On Saturday, millions of Americans (and even some people in foreign countries) took to the streets to demonstrate their love for their country and their opposition to Donald Trump's authoritarian actions. Here Are some scenes from around the country:
Why is it so bad for outsiders to join a protest? Don't they also have a right to an opinion in a free society?
Consider the following part of a posting at PolitiFact:
The "outside agitator" term has often been attached to large historical movements.
"It was used as sort of a phrase that would link protesters, no matter how peaceful they were, to Communists and other infiltrators who were causing disruption," said Timothy Zick, William & Mary law professor and author of "Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protest."
Zick said the term is used by those seeking to discredit protests by casting doubt on the protesters’ sincerity. . . .
"The idea behind the concept of the outside agitator is that dissent can never be coming from the people who are expressing that dissent," said Angus Johnston, historian of student activism and teacher at Hostos Community College in New York City. "There always has to be a shadowy figure behind them.". . .
Some experts have been quick to note the main goal of a protest is to get others to join in.
"If you’re a protester who’s planned it you want all outsiders to join you," said Justin Hansford, executive director of the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center at Howard Law School. "That's the whole point. So that’s why this is such a silly concept.". . .
The narrative of "outside agitators" leading demonstrations has been pervasive in the history of American protests, going all the way back to the Civil Rights era.
"Segregationists in the South claimed that the protests there were the result of so-called outside agitators, indicating that of course the local population wasn't objecting to racial segregation, which wasn't true in all respects," Zick said. "People use (the term) to discredit protest to indicate that there's something not genuine about the objections people are making."
Martin Luther King Jr. was sometimes branded an outside agitator by local and state officials for his travels to cities and towns to join marches against racial segregation. King rejected this label in his now famous 1963 "Letter From Birmingham Jail,"
"I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham," King wrote. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
But the outside agitator narrative is a tried and tested police tactic, Hansford said. "You have to make their protesters bad before you can expect the public to accept a really violent action against them," said Hansford, who was involved in the 2014 Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the police killing of unarmed Black teenager Michael Brown.
"When I was doing Black Lives Matter protest, we never said we wanted our protest to be something that only Blacks participated in," Hansford said. "It's an imposition of a boundary trying to pigeonhole the protesters in terms of their identity and determine for them who's an outsider to them and who’s an insider to them."
For a year, the streets of Russia have been relatively quiet. Protests in early 2021 in support of opposition leader Alexei Navalny were met with arrests, beatings and prison sentences. But after President Vladimir Putin announced war against Ukraine this week, the streets swelled again with thousands of protesters. These courageous people, making themselves heard despite the fear and risks, demonstrated vividly that Mr. Putin faces opposition at home for what has quickly become known to be a war without a cause.
Mr. Putin draws power from cronies and clans, not the voters. It is not clear if public discontent can change his course. But the outpouring against the Ukraine war at the very outset was far larger than might have been expected. Russia’s educated urbanites were joined in protests by hundreds of journalists, entertainers, social media influencers, athletes, actors, television presenters and others. They have the potential to become a powerful force galvanizing opposition to the war.
The Kremlin fears this kind of opposition. Government censor Roskomnadzor warned the Russian news media to publish only information from official sources and threatened penalties for violators. Russian prosecutors threatened against unauthorized demonstrations, saying marchers could face “criminal charges,” including “severe punishment for organizing mass unrest.” They added ominously that a criminal record would have long-term consequences.
Nonetheless, thousands took to the streets on Thursday. In 60 Russian cities, more than 1,860 people have been detained, according to OVD-Info, a nongovernmental group that monitors political arrests. Alexei Nurullin, an activist from the Ulyanovsk region, picketed with a sign declaring, “A madman is bombing all of Ukraine.” Elena Chernenko, a prominent journalist for Kommersant, organized a protest letter from journalists and others involved in foreign policy. With about 300 signers, the letter condemned the war against Ukraine: “War has never been and will never be a method of conflict resolution and there is no justification for it.” On Friday, Ms. Chernenko was informed by the Foreign Ministry that she was expelled from the press pool, meaning she will be barred from ministry briefings and has lost her access to the minister.
A few celebrities also spoke out against the war. Ivan Urgant, who hosts a popular comedy show, wrote, “Fear and pain. NO to war.” His show was taken off the air almost immediately.
What will happen next depends in part on how Russians perceive the war, whether there are serious casualties, and whether Facebook and other social networks convey the truth from the battlefield. In the early hours, Facebook posts were filled with emotion, outrage and distress. On Friday, the government censor announced the start of an effort to slow down access to Facebook, as was done earlier with Twitter.
Still, opposition voices in Russia have a way of getting through. In an ongoing prison trial, Mr. Navalny declared, “I am against this war. I believe that this war between Russia and Ukraine is being waged to cover up the robbery of Russian citizens and to distract their attention from the problems that exist within the country from the degradation of the economy.” His will not be the last protest.
The gun lovers will claim it is their right to carry guns at any time they want. They are wrong. Carrying a firearm at a protest (where emotions are already inflamed) is too dangerous to allow. It will result in the unnecessary loss of life -- either of protesters, law enforcement, or innocent bystanders.
We need a national law making it a crime to carry a weapon at a demonstration -- especially a firearm of any kind. Doing so should result in the loss and destruction of the firearm, and a significant jail sentence for the person carrying it.
I am not arguing for the elimination of the right of a citizen to buy or possess a firearm (although it should only happen after a background check). The Constitution guarantees most citizens that right.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that government can restrict where firearms are allowed to be carried, and one of those exceptions should be in any kind of protest or demonstration.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that a ban on assault weapons is also constitutional. We once had a ban, and we need to reinstitute it. There is no need for any civilian to openly carry an assault weapon in public, and doing so should carry a severe penalty including jail time and the loss and destruction of the weapon.
These simple moves would save lives, are constitutional, and need to be instituted as soon as possible. Any politician refusing to do so will have blood on his/her hands.
