A right to both free speech and safety
Commentary: Let's reclaim the narrative from outsiders who seek to define us
The clashes outside the ICE administration building on South Macadam Avenue were punctuated by the arrest of a popular commentator and quickly gained national attention. Sound familiar? A building becomes a symbol, outsiders rush in and suddenly Portland is back in the headlines as a caricature of chaos.
Meanwhile, for those of us who live here, the drone of helicopters circling overhead is a reminder of unresolved tension. It’s a buzzing gap between surveillance from above and security on the ground, where neighbors still wait too long for help to arrive. Enter the national pundits and politicians scripting Portland like a high school play while people who live here try to get their kids to school without tripping over the wreckage. From cable news to presser podiums, the city is cast as either dystopia or redemption arc. Neither version is true, and tickets are selling like hotcakes.
Reclaiming the narrative
We reclaim our narrative by lifting up the voices of residents, small businesses and neighborhood associations before outsiders write our story for us. The commentators who fly in to define Portland aren’t the ones sweeping the sidewalks or reopening shops after another demonstration.
Free expression and community dignity
Free expression is nonnegotiable. But it cannot mean free rein to endanger people who live here. Public safety is essential, but it cannot mean order at all costs. True balance isn’t found in choosing sides between free speech and public safety — it’s found in protecting both through community dignity.
Too often, we see intimidation and threats disguised as activism while genuine dissent gets dismissed as NIMBYism. Both distortions leave neighbors trapped between chaos and crackdown. If we want a city that is safe and open, we need the courage to protect free expression without mistaking violence for speech or speech for violence.
A dignified city is one where protest doesn’t trample the people who live here, where business owners can keep their doors open without bracing for impact, and where parents don’t have to scan sidewalks for danger before school. Safety and speech are not opposing forces; they’re conditions of a city that still respects itself.
Honesty and civic candor
Amid the predictable spin, one city councilor finally broke rank. District 2 Councilor Dan Ryan has a way of admonishing with elegance, delivering truth in a tone that lands softly but leaves a mark. In a recent email newsletter, he points to the tensions.
“We must also admit that all is not perfect in Portland. Our economy is struggling with historically high vacancy rates and rising unemployment. We have a humanitarian crisis on the streets that has become enabled and normalized. We need to address intolerable and illegal actions in our community, like open drug use, vandalism, violence and theft. Portlanders rightfully expect us to get our house in order.”
Simple sentences. Direct language. No qualifiers. This short paragraph is a rare act of political plain speaking and reminder that truth-telling is the first step toward recovery. One that Portlanders need to hear right now.
Councilor Ryan understands that tone is policy. How leaders talk about the city shapes whether people trust the next step. When leaders declare safety that people don’t feel, or redefine harm to fit a political frame, they erode the civic glue that holds a city together and words become another form of violence — the kind that gaslights rather than strikes.
Ryan’s letter did what a good pep talk should do, it anchored us to truth by acknowledging reality while creating a path forward we want to follow.
Where do we go from here?
Violent speech is not free, and free speech is not violence. Violent speech has a cost because activism slips into aggression, and compassion can excuse chaos. There’s a middle space where Portland keeps getting lost. Here, speech that harms others is a price the city keeps paying.
The clashes at the South Waterfront show what happens when people with many different perspectives — many from outside the area — take over the narrative and residents are pushed aside. If we don’t insist on a resident-centered response that holds both free expression and community dignity in balance, Portland will remain someone else’s stage.
But we’re not a stage. We’re a city. The hum of helicopters overhead each day offers no reassurance. Real safety doesn’t come from surveillance in the sky; it comes from trust on the ground when neighbors can walk freely, sleep soundly, and know that their voices matter more than someone else’s spectacle.
Great article, but I would disagree if the implication is that people outside of locals are the primary problem. Yes outsiders from both ends of the political perspective have taken advantage and deserve to be condemn, but the essence of the problem is local. And yes free speech deserves to be protected, but, at least for those on the left, there is zero threat to free speech here. What there is a threat to is order.
How to address it? We need to reform our dysfunctional local government. A great start would be city-county consolidation with a structure set by people other than the far left.