Balancing Rights and Inclusivity: The 'Stand to Protect Children' Incident
Denver, Colorado – August 28, 2023
By Marla Fernandez, Writer
The recent “Stand to Protect Children” incident at an LGBTQ event in Denver has ignited a passionate debate at the intersection of free speech, religious expression, and the right to peacefully assemble. The incident brings into focus the complex challenge of balancing the rights of individuals to voice their beliefs and the rights of communities to create safe and welcoming spaces.
At the heart of the issue lies the bedrock principles enshrined in both the US Constitution and the Colorado Constitution, safeguarding an individual’s right to speak, write, publish, and express their beliefs. The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and religious expression, while Article II, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution ensures the same rights at the state level.
In this context, the actions of the group of men wearing “Stand to Protect Children” t-shirts can be seen as an exercise of these fundamental rights. They expressed their viewpoint in a peaceful manner, without engaging in disruptive behavior or causing a disturbance.
However, the incident also underscores the challenge of reconciling these rights with the need to create inclusive and respectful environments for all individuals, especially within community gatherings. The LGBTQ event was organized to foster understanding, unity, and a sense of belonging for the community members. The presence of individuals with a differing message, regardless of their intentions, introduced an element of tension.
Legal experts point out that while the incident may not have violated the specific statute related to disrupting lawful assembly, as defined in Colorado Statute 18-9-108, it raises important questions about the nuances of free speech within the context of community events. Advocates for the LGBTQ community argue that the presence of the men with a message about protecting children, while not overtly disruptive, created an atmosphere that diverged from the intended focus of the event.
Colorado Statute 18-9-108 defines disrupting lawful assembly as a class 3 misdemeanor, without explicitly defining “disruption.” It is often interpreted as any action that disturbs the peace or the intended purpose of an assembly. This statute reflects the state’s attempt to balance the exercise of free speech with the need to maintain order and prevent disturbances during public events.
As this discussion unfolds, it is evident that legal rights are paramount. They must not be abridged or infringed upon by others, and the government must not violate the right of peaceful people just exercising their right to convey a message. The incident serves as a reminder of the challenges inherent in safeguarding individual liberties while upholding the Bill of Rights for all of its members.
The incident raises essential questions about the roles of both communities and governments in creating inclusive and respectful environments. While communities strive to cultivate spaces where diverse groups can coexist and engage in meaningful dialogue, the government’s purpose, as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens. Balancing these ideals is a nuanced endeavor as both individuals and governing bodies work towards a harmonious society that respects the rights of all.
At the core of these deliberations is the First Amendment’s aspiration to foster tolerance of differing thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Religion can play a role in providing moral guidance to society and correcting behavior, while also reminding individuals of the importance of mutual respect. In this intricate landscape, the First Amendment seeks to strike a balance between individual autonomy and the moral guidance that comes from diverse religious and non-religious perspectives, all while maintaining the separation of government infringing upon society’s beliefs.
This incident emphasizes the ongoing need for respectful dialogue and understanding between individuals and communities with differing viewpoints. It highlights the delicate balance between asserting one’s beliefs and creating an environment where diverse viewpoints can coexist peacefully.