Second, a thumbs up to those who gathered peacefully along Main Street last Saturday. Roughly 150 individuals chose to exercise one of the most fundamental rights afforded to Americans: the right to peaceably assemble.

Let’s be clear — this is not an endorsement of their cause, whatever it may have been. That’s not the point. The point is that they understood something essential about the Constitution: The First Amendment protects expression, even when that expression is unpopular, uncomfortable or disagreed with by others.

What happened on Main Street — people gathering, expressing themselves and doing so within the bounds of the law — is exactly how a functioning democracy is supposed to work.

You don’t have to agree with your neighbor to respect their right to speak. In fact, that respect is the very foundation of civil society.

Which brings us to a far more troubling note — and one that earns not just one thumbs down, but two for the man who allegedly chose to assault those peaceful demonstrators with pepper spray. And two thumbs down as well to those who have publicly supported or excused that behavior.

There is no ambiguity here. Violence — or the threat of it — directed at individuals who are lawfully exercising their constitutional rights is unacceptable. Full stop.

Even more concerning is the discordant chorus of voices that have attempted to justify such actions. It raises a simple but critical question: When did disagreement become grounds for attack?

We assume all those championing the alleged attacker’s behavior would be fine if the situation were reversed. We would ask those applauding this behavior to consider a hypothetical. What are you passionate about? What issue would compel you to leave your home, stand with likeminded people and make your voice heard in public?

Now imagine doing just that — peacefully, lawfully — only to have someone with opposing views drive by and physically assault you for it. Would that be acceptable? Would you shrug it off as justified?

If the answer is no, then the standard must apply equally to everyone. What’s good for the goose must, indeed, be good for the gander.

Democracy does not require agreement — we will never all agree. But it does require restraint. It requires us to agree to disagree — no matter how sharp the divide. All the alleged assailant had to do was shake his head and keep driving. But he seems to have chosen very differently.

Greenwood has shown, in the span of a few days, both the best and worst of civic life. A championship-caliber team bringing a community together. Citizens exercising their rights peacefully. And, unfortunately, an act that runs counter to everything those moments represent.

Let’s be clear about which examples deserve to be followed.

Celebrate the Bearcats. Respect the Constitution. Reject violence — always.

Cheers for the Bearcats and free speech — and a firm rejection of violence