Last week I had the opportunity to read a short article by a legal professor whose area of expertise is Constitutional Law. It was titled, “There is no such thing as ‘illegal protest’”. I would note that this was presented as “News” and not an “Op-Ed”. While I have no legal expertise, especially in the Constitution, this article raised more questions in my mind than answers. The article was focused on some statements by our current President and was clearly written from the point of view that these statements should not have been made. My questions, however, were more related to how bad things might become were the ideas presented taken to the extreme.

The article started with the definition of a protest and of an agitator and how any limitation on these was a violation of the First Amendments protection of peaceable assembly. A protest was defined as a public assembly, presumably presenting a point of view. Although not specifically included was what constitutes an assembly but one could assume it consists of more than one individual. It was stated that an agitator was not a legal term but was colloquially defined as one who makes noise, disrupts the status quo, and calls attention to a cause. The writer stated that this is also a form of free speech.

Following the article title, then just as there are no illegal protests, there is also no illegal agitation. On the surface, this seems to be reasonable.

In my mind, the questions about this view start with the term “peaceable assembly”. What was not defined is the word “peaceable”. For example, is the brandishing of weapons peaceable? Is occupying a building or the property of another, without permission, peaceable? Is destruction of or damage to property, for example, public vehicles or buildings, peaceable?

Another question that arises is, if we assume that all protests, or assembly are legal, does the same apply to all agitation? Things become more difficult to define here. Looking at recent events, is driving a vehicle through a roadblock because one is unhappy because o inconvenience caused by the closed road the work of an agitator?  If so, are the agitators actions a form of free speech and therefore legal? Does this then excuse the agitator for any subsequent damage or death that may occur? If not, then what actions of an agitator, and one must assume a protest, not legal. But by taking the article and its title as absolute protests and agitation cannot be illegal.

Put more simply, with no clear definition of “peaceable” is anything resulting from a protest or the actions of an agitator excused? Given that the Constitution is the ultimate authority on legality, then one might use this as a defense.

Again, I do not claim expertise in the law or the Constitution. I am simply asking what I consider common sense questions. I believe that we have the right to enact laws and to enforce them. We have systems for challenging these laws and determining when they are not Constitutional. But I do not believe that we should take short articles like the one I read last week as an absolute. They are generally the opinion of someone named as an expert, or a limited group of experts, that are published by or in the media as factual. And, that we are expected to accept them without question.

What happens when a different expert or different media source offers a different opinion? Who should we accept and why?  Just more food for thought, especially in a more and more divided country.