For all their flaws, the founders of the United States were brilliant.

Keen students of history, too — aware of what tyrannical governments had done in the past, and determined that the nation they were forming should not repeat those mistakes.

Case in point: The First Amendment to the Constitution. It says: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

First for a reason.

It protects our right to freely express our opinions and ideas, covering words written, spoken and symbolic, without government reprisal. Our right, in Walt Whitman’s words, “to sound our barbaric yawp over the rooftops of the world.”

But the right is not absolute. It does not protect individuals from private restrictions, such as those employers or landowners may impose. And certain types of speech, such as obscenity, incitement to violence, and defamation, may be restricted.

Today this bulwark of our democracy is in danger. Our two main political parties loudly decry “cancellation culture,” yet both sides practice it freely. The hypocrisy is rampant, as is the human ability t0 forgive and excuse ourselves even as we castigate those dirty so-and-sos over there for doing the very same thing.

The great Scottish poet, Robert Burns wrote about this: “O, would some power the gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us! It would from many a blunder free us, and foolish notion…”

A crowd will assemble Saturday, June 14, on Auburn’s streets to protest the federal government’s recent actions on illegal immigration. And police will be there to ensure the assembly is, as the First Amendment directs, peaceful.

We can only hope that the protesters keep their cool, so that police don’t have to wade in and use tough means break it up if they don’t. That’s how it should be. Because, as noted above, the right to free speech does not extend to incitement to violence. In other words, your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.

Emotions at this moment run hot: one side contesting the ham-handed means the federal government is going about its work and on the other, disgust at the mayhem and violence that have broken out during protests in other cities.

Of course, Auburn is not Los Angeles.

Having witnessed the protests in Seattle in 1999, however, I have no doubt that a majority will want to express its right to protest peacefully what it doesn’t like, but a minority will be there as well, people who have come not to protest peacefully, but to incite violence. Unfortunately, the protests are often overshadowed by that latter contingent. And should rowdiness break out, and police step in, that’s what will play out on our televisions.

And that would sully everything.

We will see.

What’s at stake here is our right to speak freely, to say, “hell no,” without fear of reprisals or intimidation, in the face of a federal government that considers even peaceful protests suspect, and is overly fond of issuing dark threats backed by its immense power to make them come true.

Among the first actions the new administration took upon assuming office was to hamstring our ability to scrutinize its actions, and to shield it from any criticism by gutting or eliminating altogether the very watchdogs that have served as our levers to check its power. Word is that it has been spoiling for opportunities like these protests to display its power.

All I can say is, folks, keep your heads.

–

Robert Whale can be reached at robert.whale@soundpublishing.com.