Nolan Finley: The First Amendment is not a shield for violence

Nolan Finley, The Detroit News on Jun 26, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Abdul El-Sayed has a curious interpretation of both free speech and how justice should be applied.

The Democratic candidate for Michigan's open Senate seat is selling the idea that the First Amendment covers violence and vandalism, if done in the name of a political cause.

I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't think hate speech should be recognized as its own category of expression. Americans should be free to say the most awful things without legal consequence.

Also, I agree some actions are legitimate speech, particularly when associated with political protest, and should therefore be protected ― unless they interfere with the rights of others.

But El-Sayed, in defending the University of Michigan pro-Palestinian activists named in a federal indictment for crimes committed to protest support for Israel's war in Gaza, is arguing the defendants are being prosecuted for their views rather than their acts.

Spray painting messages across a private home, as the protesters did to the houses of UM officials, is not free speech; it's vandalism.

Tossing chemical-filled containers through those homes is not protected expression; it's a violent assault that could have resulted in injury or death.

Stalking and intimidating public officials for their decisions is not political engagement; it's terrorism.

The defendants, including a former staffer of El-Sayed's political campaigns, are being targeted for what they did, not for what they believe. To excuse their actions as an exercise of free speech is to deny the rights of the victims of their attacks.

The Senate candidate further argues that the government followed a double standard in charging the UM protesters because President Donald Trump issued full pardons to roughly 1,200 rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.

He's not wrong about the hypocrisy. But if Trump is allowed to become the gold standard of justice, we might as well close the courts. Not charging violent vandals because Trump let some of their kindred spirits off the hook is an invitation to anarchy.

It's like saying no American should ever again be charged with homicide because OJ got away with murder.

Mobs seeking to influence policy through violence and destruction cannot become the political norm. What the UM gang did is indefensible.

El-Sayed, who is seeking a seat in America's highest government chamber, pays lip service to condemning violence and then offers caveats that serve to excuse it.

This is part of a pattern with El-Sayed. He claims not to be an antisemite, but associates publicly with Jew haters such as Hasan Piker, who has trafficked in antisemitic tropes.

El-Sayed says he is an anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. But when the words inspire hateful acts of the sort aimed at the UM officials, it's a distinction without a difference.

There's no room for equivocation on maintaining a civil and safe space for all Americans to express their views. That's what the First Amendment is designed to guarantee. It shouldn't be perverted to cover for mayhem.

_____