Two Flames of Dissent: Why Free Speech Matters—even When I Disagree
3 views
Skip to first unread message
AustinLiberator
Jun 16, 2025, 11:29:48 AMJun 16
to AustinLiberator
I believe in speaking your truth, but I also believe in how you speak it matters. These past weeks, America has seen two great fires of dissent: the No Kings protests of June 14, and the ICE riots in downtown Los Angeles. I find myself at odds with the rhetoric of both, yet I stand firmly behind those who voice opposition peacefully. For it’s only when we keep our protests peaceful that every man—and every cause—retains the right to stand tall under the banner of free speech.
________________________________________
🏹 No Kings: A Chorus, Not a Charge
On June 14, over five million Americans took to the streets in more than two thousand cities to declare, “No Kings!” In New York City, they danced through Bryant Park; in Los Angeles, twenty five thousand gathered outside City Hall; in Salt Lake City, thousands marched in Pioneer Park. The message was clear: push back against military-style parades, against displays of power masquerading as patriotism.
Now, I’ll be candid: I found much of their language over the top, their comparisons to authoritarian regimes too grandiose, their speeches steeped in apocalyptic fear—like a man crying wolf. But—they stood their ground, they held their banners, and yes, a few tossed stones and bricks—but the fabric of those protests held together. They made their voices heard without burning the barn down. Tear gas and rubber bullets followed small flare-ups in Denver, Portland, and Los Angeles—but these were local sparks in a continent-wide choir. It reminds me: when the people speak in one voice, they wield a power that must be respected—not crushed.
That shooting in Utah—the tragic killing of a bystander—is no proof that the protest was violent. That was the hand of a gunman, not the marchers. Their speech remained lawful. Their gathering, protected. That’s how protest was meant to be—still, even when I shake my head at some of that rhetoric.
________________________________________
🔥 ICE Riots: From Outburst to Outrage
Days before No Kings, June 6 saw something starkly different in L.A.: abrupt ICE raids in the Fashion District and Home Depot parking lots lit a tinderbox in immigrant communities. We didn’t see placards and chants—we saw rocks and bricks hurled at agents, storefronts looted, Waymo cars burned, even attempted Molotov cocktails. Hundreds were arrested. Apple stores smashed. Hundreds of officers hurt. And then, 2,000 troops and 700 Marines—stationed in downtown by order of the White House, despite no state request. The curtain fell with curfews and court challenges, but the damage was done.
Now let me carve it clearly in stone: I’m no fan of ICE tactics—no man should be torn from his family at dawn. Those raids disturbed me. I don’t agree with that enforcement. But when protest turns to robbery and violence, it ceases to be speech—it becomes criminal action. That mess in L.A. was a wildfire that consumed speech in its flames.
________________________________________
⚖️ Protection of Speech: Where to Draw the Line
• No Kings Protest: Saw minor flare-ups, but remained largely peaceful. Dispersed. Policed. And left those protesters with their constitutional rights intact. I may have thought their speeches grandiose—millennial manifestos against tyranny—but I didn't want to see them silenced.
• ICE Riots: They claimed to defend the oppressed, but they crossed the line. Vandalism scares away the public. Looting steals from the city. Violence invites state suppression. And once you cross that line—you surrender the shield of free speech.
Might makes wrong when truth is left behind.
________________________________________
🪓 Final Take
In our republic, we cherish speech—especially the ugly, fiery, inconvenient stuff. I may shake my head at its claims. But I won't let a barrel of a gun or curb of a riot snatch it from the people. Let them shout “No Kings.” Let them shine lights on injustice. But let those flash-bangs and broken glass not turn the protest into a rampage.
Those in the No Kings crowds wielded free speech with restraint. The folks in L.A., driven by desperation, let anger spill into destruction. I stand with speech, no matter how bitter. But once speech becomes violence—once it breaks your neighbor’s store, it's no longer your voice—it’s your crime.
✅ In Sum:
• I disagree with the tone and alarm of both movements.
• Yet I defend No Kings—it was mostly peaceful, and their cause—no matter hyperbolic—had its place in public discourse.
• The ICE riots crossed the line. No shout can hoodwink a rock, no slogan can excuse a smashed window.
• And no act of violence belongs under free-speech protections, however pure its motivations.
Let’s speak. Let us march. But let the speech be civil—and not lead to a cleanup crew or prison bars.
________________________________________
🏹 No Kings: A Chorus, Not a Charge
On June 14, over five million Americans took to the streets in more than two thousand cities to declare, “No Kings!” In New York City, they danced through Bryant Park; in Los Angeles, twenty five thousand gathered outside City Hall; in Salt Lake City, thousands marched in Pioneer Park. The message was clear: push back against military-style parades, against displays of power masquerading as patriotism.
Now, I’ll be candid: I found much of their language over the top, their comparisons to authoritarian regimes too grandiose, their speeches steeped in apocalyptic fear—like a man crying wolf. But—they stood their ground, they held their banners, and yes, a few tossed stones and bricks—but the fabric of those protests held together. They made their voices heard without burning the barn down. Tear gas and rubber bullets followed small flare-ups in Denver, Portland, and Los Angeles—but these were local sparks in a continent-wide choir. It reminds me: when the people speak in one voice, they wield a power that must be respected—not crushed.
That shooting in Utah—the tragic killing of a bystander—is no proof that the protest was violent. That was the hand of a gunman, not the marchers. Their speech remained lawful. Their gathering, protected. That’s how protest was meant to be—still, even when I shake my head at some of that rhetoric.
________________________________________
🔥 ICE Riots: From Outburst to Outrage
Days before No Kings, June 6 saw something starkly different in L.A.: abrupt ICE raids in the Fashion District and Home Depot parking lots lit a tinderbox in immigrant communities. We didn’t see placards and chants—we saw rocks and bricks hurled at agents, storefronts looted, Waymo cars burned, even attempted Molotov cocktails. Hundreds were arrested. Apple stores smashed. Hundreds of officers hurt. And then, 2,000 troops and 700 Marines—stationed in downtown by order of the White House, despite no state request. The curtain fell with curfews and court challenges, but the damage was done.
Now let me carve it clearly in stone: I’m no fan of ICE tactics—no man should be torn from his family at dawn. Those raids disturbed me. I don’t agree with that enforcement. But when protest turns to robbery and violence, it ceases to be speech—it becomes criminal action. That mess in L.A. was a wildfire that consumed speech in its flames.
________________________________________
⚖️ Protection of Speech: Where to Draw the Line
• No Kings Protest: Saw minor flare-ups, but remained largely peaceful. Dispersed. Policed. And left those protesters with their constitutional rights intact. I may have thought their speeches grandiose—millennial manifestos against tyranny—but I didn't want to see them silenced.
• ICE Riots: They claimed to defend the oppressed, but they crossed the line. Vandalism scares away the public. Looting steals from the city. Violence invites state suppression. And once you cross that line—you surrender the shield of free speech.
Might makes wrong when truth is left behind.
________________________________________
🪓 Final Take
In our republic, we cherish speech—especially the ugly, fiery, inconvenient stuff. I may shake my head at its claims. But I won't let a barrel of a gun or curb of a riot snatch it from the people. Let them shout “No Kings.” Let them shine lights on injustice. But let those flash-bangs and broken glass not turn the protest into a rampage.
Those in the No Kings crowds wielded free speech with restraint. The folks in L.A., driven by desperation, let anger spill into destruction. I stand with speech, no matter how bitter. But once speech becomes violence—once it breaks your neighbor’s store, it's no longer your voice—it’s your crime.
✅ In Sum:
• I disagree with the tone and alarm of both movements.
• Yet I defend No Kings—it was mostly peaceful, and their cause—no matter hyperbolic—had its place in public discourse.
• The ICE riots crossed the line. No shout can hoodwink a rock, no slogan can excuse a smashed window.
• And no act of violence belongs under free-speech protections, however pure its motivations.
Let’s speak. Let us march. But let the speech be civil—and not lead to a cleanup crew or prison bars.
by David Crockett | Editor-in-Chief, the Austin Liberator
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages