Increasing levels of debate surround First Amendment

Recent events and discussions here at Monmouth College have stirred up the debate around the First Amendment, what it means, how it should be used, and how it should be interpreted. The debate around the First Amendment has been intensifying on a national level as well and has posed many different questions as to the nature of the First Amendment and how it should be used or restricted. Many individuals have decried the attacks on free speech supposedly carried out by groups like the Sleeping Giants or by individuals who call out behavior or words they see as inappropriate. Despite these complaints the difference between someone on the internet telling you to shut up and the government restricting your rights to speech and to assemble is a stark one.

Attacks and restrictions placed upon the First Amendment have been increasing over the last several years as greater restrictions on the right to assemble have been implemented or proposed. Since the election of President Trump, 19 different states have introduced bills that would restrict the people’s right to peaceful assembly, 15 of these bills have been declared unconstitutional by the ACLU. Some of these bills introduce punishments on protestors such as extended jail time for blocking traffic, immunity for drivers who hit protestors, and the right for police departments to sue protestors for extra policing costs. The Trump administration itself is seeking to make it more difficult to assemble in front of the White House by limiting protest space and possibly even charging protestors fees for use of the space. Another fairly recent development has been the implementation of laws in 26 states preventing companies from participating in boycotts, the same sort of action that helped found the United States, forward the Civil Rights movement, and support countless other efforts. Specifically, these laws all prevent companies from being involved in boycotts aimed against Israel. These laws allow the state to punish these companies for participating in such boycotts.

As the debate surrounding attacks upon the First Amendment grow, we all must monitor exactly what is being done and how our rights are or could be infringed upon. Some restrictions are necessary, some self-imposed restrictions are just polite, but restrictions that seek to make speech or assembly practically impossible are a real and present threat to the health of our democracy.

Joseph Doner
Political Editor