Here we have a situation where we have people who went to war (and continue to do so) to in part to protect the right to peaceful
protest. Many didn't come home and many others didn't come home whole physically or mentally or both.
There's also a President who when eligible to serve claimed exemption to the draft numerous times and finally got off for "bone spurs" who
has attacked the press, suggested there should be limits on the first amendment regarding freedom of the press,
and now is attacking individuals 1st amendment rights to peaceful protest.
So who's metaphorically spitting in who's face?
Is it the protestors who are exercising their rights and by doing so validating the sacrifices those in the past
made by their service? Or is it a leader who is effectively saying his opinion is more important than the ideals that so many
sacrificed so much for.
The right to speak freely was not included in the Constitution to affirm peoples views. It was put in place to make
people feel uncomfortable and thereby make people think and hopefully the country a better place through peaceful
dialogue. Challenging the status quo is a basic right and is the seed from which America came to be. How different
the world would be without that most basic of rights.
Edit:
If the following article is accurate, it's a frightening step in the suppression of the 1st amendment.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/28/politics/ ... index.html