Red, Blue, and the Right to Assemble

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees five rights: religion, petition, speech, press, and assembly. It establishes that people living in the United States can express their opinion without government interference and penalization. Contextualizing the current political climate, what does this mean for American citizens? Are these rights applied or does support for assembly vary depending on the stance of the message? It’s important to ask whether we support the right to protest in essence, or only if the cause aligns with personal beliefs.

This inquiry is explored in a two-prong study by Navante Peacock and Monica Biernant (2020) called Two Tales of Two Protests: Principled and Partisan Attitudes Toward Politically Charged Protests. The study focused on how political standpoints and racial tensions can impact support for different forms of protests. The work of the study is supported by Symbolic Politics Theory which suggests how individuals can react to issues based on politics instead of principle. This shows how people may favor or disregard protests depending on if they align with their political ideology. Based on this theory, the researchers of the study had anticipated that participants would favor protests that equated with their political standpoint instead of having the same standard, no matter the cause.

The first study had a group of 285 U.S. adults react to protests that occurred in 2017 about NFL racial injustice related to Colin Kaepernick and other players kneeling during the national anthem, and the Charlottesville rally related to White supremacy. Researchers from the study had predicted that political ideology would have significant impact on the responses from the participants. This meant liberal participants tended to support the NFL protests, while conservative participants tended to support the Charlottesville protests. The participants were asked questions ranging from personal support, legitimacy of the cause, and if the rights of the protestors. The results showed that political ideology had a strong impact on participants’ decisions.

The second study had a group of 311 U.S. adults react to the George Floyd protests and the anti- COVID lockdown protests that both occurred in 2020. The George Floyd protests were based on police brutality and racial injustice that Black Americans face while the lockdown protests focused on pushback from public restrictions due to the pandemic. Like the first study, the researchers predicted political stance would impact responses from the participants with liberal participants favoring the Floyd protests and conservative participants favoring the lockdown protests. The participants were asked if they supported the two causes, their legitimacy, and if they believed the protestors should exercise their First Amendment right. While the protests were not based on race, political ideology still impacted results with the researchers’ prediction was, again, supported.

What makes these studies compelling is how the First Amendment is viewed by other people in a real-life setting. Protesting is a right that is protected by the Constitution, but these two studies show how judgment is often shaped by a partisan perspective. The right to protest should be viewed as a freedom that is acceptable for all, without the context of political beliefs. This is where Symbolic Politics Theory proves how much division can be carried through emotional reactions. This is especially important during a time when protesting remains key to social and political change and important for exercising your rights. This research is imperative for defending First Amendment rights, no matter what your political beliefs may be.