By Matt Underwood 
The recent arrests of anti-ICE protesters in Pearl River over the use of profanity raise a significant and, frankly, baffling question about the state of free speech in the United States. It seems we’ve reached a point where the very concept of protected speech is being warped and twisted to suit a particular agenda, leaving many of us scratching our heads and asking, “What is going on?”
The official stance from authorities suggests that the arrests weren’t about the message of the protest itself, but rather about the alleged use of profanity and obstruction of traffic. However, upon closer examination, this justification feels incredibly flimsy, especially when considering the broader context of free speech protections in this country. The idea that a police chief would support free speech “as long as you stay civil” sounds reasonable on the surface, but it quickly unravels when juxtaposed with the actions taken. It smacks of a selective application of principles, a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
What’s particularly concerning is the apparent reliance on calls from the public rather than direct observation by law enforcement. The reports indicate that police showed up and arrested individuals based on allegations of profanity and traffic obstruction, without necessarily witnessing these offenses themselves. This raises the specter of preemptive arrests or arrests based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes offensive language, rather than concrete violations of the law. The subsequent claims of resisting arrest when the women protested their detainment, which they felt was unjust, further compounds this issue, suggesting a narrative being constructed to justify the initial actions.
Let’s be clear: shouting profanities at people, or displaying them on signs, is not, in itself, a crime. This is precisely the kind of speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect. The Supreme Court case *Cohen v. California* from 1971 established a crucial precedent that profanity, in many contexts, is protected speech. To arrest individuals for simply using expletives, especially when those expletives are directed at a government agency like ICE, seems like a direct contradiction of established legal principles and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights.
The double standard at play is also glaringly obvious. We’ve seen numerous instances where individuals and groups expressing far-right ideologies have used profanity, often in highly visible ways, without facing any repercussions. Think of the ubiquitous “Fuck Biden” flags and signs that are commonplace in many areas. When such displays occur, there’s rarely a surge of police action or public outrage demanding that these individuals be arrested for their choice of words. This selective enforcement highlights a deeply troubling trend: a freedom of speech that is readily granted to some but aggressively curtailed for others, particularly when those others are challenging powerful institutions.
This situation begs the question: if profanity is now grounds for arrest, what are we to make of historical and contemporary examples of protected protest speech? Think of the “Fuck the Draft” protests during the Vietnam War. These were widely understood and accepted as protected forms of expression. The argument that “Fuck ICE” is somehow less protected is simply not tenable. It suggests that the boundaries of acceptable speech are being arbitrarily redrawn by those in power, moving us closer to a society where dissent is not just discouraged but actively punished.
The suggestion that protesters should “stay civil” or “say it quietly” is a chilling euphemism for censorship. It implies that the government, or its agents, have the right to dictate not only what we say but also how we say it, and that any deviation from their preferred tone can be met with arrest. This is a far cry from the robust protection of free speech that the United States historically championed. The very idea of being arrested for “hurty words” or for expressing strong dissent is reminiscent of authoritarian regimes, not a democratic society.
Moreover, the underlying sentiment behind the arrests seems to ignore the powerful reasons why people are protesting ICE in the first place. The critiques often leveled against ICE involve serious allegations of human rights abuses, family separations, and inhumane treatment of migrants. When such grave concerns are being raised, the focus on the protesters’ choice of language feels like a deliberate distraction, an attempt to delegitimize the protest by fixating on superficial details. The real obscenities, many would argue, are not the words used by the protesters, but the actions attributed to the agency they are challenging.
The legal implications of these arrests are significant. It’s highly probable that any charges based on profanity alone would be challenged in court and, given established precedent, are likely to be overturned. However, the process of being arrested, detained, and potentially prosecuted, even if ultimately acquitted, can be a significant burden. It serves as a form of intimidation, a chilling effect on future activism. The potential for lawsuits against the police department for violating First Amendment rights is very real, and frankly, overdue. These are not minor infractions; they are fundamental assaults on democratic principles.
In essence, the events in Pearl River serve as a stark illustration of a disturbing trend. The claims of “free speech” often seem to be conditional, reserved for those who align with certain political viewpoints. When dissent becomes too loud, too direct, or too profane for comfort, the legal system is sometimes wielded not to uphold rights, but to suppress them. It’s a pattern that suggests a widening chasm between the ideals of liberty and the realities of enforcement, leaving citizens to wonder where the line between protected speech and punishable offense truly lies, and who gets to draw it. The current trajectory feels like a slow but steady march towards a more restrictive and less tolerant public square, a path that should concern us all.