Pros And Cons Of Anti-War Protests

Brandon Macias

Mr. Stone

English 4, Period 3

5/12/23

Unnecessary Evil

Throughout our history, we have had our share of both peaceful and violent encounters with our country’s law enforcement when it comes to protesting. During the 1960s alone, we’ve had our police brutality, along with violent protestors as well. The initial question is whether or not the government must send law officials to get involved with Anti-War protesters. I would argue no, although the government is seen as our protector, they also contribute vastly to our violence rates based on polled decisions depending on certain protesting groups throughout our history. Ideally, we as Americans have the right to exercise our first amendment, but it comes with limits when you decide to take advantage of them. This claim is arguable since even

Protests raged all over the country. San Francisco, New York, Oakland, and Berkeley were all demonstration hubs, especially during the height of the war in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But Washington, D.C. remained one of the most visible stages for this mass dissent of the government’s decisions regarding the war. For example, the White House's response that the war was going well after the Tet Offensive in 1968 began to be doubted. Throughout the movement, people congregated on the Ellipse, the foot of the U.S. Capitol, and the National Mall by the thousands. The aspiration of civilians' believed that the government was lying to the world about how the war seemed to be going well in their favor, others sought against their words and heard nothing but propaganda. So they ended up marching and protesting at the National Mall, while the government seeks out police to keep the “peace”. The day resulted in law officers harassing protestors and escalating people's tempers, rather than standing post just to ensure nothing gets too out of