Even looking back historically, the only purpose I can see to picketing is to try and harass someone into moving elsewhere (unless you’re protesting outside of where your legislators are). Historically, back when there wasn’t 911 calls and justice was a bit more loose, I can sort of see how the ability to chase people off as a township could be useful, but I just don’t see it in modern day. It really just strikes me as a form of terrorism–i.e. trying to achieve your goals via intimidation and fear, when legislation and the majority disagree with you.
If an individual or an individual organization is acting fully in cooperation with the law–possibly even required to act as they are by the law (for instance, doing animal testing–and these people aren’t legislators, what civic purpose is being served by allowing another group of people to stand there and harass and intimidate them all day?
Certainly people should have the right to peaceably protest things. But nothing about picketing anyone other than the legislative body seems to really fill the “peaceable” qualifier. Maybe in the olden days fear and intimidation weren’t viewed as belligerence, but these days they often are.
The dissemination of information, frequently picketers will draw attention to issues that they feel while legal are morally reprehensible (animal testing, planned parenthood, union issues, etc). And in situations where the protesters are a public nuisance (trespassing, vandalism, blocking traffic, physically preventing entrance to buildings) police are frequently called to disperse the assembly. In situations where violence or the threat thereof is employed I think that the police should take a heavier hand in dispersing such organizations.
With regards to the “legislation and majority disagree with you” this is one of the areas where having constitutionally protected right to peaceable assembly helps protect dissenters from the tyranny of the majority. If 30% of the population disagree who’s to say they shouldn’t get together and let the other 70% know (and maybe change some minds or possibly get some better information out there).
In regards to verbal fear and intimidation (and specifically excluding situations where violence or threats of violence are used), if someone is so uncomfortable with the choices that they make that they are able to be severely intimidated by people waving signs and shouting slogans, then they should re-evaluate the choices that they have made. Criticism is a part of life, the idea that I shouldn’t call to account another person who I feel is acting against my best interests or making decisions that can affect my life can lead to dire consequences (Even if I am completely wrong). Picketing is just one mechanism by which humanity keeps a check on itself.
You may be mixing up illegal things that some picketers do with things that picketers are legally allowed to do. AFAIK, most states have laws about protesting that exclude the following activities:
Interfering with the operation of a vehicle, if neither the driver nor the owner are parties to the strike.
Interfering with the free use of public roads.
Obstructing entrances and exits at the facility and its parking lots.
Threatening or actually committing acts of violence to non-striking employees and their property.
If these sorts of bullying, threats, and violence are excluded, then what do you consider non-“peacable” about legal picketing?
As Red Skeezix points out, if somebody is so easily intimidated that they can’t endure even seeing groups of people holding signs and shouting slogans representing viewpoints different from their own, then maybe they should just keep out of the way of controversial issues altogether. But they can’t really expect the rest of society to refrain from exercising its right of peaceable assembly just to protect their delicate sensibilities.
How about when picketers interfere with the business of the place they picket – say preventing people from entering, or themselves entering and taking over the building?
I would have no problem with picketers standing in a central square. If the goal is to disseminate, the best location would seem to be the best place for dissemination.
That’s not really a defense of the activity. If it serves no particularly defensible purpose in the modern day, that it can be done peaceably is sort of irrelevant. And saying that people who are doing no wrong should grin and bear it seems particularly mind-boggling.
Say that I have two kids in my schoolroom. One of them, Alpha, truly just despises another kid, Beta. Now I tell Alpha that he can follow within two feet of Beta for just as long as he wants, talk to everyone Beta is trying to talk to so long as he doesn’t talk over 60 decibels, but can’t touch Alpha in any way. Now if I follow Alpha and Beta around, I can probably make sure that these rules are followed rigorously. But really, why is it worth my time to sit around policing this? It’s not like Alpha doesn’t have every other ability to mouth off about all the ways he hates Beta. And more importantly, it seems like a situation that is going to necessitate my constant involvement. You’re specifically setting things up to put an antagonistic force in direct contact with its target victim. You’re setting up Beta, who’s innocent of any wrongdoing according to all rules and regulations, to have this ball of malevolent force follow him about all day.
I can’t envision any teacher ever giving thought to setting something like this up, regardless of his view of free speech and all that. Just imagine if your teacher had allowed someone to do that to you.
The real world purpose is to draw attention to the activity that is being picketed. Depending on the issue at hand, some people may choose not to cross a picket line, and the picketed organization may choose to modify its behavior rather than lose customers, business, etc.
In my personal experience sometimes the picketers are threatening and sometimes not. During a grocery store workers strike a few years ago, the picketers were writing down license plate numbers of shoppers who cross the picket line. While in an of itself that is not illegal, there is no real reason to do that except to intimidate the shopper.
Other times, they have just walked around with signs, and in fact did not seem to want to discourage people from shopping at the store. After all, how would they be better off if people shopped at a competitor which is a non-union shop. Around here (DC area) we have the same union organizing all the union shops, Giant Food, Safeway and Shoppers Food, which in turn bargain as part of an employers federation. If the picketers hurt their employers to a crippling extent, their place in the market is taken by non-union competitors.
One more data point. About 20 years ago, a tiny minority of workers struck the mid-atlantic grocery chaines. The Teamster truckers and/or warehouse workers. But they managed to shut down the stores, because the replacement drivers couldn’t safely deliver to the stores, and the store employees were afraid to cross the picket lines of the Teamsters, even though the “line” might be only one or two guys at each store.
I guess they had to say it was fear, because otherwise they couldn’t collect unemployment. That is the context in which this was being reported. Tens of thousands of employees were collecting unemployment
I remember that the store clerks’ union had to be very careful not to endorse the individual workers actions, because that would constitute an illegal strike, because they already had a contract that was not impacted by the Teamsters situation.
The purpose is to show there’s significant opposition to [whatever], so I don’t agree with your premise and I don’t think it’s a practice that particularly needs defending. People standing in front of a business and marching with signs is not harrassment or intimidation. If they’re shouting at people who use the business and being abusive, that would be different.
This is a ludicrous comparison.
[quote]
If an individual or an individual organization is acting fully in cooperation with the law–possibly even required to act as they are by the law (for instance, doing animal testing–and these people aren’t legislators, what civic purpose is being served by allowing another group of people to stand there and harass and intimidate them all day?p.quote]
In other words, if you disapprove of something that is legal, demonstrating your opposition is harrassment. Is that correct?
It has nothing to do with worthiness of belief (besides who can say what belief has more value?). More to do with strength of conviction. If your resolve is not sufficient to face down the gathering hordes of people with signs, then you dont do activity X.
I see it more like this beta and alpha are in the restroom and beta uses the toilet and doesn’t wash his hands. Is this illegal? No. Should alpha be able to tell everyone in the classroom not to play with beta because he doesn’t wash his hands? Yes. Does anyone else have to listen? No. Are people going to get sick of alpha? probably.
Banning picketing because it places an antagonistic force in contact with its victim is like enforcing curfews because violent crime can occur at night.
It seems strange to me that you automatically assume that just because someone is following the rules means that they are necessarily doing the right thing. Sometimes it is the case and sometimes its not.
I’m assuming that a) a person can still effectively protest about the person by being in non-direct conflict, and b) deciding right and wrong is up to legislation and court rulings, not the ability to hound people.
Say that you’re an individual, gay man. Why does your being gay mean that you should have to live with people standing outside of your house with hate signs all day? Say that you’re muslim. Why does being muslim mean that you should have no choice over whether someone can park outside your house telling everyone who walks by that you want to bomb the local school?
Certainly people should be able to -target- someone they believe is in the wrong. But I don’t see what necessary social good comes out of letting one person diminish another person’s quality of life further than is necessary to accomplish that goal.
No. Disapproval is fine. Spreading pamphlets and information publicly is fine. Going to your legislators and protesting the current state of the law is fine. Hiring lobbyists to push your position is fine. Creating an internet site is fine. Helping to hire lawyers to defend your side in a court case is fine.
But what purpose is served by establishing an eyesore directly in front of, say, the burial of a gay soldier. What purpose is served by putting two people who are likely to be hostile and irrational towards one another in close proximity. Why is this a necessary thing to preserve society? What, outside of harassment, is being done so effectively that it can’t be accomplished just as well via all the above things I listed?
Sure, it might be a bit harder to chase away clients from a business. But again, how are you distinguishing that from harassment? I doubt that you would vote that psychiatrists should have to hand over their client lists to Scientologists.
In that case? Psychotic raving and attention whoring, possibly with the motivation of encouraging violence and filing a lawsuit for damages. But that’s an exceptional case. Even the dead fetus people stop a little short of total insanity.
Should the government keep people who are “likely to be hostile” away from each other? What if one engages in practices that the other person considers dangerous or discriminatory or evil? Should the complainers be forced to go through their newspapers or elected officials instead of dealing with each other face to face? Other than reducing some level of potentially unpleasant confrontations, I don’t see the benefit to society, and even that benefit is questionable.
Because the alternative is a harsh, unnecesssary and probably ineffective curbing of our rights to free speech, expression and assembly, and even if those rights were not constitutionally guaranteed, I think they are very basic - similar to the right to confront one’s accusers in court. Why shouldn’t people be allowed to show up and protest somewhere? Why ban pickets but allow other in-person demonstrations of any kind?
I suppose it depends on what you presume to be ‘reasonable’ protest.
I’ve always viewed picketing as kind of a poor man’s approach to rhetoric.
Generally, picketing is conducted with some of the same instrumentation one might anticipate from a marketing campaign - like-minded individuals gather to communally promote an ideological platform.
Context is important to strategy: Abortion clinic picketing usually includes at least a couple (gruesome) shock-value glossies, intended to sharply convey the sense of moral panic the picketers wish to sell potential converts. Heavy-handed tactics designed to provoke a visceral response certainly provides a baseline for counteraction to take root against the advocacy group; yet, the passerby is invariably forced to intellectually reconcile (one way or another) the inherent merit of what it is he just witnessed. In this, the picketer has succeeded in demonstrating the ‘importance’ of his message as an extension of the controversy he can inspire.
Re: your ‘reasonable’ means of protest
I have a hard time summarily defining tactical behavior as an ethical perspective – at least as it applies to picketing. While I certainly take issue (not necessarily with ‘picketing’ as a methodology unto itself) with protesters volleying abusive hatespeech as a means to proliferate their message (Think Fred Phelps; KKK; etc), I can’t reasonably conclude that picketing - as an ideal - is to be rationally linked to acts of misconduct and illegality.
To this end, I highlighted a sentence I thought peculiar. ‘Terrorism’ is a strong sell. I don’t think I need to espouse the value of Freedom of Assembly.
so, someone who is pregnant, and cant afford to keep the kid, or was a rape victim should just give up because they cant handle some dumbasses calling her baby killer and throwing paint on her for having to make a very difficult decision and follow through with it?
What ever happened to the legal right to an abortion? They are denying her access to something that is a legal right.
How about using a doctor in a building that is being picketed, and they yell all sorts of nasty and throw paint on a 14 year old going in for her first ever exam. Happened to my goddaughter when I was taking her to her first ever ‘female appointment’ She was absolutely mortified, and was crying because they were calling her murdered, whore, bitch … Hope it happens to your daughter sometime.