The author of this article very plainly stated the facts of this incident, allowing the video taken from the body cam to give most of the content. Jackson posted the video in order to defend his side of the story, claiming he was "constantly encroached upon, harassed and verbally abused by a white student while exercising his constitutional right to preach." The author is very unbiased, not taking either side on the incident. Jackson's right to preach and the students' right to argue with him were fought for by the states that were against the ratification of the Constitution. Fearing that the federal government would encroach upon their natural rights, they advocated for a Bill of Rights. The first amendment guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Gracie Darlington: UGA preacher arrested for battery, posts body cam video online
Ross Jackson, a Georgia preacher, was arrested on the campus of the University of Georgia for elbowing a student in the face. Jackson's preaching had gathered some opposition throughout the week, as his sermons were considered slander by many. The video Jackson captured from his body cam reveals him accusing all homosexuals, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, all Catholics, several students, and many others of being destined to go to Hell. One student in particular argued with Jackson the most, and after several minutes of fighting verbally, Jackson elbowed him. Jackson was taken to a county jail in Athens, Georgia and was released on a $1500 bail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, I don't remember it defending physical assault. And even though this preacher is defended by the Bill of Rights, that does not actually condone his condemning an entire community as well as specific individuals in a moral aspect. So yeah, he has the right to say these things (unless they qualify as slander - I seem to remember that untrue statements presented as fact are treated differently than he simple expression of opinion - i.e. "I think that gays are immoral and I disagree with Dr. MLK Jr." vs. "all gays are going to hell and so are these specific historical figures"). But just because you have the right to do something, should you? Essentially, having the right to be an a**hole does not condone it morally.
ReplyDelete-Cal Thompson
it's interesting that you brought this up, especially with all the different interpretations of the amendments as wide controversy in our society today. It's hard to know where to draw the line with free speech, morally and legally. Though physical assault is definitely out of line, the preacher's right to be there in the first place is questionable.
ReplyDelete