"I always get upset first of all when someone throws in the Constitution. Okay, give me where the Constitution, okay, we'll talk about the First Amendment. Free speech is free speech, but when it turns to violence, which a lot of times these rallies go to, and the very people that's going to have to protect the property are going to be federal officers, especially inside Washington, D.C."
"We know their rallies get very violent. Ours do not. Republican sides do not, they'll burn down buildings, they will riot offices, they will riot stores, they turn over cars, they vandalize police cars. And so that's not protected in the Constitution. So when someone throws out the Constitution, I want them to understand what it is that they're actually describing."
Ahead of the No Kings protests, a critique warned that invoking the Constitution is misplaced when rallies turn violent because the First Amendment does not protect violent acts. The critique asserts that Democratic rallies often escalate into property destruction, vandalism, overturned vehicles, and attacks on police, while Republican rallies do not. Federal officers were identified as likely responsible for protecting property in Washington, D.C. The critique referenced past violent protests without mentioning the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. The No Kings protests were labeled as 'Hate America' rallies expected to attract pro-Hamas supporters, Antifa, and Marxists.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]