What Is Unite The Right Attack?

They divulged their stimulation with what happened. The preponderances of them are White Americans who proclaimed that people of their race should receive greater rights and justice than the, as they asserted, Americans who don't belong. Consequently, riots and disputes befell among Denizens alongside numerous assaults. The obstructionists' intention, further bespoke explicitly through propaganda and graffiti, is lucid; they want the annihilation of African-Americans in the US.

Antifa is a social revolution, they reject turning to the police to stop the advance of white supremacy. Instead they turn to violence when trying to get a point across.For example, they are the cause for smashing storefronts, setting things on fire, hurting police and more. They claim to be anti-racists. They track local neo-Nazis. They have public campaigns. They support migrants and refugees. They also stress venues to drop white power events. Ever since President Trump’s election, they have become more active and have had many public campaigns. After Trump’s victory in 2016 more and more outbreaks of violence from these antifa activists have come about. Recently, antifa protesters threw glass bottles and bricks at police when watching a

This past summer, white supremacists and other right-wing groups held a “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville to express their concerns regarding the taking down of symbols that relate to America’s Confederate past. The removal of monuments caused major controversy with white supremacists and citizens who were in favor of the removal of monuments (Merica, 2017). This resulted to white nationalists mobilizing in downtown Charlottesville to make it clear that they are exercising their freedom of speech and assembly to go against social norms. Through this event, white nationalists could incite the political tension among the two political parties on the decision to remove Confederate monuments. It can be deduced that both parties are exercising their first amendment rights and that the disagreement comes from the way these white nationalists are expressing themselves and the ideals that they believe in. After this story broke out, there were more demonstrations from both actors, white nationalists and

The officers obviously do not have enough ground to be able to separate the peaceful protesters from the ones wanting to bring in the guns and the violent various weapons through Charlottesville. The various profound speech amongst us isn't supposed to have any "consequences". The police have a duty to protect the community and if they cannot do so, then they obviously cannot handle this job. They have to be prepared for all various scenarios that they may come upon in this type of work. Banning individuals from not being to carry a weapon in a certain place or time is completely understandable. That is why the first amendment is being brought upon by others because; they may feel as they don’t feel safe, so they now need protection. Although

White nationalists were protesting the removal of a Confederate monument that has stood in that city for almost a century. People wanted to keep that statue as it is a symbol of the history of the South. Many thought that the removal of the statue was the government erasing the history and culture of the South. The rally ended with violence as a speeding car drove into a group of counter protestors. This incident resulted in the death of 1 and left 19 others injured.

“The violent scenes at Standing Rock last night were nothing short of horrific," Greenpeace said. "It is clear that the militarized police response has completely disregarded the protection of human life. Law enforcement put people’s lives in danger last night as water protectors attempted to clear a path for emergency services to reach the camp," says Angela Bibens in an interview with USA Today. This shows that the law enforcement got so caught up in people being safe, and being able to get to medical help, that they physically hurt them and denied their right of speech and protest. This lead to even more people hurt than before, and lead to a lot more protesters. When the government acted against people protesting, people became angry, and chaos broke

“We saw this recently in Charlottesville, Chaos and violence turned to tragedy Saturday as hundreds of white nationalists, neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members — planning to stage what they described as their largest rally in decades to “take America back” — clashed with counter protesters in the streets and a car plowed into crowds, leaving one person dead and 19 others injured” (Heim, Silverman, Shapiro, & Brown, 2017).

    The truck carrying KKK leaders arrived at Pearson Park at eleven thirty, two hours before the KKK rally was announced to start. Waiting for them were protesters of the rally who, after a short exchange of emotionally charged words with the rally, began fighting the KKK members. During the fight a total of three protesters were stabbed but

For example, a non peaceful mob gathering was the riot in Charlotte, North Carolina when a black cop shot and killed a black man. People during this time loathed the cops because there were similar incidents to this one that caused riots as well. These riots were part of the “Black Lives Matter” movement that erupted in 2016. The riot included breakage of storefronts, personal vehicles, injuries, and deaths. The police made a total of 44 arrests that night, and many police and civilians were injured in this riot. The people involved had an intense disdain towards the cops during that time, and that caused them to engender the riot. In conclusion, the consequences of non peaceful mob gatherings, such as the riot in Charlotte, could result in injuries, death, and

The right to assemble is significant in today’s society because there are numerous of protests occurring every day in different states. The First Amendment declares “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, the key word in this is peaceably. A crucial legal and cultural protection is this right to assemble. The Supreme Court expanded the right to assemble over the federal government to the states in the De Jonge versus Oregon case in 1937. This case was unanimous and led to the “ right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental.” The people of Charlotte have the right to protest, however they took it too far when they began to destroy property, and ignite fires. When situations like this begin to get out of control, people’s lives start to get endangered, countless of civilians and police officers were injured and rushed to the hospital. Violence is not the answer to any problem and because of this non peaceable protest a civilian was shot and is now on life support. This was the second night of protests in Charlotte over police shootings killing African Americans. Protesters were chanting “ Black lives matter” and “ No justice no peace .” One protester was so furious she even wiped the blood from the gunshot victim onto the police officer. Many African

Fifty-Three people dead, over 3000 injured, and over 8000 people arrested. One of America’s most famous cities is crumbling right in front of the country’s eyes (Newkirk, 1). Cars line the street, engulfed in flames. Store windows and doors, completely smashed, covering the sidewalks with dangerous shards of glass, people running on top of it, as if they did not notice it digging into their feet. Angry mobs blocked intersections in South Los Angeles, tearing drivers from their cars and beating them (Banks, 1). Over one billion of the city’s dollars lost to arson and looting (Newkirk 1). The LA riots are some of the most iconic and deadly violent protests in United States’ history. Protests-when they go berserk-cause an immense amount of destruction and loss of both money and lives. Even though protests are protected under the First Amendment Right as the freedom to assemble, safety should always come before freedom.

One of the main things that U.S. citizens need to understand is that free speech encompasses much more than just verbal speech. Public demonstrations, such as burning the American flag, and the use of symbolism are also protected under the First Amendment. The public demonstrations only become an issue when they are not conducted peacefully. An example of this is when over 200 “antifascist protesters” were arrested in Washington, D.C. on the day of President Trump’s inauguration. They were seen smashing storefront windows, bus stops, and the windows of a limousine and also launched rocks at the police. This is common sense for most people, but destroying public and private property is not the right way to get a point across to the public. This public demonstration was not a protest, it was a riot. The inauguration riot falls under incitement, which is an exception of the First Amendment. Basically, the leader of the group encouraged the antifascist protesters to behave unlawfully, and that type of speech

Courts have tried to continue a person’s First Amendment’s right of freedom of expression when it comes to voicing their opinion or views on something. Parades, protests, or just plain talking about ones views is protected by the First Amendment and is allowed. However, the courts have viewed these acts as hate crimes when a person or persons cross the line from just protesting their views to beginning to intimidate or harass anyone during these protests, which include “direct threats” (Quinn and Brightman, 2015, p. 166).

Despite, Cole's arguments above, I believe his approach undercuts the legal principle established in the First Amendment. Cole's worldview embraces political correctness and wants to merge it along with free speech. Preska (2015), asserts that "today, for example, there is the specter of fifty-four Senators trying to amend the First Amendment’s glorious protection of freedom of speech in the name of political correctness" (p. 223). I for one believe that political correctness hinders free speech and that one should have the freedom to communicate his or her ideas, so long as it is done in an objective manner. Promoting tolerance, advancing truth and advancing autonomy are principles embodied in the First Amendment (Preska, 2015). Maussen and Grillo (2014), also assert that "with regard to public speech, the main thrust of this principle is that everyone should have the freedom to express ideas, viewpoints or sentiments on society, social and political processes, groups and social relations and historical events" (p. 175). Furthermore, Preska (2015) maintains that "infringing free speech not only makes us arrogant, ignorant, and intolerant, but it also makes today’s America the antithesis of all that our Founding Fathers hoped their nation would be" (p. 229). Unfortunately, Cole's view

The idea of human rights has been altered and been highly debated in the United States. Often our citizens, and even our own representatives, are stuck arguing over hot-button topics such as new gun control laws, access to universal healthcare in poverty-stricken communities, and even free speech, especially that of a controversial nature. The ambiguity of what our founding fathers believed our inalienable human rights as citizens under the United States constitution should be today is closely tied with the structure and disparities between social class lines. Currently, our government places more focus on the lower side of the socioeconomic class structure. Just recently, free speech on college campuses has become a hot topic of debate, sparking the political turmoil of maintaining free speech as a right for all citizens, and perhaps even pushing through new precautions to protect it.