COLUMN: How far does the right to protest go? – Meadville Tribune

Our Constitution in the First Amendment gives the people the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As properly interpreted, there is no requirement for an assembly in order to submit a petition. Our founders were wary of mobs, especially if led by a dangerous demagogue. What they wanted was a written petition signed by one or many, but delivered to the Government only by one or a very few. Certainly, any kind of disruption or violence should not be tolerated.

The 1794 Whiskey Rebellion (active with some violence here in western Pennsylvania) was simply a refusal to pay the new excise tax. Only after a couple of years President Washington sent troops. The rebellion ended without a fight and several were arrested, but later the charges were dropped. This early initial tolerance for disruption, we note, has today become very widespread.

Our question is about the extent of the right to protest. Many protesters assume that, without obtaining any permits, they have the right to block an interstate highway, close off city streets, ignore curfews, occupy the offices or parks, harass police, and generally to disrupt ordinary life. The procedures to obtain permits for parades, marches, or rallies (which to some extent disrupt our routine life) should be granted under the First Amendment with proper limits and restrictions. But is there a justification in some cases for unpermitted disruptions or law-breaking?

In the Jim Crow South in 1960 black patrons with no disruption sat on empty lunch counter stools. But they refused to leave when told that by law it is white only. These patrons refused to leave and were arrested. This is what Rep. John Lewis called good trouble. It may be, then, that some cases of nonviolent lawbreaking are morally justifiable.

But to get arrested for a curfew violation or trespassing may not be a good tactic. The relevant permitting laws and their implementation may be reasonable. There is little practical value and no moral right in protesting in the middle of the night.

Some have argued that only unpermitted and major disruption or even destruction can get attention. Sadly, there may be some truth to this claim. The establishment can allow marches and rallies and ignore the needed change. After the 2018 Parkland, Florida, high school mass shooting, students and others organized rallies and testified before Congress. Very little gun reform ensued, at least at the federal level. The NRA lobby retains its power and politicians do not fear being voted out. After the murder of George Floyd, the US Senate may not enact any significant police reform. But riots that destroy communities mainly bring local suffering.

Suffragettes in 1917-19 stood outside the WhiteHouse with signs calling for their vote, but eventually President Wilson had them arrested for loitering although there was no disruption. Even when many were jailed, Wilson did not budge. Only when Alice Paul and others were abused in jail and went on hunger strikes did he change his mind, embarrassed internationally as he fought for worldwide democracy. Nevertheless, as the case of Ireland shows, hurting oneself is often not the best way to win.

Before the Civil War, Congress, the courts, and the federal executive were all controlled by pro-slavery advocates. Peaceful demonstrations would not be effective. As for direct action, abolitionist John Brown misjudged the situation, and his attempt to start a slave rebellion failed, leading to his and others hangings.

President Trump, who says police should be tough, has sent into Portland federal troops to protect the federal courthouse. But they seem to be deliberately provoking violence in order to support his narrative that the nation is in grave danger from Democratically supported mobs from which only he can save us. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper on July 1 proclaimed and on July 3 regretted saying that federal agents should dominate the battle space. In response, protesters need to stay away from all federal buildings to avoid being complicit. But further, the mayor of Portland should stop tolerating unpermitted protests on public streets or parks and should forbid them late at night. On July 28 the DOJ agreed to have its troops stand aside if city police could defend the federal court house.

The lesson for protesters is that each situation needs to be carefully considered and the protest tactics wisely chosen. The lesson for governmental authorities is that they should respect the right to protest by granting ample times and spaces but not by tolerating violence or letting protesters occupy non-permitted areas. The lesson for legislators is to avoid passing or retaining laws that are widely and appropriately regarded as unjust.

Ed Abegg is philosophy professor emeritus at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania and author of Political Morality in a Disenchanted World and Engaging the World.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View original post here:

COLUMN: How far does the right to protest go? - Meadville Tribune