The recent arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home for disorderly conduct raises two issues central to the 2301 topics this week. The first concerns civil rights, the second civil liberties.
The civil rights question regards, no surprise, race. The term racial profiling has evolved to describe police activities that seem to target minorities largely on the assumption that they are more likely to commit crimes. Beyond profiling, the case also calls to mind cognitive studies that suggest that many instantaneous decisions are made subconsciously by people based on racial characteristics, just the same way that we make many on the spot decisions. Historically, police have been used as the mechanism by which certain groups are kept in their place, and certainly the news is still full of examples of people being accused of DWB, especially in neighborhoods where they are a minority. The question posed as a result of the recent arrest is whether this is still a problem, or have police distanced themselves from this past. Some argue that the arresting officer was within his proper authority to handcuff Gates since he popped off to the police, which leads to the question of civil liberties.
Wasn't Gates in fact using his freedom of speech to question a person granted authority by the state? Why is this illegal? Do we not have the right to question, quarrel or argue with a police officer without the risk of arrest? Is the handcuff in fact a means of suppressing speech? Colin Powell seemed to admit as much when he said you don't argue with the police. An interesting link from Liberty Papers makes the case that Gates was within his rights and that "police officers often seem to think the purpose of [disorderly conduct] laws is to punish people for talking back to cops. Christopher Hitchens agrees. Not only were Gate's free speech rights violated, but so was his right to be secure in his own home, as established by the 4th Amendment.
