Apparently, safety is now a political statement

February 4, 2026

Erik Gorham

By ERIK GORHAM

According to the Tribune, the real danger downtown last week was not a large public gathering, traffic congestion, or heightened emotions around a controversial issue. It was an internal San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Office memo reminding employees to be aware of their surroundings.

The memo, described as “inflammatory,” opens with an inconvenient fact: “Currently, we are not aware of any specific threats.” That is a strange way to stoke fear. One almost expects the next line to read, “This message will self-destruct in five seconds.”

What follows is a checklist so dull it could double as an human resources onboarding handout. Avoid crowded areas when possible. Travel in pairs after work. Stay alert. Report suspicious activity. This is the same advice issued before parades, concerts, street festivals, and any downtown event where people gather in noticeable numbers.

Yet here, preparation itself is treated as provocation.

The editorial asks readers to believe that acknowledging the existence of a crowd is the same as accusing that crowd of violence. By that logic, barricades are insults and traffic cones are acts of aggression.

To keep the narrative alive, the piece promptly leaves San Luis Obispo, hopping to Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, as though geography were a technicality and relevance optional. A mundane memo becomes a symbol, then a villain, and finally an accessory to events it neither predicted nor addressed.

The most revealing argument is the one never stated outright. When a protest aligns with the preferred politics of the moment, institutions should suspend routine caution. That is not a defense of free speech. It is a demand for ideological immunity.

Peaceful protesters deserve respect. So do employees who would rather not navigate a crowded, emotionally charged downtown alone at the end of the workday. These principles coexist easily, unless one insists on turning common sense into a moral failing.

The memo did not demonize demonstrators. It did something far more heretical in today’s discourse. It behaved responsibly.

If that qualifies as fearmongering, then so does looking both ways before crossing the street.