The L.A. Riots: Two Speech Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

​Recent live news television in Los Angeles, a tradition going back to O.J. Simpson and his white Bronco, could have been clips recycled from Escape from LA.
 
Mass protests erupted after aggressive federal immigration raids, followed by the deployment of U.S. troops on city streets. Demonstrators rallied outside detention centers, federal buildings, and City Hall, waving signs and chanting against what they saw as an authoritarian crackdown. Some protesters blocked highways and staged sit-ins. Others vandalized and set fire to multiple Waymo self‑driving cars – at least five vehicles were torched, making movie-effects-worthy explosions when their lithium batteries detonated. Storefronts in the downtown core were also smashed. The unrest, spreading to cities across the country, has reignited fierce debate – not just over immigration, but over the boundaries of lawful protest and the government's willingness to respect or suppress it.
 
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, in a recent televised address, framed the crisis in constitutional terms: “Democracy is under assault right before our eyes – the moment we’ve feared has arrived.” He accused President Trump of seeking escalation: “He’s delegitimizing news organizations and assaulting the First Amendment.” Gov. Newsom warned that the use of military force against demonstrators risks criminalizing dissent.
 
President Trump, speaking at Fort Bragg the same day, countered that the protests were orchestrated by hostile actors. He said they were “rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion,” and accused California officials of hiring “troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists” to “nullify federal law and aid the occupation of the city by criminal invaders.”
 
Both leaders are responding to real dangers, but neither is addressing the whole picture. Newsom is right to warn against federal overreach, but he overstates the case when he frames all protest activity as protected expression. The First Amendment is not a shield for lawlessness. When protesters torch Waymo cars or threaten businesses, they’re not engaging in political speech. They’re committing crimes. Likewise, when a man in Minnesota assassinates a Democratic politician and her husband, that’s not protest. It’s murder and terrorism. These acts deserve prosecution, and not even the suggestion of a constitutional defense.
 
President Trump’s reaction presents a danger from the opposite direction. To conflate the criminal acts of a few with the constitutionally protected assembly of millions is to delegitimize democratic participation. People wave Mexican flags at immigration protests to express heritage and critique policy. That strikes many, including millions of U.S. citizens of Latino descent, as an inappropriate and offensive way to stand up for the rights of people to immigrate to the United States. But being offended is not a legal standard. Protest is not a crime because it challenges power or offends sensibilities.
 
The rule of law is simple: We don’t treat protests differently based on its viewpoint. Speech that supports Palestine or criticizes Israel, that calls Trump’s immigration policy “fascist” or Biden’s border policy a political ploy, are all protected. The First Amendment doesn’t take sides. It protects expression as long as it doesn’t cross into violence or incitement.
 
Governments may regulate protest through time, place, and manner restrictions. But those rules have to be content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and leave open alternative ways to speak. That’s the test from Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989). The problem in that case wasn’t when or where people were protesting. It was what they were protesting about. “The regulation thus slips from the neutrality of time, place, and circumstance into a concern about content,” Justice Marshall wrote in an earlier case. “This is never permitted.”
 
That principle matters more in moments of unrest than in moments of calm. When public officials want to silence dissent “for public safety,” we must scrutinize their motives. Are they protecting the peace, or silencing those who offend them?
 
We can walk and chew gum and we can denounce criminal violence and defend peaceful protest. We can prosecute arson and still protect the unpopular protester holding a sign. That’s the American way. Democracy can feel like a loud family dinner. Everyone’s talking. Some people shout. Someone says something stupid or hurtful. But the worst thing we can do is flip the table. Our strength comes from staying in the room – arguing, disagreeing, even offending each other – and still believing in the right of everyone to be heard.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS