Examining Trump's New Secret Police Force and Its Impact on Free Speech

As the 2020 election looms, concerns have been raised about the possibility of a 'secret police force' being developed under the guise of protecting government property. This article delves into the legality and implications of such a force, particularly in the context of the First Amendment and the protection of peaceful protests.

The First Amendment and Free Speech Protections

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights, including the protection of freedom of speech, as well as the right to peaceably assemble. This amendment has been the cornerstone for defending the right of citizens to express their voices and assemble in protest without fear of government interference.

Rules of Protesting

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has outlined a set of guidelines for lawful protesting. These include prohibiting blocking access to sidewalks or buildings, marching in the streets without a proper permit, disrupting counter-protests, and engaging in speech that is obscene, knowingly false, or likely to incite immediate violent behavior.

What Constitutes a Riot?

A riot is defined as a violent public disturbance involving the collective destruction of property, which may involve theft, vandalism, and even violence against individuals. Authoritative actions are meant to quell such disturbances. The First Amendment does not protect riotous behavior as it is reactive to violence and disorder.

Insurrection and Government Protection

Legislation such as 10 U.S. Code §240a to 240f allows for the use of federal agencies in protecting federal property. This has been a point of contention, especially during election years when incumbent administrations may use such measures to suppress dissent.

Trump's Strategy and Its Legal Feasibility

Former President Donald Trump has been accused of leveraging questionable tactics, including the use of military force at the border in 2018, to stoke fear and polarize his base. Critics argue that these actions may be more of a public relations stunt aimed at luring conservative voters rather than genuine concerns for national security. The use of a 'secret police force' would raise similar questions about the boundaries of the First Amendment and the right to peaceful assembly.

Legalities and Political Intentions

The legal framework for protecting government property during election cycles is complex. Measures like 16 U.S.C. § 1a-6 and 40 U.S.C. § 1315 provide specific protections and guidelines for federal agencies in maintaining the integrity of government property. However, the enforcement of these laws can be controversial, especially when they are seen as suppressing legitimate political activities.

Hotly Contested Debates

The 2016 presidential election revealed deep divisions within the Democratic Party, particularly regarding support for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Both candidates were accused of failing to concede graciously. However, comparing Trump's actions to those of either candidate is instructive. The Clinton campaign faced allegations of misconduct during the primary season, but these claims remain unproven.

Conclusion

The development of a 'secret police force' raises critical questions about the enforcement of the First Amendment and the protection of a free press. While such actions may be justified in the name of national security, they risk undermining the very freedoms these measures are intended to protect. It is crucial for both citizens and lawmakers to remain vigilant and informed as we navigate these complex legal and ethical landscapes.

Keywords: first amendment, protests, Trump, secret police