The events of the George Floyd riots that unfolded during the spring and summer of 2020 showcased a stark disparity in how law enforcement and local governments responded to various forms of civil unrest. Amidst the chaos, Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters were seemingly granted a free pass to unleash havoc, while conservative voices faced disproportionate consequences for their actions. The conservative perspective sheds light on the selective enforcement of laws during this period, emphasizing the importance of equal treatment under the law.
As the nation witnessed BLM rioters burning and vandalizing buildings without facing consequences, liberal-controlled cities appeared reluctant to take necessary measures to restore order. The juxtaposition of these events with the aggressive response to other protests highlights the apparent double standards present in law enforcement’s approach.
For instance, Washington, D.C., gained notoriety for its lenient stance towards BLM rioters who defaced property. Amidst the chaos, pro-life activists took a stand by using chalk on an abortion clinic, resulting in their arrest. This blatant inconsistency in applying the law prompted action. The Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging discriminatory enforcement of the anti-graffiti ordinance.
The recent unanimous court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs substantiates claims of discrimination in enforcement. The court’s finding that the city’s application of the defacement ordinance was selective underscores the conservative perspective on unequal treatment based on the content or viewpoint of speech. The court acknowledged that BLM protesters were allowed to engage in activities that would have led to arrests if conducted by other groups. The court’s emphasis on government’s duty to refrain from regulating speech based on content or message is in line with conservative principles of protecting free speech rights.
Students for Life of America, a prominent pro-life organization, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision. The organization’s president, Kristan Hawkins, emphasized the significance of the ruling for the free speech rights of pro-life students. The conservative viewpoint underscores that protecting free speech entails consistent application of laws regardless of the political or ideological orientation of the speakers.
In sum, the conservative perspective on the George Floyd riots’ aftermath highlights the unjust and inconsistent treatment of individuals exercising their First Amendment rights. The court’s recognition of discriminatory enforcement serves as a reminder that equal protection under the law should be upheld, irrespective of one’s political beliefs. The case becomes a testament to the importance of safeguarding free speech rights and preventing the erosion of constitutional liberties during times of unrest.
