There was a story recently about protests at Milo Yiannopoulous’s “Dangerous Faggot Tour”. It described several actions by protesters, some of which I thought were legitimate and fine and some of which I considered deeply offensive to the American tradition of free expression (yes, I realize the protesters weren’t government agents, so no First Amendment issue here).
The actions the protesters took were:
holding / hanging signs and banners outside the event
blocking the entrances to the event venues to prevent those that wanted to hear the speaker from doing so.
entering the event hall, entering the stage and snatching the microphone away from the speaker, chanting loudly to prevent the speaker from being heard.
phoning in a bomb threat so that the venue was evacuated by the police.
I’m supportive of #1, but I think #2, #3 & #4 are bad / illegitimate / unfair / disrespectful to a vital American tradition / wrong / immoral. They are, to me, the physical equivalent of bombarding a message board like this one with spam and trolling comments to stop (usually) reasonable discussion and discourse. I guess I’m curious how far out of the mainstream Doper opinion I am on this. What do you think? Are there boundaries protesters should not cross, or is any action, however obnoxious or intrusive ok as long as it’stands in the service of a cause?
I think #2 through #4, if they occurred, are bad tactics (and illegal) and probably counter productive.
I think civil disobedience, up to and including physically disrupting some event, is occasionally a legitimate form of protest, but only when used against the actual power structure in society and only if they are engaged in some particularly egregious form of oppression. For example, if a city council was voting to reinstate some form of Jim-Crow-like voter suppression, then I think a legitimate counter-tactic could be to physically disrupt the activities of the legislature, up to the point of blocking doors and shouting, but not to the point of actually assaulting legislators. I don’t think a speech/performance by an asshole without any actual public position of power meets this criteria.
I feel that in a situation like this, when you are protesting someone who is not actually in a position of power, its an awful way of serving your cause. Personally I think protests like these are one of the worst actions currently being taken by the never Trump movement. Basically just playing right into his hand. However it is completely legal up until stuff like #4 or violence happens.
The crucial criterion is the respect of the rights of others. #1, hanging signs and banners outside the event, doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. But #2-4 are clear violations of the rights of the audience and the speaker. As such, that kind of behavior is, and should be, unethical and illegal.
It amazes me how some people can loudly claim their right of free expression, while denying others that same right.
An important part of an effective protest is controlling the nut bags that think they are helping your cause. The media will always find the craziest looking and acting people on the street to interview, they won’t be able to convey the correct message and are likely to veer off into loony land instead. Another problem type are people looking to cause problems who will be aggressive and may instigate violence. Effective protests require organization and discipline. If things go bad it has to look like the authorities or opposition starts it.
The particulars of the example given aren’t really the point. I’m hoping the discussion will focus on which protest tactics Dopers find objectionable or acceptable. If it helps, imagine it’s your own ox being gored, whether that’s someone / group disrupting the DNC or a Mormon Tabernacle Choir or perhaps ruining a concert by your favorite band or artist, or a rally by your favorite politician. Maybe it’s blocking the gay pride parade from proceeding down their route, or showing up at a BlackLivesMatter rally in a KKK outfit, etc. I think you get the idea. As for a cite: https://youtu.be/w3hQlskyVBQ
I really doubt #2 and #3 are legal. There are laws against blocking public routes (applicable to everything from freeways to sidewalks). It’s the reason you often see protesters marching up and down a street rather than standing there. They can use the sidewalk, but not block it for others. And if a speaker / club / organization rents / reserves a building, I suspect their contract gives them the right to remove disruptive individuals. If those disruptors refuse to leave, they’re probably trespassing.
ETA: admittedly, police are often pretty feeble about enforcing these things, as can be plainly seen.
Okay, granted, those protestors are jackasses. But good god, what a criminally stupid bunch of people at that entire event on both sides. The guy whom they were protesting was eating that shit up, doing everything he could to provoke a reaction from them.
It’s kind of like how I disapprove of punching a Klansman in the face. Sure, it’s wrong, I’ll condemn it, but I’m not sure my heart’s in that condemnation.
It’s because their free expression is right, and the other side is wrong, stupid and/or evil.
When I consider the erudition and civilized rationality of the Constitutional Founders, I cannot help but think that, in their minds, protest would mean intelligent discussion, and perhaps the drafting of a document such as the Declaration of Liberty, presented to an appropriate authority. I believe that, were they here to see what passes for “protest” and “free expression” nowadays, they would regard it as sheer hooliganism and riot.
I’m fine with all of those except #4, because I think that runs a real risk of physically hurting someone.
However, and this is an important caveat. To quote King:
So I am fine with someone blocking a door and grabbing a microphone, but when the cops come (and they need to come) and arrest that person (which they should do), that person should not retaliate (though they can go limp) and they shouldn’t fight the jail time. They should use their trial to expose the evil they were objecting to, and accept the penalty as a fair price to pay for the opportunity to highlight evil. I’ve nothing but respect for someone willing to do that.