The Burden of Freedom

I've been struggling with trying to put down my thoughts after witnessing the events that took place in my city this weekend. 

I had decided in advance not to go to the rally, as repugnant as I found it and as much sympathy as I had for the counter-protesters.  These troglodytes came from out of town looking for attention, looking for a fight.  With all of the firearms sure to be on display and with passions running high on both sides, I figured someone was going to get hurt.  I thought they'd get shot-- the possibility of someone using a car as a weapon didn't really occur to me.  From now on, it will. 

One issue that I keep circling back to is the issue of freedom of speech.  This is one of the founding principles of our society-- right there in the First Amendment to our Constitution-- so it's not something to be shrugged off lightly.  One fundamental principle that I remember vividly from my Constitutional Law class in law school is that if the Freedom of Speech doesn't protect the worst, most heinous type of speech, it can't protect any of it.  As repulsive as the words of the Nazis who polluted our town are, they have the right to say them.

However, there are limits.

You can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  You can't deliberately cause a panic and create a dangerous situation.

You can't incite a riot.  You aren't allowed to use your words to turn someone else into your weapon.

You can't use "fighting words."  Interestingly, the case that first explored this principle in depth involved a Jehovah's witness who was preaching (yelling) on a street corner, and when the town marshal went to stop him, he called the marshal a "fascist."  The Supreme Court found that this speech was not protected, that it was a grave enough personal insult to excuse the marshal's response (which was, I believe, arresting the guy, not punching him, although honestly I'm not sure.  Given the time period, it may have been both).  Of course, the people who came to stir up trouble this weekend call themselves fascists, Nazis, and worse, so I don't think they can take any comfort from the facts of this particular case.
. 
These principles show those of us who wish to stand up to these purveyors of hate and stupidity the limits of what we can and cannot do, but they also show us a path forward.

We cannot ask the government to outlaw their beliefs.  If their lives are so pathetic that the only thing they can find to take pride in is the accident of their birth and the likely false belief that their ancestry is somehow "pure," there is very little anyone can say to convince them otherwise. But we can insist that the authorities make sure that when they dress up in their costumes and have their chest-thumping public displays of their deep-seated inferiority complexes that their psychodramas stay within Constitutional boundaries.

I continue to believe that the best way to fight speech we disagree with is more speech, not attempting to stop the offensive speech. 

Do your research.

Practice discipline.

The second thought that I've had is that lesson that we have lost from the Civil Rights movement is the power of nonviolence.  People mistakenly believe that active nonviolence is a display of weakness. It is not.  It takes practice, discipline, training. It is hard work.

Our instincts when threatened are to defend ourselves-- to fight back.  Martin Luther King, Jr., James Farmer, and John Lewis studied Mahatma Gandhi and learned the lessons that changed our country despite the best efforts of the KKK and fascists of the time, a time when they acted under the absolute color of law and with the confidence of knowing that law enforcement and the judicial system were largely on their side.  The images of children getting blasted with fire hoses, of college students getting beaten bloody, of peaceful assemblies being broken up with vicious attack dogs were more effective than any amount of words.  And once King and Farmer and Lewis had everyone's attention with those images, they were able to make them listen to their words.

These folks who call themselves the "anti-fa" are demonstrating, unwittingly, exactly why King and Farmer and Lewis were right.  Responding to violence with violence, no matter how just the cause, only begets... more violence.  The modern alt-right is clever-- I wouldn't say "smart," but clever.  They know what to say to provoke a response, and they use those images of Bohemian hippy chicks screaming obscenities and black-clad hooded figures throwing tear gas to proclaim their victimhood and win sympathy.  While Jason Kessler may have a face that begs for a fist, giving in to that impulse only strengthens his platform and increases his visibility. 

Condoleeza Rice tells the story of growing up in Birmingham when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed by the same organization that brought their ugly rhetoric to our town, valiantly murdering 4 little girls, classmates of Ms. Rice.  When the time came for the responding nonviolent protest, her father-- a WWII veteran-- stayed at home.  When she asked him why, he told her that he understood Dr. King's call to nonviolence and respected it, but he knew himself well enough to know that he couldn't do it.  If someone hit him, he knew that he would hit back, and he knew that would be disastrous, not only for him personally, but for the movement.  The KKK only needed one photo of a big, black guy KO-ing a white man and all the work of the Civil Rights movement would be over.  So he stayed home and found other ways to contribute.

We may all be wise to consider the wisdom of the ones who fought this battle before us... and won.  Sometimes the best way to fight is to sit down, or kneel.  Sometimes the best way to support something you believe in is to stay away.  But if you do go, have the discipline to make sure that you don't inadvertently strengthen your enemy.

Be safe, folks.  And don't forget that in the end, love wins.