In American Studies, the Vietnam War group presented most recently. According to their presentation, large numbers of college students protested the war on their college campus, and many of the protesters were harassed for doing so. In addition, some of the protests became a little rowdy, and the protesters started throwing rocks, goading troops to action and becoming violent. The police beat many protesters in the video that we saw on Friday, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Another form of protest was the burning of draft cards, which is illegal according to the Selective Service Act. People who burned their draft cards were sentenced to a term in jail and a fine. I sensed from the presenters and from the atmosphere in the room that the protesters should not have been beaten or sent to jail. I think there is a problem with that thinking.While I certainly don't condone the use of violence to quell protests, I also do not believe that a protest should be allowed to occur where the protesters become riotous. It is a terrible tragedy that young people lost their lives while protesting, I think everyone can agree, but the government does not allow violent protests. The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Please note the word peaceably. The protests, wherever they became violent, destructive, or hateful were illegal. It is sad that the protesters were injured or killed, but they were breaking the law.
The draft card burners also broke the law. In my opinion, it is ridiculous to break the law and not expect to go to jail. For example, every time the speedometer says that I am going over the speed limit, I expect a cop to show up any minute and pull me over for breaking the established traffic laws. Possibly a better example is that of Martin Luther King Jr. He led peaceful marches and protests all over the southern United States, and was put in jail many times. He expected it. When he broke laws and went to jail, he knew that he was making a statement by going to jail peacefully. His actions spoke louder than any appeal could have. While the draft protesters wanted to make a statement by burning their cards, they still broke the law, and that deserves jail, according to the same law.
While I do not advocate our government to place undue restrictions on our civil liberties and not allow the citizens to protest, I also do not believe that justice's hand should be stayed from law breakers. The tragedies that occurred are sad, and I do not think that any of the violence on the part of the national guard or police was warranted. However, when one breaks the law, one should expect to have a punishment.
Lims-
ReplyDeleteMuch agreed. I think that those who make a decision to knowingly break the law, for whatever reason, be them well intentioned or not, should not then be flabbergasted by the fact the were fined or jailed. If the law is unfair, there are channels to challenge them peacefully. I think these protesters were right to challenge these laws because they were not fair, but those who burned draft cards and did assault others without provocation by the cops who were out of line, should have known that with their actions do come consequences.
PS I like how you want to arouse your readers hahahahaha <3!!
David,
ReplyDeleteThough I see your point, that you have to accept the consequences of your actions, not all protesters were shocked by a jail sentence. In the case of United States vs. O'brien, O'brien burned his draft card. He prearranged this with the press looking for media coverage so it would make a larger impact as a protest. He was charged on two counts when he took this case to court. He accepted the charge for not having his draft card, because he understood that this was against the law--and it wasn't that large of a punishment. The issue was with his second charge which was of "knowingly mutilating his draft card". This he would have accepted as well, if it was a law at the time of the crime. The court amended the law in order to punish him and set a precedent for other cases. It wasn't that he didn't accept his crime, it was the fact that the rules were changed to turn his action into a larger crime than it previously was.
Many protestors accepted his/her consequences of their choice of actions. But that being said, are the consequences all just?
David,
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing such an important issue from the classroom and into a larger forum.
I agree wholeheartedly with Trevor, racial profiling is not only wrong in its essence, but it is also ineffective. You mention that your German ancestors were also racially profiled at one time. Were any of them actually threats to the American public? You even characterize this treatment as a “hardship” to your family. But many Arabs experience the same treatment today, yet I have not heard anyone acknowledge those instances of racial profiling as hardships. In fact, they are often justified. I think history is repeating itself here. We openly agree that the racial profiling of Germans during World War I and II as unfair, but we don’t think the racial profiling of Arabs today is any more than, in your words “a little extra searching” I am still waiting for racial profiling to be the reason for a person of Arab descent is found to be harboring devices with which to hijack a plane. That clearly has yet to happen. When, if it ever does, this happens, I think I would be more inclined to agree with you.