“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Just about everyone who has studied government and American history can identify those words as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made into law in an attempt to codify fundamental human rights of belief, action, speech and thoughts.

We may quibble about what exactly each of those statements mean and there have certainly been times in the last 200-plus years where those rights have been infringed on, but in many ways I think we are so accustomed to their basic protections that we take them for granted now.

I’m sure we could get into lengthy discussions about each of the tenets listed in the amendment but, given what is going on right now in our country, I see one as standing out:

The right of the people peaceably to assemble.

I recently took a virtual step back in time in eastern Virginia, visiting important historical locations like Williamsburg and Yorktown. These were locations where Americans debated and fought for these very rights they felt were being taken away by the British government, including the right to assemble.

Of course, back in the 1700s the only ways to discuss ideas were either through correspondence or by assembling.

In our modern world, we can “assemble” in many more ways, like using phones, computers, social media and teleconferencing.

But, as I drove through Salt Lake City on Thursday afternoon and as we’ve seen throughout the country, there was definite evidence that despite the greater inconvenience many people still elect to actually assemble in person to protest things they disagree with.

As I watched and listened a little bit to those individuals I could see headed for the City and County Building to protest immigration policies with their array of signs and symbolic attire, I wondered how many of them had been directly impacted by the policies they disagreed with.

Was it something personal for most or more just a reflection of how they think the country should be?

And what type of difference does it make?

The statistics aren’t really on the side of protestors, when you think about it. Even if 10,000 people show up at a protest in Provo today, that means (according to population estimates) more than 740,000 residents in the Utah Valley metro area didn’t show up. Even a sizable protest group like the one I postulated would be a mere 1.3% of the area’s population, which is hardly a majority.

The numbers put the planned nationwide “No Kings” protest on Saturday in perspective as well. Some estimate there could be 10 million people across the country participating — which is a big number — but in a country of nearly 350 million people, it would still be just 2.9% of the population. Yep, more than 97% of the country will likely not be involved in the protests.

So why protest at all? Why go through the time and effort? And, as we’ve been reminded by what has happened in Los Angeles this week, why face the potential risks involved?

It’s something I admit I didn’t feel like I understood, but a little research on group behavior led me to a 2023 conversation published by the American Psychological Association with Stephen Reicher, Ph.D., who is a professor in the school of psychology and neuroscience at the University of St Andrews in Scotland and an expert in group psychology and collective behavior.

It was fascinating to read Reicher’s explanations of how decades of studying crowds has led to understanding about how when we join a group, our individual views and perspectives shift to align more with the social norms of the group.

But something that resonated with me when it comes to protests is that Reichner described how we as human beings are willing to do so much in the name of the “greater good” as we view it. Reichner pointed out that throughout human history uncounted numbers of heroic and barbaric actions have both fallen under that banner.

So why wouldn’t you do what it takes to participate in a protest if you think you are serving the greater good? We all want to make a difference, at least on some level.

The problem, however, is that the “greater good” is very much dependent on your personal views. What actions are justifiable to us — both by authorities and by citizens — are contingent on what we think is right.

With digital “echo chambers” and other isolationist tendencies, it’s far too easy these days to get trapped into seeing complicated issues through black-and-white lenses: My views and everyone who agrees with them are good, while anyone who disagrees with them is bad.

To me, it’s extremely sad when that happens.

Aren’t we all just people, doing the best we can?

I hope that everyone who decides to invest their time and energy in protesting or counter-protesting finds hope and reassurance in the solidarity of the collective efforts.

I hope anyone who sees those who protest and disagrees with their stances also realizes that many view things how they do as well.

But, most importantly, I hope we can all look beyond our differences and respect the right of each individual to feel how they feel, regardless of what side they are on.

Because I think that’s the only way for us to truly “peaceably” assemble.

Jared Lloyd is the managing editor of the Daily Herald.