So now the right to public protest is under the Bus.
It seems that some people think that the right to protest shouldn’t apply in certain cases and are outraged,outraged, that Bernie Sanders doesn’t agree with them.
Of course many of them have been in a permanent state of outrage at Sanders since he first announced his candidacy, so I suppose it’s no surprise. Nevertheless, it’s rather bizarre that they would be outraged over support for one of the bedrock principles of the US Constitution.
The “cause” of the current spasm of anti-Sanders bile is a portion of his interview with Rachel Maddow. At issue is the fact that, having said that he opposed protesters disrupting campaign events, he went on to say that public protests outside of campaign events are a legitimate exercise of free speech.
That’s it. What in any other context would be a completely unremarkable statement supporting a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution becomes, in the current poisonous atmosphere, a pretext for a new round of hyperventilating condemnation of Sanders.
Apparently, when it comes to criticism of their chosen candidate, some HRC supporters think the Constitution shouldn’t apply.
Predictably, the critics shy away from the specifics of Sanders statement, preferring to suggest that his comment was a sweeping endorsement of any irresponsible or offensive action that protesters may engage in. This is, of course, simply a means for avoiding the gist of their complaint: that Sanders doesn’t accept the idea that certain personages are entitled to an exemption from such protest/criticism simply by virtue of being very important Democrats.
Yes, people can and will disagree.
For myself, you can put me down as a First Amendment absolutist.