Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe gave an executive order on Friday that forbids protests around Robert E. Lee statue for 90 days. This order is issued after the Charlottesville riots and directly breaks the First Amendment.
“Even though it was prepared for weeks, Charlottesville was the target of a domestic terrorist act that cost a woman her life. Additionally, a helicopter incident lead to the deaths of two officers,” McAuliffe stated in an interview after he gave the order:
Within the aftermath of the tragedy, a number of groups requested to hold similar protests at the Robert E. Lee statue in Virginia. State officials want to get ahead so that we have lawful protection during the calm demonstrations. However, this is not to place citizens or property in danger. This order is not because of infringing on First Amendment rights. This can be a temporary pause, issued for the singular reason of creating a safe environment. Additionally, these regulations keep the well-being of our own citizens and ensure that Charlottesville won’t happen again.
The statement continues:
Governor McAuliffe will issue another executive order that creates a task force, to study the protection concerns which arose because of the events in Charlottesville. This order will be issued during the upcoming 3 months.
After showing off his great executive power, McAuliffe ordered the next:
No protests shall be approved at the Robert E. Lee Monument in the absence of the permit released by the Division of Common Services. The phrase “demonstrations” consists of demonstrations, picketing, marching, speech making, vigils, and all other forms. Additionally, the demonstrations include sharing of different viewpoint which can attract crowds. A flag, banners and other protesting material are also used in these demonstrations.
The task force will be responsible for approving emergency gatherings at the Robert E. Lee Monument until 18th November 2017.
Robert E. Lee Statue Banned for Demonstrations by Governor McAuliffe In First Amendment Breach
Despite McAuliffe assertion that the actual executive order “is not infringing on First Amendment rights” one constitutional law professional stated that this executive order, in reality, violates the very First Amendment.
“A 90-day suspend on demonstrations here violates the First Amendment. This sort of limitation is governed by ‘strict examination’, in which the limitation is assumed unconstitutional. Also, the government should prove that could it be narrowly focused on achieving a persuasive public attention.”
“However, this is Virginia, which upon appeal is with the Fourth Circuit. That courtroom is now probably the most liberal and attractive court within the nation. And there are no vacancies within the 15-member courtroom, so it would take several Republican presidents to move it back. The actual challenges might face a good uphill fight in front of the 4th Circuit,” the law expert added.
“The order violates the First Amendment,” an additional constitutional legislation expert stated.
“This is a corrupted meaning of the First Amendment, that we all know is normal to the liberals,” the actual expert added.
Virginia with increased security after Charlottesville incident
In reaction to Charlottesville, the NY Times went and issued an Op-Ed piece by K-Sue Park area, a real estate attorney and also the Critical Competition Studies other at the K-Sue Park, a housing attorney and the Critical Race Studies fellow at the U.C.L.A. School of Law,”
In the NY Times op-ed, Park published:
The Civil Liberties Union has a history of shielding the First Amendment rights of assemblies on both the far liberal and the far Republican side. This pledge led the organization to effectively sue the city of Charlottesville, Va. The gathering ended with a Nazi supporter plowing his car into a mob, killing a protester and wounding many.
After the A.C.L.U. was criticized for its position, it responded that “preventing the administration from directing speech is undeniably necessary to the elevation of equality.” Of course, that’s true. The expectation is that by effectively protecting hate groups, its legal successes will fortify free-speech.
The A.C.L.U. needs a more related, imaginative advocacy when it arises to how it defends the First Amendment. The group should envision a complete picture of how speaking rights are under attack right now. Recognizing how criminal laws, elective laws, migration laws, education laws and laws governing businesses can also curb expression.
Park’s view is actually standard race concept narrative, which is what makes this so dangerous.