San Francisco to hold their rallies for the confrontational value. Marches are highly inefficient at convincing the other side that you are right, and even if that was their goal, the Bay Area would be a bad place to start.
Their goal of these events is to be a victimized group, and shutting down the rally is a good way of achieving this. A superior solution would be let them realize their first amendment right to assemble, and respond with peaceful opposition. Unlike protests, debates can convince people. Schedule live debates, which allow you to prove that your position is superior. If they are unwilling to debate, that only looks bad for them.
As many of the other comments have said, I disagree with the methods that the Antifa used in order to silence hate groups. Despite the tolerance paradox, which states that there must be intolerance of intolerance in order for a society to remain tolerant, there is no way to constitutionally implement the silence of all hate groups and hate groups only. And there are other, peaceful ways to prevent hate groups from marching. For example, one successful method has been to treat the march like a fundraising walk, donating an amount of money to charities such as Exit for every mile supremacists march. While it is true that opposing hate groups does not make you equal to hate groups, violence is not the best way to show that. Harrison had an excellent point that Patriot's Prayer is trying to get its opponents to be violent in an attempt to claim the moral high-ground.
I agree with Michael - sometimes people need to step back and think about whether or not "fighting fire with fire" is truly productive in the long run, and if the response contradicts the values that are trying to be preserved. As Aech has said, I personally think it's ridiculous to assume that "intolerance of intolerance" breeds tolerance. By growing intolerant of other people's opinions, we prevent ourselves from considering the other point of view.
While I don't support the sentiments that are being made by extremist, right wing groups, I think people should be able to exercise their freedom of speech, as long as they do so in a safe manner. Though they should expect some people to disagree with their viewpoints and receive some backlash for the ideas they support, it is equally important that those who do disagree express their concerns in a peaceful manner to avoid further political polarization. These clashes only increase the likelihood of violence and extreme disagreement.
It seems like most people in the comments above agree that oppressive counter protesting is a problem. It indeed leads to violence (as seen in the very recent Berkeley violence on Sunday), and doesn't seem to be influencing anyone positively; only making people more heated and divided. Perhaps there is a better way to express opinions, perhaps through better rally planning / leadership and public notification. Any other ideas on potential solutions to political violence?
I think that the major problem with events like these is that people get far to emotional when it comes to politics. Whenever people are confronted by people with a different political opinion there are too many people that end up taking it personally and getting offended which leads to the violence and intolerance which we see in a lot of these political gatherings. People need to learn that everybody has the right to their own opinion and no matter how ridiculous their opinion may come off as, they need to realize that everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe. One of the key aspects of a democracy is the right of people to freely express their ideas without intimidation, and without this, a majority group can easily overwhelm and intimidate a minority group, suppressing their ideas and values, which is the very thing that our founding fathers were trying to prevent.
Free speech is not hate speech. Authorities should by all means be able to prevent rallies if it means keeping the majority of the people safe. While liberty is a major American value, civilian's safety must be prioritized. It was wrong for counter protestors to respond in a violent manner and there should be consequences, but overall if the goal is to prevent violence then it was best to not allow the hate group to protest. Since San Francisco is generally a liberal area, both sides were bound to clash and with so much tension across the country, violence would have most likely occurred. As Americans, during controversial times, such as those we are experiencing today, we must practice free speech in a non-violent manner and learn to have open conversations rather than immediately turn to aggressive actions.
Post a Comment