I don't agree with everything mentioned in this article or with the way these things are phrased, That said, we do have a big consistency problem with how we treat those who venture out in big groups in the age of COVID.
I'm not speaking as a member of any "team" out there. I'm writing this observation as a deputized member of a group of Martian anthropologists who are visiting Earth.
Here’s how I would explain the violent George Floyd protests to a Martian anthropologist.
The U.S. Constitution gives a theoretical “right” to free speech but not a real-life ability to speak powerfully or widely. Whereas money and power give rich people many ways to blast out their messages, ordinary Americans wanting to get out their messages often get eaten in the public square by street vultures. Consider these two examples.
When Donald Trump wants to make an announcement, he commands dozens of types of federal military and police organizations. This allows Trump to calmly walk up to a podium or stroll down the street in order to tell Americans what a smart man he is, or how religious or healthy or whatever. While he stands up there flatulating these lies, no one interrupts Trump because he controls a massively expensive and well-armed system of law enforcement officers and they extend their perimeter so widely that unfriendly others can’t get close. If any protestors try to get close enough to interrupt Trump’s bombastic bullshit, Trump’s police officers and soldiers throw their asses into jail.
Compare this to the George Floyd protests, where many thousands of ordinary Americans took to the streets, but they were then on their own. Ordinary Americans don’t control law enforcement. They cannot control their perimeters in order to safely deliver their message without interruption. As we’ve seen over and over, as soon as the heartfelt protestors get started delivering their messages in the public square, the area becomes an undefended magnet for uninvited masses of miscreants: anarchists, vandals, arsonists, inciters of violence and many others who clearly don’t give a shit about George Floyd. Virtually every time ordinary people gather together by the hundreds or thousands, their message gets corrupted because ordinary Americans do not have the money or power to hire hundreds of law enforcement officers to control their perimeter. Their message gets diluted by broken glass, thrown bricks and burning businesses, as well as horrible injuries, shattered dreams and gruesome deaths. Following this widespread mayhem, the heartfelt protestors get blamed for something they never planned or intended. The many people who simply wanted to bring attention to George’s Floyd’s murder are accused of intentionally destroying America’s central cities. The photos appearing in the mass media are Exhibits A-Z.
That’s how it almost always ends for those without great amounts of money and power. That is how it is in this Land where everyone only has the right to pointlessly yell out their grievances in their own living room or from their front porch. This is the Land where people of modest means can no longer assemble in peace to deliver stinging rebukes to corrupt politicians because they do not have the money or power to control and deliver a message in the public square, no matter how important that message is.
The death of George Floyd was horrific and revolting, as was the purported "cause of death" contained in the criminal complaint. A newly released private autopsy now verifies what we all saw with our own eyes: George Floyd was murdered by the police. And now, riots are spreading across the United States.
Reading social media over the last few days, one would get the impression that Martin Luther King would approve of this destructive rioting we are witnessing in Minneapolis and many other American Cities. What I am seeing on social media is that rioting is justified because it supposedly 
results only in property damage or that insurance will pay for all the damage. Here is the money quote in which MLK purportedly justified riots: "But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard." Even MLK's son Martin Luther King III deceptively uttered his father's quote and he was promptly corrected with much vigor on Twitter. The pro-rioting crowd is unhinged. As though it is necessary to destroy property, livelihoods and even lives in order to exercise the First Amendment. As though "rioting is speech" any more than "money is speech." As though destroying businesses, burning the property of innocent third parties or smashing the skulls of human beings constitutes speech any more than funneling corrupt money to political candidates. For these folks, why stop at riots? War is now speech too, right? It appears that left now meets right: we've politically come full circle.
Along with the riots, we are thus witnessing selective and deceptive quote-mongering in an attempt to turn Martin Luther King's teachings upside down. He never condoned rioting and he opposed riots for specific carefully articulated reasons. Here are MLK's 1967 and 1968 statements on rioting:
It is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met.
. . . .
Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.
. . . .
And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, nonviolence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years.
. . . .
Finally,Now what I'm saying is this: I would like for all of us to believe in non-violence, but I'm here to say tonight that if every Negro in the United States turns against non-violence, I'm going to stand up as a lone voice and say, "This is the wrong way!"
If you really truly believe that riots are justified in response to the death of George Floyd, let's not pervert the teachings of Martin Luther King in the process. You are not preaching violence in kinship with MLK. If you are reveling the ongoing joyride of violence through America's city centers, stop (if you can) to remember that facts are not negotiable. For his entire life, MLK never wavered from the path of non-violence. He never approved of rioting, even where the injury was egregious, as it was in the case of George Floyd.
I was provoked to write this article after reading an article on the same topic. See "No, Martin Luther King Was Not Pro-Riot" at the National Review.
FIRE (FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION) recently released its "Model Code of Student Conduct," a guide for college and university administrators for governing student life while protecting student rights. I've read through the entire Code and I'm impressed. Much thought has gone into this code. FIRE has done a good job of striking balances among the rights and duties of the many parties affected by this Code at colleges and Universities.
Here is FIRE's description of the CODE:
FIRE’s Model Code of Student Conduct is a guide for college and university administrators for governing student life. Its provisions are a distillation of FIRE’s experience and expertise gained through over two decades of studying college and university disciplinary systems and responding to daily requests for assistance from students, faculty members, and administrators nationwide.
In sum, this Code is an embodiment of FIRE’s belief that protecting student civil liberties is a necessary prerequisite for preparing our democracy’s next generation for successful leadership and engaged citizenship. FIRE looks forward to discussing these principles and assisting educational institutions in adopting the Code’s provisions.
