Member-only story
The problem with calling armed protests ‘terrorism’
Why it’s dangerous to invoke a politically loaded word that has historically been used to criminalize dissent
Yesterday, rightwing protesters, many dressed in “tacticool” gear and armed with semi-automatic rifles, flooded into the Michigan State House to demand an end to the state’s shelter-in-place order. Liberals responded to the demonstration in unison: This isn’t a protest — it’s domestic terrorism. Many cited the broad Merriam Webster definition of terrorism, which is the “use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion.”
This point of view isn’t without merit, and it’s hard to fault people for taking this position. It was a show of force by an armed group intended to intimidate the government. However, the discourse surrounding the incident didn’t sit well with me — particularly the widespread calls for the demonstrations to be suppressed and the participants arrested.
The legal basis for such an action is shaky and likely unconstitutional. Michigan is a de facto open carry state and there are no regulations prohibiting weapons on the premises of the statehouse. If people can congregate there, they can do it with guns.
