I commented on this blog post from a classmate about standing for the National Anthem in America. Riley's argument was that the pro and con side need to come together and recognize they both are passionate about the country and instead focus on the debates that are being protested when one does not stand for the anthem. These debates are larger topics such as "killing people is wrong" and "equal rights," so Riley invoked some vague common topics to unite the sides (even though the sides do often have varying viewpoints on the specific issues, like police brutality).
My response was asking where the First Amendment fit into this debate, because I know it is a popular defense of not standing during the anthem, and it directly relates to the law. I think my comment can help deepen the illustration of the point of views of both sides and their reasoning behind the protest as American citizens. I mainly disagreed with the stasis; I think the use and limitations of the first amendment are the main points where the two sides specifically disagree, rather than about American values. This is a difference in logic, I think.
We haven't had a back-and-forth conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment