This page is referenced by:

• 1 2024-05-15T13:52:29-07:00 Protests and Counterprotests: How "defending the first amendment" can be oppression in itself 7 A look at the protests that occured on UD campus in Fall 2021, and the consequences thereof. plain 2024-05-15T13:56:22-07:00 [CW: Hate Speech, Suicide Baiting]
  
  The right to assembly is an important staple of American law. Protests are a tool for the people within a state to voice their opinions, particularly when other avenues are preventing them from doing so. They can also be used as an attempt to influence public opinion, typically by informing passersby. However, there also exist protests that are used to spread hateful rhetoric, deliberately doing so in areas where the targeted groups are more common. At what point does an assembly become something else that isn't (or rather, shouldn't) be protected under the law?
  
  On Wednesday, September 29th, 2021, a group of individuals from the Key of David Christian Center in Philadelphia gathered on the sidewalk of Delaware Avenue in Newark, DE to preach their faith to passing students. This was done using megaphones and signs with messages such as "Jesus or Hellfire" and "Women belong in the kitchen", as well as signs that list various types of people (ex. "Whoremongers", "Gangsters", "Witches", "Homos", "Muslims", and "Anklebiters") that are going to burn in hellfire. These slogans are clearly inflammatory, but it can still be argued that they are just signs, and don't have an impact beyond what is acceptable. What is less arguable, though, is the act of singling out nearby people who are dressed for warm weather and calling them "whores", or telling people who appear visibly queer to kill themselves. One friend of mine, a nonbinary individual who does not conform to masculine or feminine standards, was singled out and told these things, while being referred to as "whatever you are," dehumanizing them in a confrontational manner.
  
  Quickly, students began to rally against this group of people. Students assembled in the surrounding area, writing signs that reject the hate speech being spread, finding people of the same sex to kiss openly, and one student even brought bagpipes to play in an attempt to drown out the protestors. Soon after this, a police presence was established, putting up barriers surrounding the religious group and further blockading foot traffic at the intersection (this protest occurred at the site of the crosswalk on Delaware Avenue, making it largely impossible to cross at the proper location). Multiple arrests were made, exclusively of students, with 2 charges of disorderly conduct and one of theft (allegedly for throwing eggs or attempting to take signs from the religious group), as well as an additional charge of resisting arrest for every one. The fourth arrest made, however, was a charge for blocking traffic and refusing to move; this is inconsistent with both the video of the arrest, and the story being spread at the time. Admittedly, I only heard reports secondhand, but the account being spread was that the fourth student was not a direct participant in the counter-protest, and was attempting to traverse the blockaded area (as it was blocking the entire sidewalk). As shown in the video, this student moved through the barrier and walked in the bike lane, away from the protests, before being pushed to the ground and arrested. While there are arguments about pushing through that barrier, the charge that was placed being "blocking traffic" does not make sense, as even before the video starts, the individual is standing on the sidewalk, not the road, and was walking in the bike lane to move away from the protest. Said bike lane also had police officers standing in it already, who would have also been blockading traffic if this was considered as such. This injustice, juxtaposed to the fact that no charges of hate speech (targeting gay people with suicide bait), harassment (calling someone a whore is typically considered such), or incitement were levied against individuals or the organization of this protest, civil or criminal. In fact, the next year, they returned, and the police had set up the barricade before they had even arrived. This is using the First Amendment and "protecting our civil rights" as an excuse to defend the actions (and by extent, the views) of this organization with the force of the law. The Amendment only protects the right to "peaceably" assemble, a definition that I do not believe applies to a group intentionally spreading hatred on a college campus.