All radical leftist groups tend to violate the rights of others under the guise of "free speech". The American Democratic Convention preparations in Colorado show in microcosm how most leftist groups act, whether they are found in America, Canada or elsewhere.
With the Democratic Convention arriving soon, it is especially important to realize protests are not necessarily constitutional. Genuine protest adheres to the "peaceful assembly" clause of the First Amendment. Unlawful protest is what leftist groups have historically done: interfere with other peoples’ rights to use their public spaces, inciting violence with the police, rioting, violating people’s property rights, and assaulting conservatives who disagree with their group. The former is based on liberty. The latter on license. License is the abuse of one’s freedom via the violation of another’s rights by giving unlimited reign to one’s own agendas. Today’s leftwing “protest” groups definitely worship license.
The June 11th 2007 issue of the Denver Daily News reported that Unconventional Action and Recreate ’68 have threatened to “shut down” the city if officials did not discuss with them the possibility of denying Police officers their riot control weaponry and allowing leftists to overstep so-called “free speech pens”. Unconventional Action’s website uses their disagreement with the Iraq war to vow "militant...action" and disruption of the convention.
Demanding the cops' disarmament demonstrates that leftwing groups want to stop cops from stopping them. Leftists want to go unrestrained in rioting or physically preventing non-protesters from using their public spaces, attending the DNC, and raising funds for it. People have a right to participate in these activities but will not be able to do so if leftists monopolize their use of the public sphere.
For example, UA’s website mentioned establishing blockades around the Pepsi Center building near the DNC site. These blockades will be used to block people from entering a space and disrupt fund-raising for the event. Though not necessarily violent, blockades are still coercive in that they use the presence of numerous “protestors” to force other people, against their will, to avoid participating in the event. This is unethical and shows that leftists want to "protest" by violating other people's rights. This is why leftist demonstrations are anti-constitutional. Also, the first amendment does not condone coercion or threats to express dissent.
Protecting non-protesters’ rights requires an armed police force that can neutralize riots and prevent pseudo-protesters from violating other people’s rights and safety. Though citizens can demand lawful regulation of which weapons are appropriate for riot-control, the point is that police should be sufficiently armed not disarmed (nor inadequately armed). So, the city and police must regard this issue as one of protecting non-protesters' rights, not exclusively as a free-speech issue.
As for so-called "free-speech zones": they do not limit free-speech but only unconstitutional protest. These protest-zones are justified only if their "borders" separate leftists from convention attendees' personal space. Protest-zones will ensure that the rights of non-protesters are not violated by intrusive leftist mobs.
If the upcoming DNC event, like numerous events before it, sees hostility towards the police from a few leftist provocateurs in a crowd, cops might fear for their safety or non-protesters' safety. What normally occurs in that type of situation is that the police act to arrest suspects while unwittingly arresting the nonviolent protesters in the crowd (in a crowd the innocent are mixed with the guilty). So, the nonviolent protesters complain their rights were violated and lawsuits are filed against the police. The leftist provocateurs thereby create a pretext for restricting cops’ behavior and destroying people’s trust in cops. That would hamper a cop's use of self-defensive force in protecting non-protesters' rights. That way, leftists have free reign to commit criminal acts disguised as "protest" while self-defense for cops and civilians becomes "irrelevant" in deciding the legalities of leftist/police conflicts.
People must assess the legitimacy of “activist” groups by morally evaluating the tactical means by which they achieve their “protest” goals. The goals are not as important since many legitimate-sounding objectives have been corrupted by unscrupulous means. Those who ignore the distinction between legitimate protest and mob behavior are following license, not true freedom.
