The Vice Mayor of Cudahy, Cynthia Gonzalez, is reportedly being investigated by the FBI after she posted a video urging criminal organizations like the 18th Street and Florencia 13 gangs to protect their “turf” against ICE. The call for gang action is disgraceful, particularly as ICE reports a 500 percent increase in attacks on its officers. However, I do not believe that the comments can be the basis for a criminal charge and would be considered protected speech.
Gonzalez has now taken down the video below, but she earlier called for these gangs to move against ICE: “It’s everyone else who’s not about the gang life that’s out there protesting and speaking up. We’re out there… protecting our turf and protecting our people. And, like, where you at?”
This is not the first time that Democratic politicians have enlisted violent groups as political allies.
Some Democrats have played a dangerous game in supporting or excusing the work of Antifa. Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence, and its website was banned in Germany.
Ellison’s son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa in the heat of the protests this summer. During a prior hearing, Democratic senators refused to clearly denounce Antifa and falsely suggested that the far right was the primary cause of recent violence.
The problem with being a free speech advocate is that you are often compelled to defend speech that you find grotesque and reprehensible. Gonzalez would shake the faith of any free speech champion. However, her speech would be considered protected under the First Amendment. First, it is sufficiently vague on what she is suggesting to counter a charge of a call for imminent violence. Second, the Supreme Court held that even violent speech is protected.
Indeed, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving “violent speech,” the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct. It supported the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization. Likewise, in RAV v. City of St. Paul in 2011, it struck down a ban on any symbol that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.
The video may not be criminal, but it is still an indictment of how some Democratic politicians continue to pander to violent groups for political purposes. It is a dangerous game. History has shown that those who fuel extreme groups often find themselves later targets as mob rule takes hold. Gonzalez may find that she is also unwelcomed on their “turf.”