When our creative director, Andrea Morales, decided to write about the police action at the March 28 No Kings protest, she had more than a personal stake. She had been manhandled by an officer. Another tried to cover her camera lens as she did her constitutionally protected work of documenting the day.
That’s not in her piece. She chose to focus on a version of that old saying, “history repeats itself.” Her story shows how those in power know that controlling the story is key. In 1968, the protestors were “unauthorized.” In 2026, they became permitless.
Four of the officers involved in last week’s action were put on paid leave, although more than 25 were involved. I guess that’s something? But because Mayor Paul Young and the Memphis Police Department have emphasized that Indivisible Memphis lacked a permit for a march, some people are choosing to believe that the group is at fault. Hinting at lawlessness is a reliable way to change the subject.
The subject is free speech. The First Amendment allows for peaceful protests in public spaces. And yes, the government can place reasonable restrictions on those protests.
But shouldn’t those restrictions be consistent? Neither the No ICE march on Jan. 11 (the one that turned violent when the Tennessee Highway Patrol officers drove into the back of the crowd) nor the march on Sycamore View in protest of President Donald Trump’s visit to Memphis had permits.
I talked to Jessica Miller of Indivisible Memphis, and she walked me through the permit process. It requires someone to give their identification to be liable for the event. In a permitted event, that person is responsible for any police overtime charges. That person has to take out liability insurance. Miller told me that she called around and none of the insurance companies she spoke with would insure the No Kings event or any political events. So, the city is asking people to take considerable financial risk to practice a First Amendment right. (Miller also faced some danger when the Memphis Police Association Facebook account printed the permit without her address redacted. Through considerable effort, she got it taken down.)
A protest is an act of civic resistance. It can be planned, or it can be spontaneous. It should always be allowed because it’s at the core of our democracy.
I know, I know. This was downtown. There was traffic. The protest may have briefly slowed things down, but it wouldn’t have stopped it. Plus, I hope you’d agree that pepper-spraying is an outsized response to a traffic jam.
Despite that, Young has said that he doesn’t want to comment on the police officers’ actions until after the investigation. He doesn’t know the protocols for use of force and when police should escalate. I guess he thinks that’s being neutral, and it is. Which is exactly the problem.
He should be passionately protective of free speech, all the time. As a Memphian, he should ardently protect protest, all the time. That fundamental right should frame this discussion. That should be communicated down the ranks.
I know Young knows Memphis’ rich history of resistance. And as a preacher’s son, he may even know the words Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke in his last speech, “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop.”
“…But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.“
Adrienne Johnson Martin is co-executive director of MLK50: Justice Through Journalism. Contact her at adrienne.martin@mlk50.com
This story is brought to you byMLK50: Justice Through Journalism, a nonprofit newsroom focused on poverty, power and policy in Memphis. Support independent journalism by making a tax-deductible donation today. MLK50 is also supported by these generous donors.