Week 4 Reading Response

     Black Lives Matter has been a very hot topic the past couple of months.  The phrase "black lives matter" has become what conservative podcast host Ben Shapiro has called "semantically overloaded."  This means that the phrase has too many different meanings, and that agreeing with one definition doesn't necessarily mean you agree with every definition.  In the case of Black Lives Matter, conservatives argue that the basic statement that black lives have value is uncontroversial, but the movement of the title "Black Lives Matter" is a bad movement.
     Part of what they mean when they argue against the movement is their tactics.  The movement BLM has routinely participated in anti-white and anti-cop rhetoric, as well as a lot of physical violence and aggression toward those groups.  Because of all this damage BLM has caused and advocated, certain areas are beginning to place restrictions to curb their violence and destruction.  But BLM and their supporters see this as discriminatory and as violations of their First Amendment rights.
     The problem with their claim that their rights are being violated is that the First Amendment protects citizens' rights "peaceably to assemble."  Given the amount of violent behavior BLM consistently participates in, putting limitations on their assembly definitionally does not infringe on their First Amendment rights.  One note the article makes is that "Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles contends that these curfew orders limit their ability to engage in peaceful political protests," but they often fail to meet the "peaceable" requirement to claim this protection.
      Another thing the article mentions is that the lawsuit in question regarding a curfew in San Bernadino and Los Angeles County, CA gives exception to travel during curfew to and from religious meetings.  Those filing the lawsuit claim that this exception is equivalent to the government advancing religion, which goes against the clause in the First Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  But this, too, is faulty reasoning by BLM and its supporters.  For one, this exception applies to religious practice in general, not favoring any particular religion.  And also, they are ignoring the very next clause, which says "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (referring, of course, to religion).  On the contrary, if the curfew in question didn't have such an exception, there could be an argument to be made that it infringed on this clause of the First Amendment.
     The way I see it, BLM has no grounds to legally dispute this curfew, considering they are not a peaceful assembly, and thus, their exercises do not fall under the First Amendment's protection.

 https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/708/black-lives-matter-others-challenge-curfew-orders-on-first-amendment-grounds