Free speech? Or coercion.

[scrapinpeg]

Let's stir up the pot a little...

While reading the news this morning, it occurred to me that certain kinds of street protest are akin to coercion. In other words, the protestors make themselves a nuisance to their target and everyone else in the vicinity, promising continued nuisance unless and until their demands are met. The neighbors are significantly inconvenienced? Then they should either get the target to do what the protestors want, or else suck it up.

How is this different from any other kind of coercion? If I demand that you do something that you neither want to do nor are obliged to do, and I threaten to make your life difficult unless you do what I say, then most of the time I’m guilty of a crime. The only exception is if I threaten to use “speech” to make your life difficult by making a nuisance of myself and my gang of protestors. Then all of a sudden I’m protected by free speech. My rights are more valuable than yours and your neighbors, ha ha, up yours, now do what I say.

That said, is there anything wrong with this state of affairs? Isn’t freedom of speech satisfied by allowing everyone the opportunity to state their positions and argue in favor of them, in ways that don’t interfere with everyone else’s life?

Here in NYC, street protests are so commonplace as to be unremarkable (and ineffective as a form of coercion). But sometimes, as with union demonstrations in front of non-union job sites, they can be remarkably coercive. And in quieter parts of the country, I can see demonstrations being remarkably invasive, intrusive and obnoxious. Why should they be treated differently from any other coercive act?

[Gav]

At one point you equate demonstration with coercion then go on to say that, where you live, they are so commonplace as to be ineffective. So do you think that demonstration is effective or not? Clearly if you think that they are so commonplace that they are ineffective, then the effect you state must be very minor. How can they be coercive if they have little, or no, effect?

[esskreemr]

I guess it depends on what you are dangling as the "coercion". There's a big difference between "I'm going to stand outside your house on the sidewalk if you don't cave into my whims" and "I'm going to have Tiny Jim break both of your legs and kill your dog."

I could be wrong (as I often am), but I don't think there is a law against "inconveniencing" someone in a minor way.

[scrapinpeg]

At one point you equate demonstration with coercion then go on to say that, where you live, they are so commonplace as to be ineffective. So do you think that demonstration is effective or not? Clearly if you think that they are so commonplace that they are ineffective, then the effect you state must be very minor. How can they be coercive if they have little, or no, effect?

Did you read the rest of that paragraph? I was pointing out the typical NYC bs as an exception to the rule, because of its ubiquity, and that the same actions elsewhere would be much more coercive. And did point out that there are effectively coercive demonstrations that do take place in NYC.

[Philistine]

{snip}
I could be wrong (as I often am), but I don't think there is a law against "inconveniencing" someone in a minor way.

Harrassment and stalking laws often criminalize conduct which is done with an "intent to harass, annoy or alarm another"--usually requiring repeated acts, following, or some other trigger.

Where a "legitimate" protest intersects with such laws can be a bit tricky, especially if it is a targetted type of protest (e.g. picketting a person's home or business).

With regard to the "street protests" talked about above--those wouldn't seem to apply, as they're generally pretty impersonal.

--Philistine

[scrapinpeg]

I guess it depends on what you are dangling as the "coercion". There's a big difference between "I'm going to stand outside your house on the sidewalk if you don't cave into my whims" and "I'm going to have Tiny Jim break both of your legs and kill your dog."

I could be wrong (as I often am), but I don't think there is a law against "inconveniencing" someone in a minor way.

There are all kinds of nuisance laws out there.

Yes there is a difference between "if you don't do what I say, I will kill you" and "if you don't do what I say, I will stand in front of your business and shout and scream and drive away your customers and those of your neighbors." But isn't the difference a matter of degree, rather than of principle?

[kalivor]

There are all kinds of nuisance laws out there.

Yes there is a difference between "if you don't do what I say, I will kill you" and "if you don't do what I say, I will stand in front of your business and shout and scream and drive away your customers and those of your neighbors." But isn't the difference a matter of degree, rather than of principle?

Yes and no.

You have a right to go about your business without obstruction from me.
I have the right to vent my frustration/anger/dislike about how you go about your business.

Clearly, these two things clash with each other. Hence, there has to be a line drawn as to how far my venting can go. Violence or threats thereof are out. Allowing me to speak my mind on public property are in.

From what you seem to consider to be "coercion," your post would have to be included.

Here's what you originally say:

How is this different from any other kind of coercion? If I demand that you do something that you neither want to do nor are obliged to do, and I threaten to make your life difficult unless you do what I say, then most of the time I’m guilty of a crime. The only exception is if I threaten to use “speech” to make your life difficult by making a nuisance of myself and my gang of protestors.

Exactly. Expressing yourself is OK. Harming others is not.

Then all of a sudden I’m protected by free speech. My rights are more valuable than yours and your neighbors, ha ha, up yours, now do what I say.

And if I say "no"? What are you going to do? Keep shouting? What's actually making me do what you say?

If I say "fine, I'll do it if you'll just shut up," I wasn't very committed to the status quo in the first place, now was I?

This is why it's just speech. Just words. Just symbolic gestures. Care to explain what rights of yours it infringes on?

[Have At You]

Looks like other people are also insisting that they have civil rights, not only demonstrators:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/16/pea....ap/index.html

[kalivor]

Looks like other people are also insisting that they have civil rights, not only demonstrators:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/16/pea....ap/index.html

Of course they have civil rights ... but what civil rights are they actually trying to claim?

Several residents have complained of blocked roads and traffic jams in the last week since dozens of people joined Cindy Sheehan's protest by pitching tents off the winding, two-lane road leading to Bush's ranch.

OK ... they're complaining about traffic jams.

Wait. Is freedom from traffic jams a civil right? Damn. My rights are being trampled nearly every day here in Canada. It seems more days than not, I have to deal with traffic.

Some residents said they worried about the safety of children waiting for school buses in the area.

Interesting. I am curious as to the danger, though. Must be that traffic's moving slower than usual. You know ... that slow moving traffic is so much more dangerous than the fast stuff.

Or maybe people are doing dangerous things?

A resident was arrested Monday night after authorities say he ran over hundreds of small wooden crosses bearing names of fallen U.S. soldiers. On Sunday, a nearby landowner fired his shotgun twice into the air, but he was not arrested.

Ah, so the locals are firing off guns and driving through areas which (I assume) are off the road, potentially endangering children.

Is this the dialog that's taking place?

Residents: These protesters drive us so crazy that we endanger our own children. You must make them leave, or we'll hurt them!

As far as I can tell, those that live near the ranch complain that traffic slows down. At what the article suggests has been the biggest of the protests so far, traffic was crawling FOR NEARLY AN HOUR!

Yep. Those are some trampled rights. Think of the children.

[Have At You]

I'd say they're certainly over-reacting.

But isn't there some validity to (what I think is) the point that if A has a beef with B, it's wrong for A to impose on B's neighbor C?

[Robert Smith]

Clearly, these two things clash with each other. Hence, there has to be a line drawn as to how far my venting can go. Violence or threats thereof are out. Allowing me to speak my mind on public property are in.

Unless what you want to vent about happens to be a presidential inauguration, or a G8 conference, or a WTO meeting, or a ....

[lochinvar]

Residents: These protesters drive us so crazy that we endanger our own children. You must make them leave, or we'll hurt them!

Y'all ain't from 'round here, are ya?

We don't cotton to outside agitators comin down here and interferin with our traffic. Nosir! An as fer the children waitin fer the bus, why you cain't tell what that bunch of sickos and whackos could do! Prob'ly kidnap some kids and hold 'em hostage until Dubya comes out and talks to 'em...