This country has often emphasized its values, specifically regarding freedom of speech. The Constitution’s First Amendment dictates that the U.S. government cannot make laws prohibiting freedom of speech, press and assembly. The First Amendment right is especially important to those who want legal protections for speaking freely about their beliefs. Although constitutionally protected, protesting can lead to violent or tricky legal situations. A popular group of eight activists referred to by their supporters as Justice 8 remains in jail without bail. This group advocates for street vendors from Southern California who were arrested recently and are currently being held without bail. The group is being held based on charges of assault and other violent felonies. One of the group members, Edin Enamorado, is heavily involved in social media activism to raise awareness for social causes, like advocating for street vendors. At first glance, this case seems simple, but it is more than a First Amendment issue. The justice system is failing the Justice 8 group and should grant them bail and remove the social media ban as a condition for setting bail.
The defense attorney for this group claims that the police are singling them out due to their work as protestors and advocators. Sheriff Shannon Dicus from San Bernardino County made a statement attempting to discredit the group by saying that the group is not about substance for the human condition but a clickbait for cash. The sheriff alleges that this group of activists does not help people and uses their activism for personal profit. The group is being denied bail because they are a threat to the community. The reason used to justify denying bail holds little validity. The activist group favors the community, and there is a lack of evidence against them, which is not enough to label them a threat. In addition, a social media ban is being constituted for the only member of Justice 8 who is being offered bail. Enamorado’s lawyer commented that while house arrests are common but social media bans are not.
Everyone deserves fair and just treatment by the system, regardless of culpability. The advocacy group being denied bail is an example of how the justice system fails those who need it. This group has been accused of violence, but the evidence to back up this claim is not concrete. Many supporters are bringing to light that detectives solely relied on statements from several unnamed victims. It is not ethical to keep a group of activists in jail without concrete evidence that this group is truly a danger to society. The group has exercised its First Amendment rights and is being unfairly punished for it.
The bail system is complicated, with a lot of room for injustices. There are many instances where people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are charged with overly expensive bail, no bail at all, or are charged for minor violations like traffic stops. For example, a civilian and former pastor, Keith Wood, was passing out flyers on a public sidewalk in front of a courthouse and was arrested while he was trying to exercise his First Amendment rights. His bail was set to $15,000 when he had no prior convictions or any evidence that he would run or cause harm. Like Wood, the Justice 8 are falling victim to unethical bail practices as retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights. In conjunction with this injustice, the social media ban raises red flags because social media usage should not be a factor in determining whether someone should be out on bail since social media is a platform for free speech that the justice system cannot violate.
Groups such as this one, whose main purpose is to advocate and spread awareness for causes important to them, should be granted bail — especially if there is no concrete evidence in addition to bail injustices. Furthermore, social media bans should not be allowed to be constituted because they violate the person’s constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.
