Orderly Protest

 Matt Taibbi on Violent Protests

Two days ago on Useful Idiots Matt argued that the Republicans around the country were being hypocritical for supporting civil liberties but, at the same time, passing laws against violent protests, or, as they used to be called, riots. The argument seems to be that if people can't protest by rioting their constitutions rights to free speech are being abridged. I respectfully disagree. 

That it is possible to, as the Constitution says, "peaceable assemble for redress of grievances," is shown by the example of the Tea party protests during the Obama administration. Some of the largest protests in history were held under the banner of the Tea Party and it was routinely noted that the protesters left the public spaces cleaner than they had found them. When the Capitol Hill rioters attacked on January 6 there was no shortage of Republican law makers to denounce their lawless and violent acts and demand the prosecution of the protesters. 

There is no need to commit crimes to express your opinion. 

Of course, laws against riots and such like behavior can be used dishonestly by authorities to discourage legitimate protesting, but the same could be said of laws against stealing and robbing. It makes no more sense to not enact laws against rioting because those laws can be misused that it would be to legalize theft and robbery because those laws had been misapplied. 

Would you argue that the Tea Party protests would have been more effective if the protesters had burned down buildings and looted stores? Would you say that the Capitol Hill protesters were just exercising their right to free speech?