A Time and A Place
Protest, by their very nature and intentions, are problematic and messy. The lines of success are blurry at best. The question of ethical appropriateness is a paradox as it asks to us to accept the means of drawing attention to we don’t already see. Many citizens of the United States deeply value their right to protest as a freedom that plays a vital role in their individual lives and in democracy. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It is widely believed that absolute freedom of protest is established under the guaranteed protection of these freedoms.
As society advances, protest continues to arise. Some have clearly led to more chaos than progress in solving the motivating issue. In various recent cases, protest has proven to be nonconstructive, excessively disruptive, hateful, or even dangerous, causing people to question whether some have taken their First Amendment rights too far.
Of course, the goal of protest is to bring attention to a certain issue in order to spark a change. In many ways, controversial and aggressive forms of protest accomplish one part of this goal on an exemplary level. If you think about it, we almost never hear about quiet protest gatherings or respectfully written letters to government officials on the news. Instead, we are informed about extreme displays that lead to mass disorder, heated arguments, or street fights. The protests that spark the most mayhem are the ones that end up sweeping through the media like wildfires, reaching the greatest number of people and in turn gathering the most attention.
However, it is clear that some contentious forms of protest have not proven to be worthwhile, beneficial, or appropriate to the cause.
In the midst of the uproar that they generate, many protests often become disconnected from the meaningful message they were originally meant to bring across. One of the most talked about and controversial protests of the last few years has become “simply ambiguous” according to many American citizens. In 2016, professional football player Colin Kaepernick sat during the national anthem to bring the spotlight to an issue he was deeply troubled about. After widespread criticism of being disrespectful, he switched to kneeling, but this didn’t mean his protests lost attention or momentum. Many other football players began to join Kaepernick in the protest, and soon players from other sports, and even high school athletes, were following in his footsteps. A massive population has heard about these protests, thus accomplishing the goal of gaining attention, but a significantly smaller number of people actually know what the protest was all about.
Most have no idea that the protests were connected to racial inequality and police brutality. Even though the bold actions turned countless heads, it has done almost nothing in supporting the cause.
As people gained awareness of these athletes kneeling in protest , many people complained about the “lack of patriotism” participants were demonstrating by not standing for the National Anthem. Some Americans have been deeply offended by the act and have asked that the protests be stopped. The main debate that arose from the protests was whether or not it is unpatriotic to kneel during the anthem. There have been significantly less discussions about changes that should be made to counter police brutality and racial injustices.
Although some view any type of repression of protest as a violation of our First Amendment rights, it is not unreasonable that many professional coaches have strongly discouraged or prohibited their players from engaging in such actions. A protest is simply not valuable if it’s not beneficial to the cause whatsoever. At that time, there is no longer practical reasoning for the distraction and disruption it provokes, and it should come to an end in order to restore public order.
Perhaps an even more obvious and problematic fault to modern day protest which raises many questions is the appropriateness of location. To be fair, when you examine the previous example, although it could be argued that a professional sports event is not the best place to hold a protest, it isn’t an outrageous location either. Despite the fact that protests at professional games are clearly inconvenient distractions to sports viewing, it can be agreed that no one is truly hurt by protests being held there. However, some protests have taken place in areas that are unsafe and detrimental to public function.
Over the past three years, multiple protests have led to the shutdown of Interstate 94 in Minnesota. After the police shootings of two young black men, Jamar Clark and Philando Castile, protesters blocked the highway in the Minneapolis to St. Paul area in order to rally against police violence. On another occasion, they gathered on the highway after Trump’s victory in the 2016 election to express their disapproval.
Nick Zerwas, the republican state representative of Minnesota, was evidently not pleased with the protestors’ choice of venue. “When you shut down a freeway… it has a real impact and it hurts real people,” he commented. Blocking an interstate highway in the name of protest undoubtedly captures the attention of many people. However, to Zerwas’ point, it is a tremendous safety hazard. Many car crashes have been caused by swerving drivers trying to avoid protesters gathering in the road, and countless protesters themselves have been injured. Preserving the safety of citizens must always remain priority over the right to protest. If a gathering or demonstration impedes upon the safety of individuals in the area, it by all means should be shut down.
Protests that block ways of travel also disturb public function to an excessive measure. Sudden obstruction of transportation can have severe negative impacts on a large amount of citizens. This concern has been so prevalent that a law was made to prevent any action that blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic. “The reality is that you have no First Amendment right to free speech or assembly on the center lane on the freeway or the entrance to an international airport or the middle of a train track,” Zerwas said. “It’s already against the law to be there”.
Another more recent protest held in May 2017 blocked the entrance to an abortion clinic. Although a smaller scale obstruction, the protests still sparked anger and strongly conflicting opinions. Throughout the pro-life demonstration, protesters blocked all women trying to walk into the clinic, sometimes forcefully preventing their entrance. What is concerning about this scene is the fact that average women going about their daily lives, unsuspecting and unwanting of confrontation, were not only verbally challenged by the protest group outside, but physically prevented from entering the building. The protest impeded upon multiple woman’s’ ability to freely and safely go where they wanted, and was also understandably upsetting since simply walking towards the clinic for a personal and perhaps sensitive reason had sparked such a negative response from seemingly hateful strangers. Many times, clinics where abortions are performed also offer other medical services as needed by women. Therefore, the action is even more offensive and violating considering the fact that women may have been entering the clinic for other unknown reasons.
Protests simply cross the line when they create direct and unavoidable physical barriers that deny people the ability to freely travel or access buildings. It is essential to keep in mind whether the location at which a protest is being held is truly upholding these standards.
When poor timing and location come together, it creates the perfect storm. In multiple scenarios, protests held at funerals have caused bitter backlash. Various times as American citizens have gathered to mourn the deaths of beloved friends and family, members of Westboro Baptist Church have intrusively gathered at the somber ceremonies in order to protest against homosexuality.
It’s simply insensitive, disrespectful, and offensive to hold protests at an event as serious as a funeral. They are expensive, emotionally tender and very personal gatherings, and anyone can imagine it would be extremely hurtful if a group of strangers intentionally ruined one. Not only is there a moral objection to such actions, but often the protest has no connection or relevance to the funeral or person being honored whatsoever. In the case of Westboro Baptist Church protests, they have gathered at the funerals of numerous U.S. Marines and other members of the military, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, and a Boston Marathon bombing victim, all of whom have no connection to their anti-homosexuality motive. There is simply no reason for these protests to be held throughout a funeral. Furthermore, these gutsy protesters can be sure that with all the people they’d offend, few would be willing to support their cause.
As Matt Konenkamp, the South Dakota governor’s policy advisor, once said, “there are time and place restrictions on first amendment rights.” Protest very well must be pushed to the limits sometimes in order to bring about change. Dramatizing and inflating problems by means of harsh and controversial protests brings the spotlight to issues that are often times in desperate need of change. However, it should not be forgotten that there are circumstances when certain methods of protest may not be acceptable. Many protests tend to be overdone to the point where they cross a line where its timing and location make it unproductive, unsafe, or otherwise extremely offensive.
In terms of timing, a protest should only continue as long as its evidently and successfully pushing for a change. Many times, what once may have been a movement very beneficial to the cause carries on for too long until its message becomes not only unclear, but absent. Perhaps the most important goal of protest is to promote change, and if the protest is no longer doing this because it loses its linkage to the motivating issue, it’s simply unnecessary. At that point, there is really no justification for the public disruption that it causes. Protesters should be aware of the time at which their actions have dragged on for too long and are no longer effectively achieving the objective of protest. At that point, for both the concern of the public and for the potential benefit of the cause, protesters should be encouraged to redirect their efforts to a new form of protest that could spread the same message but possibly do so much more effectively.
In terms of location, protests should not be held in areas where they can impede people from traveling, whether it be in vehicles or on foot, because it’s unsafe and causes excessive disorder. They should also not take place in areas that block entryways, as this can also be a safety hazard and restricts citizens from entering buildings that they should be free to access. In addition, protests undoubtedly should not occur at a funeral. It is simply an inappropriate event for such a provocative movement to take place at, especially if it is not in any way relevant to the funeral.
There will never be a black and white answer as to when and where protests are okay. However, just because you can use your right to free speech in most cases doesn’t mean you should. This right was given to us under the First Amendment in order to give every American the ability to interact and contribute to society, as well as voice their objections or concerns in order to promote change to better the community. Yet it was not given to us so we could disrupt or offend others for no benefit but our own selfish satisfaction. It is up to us to be aware of these key factors when holding or participating in a protest.