By Gregory P. Magarian, Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis. The president announces an aggressive, controversial policyBy Gregory P. Magarian, Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis. The president announces an aggressive, controversial policy

Minneapolis resonated more than past outrages. Why?

2026/02/23 05:44
6 min read

By Gregory P. Magarian, Thomas and Karole Green Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis.

The president announces an aggressive, controversial policy. Large groups of protesters take to the streets. Government agents open fire and kill protesters.

All of these events, familiar from Minneapolis in 2026, also played out at Ohio’s Kent State University in 1970. In my academic writing about the First Amendment, I have described Kent State as a key moment when the government silenced free speech.

In Minneapolis, free speech has weathered the crisis better, as seen in the protests themselves, the public’s responses — and even the protest songs the two events inspired.

Protests and shootings, then and now

In 1970, President Richard Nixon announced he had expanded the Vietnam War by bombing Cambodia. Student anti-war protests, already fervent, intensified.

In Ohio, Gov. James Rhodes deployed the National Guard to quell protests at Kent State University. Monday, May 4, saw a large midday protest on the main campus commons. Students exercised their First Amendment rights by chanting and shouting at the Guard troops, who dispersed protesters with tear gas before regrouping on a nearby hill.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

With the nearest remaining protesters 20 yards from the Guard troops and most more than 60 yards away, 28 guardsmen inexplicably fired on students, killing four and wounding nine others.

After the killings, the government sought to shift blame to the slain students.

Nixon stated: “When dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.”

Minneapolis in 2026 presents vivid parallels.

As part of a sweeping campaign to deport undocumented immigrants, President Donald Trump in early January 2026 deployed armed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agents to Minneapolis.

Many residents protested, exercising their First Amendment rights by using smartphones and whistles to record and call out what they saw as ICE and CBP abuses. On Jan. 7, 2026, an ICE agent shot and killed activist Renee Good in her car. On Jan. 24, two CBP agents shot and killed protester Alex Pretti on the street.

The government sought to blame Good and Pretti for their own killings.

Different public reactions

After Kent State, amid bitter conservative opposition to student protesters, most Americans blamed the fallen students for their deaths. When students in New York City protested the Kent State shootings, construction workers attacked and beat them in what became known as the “Hard Hat Riot.” Afterward, Nixon hosted construction union leaders at the White House, where they gave him an honorary hard hat.

In contrast, most Americans believe the Trump administration has used excessive force in Minneapolis. Majorities both oppose the federal agents’ actions against protesters and approve of protesting and recording the agents.

The public response to Minneapolis has made a difference. The Trump administration has announced an end to its immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities. Trump has backed off attacks on Good and Pretti. Congressional opposition to ICE funding has grown. Overall public support for Trump and his policies has fallen.

Protests, recordings and songs

What has caused people to view the killings in Minneapolis so differently from Kent State? One big factor, I believe, is how free speech has shaped the public response.

The Minneapolis protests themselves have sent the public a more focused message than what emerged from the student protests against the Vietnam War.

Anti-war protests in 1970 targeted military action on the other side of the world. Organizers had to plan and coordinate through in-person meetings and word of mouth. Student protesters needed the institutional news media to convey their views to the public.

In contrast, the anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis target government action at the protesters’ doorsteps. Organizers can use local networks and social media to plan, coordinate and communicate directly with the public. The protests have succeeded in deepening public opposition to ICE.

In addition, the American people have witnessed the Minneapolis shootings.

Kent State produced a famous photograph of a surviving student’s anguish but only hazy, chaotic video of the shootings.

In contrast, widely circulated video evidence showed the Minneapolis killings in horrifying detail. Within days of each shooting, news organizations had compiled detailed visual timelines, often based on recordings by protesters and observers, that sharply contradicted government accounts of what happened to Good and Pretti.

Finally, consider two popular protest songs that emerged from Kent State and Minneapolis: Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Ohio” and Bruce Springsteen’s “Streets of Minneapolis.”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young recorded, pressed and released “Ohio” with remarkable speed for 1970. The vinyl single reached record stores and radio stations on June 4, a month after the Kent State shootings. The song peaked at No. 14 on the Billboard chart two months later.

Neil Young’s lyrics described the Kent State events in mythic terms, warning of “tin soldiers” and telling young Americans: “We’re finally on our own.” Young did not describe the shootings in detail. The song does not name Kent State, the National Guard or the fallen students. Instead, it presents the events as symbolic of a broader generational conflict over the Vietnam War.

Springsteen released “Streets of Minneapolis” on Jan. 28, 2026 — just four days after CBP agents killed Pretti. Two days later, the song topped streaming charts worldwide.

The internet and social media let Springsteen document Minneapolis, almost in real time, for a mass audience. Springsteen’s lyrics balance symbolism with specificity, naming not just “King Trump” but also victims Pretti and Good, key Trump officials Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, main Minneapolis artery Nicollet Avenue, and the protesters’ “whistles and phones,” before fading on a chant of “ICE out!”

Critics offer compelling arguments that 21st-century mass communication degrades social relationships, elections and culture. In Minneapolis, disinformation has muddied crucial facts about the protests and killings.

At the same time, Minneapolis has shown how networked communication can promote free speech. Through focused protests, recordings of government action, and viral popular culture, today’s public can get fuller, clearer information to help critically assess government actions.

  • Gregory P. Magarian has written and taught for 26 years about constitutional law, specializing in the freedom of expression and with secondary interests in gun regulation, law and religion, and regulations of the political process. He wrote Managed Speech: The Roberts Court's First Amendment (Oxford University Press, 2017) and has published dozens of academic articles, book chapters, and general audience essays. He has taught at Washington University since 2008 and previously taught at Villanova University. He clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice John Paul Stevens and on the U.S. District Court (D.C.) for Judge Louis Oberdorfer, and earned his law degree magna cum laude from the University of Michigan, where he was editor-in-chief of the Michigan Law Review. He received his undergraduate degree summa cum laude from Yale.
Market Opportunity
PUBLIC Logo
PUBLIC Price(PUBLIC)
$0.01507
$0.01507$0.01507
0.00%
USD
PUBLIC (PUBLIC) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

XRP Included in Arizona’s Proposed Crypto Reserve Fund

XRP Included in Arizona’s Proposed Crypto Reserve Fund

The post XRP Included in Arizona’s Proposed Crypto Reserve Fund appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Altcoins Arizona lawmakers advanced legislation that would
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/02/23 14:15
Supreme Court tariff ruling boosts China’s leverage before Trump-Xi summit

Supreme Court tariff ruling boosts China’s leverage before Trump-Xi summit

The post Supreme Court tariff ruling boosts China’s leverage before Trump-Xi summit appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. US President Donald Trump (L) and China
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/02/23 14:03
UK FCA Plans to Waive Some Rules for Crypto Companies: FT

UK FCA Plans to Waive Some Rules for Crypto Companies: FT

The post UK FCA Plans to Waive Some Rules for Crypto Companies: FT appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has plans to waive some of its rules for cryptocurrency companies, according to a Financial Times (FT) report on Wednesday. However, in another areas the FCA intends to tighten the rules where they pertain to industry-specific risks, such as cyber attacks. The financial watchdog wishes to adapt its existing rules for financial service companies to the unique nature of cryptoassets, the FT reported, citing a consultation paper published Wednesday. “You have to recognize that some of these things are very different,” David Geale, the FCA’s executive director for payments and digital finance, said in an interview, according to the report, adding that a “lift and drop” of existing traditional finance rules would not be effective with crypto. One such area that may be handled differently is the stipulation that a firm “must conduct its business with integrity” and “pay due regard to the interest of its customers and treat them fairly.” Crypto companies would be given less strict requirements than banks or investment platforms on rules concerning senior managers, systems and controls, as cryptocurrency firms “do not typically pose the same level of systemic risk,” the FCA said. Firms would also not have to offer customers a cooling off period due to the voltatile nature of crypto prices, nor would technology be classed as an outsourcing arrangement requiring extra risk management. This is because blockchain technology is often permissionless, meaning anyone can participate without the input of an intermediary. Other areas of crypto regulation remain undecided. The FCA has plans to fully integrate cryptocurrency into its regulatory framework from 2026. Source: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2025/09/17/uk-fca-plans-to-waive-some-rules-for-crypto-companies-ft
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:15