Last Friday, I went downtown to Juliana Tokyo for lunch with my dad and his friend. On Toomer's Corner, there were members of some kind of religious group - men, women and children - dressed in modest, traditional style clothing (simple, plain-cut pieces); except their clothes were made from material of unusually bright colors in a plaid pattern. The men were holding signs and yelling something about going to Hell at everyone that walked or drove past while the women handed out pamphlets quietly.
My dad said that people from religious groups like them used to be stationed on campus at AU - only if you refused a pamphlet or kept walking, they would shout obscenities and throw things. And that's how religious solicitors were banned on campus.
But, of course, people are still allowed to stand on street corners or assemble in public places and petition things that they believe in as part of their freedoms to assemble and expression. But where is the line between self-expression and public offense? There was something on the news today that featured a clip of a Black Panther activist at a rally shouting about killing [white] people. In the United States, the government is strictly prohibited from restricting any form of speech - even if it encourages violence.
And if the police arrest someone, probably on the grounds of disorderly conduct, history generally proves that the offenders are protected in court by the freedom of expression clause. But does "expression" encompass derogatory comments or actions directed towards people based on race, beliefs, or choices? And if so, then what's protecting the people on the other end of "expressions"?
Well...it hasn't stopped them on campus. I was eating lunch with a few of my friends last semester, listening to them yelling how all these different churches were going to Hell and calling people out. It was pretty bad.
ReplyDeleteI would think the shouting about killing would be considered a threat though, and they can arrest for that.
Oh wow.
ReplyDeleteWell, apparantly the police won't intervene unless it looks like a violent action is "imminent". They won't waste their efforts if the rioters are all talk. But there's just so much of a grey area.
The best theory I have in mind is as long as you're not prohibiting someone from practing their religion or treat them as if they are less than you, express yourself however you want. Equality is truly the main cause. You would think this problem has been solved by now, but unfortuantely many people place themselves above others-- which, in their minds, gives them the right to offend them.
ReplyDelete