At every presidential inauguration, there are protestors. President Trump’s inauguration may set records, though. And his supporters have shown up in droves to help keep these protests from disrupting the planned events. The video below seems to suggest their efforts are working.
[Scroll Down for Video]
This altercation took place outside of one of the inauguration events, reportedly one of the balls hosted Friday evening. The video was shot by one of the protestors–someone who felt like the main character–a biker identified as “Dave”–was doing something wrong.
The media has been sitting by waiting for something like this. Every time someone has thrown a match into a garbage can, a swarm of cameramen descend to capture the chaos.
The bikers who came into D.C. for this event were there to support Trump and disrupt the disruptions. So far, the carnage has been kept to a minimum, but there is something deeper that’s developing thanks to this video.
The comments on Conservative Outfitters, who ran this video earlier Saturday, capture a complex debate about 1st Amendment liberties.
The essential question is this: do the protesters have the right to physically prevent other citizens, who are behaving lawfully, from attending an event? The protesters seem to think they do. In fact the cameraman can be heard telling Dave that he’s on camera.
Dave represents the other side of the debate. When the human chain locks up and keeps the attendees from attending the ball, he steps in and pulls the chain apart. He grabs attendees and pulls them through the wall of protesters.
That hurts the feelings of the poor protesters. They claim their rights are being violated. Are they? Is is a violation of one’s right to free speech to allow another citizen to attend an event?
Dave doesn’t think so. What ensues looks a bit like a grown-up version of the old kid’s game, “Red Rover.”
As more and more of these protests block other peoples’ rights, lawmakers will act. What many of these protesters don’t seem to realize is that breaking the law under the pretense of free speech will likely result in a significant reduction of the right to free speech.